Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Gary Childress]

One ought to know why one is taking a particular position.

And not just because some professors said so.

Well, is no one qualified to dismiss something someone says because academic opinion is largely against it? I would think academics have put a lot of thought into things and from what I can tell my professors were right about Ayn Rand.

Is Ayn Rand an admirable intellectual? We should not have Social Security? We should first ask friends and relatives if they can lend us money and then go to charities to get help? I've worked with the poor in the US and believe me, the biggest problem with small charities is that they can't really do anything substantial to help. Many charities refer you to other charities because there's nothing they can do and when you get to the other charities they just refer you back to the ones you just came from. In my experience private charities are not a realistic solution to help all those in crisis all the time.

[Immanuel Can]

So our stubborn Christian friend IC thinks that all taxation is "theft", ALL OF IT. And governments should not commit theft.

My question is, if that is the case, then how will societies raise funds for projects that need to be collectively created and administrated?

Here's my answer, Gary.

Our difference is not over whether there should be such projects. We both agree that limited government and limited taxation are necessary evils, and that they have a role in such things as building roads, maintaining civil defense, and so on. We're fine on all that.

Where we disagree is on whether or not government can be a saviour. That is, can we commission government to feed our poor, raise our children, handle all our health concerns, give us a guaranteed income, create a sustainable welfare system, and not to collect taxes from those who cannot afford it, and not use those funds collected in irresponsible and corrupt ways.

You think you can trust the State. I think we cannot. I think that most social needs are best met by community effort and voluntary societies, not by government force. You think that if we allow the government to extort enough through taxation, it will miraculously become staffed by saints, and will use the additional revenues in ways more responsible than private citizens, community groups and voluntary associations could.

So our disagreement is not over whether or not the needs of the poor should be met; on that, we 100% agree. It's over HOW they are going to be met. It's over the means that will achieve the goal we both desire.

This distinction is nicely worked out in a book buy a guy you'd like: a Democrat sociologist named Jonathan Haidt, who in his book "The Righteous Mind," give fair treatment to both sides. I suggest we replicate his analysis of the situation, and recognize the problem as one of means, not of ends. We both want to see people get what they need; we're only disagreeing over how that is best achieved. You say "by Big Government and forcible taxation." I say, "By expanding the economy for all, and by the people in the country taking responsibility for themselves and others, and by limiting the role of government to the necessary."

That's where we need to begin, because that's the real difference. Impugning each others motives will not answer the question and get us very far. I accept that your desire to help the underprivilged is genuine, even if I find your methods unworkable and perilous; and I trust you can accord me the same respect of believing I also recognize the problem of the genuinely needy and have sympathy for them, even if you doubt the methods I advocate.

Fair enough?

[Age]

That reminds me of Ayn Rand. Rand didn't believe in social security and taxing people to create it. But she cooperated with authorities and paid her dues. Then, in old age, Rand experienced financial problems and low and behold social security came to her rescue and she collected social security to keep herself afloat in retirement.

Of course, Rand, the ignoramus that she was, stated that she still didn't believe social security was justified even after it saved her from destitution. However, she "gracioiusly" agreed to take the social security given to her exclaiming, "I paid for it, therefore I should get it." To this day I'm not aware that Rand ever modified her opinion on Social Security. She maintained until the very end that it was an improper duty of government.

People should not be ignoramuses like Ayn Rand. I still don't know why some people still read her garbage.

Did know that it was so-called 'garbage' until you read it?

If either 'yes' or 'no', then 'that' is probably why people, still, read 'those writings'.

The professors in the philosophy department where I studied philosophy used to joke about how immoral Rand was. I agree with them. Do you think it's intelligent to demand that social security not be funded and then find yourself grateful for having it when it is funded but still maintaining that you were right to oppose social security? That sounds idiotic to me. Or maybe you can explain to me how Ayn Rand was right to oppose social security?

Please do not change the subject, here.

you said and wrote about how you, still, do not know why some people still read what you call, 'her garbage'.

I just pointed out that 'the reason/s' why you read 'those writings' is probably the 'exact same reason/s' why other people, still, read 'those writings'.

So, please stay focused on, only, the actual words that I say, and write, here.

(Now, as for my answer in regards to your 'other questions', here, I more or less answered them already in one of my previous posts, where I said and wrote, 'But, because you people do not want to just 'hand over' money, to others, and get no service in return, it is only when you people feel like you deserve money, from others, like in retirement for example, do you people then want others, like the government, for example, to just 'hand over' money.'

[Age]

Oh and while we're at it, perhaps we should define "Theft".

We all take things and some things are OK to take.

Will you provide examples?

Will you please go back and read more carefully what I wrote? I gave an example of the very thing you are asking me whether or not I gave an example of.

And, if you had already 'read more carefully', then you have have 'already noticed' that I asked 'that question' before you gave 'your example'.

I, however, just decided to not remove 'my question'.

