Do we have the right to tax people in order to help the poor?

[Dalek Prime]

Denmark seems pretty okay too. And a few other European states. University is covered in Denmark, I believe.

It's funny how words get taken over. Community (communism), society (socialism), family ( various right wing parties). Yet the definitions of the original words come with hope of something greater than the individual.

[garygary]

I would like to ask a question as a follow-up to the original question:

Does a citizen have an obligation to not be a burden on society?

For example, a mother and father that have 12 children they can't take care of financially... and yet they are pregnant once again. If we as individuals in society must work a percentage of our work week to provide food and shelter to the family, don't the parents have an obligation to minimize their burden on society?

[Dalek Prime]

I would like to ask a question as a follow-up to the original question:

Does a citizen have an obligation to not be a burden on society?

For example, a mother and father that have 12 children they can't take care of financially... and yet they are pregnant once again. If we as individuals in society must work a percentage of our work week to provide food and shelter to the family, don't the parents have an obligation to minimize their burden on society?

I'll leave this for Ned, but there are people who will attempt to push the boundaries. Mind, please remember that the biggest externalizers of losses in a society are large corporations. Neither is right, when the goal is to freeload off society. No one group has a corner on that market.

[Obvious Leo]

Good point, Dalek. In simple dollar terms taxpayer-funded welfare for the rich far outweighs that allocated to the poor. However I also agree with your other point. In the best of all possible worlds there should be no such thing as a free lunch for anybody capable of paying for his own. Sadly I'm told that M. Voltaire is no longer with us.

[Dalek Prime]

Speaking of which, I really must get around to reading Candide some day.

(If you pay for my luch today, Leo, I will return in kind at the earliest opportunity. )

[garygary]

When discussing welfare for needy individuals, the distraction of corporate welfare often comes up. That "corporate welfare" is approximately double what "needy welfare" amounts to in no way implies that "needy welfare" is right and proper. They are two separate discussions. How about if a murderer on trial used this type of argument to avoid prosecution? "Well, your honor, Seung-Hui Cho killed way more people than I did, so why should I be prosecuted?"

As for the term "welfare for the rich," it is interesting to note that lately, taxpayer funded corporate subsidies have been approved by more democrats in congress than republicans. I don't think the term "welfare for the rich" is a fair term for these corporate subsidies anyway. After all, democrats, champions of the poor, vote for them. So I would contend that congress views the subsidies as good for the nation's economy and security. I don't necessarily agree however.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand....

Does the taxpayer owe the "needy" a portion of his labor? Which brought up the question "Do the needy owe anything to the taxpayer"?

[Dalek Prime]

I'll leave this for others. I'm not interested in discussing political viewpoints, particularly when you dismiss what I say as distraction, because it does not fit your worldview.

[Obvious Leo]

Speaking of which, I really must get around to reading Candide some day.

Do it at once, you philistine. Voltaire was one of the finest process philosophers in history and no philosopher's library should be without his work.

I'll take you up on the lunch date, by the way, although the fact that we live on opposite sides of the planet might present some logistical complications.

democrats, champions of the poor,

It's always nice to see a comedian in the village.

[Dalek Prime]

Well, if you make it down to Toronto, Leo, I'll save an appetite.

Voltaire will have to wait. I've been putting off Bertrand Russell for too long.

[Obvious Leo]

I've been putting off Bertrand Russell for too long.

A lot of people seem to do that but I'm buggered if I know why. For a philosopher he's quite a stylish writer and one of the easier scholars to read. He also likes to keep things simple, which has a certain appeal for a dumb Aussie schmuck.

[Dalek Prime]

Or a Canucklehead lol! A friend who teaches philosophy recommended him as a general introduction to the topic. So far, I can see why.

Long before that, though, I read a work of fiction with Russell and Whitehead as characters, and meant to read him, but never did. So now's the time.

[Obvious Leo]

Voltaire will have to wait.

It's a crappy excuse. Candide is only a very small book and you'd knock it over in an afternoon.

I love the Canucklehead, mate. I've already stolen it and added it to my private lexicon. In due course I'll be able to pass it off as my own.

[Dalek Prime]

Okay. I'll check across the street for a copy... Unfortunately, I can't lay claim to originating Canucklehead. But sure, add it to your dictionary, by all means lol!

[Obvious Leo]

Unfortunately, I can't lay claim to originating Canucklehead.

Who cares? It's the first time I've heard it and that's all that matters to me. I'll be trying it out on my niece next time I'm in New Zealand, which could well be later on this week.

[marjoram_blues]

Skip's reply to Ned:

'No one has the right to force another human being to do anything against his/her own (perceived) self interest. If we allow a human being to ‘initiate’ force against another, to force him act against his/her interests, then we have approved of dictatorships of the worst kind. This applies to forcing others to act on your compassion' -Rand.

All right. Let's parse it.

No one has the right to force another human being to do anything against his/her own (---) self interest.

On what grounds? There has never been a society that didn't put the collective interest above individual self-interest. Had there been one, it wouldn't have lasted two generations. In every society, there is a large measure of willing participation, voluntary curbing of short-term gain for long-term security and mutual defence, but there has also been a degree of dissent and resistance on the part of some individuals, which must be overcome by force on behalf of the group. This force is usually called police.

M: Sensible and relevant. 'Force' also backed up by legislation which Ned earlier deemed irrelevant. There are some interesting degrees of relevance ( of posts) in this thread.

Skip: If you put (perceived) back in, the sentence turns nonsensical: it outlaws parenting, education, traffic laws, urban zoning, anti-pollution measures, food inspection, fire safety regulation and the collection of debts, as well as law enforcement. It also assumes that every person is fully cognizant of their self-interest in all its implications and projections. I posit that this is not the case.

M: Agreed.

Skip:

If we allow a human being to ‘initiate’ force against another, to force him to act against his/her interests, then we have approved of dictatorships of the worst kind.

If tax collection is the worst kind of dictatorship, what are the better kinds? Or, put another way, what are the exact boundaries between legitimate government and dictatorship?

M: Good question. I believe Machiavelli's 'The Prince' has something relevant to say about state governance.

This applies to forcing others to act on your compassion

Should the collective have no powers at all to protect the weak against the strong?
The state doesn't enforce compassion; it enforces a standard of conditions acceptable to its citizens. Sweat shops were outlawed when the majority of citizens objected to child labour; tenements are not yet outlawed, because the majority do not object.

Again. Good point about 'compassion'. I tried to address this in Ned's 'other' thread about what we owe others.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15581

However, Ned seems not to want to address this. He snipped this sentence out:
'What use compassion, if there is not forethought and responsibility to provide care and security by any 'carer' ?'


For Machiavelli, compassion has its uses but doesn't fit into every situation. There is more than one set of values. In other words, there is a tension between ordinary 'compassion'/ morality and successful control of a state. Given that humans have profound disagreements about moral issues, this incompatibility has to reach a 'tolerable' point. Complexity, compromise and yes, sometimes being 'cruel to be kind'.

So, yes - 'we' - as in 'a government' has the right to tax people to help the poor.