> Are you seriously calling taxation "just an exchange"? Do you want me to believe you don't know how taxes are collected, and what happens if you don't pay them? Yes actually. You're exchanging your money for government goods and services. If you don't pay them then the government comes down on you because you still received the goods and services without paying them their rightful tax. Whether taxes are too high or too low relative to the services in your particular community can sway things for or against your favor, but you get the idea. >Well, for starters, everyone is actually worse off because of it, because that's just how ruling over people works. I said that if you focus on the wellbeing of the people then people and the government happens to be able to rule more efficiently as a side effect (this is assuming that's true which hasn't been established yet btw), that it's better for the people. You're responding that they're actually worse off because "that's just how ruling over people works." You may very well be right, but you haven't really supported that assertion by saying "it's just how it works." To clarify a point for you to refute: why is focusing on wellbeing bad for the people? > Everyone would personally be better off getting to keep and use all of their own property as they see fit. First, define property. Second, this libertarian dream land needs some sort of regulation to make sure chaos doesn't run amok. Here's a perfect example of people trying to keep to themselves not working out well. I highly recommend reading that article because it's very interesting, even outside the scope of this discussion. > Besides, each individual's personal prosperity would contribute to the society's overall prosperity, or perhaps.. "happiness", if that suits you better. It's not the total happiness that matters though. Happiness is only important to the "feeler" (poor choice of word, sorry) of said happiness. You have to remember, happiness is selected as the ultimate desirable good because it's what human nature dictates that each individual ultimately wants. We don't want an increase in total happiness, we want an increase in personal happiness. That being said, if society is collectively very happy (due to high population even though individually everyone is above average at best) then to the individual in that population, he's not living in a society that is ultimately desirable. By overall point here is that if we try and maximize the happiness of everyone else (in addition to ourselves) then the result creates a synergistic effect where the sum is greater than the parts. To be even more simple: You can focus on your happiness have have 10 "headons" or you can help contribute to society, your family, your day-to-day life and if everyone else does the same than your happiness will be 15 "headons." You might ask yourself, "what if no one else does the same? Then I'm just contributing to their happiness with nothing in return." While that may be true that's just the Tragedy of the Commons at which point you can only hope that your actions influence others to do the same which will ultimately help you in the end. Sorry for the ramble, my thoughts tend to run on this subject.
So if Ferrari decides to start delivering cars to you, it's alright for them to forcefully take your money "in exchange" if you don't feel like paying for the cars? You've received the Ferraris, after all, so now you should pay. We both know no one would consider that acceptable, so why would it be when a government does the same? I don't think you're being intellectually honest here. Do you want me to believe you don't think it matters that people aren't given a choice in the matter? Or that people pay for services they never use, have no say in what services get provided, but are morally obligated to pay anyway?
I did support the assertion. Being ruled involves paying taxes to your rulers, i.e. not keeping all of your property.
It's really not that complicated. No matter how you might define "property" for your distraction purposes, in this context it obviously covers any income you receive, which is then taxed. That understanding is enough for continuing the discussion without needing a detailed definition. Again, you're not being intellectually honest.
If that's true, then why would anyone attempt to maximize anyone else's happiness (through subjectively justified means, no less)?Yes actually. You're exchanging your money for government goods and services. If you don't pay them then the government comes down on you because you still received the goods and services without paying them their rightful tax.
You may very well be right, but you haven't really supported that assertion by saying "it's just how it works."
First, define property.
Happiness is only important to the "feeler" of said happiness
> So if Ferrari decides to start delivering cars to you, it's alright for them to forcefully take your money "in exchange" if you don't feel like paying for the cars? You've received the Ferraris, after all, so now you should pay. Haha not quite. The difference is that there's an implied agreement between the citizen and the government; a "social contract." If you don't want their goods and services then you can choose not to live in that country. > Do you want me to believe you don't think it matters that people aren't given a choice in the matter? But they are given a choice: leave. To think that everyone at birth or a reasonable age should be asked up front: "Hey, I know almost every human in history has lived in civilization despite having the ability to leave at any moment, but just in case, do you want to leave human civilization?" > Being ruled involves paying taxes to your rulers, i.e. not keeping all of your property. And we're worse off for it? By your logic anyone who pays taxes is a slave. Being a slave is morally undesirable. Therefore we shouldn't pay taxes and as a result we should not have any government services in return, just to make things fair. How do you expect civilization to continue with no rules, no protection and no one to enforce laws? Should everyone just keep a gun on them at all times and hope for the best? You're taking this way to far. >It's really not that complicated. No matter how you might define "property" for your distraction purposes, in this context it obviously covers any income you receive, which is then taxed. Wonderful. So that would include companies, products, production lines etc. That's reasonable to infer. Have you ever heard of the Robber Barrons? When there was no government protection (which comes with taxes btw) or regulations, life was miserable for the American public in the early 20th century. In you're libertarian utopia (which the article you conveniently haven't mentioned doesn't work) taxes won't be paid, governments wouldn't protect and this would happen all over again. How many people would actually turn down human civilization just to say a few percentage point on their income? I find it odd how you accuse me of distracting you with trying to define a definition, and with intellectual dishonesty when you're asserting this as a plausible alternative to civilization. > If that's true, then why would anyone attempt to maximize anyone else's happiness (through subjectively justified means, no less)? You completely ignored my last point. Allow me to repeat myself: "By overall point here is that if we try and maximize the happiness of everyone else (in addition to ourselves) then the result creates a synergistic effect where the sum is greater than the parts. To be even more simple: You can focus on your happiness have have 10 "headons" or you can help contribute to society, your family, your day-to-day life and if everyone else does the same than your happiness will be 15 "headons." You might ask yourself, "what if no one else does the same? Then I'm just contributing to their happiness with nothing in return." While that may be true that's just the Tragedy of the Commons at which point you can only hope that your actions influence others to do the same which will ultimately help you in the end." Let's keep this civil and avoid ad hominem please. I want to have a nice clean discussion here.
But you have the exact same implied agreement with Ferrari!! If you don't want to pay for the cars that are delivered to you without you asking for them, you can just leave the country! But let's say there's a Ferrari dealership everywhere, so you can't actually avoid getting those cars and having to pay for them. Is everything alright?If you don't want their goods and services then you can choose not to live in that country.
Nooooo, I'm saying that you can leave the country before you even receive the goods and services. By the time you're old enough to pay taxes, you can leave and live in the wilderness if you so wish. Actually, at that point you've benefitted for roughly 18 years without paying any taxes, so really you're being unjust, although I doubt anyone would really care for 1 person leaving. And yes everything is alright! Why do you ask?
I'm tired of your games, so I'll just stop playing here.