Which, if you had 'read more carefully', or in other words, had 'noticed what actually occurred', then you would not have made your False assumption nor made your Wrong conclusion, here.

[phyllo]

Well, is no one qualified to dismiss something someone says because academic opinion is largely against it? I would think academics have put a lot of thought into things and from what I can tell my professors were right about Ayn Rand.

If you took those courses, then you should be able to figure out whether your professors had reasonable arguments or not. And also whether Rand had reasonable arguments or not.

If they didn't take her seriously, then that sends up a flag.

[Gary Childress]

because you people do not want to just 'hand over' money, to others, and get no service in return, it is only when you people feel like you deserve money, from others, like in retirement for example, do you people then want others, like the government, for example, to just 'hand over' money.'[/b]

That's a pretty low opinion of ordinary people. Do you think it applies to everyone, that we all just want government to "hand over money" and not give anything to others ourselves, as you seem to put it.

[accelafine]

So our stubborn Christian friend IC thinks that all taxation is "theft", ALL OF IT. And governments should not commit theft.

My question is, if that is the case, then how will societies raise funds for projects that need to be collectively created and administrated?

Here's my answer, Gary.

Blah blah blah.....

I say, "By expanding the economy for all, and by the people in the country taking responsibility for themselves and others, and by limiting the role of government to the necessary."


Fair enough?

What the fuck does that even mean? Why do you bother with your disingenous word salads, old man? Go back to counting your pension money and writing letters to the editor whinging about the dollar a week increase in your local property rates or whatever you call it over there. I bet you spy on your neighbours too

[accelafine]

because you people do not want to just 'hand over' money, to others, and get no service in return, it is only when you people feel like you deserve money, from others, like in retirement for example, do you people then want others, like the government, for example, to just 'hand over' money.'[/b]

That's a pretty low opinion of ordinary people. Do you think it applies to everyone, that we all just want government to "hand over money" and not give anything to others ourselves, as you seem to put it.

I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying. He's saying that IC is fine with it as long as it's being handed to HIM.

[Age]

Do you think it's intelligent to demand that social security not be funded and then find yourself grateful for having it when it is funded but still maintaining that you were right to oppose social security? That sounds idiotic to me. Or maybe you can explain to me how Ayn Rand was right to oppose social security?

I suppose that if she was able to structure society, then she would exclude social security. If she needed financial help then she would approach family and friends. If they didn't help, then she would go to a charity and if that didn't work she would be destitute.

But since she lived in a society with social security which she paid for with taxes, then she used it. Seems pretty normal.

'That' may well seem so-called 'pretty normal'. But, what "gary childress' is talking about and referring to, in relation to 'being idiotic', or 'not normal', is opposing the 'very thing', while you are 'seeking, wanting, and/or taking from' the 'exact same thing', "yourself".

In other words, it is very hypocritical and/or contradictory to be 'doing' the 'very thing' you are also, supposedly, 'opposing'.

Now, did you not see that 'this' is what "gary childress" is getting at and pointing to?

Or, if 'this' was not what you was not what you were wanting to get at nor point to, here, "gary childress", then, please, Correct me.

[Gary Childress]

because you people do not want to just 'hand over' money, to others, and get no service in return, it is only when you people feel like you deserve money, from others, like in retirement for example, do you people then want others, like the government, for example, to just 'hand over' money.'[/b]

That's a pretty low opinion of ordinary people. Do you think it applies to everyone, that we all just want government to "hand over money" and not give anything to others ourselves, as you seem to put it.

I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying. He's saying that IC is fine with it as long as it's being handed to HIM.

Well, he's replying to my post and he uses the term "you people" a lot. I find myself getting annoyed with it. I don't think he communicates very well and he doesn't want to say what I suggest he say. But if that's what he's saying, then I stand corrected.

[Gary Childress]

So our stubborn Christian friend IC thinks that all taxation is "theft", ALL OF IT. And governments should not commit theft.

My question is, if that is the case, then how will societies raise funds for projects that need to be collectively created and administrated?

Here's my answer, Gary.

Our difference is not over whether there should be such projects. We both agree that limited government and limited taxation are necessary evils, and that they have a role in such things as building roads, maintaining civil defense, and so on. We're fine on all that.

Where we disagree is on whether or not government can be a saviour. That is, can we commission government to feed our poor, raise our children, handle all our health concerns, give us a guaranteed income, create a sustainable welfare system, and not to collect taxes from those who cannot afford it, and not use those funds collected in irresponsible and corrupt ways.

You think you can trust the State. I think we cannot. I think that most social needs are best met by community effort and voluntary societies, not by government force. You think that if we allow the government to extort enough through taxation, it will miraculously become staffed by saints, and will use the additional revenues in ways more responsible than private citizens, community groups and voluntary associations could.

So our disagreement is not over whether or not the needs of the poor should be met; on that, we 100% agree. It's over HOW they are going to be met. It's over the means that will achieve the goal we both desire.

