Reply With Quote
Does a child born into this country automatically enter into a contract with his government, without his consent?
It is a well known fact that the net tax payers are shrinking. More than 45% of tax filers either pay no taxes, or get money back they never paid in. I forget which table it is, but you can find it at the OMB historical numbers web page. When you add that to those who vote and file no taxes, we could already be past 50% of voters who don't give a damn about raising other people's tax obligations.
Does a child born into this country automatically enter into a contract with his government, without his consent?
To cover all my bases, I looked it up, but couldn't find it.
Search Results
Wow...
I see you at least have a 75 for an IQ.
Yes, of course in the real world, taxation is considered by most to be necessary. (I'm sure there are a few anarcho-capitalists that might argue otherwise, though.)
But the necessity of something doesn't mean it is ipso facto "moral", does it?
If I recall, only land owners paid taxes at the time.
Libertarians tend to be at extreme ends of the spectrum, which tend to be (I find) the most interesting areas to examine.
Great question to bring up, especially in this thread. I would argue that land ownership is AMORAL, neither moral nor immoral.
How one AQCUIRES land may be moral/immoral, but the idea of land ownership itself is amoral, and must be. Humans must live somewhere, which implies ownership of land in some fashion, be it private or government.
Many libertarians will argue that private ownership is the foundation of property rights; after all, if you have no land with which to call your own, then there is nowhere you can live that isn't controlled by the government.
That's not the same as your original statement, not surprising since you don't have an IQ of at least 75.
I think Yoni was referring to the present day. Government IS a form of contract with people, but one that citizens are automatically entered into upon birth, with all the requisite pros and cons. (And just pre-empting the "If you don't like it, then change countries" argument, that has nothing to do with the morality/immorality of taxation.)
I think this calls into play the question of whether the lack of property rights is immoral, as they are the root cause of negative (or positive) externalities (both resulting in lower total social welfare).
Good Lord.
If you're heading down the path of "do the ends always justify the means" then no, they don't. That being said, I don't see taxation as being one of those instances. We as citizens want certain things from our government, we as citizens need to foot that bill. Given that premise, I don't see a morality issue with using taxation to raise that revenue. I have my disagreements over how taxation is implemented and what services we want from our government. But like I said earlier, that's implementation, not concept.
On a somewhat related yet slightly tangential note to taxation, I will say that one thing that is immoral as is all the freaking debt we're heaping upon our children. I can't think of anything more immoral we could be doing than saddling future generations with our debt burden simply because we've fallen in love with big government and little taxes.
Landownership for living is pretty easy to justify. However, land ownership for the purpose of profit is a much harder notion to come to terms with, in my opinion. I don't believe that is necessarily amoral.
Is profit immoral?
I do use this place for my weekly dose of re ed trolling, it's true. I rarely leave without my fix.
Oh, definitely. Also, horrifying.
For me, this points to the bigger moral question: Is it ethical to pay your taxes if you object to the way they are used?
LnG, I suggest reading on some of the philosophers that came up with the roots for modern political theory such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. I pretty much think the idea of a social contract includes taxation.
Depends on your morality as does any other question of what is immoral or not. Its a good question. I don't think profit in and of itself is immoral per say, but perhaps excessive profit is different. The question is then of course, what is excessive?
I just watched Lost...
Or for that matter, who defines excessive......or even who defines any morality.
That has always been the case in this country. in any country. Maybe they haven't been subsidized, but people are always gonna vote in someone who is gonna take the most from the government and give it to them.
Whether it be what you term welfare, or the money to fund projects that only concern their district. To think that if people work and contribute to taxes they won't vote for spending of those taxes is ridiculous.
Regardless of what Republicans, Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives want to say they all need government for something.
tax is being paid for our own securities and welfares etc.... and it seems a much better method of investment than stock market. the war costs are mainly built on loan debt, not the tax payer money in my opinion.
"the war costs are mainly built on loan debt, not the tax payer money"
bull , the interest on that debt MUST be paid on schedule in REAL DOLLARS, or there is default. Those interest payments take away from productive uses.
The wars in Iraq and Aghanistan have not/will not increase security. They are being conducted for the exclusive benefit of the war-profiteering MIC and the oil/gas companies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