This distinction is nicely worked out in a book buy a guy you'd like: a Democrat sociologist named Jonathan Haidt, who in his book "The Righteous Mind," give fair treatment to both sides. I suggest we replicate his analysis of the situation, and recognize the problem as one of means, not of ends. We both want to see people get what they need; we're only disagreeing over how that is best achieved. You say "by Big Government and forcible taxation." I say, "By expanding the economy for all, and by the people in the country taking responsibility for themselves and others, and by limiting the role of government to the necessary."

That's where we need to begin, because that's the real difference. Impugning each others motives will not answer the question and get us very far. I accept that your desire to help the underprivilged is genuine, even if I find your methods unworkable and perilous; and I trust you can accord me the same respect of believing I also recognize the problem of the genuinely needy and have sympathy for them, even if you doubt the methods I advocate.

Fair enough?

I don't think government can be a "savior" as you put it. So that's an inaccurate appraisal of my position. Maybe to start off with you should also be respectful to my ideas? And if you're going to continue to label socialists as "evil", then I see no reason not to take you to task on Christianity's apparent ideal of waiting for people to donate to the poor on their own initiative instead of institutionalizing assistance programs to handle things more quickly (even if they cost a bit more). I don't think it's fair to expect a God (which we are entirely uncertain of) to help the poor when they die by sending them to "heaven" and avenging them by sending the greedy and stingy to hell. Helping people must happen here and now, not pushed off into the hands of a "God" that we don't even know exists. Also you're slanderous remarks of secularists that they cannot possibly know right from wrong are a problem for me.

Overall I see your vision as clouded by fantasies related to Christian mythology. Maybe if we can both work out those differences, then we can have a more respectful discussion.

[Age]

Do you think it's intelligent to demand that social security not be funded and then find yourself grateful for having it when it is funded but still maintaining that you were right to oppose social security? That sounds idiotic to me. Or maybe you can explain to me how Ayn Rand was right to oppose social security?

I suppose that if she was able to structure society, then she would exclude social security. If she needed financial help then she would approach family and friends. If they didn't help, then she would go to a charity and if that didn't work she would be destitute.

But since she lived in a society with social security which she paid for with taxes, then she used it. Seems pretty normal.

It might be normal but I would hardly call that the mark of a philosophical "great". Milton Friedman admired Ayn Rand. Many economists have admired Ayn Rand. I've read part of one of her books and had people who have read her books and been sympathetic to her beliefs tell me what was in them. They don't seem like very good quality thought or writing to me. But, maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe everyone should read everything written to find out for themselves what is worthwhile and what isn't and not take commentary form qualified academics seriously. I don't know. I happened to believe what my professors said.

Well there is 'your very first mistake', here.

I still questioned a lot of things and raised objections to some of my professors but overall, I think they were pretty intelligent and taught quality education.

Does not every one think or believe that what they were 'taught', or how they were 'educated', and thus 'what they now know' was somewhat of 'quality'.

To say, and/or to repeat, what you have been 'taught', or 'educated' on or about, but then say and claim that it was of 'poor quality', some could infer as being 'idiotic'.

Now, could what "ayn rand" have stated about how it did not believe 'social security' could be justified, but still 'took' from 'that', be some thing similar to be living in 'previous times' and stating that you did not believe the 'ridiculing, humiliating, or killing of witches' could not be justified, but, still, 'went along' and did 'those things' for fear of being ridiculed, humiliated, and/or killed "yourself"?

See, some times it is just simpler, and easier, to 'go along' with 'the crowd', because of the 'repercussions' if you do not, although you know, full well, that what you are 'pretending to go along with' could never ever be 'justified'.

For example, the abuse, harming, starving, bombing, and killing of children or babies could never ever be 'justified', yet, here, you are living in 'a world' where 'this' happens far, far, far more than it ever 'should', but, in some ways, you are actually partaking in it, adding to it, and/or contributing to it.

So, you can believe that 'it' can not be justified, and even state that you believe that 'it' can not be justified, but in ways, still, be causing 'its' continuance. Because, in 'the times' when you are alive, and doing this, 'the world' was just not yet 'ready' to be changed. Just like 'the world' where you human beings were ridiculing and killing so-called 'witches' took some time before 'it changed', as well.

However, the more people who 'stand up' and state what can not actually be 'justified', then quicker that Wrong doing can, and will, change. Thus, meaning the quicker 'the world', itself, can, and will, also keep changing, for the better.

[Age]

One ought to know why one is taking a particular position.

And not just because some professors said so.

'The world' would be a much better place, already, if people did know, exactly, why they actually do take any and every position they have, and hold.

And, as you said and pointed out, and not just because of some thing, 'My teacher told me'.

[Gary Childress]

So our stubborn Christian friend IC thinks that all taxation is "theft", ALL OF IT. And governments should not commit theft.

My question is, if that is the case, then how will societies raise funds for projects that need to be collectively created and administrated?

Here's my answer, Gary.

Blah blah blah.....

I say, "By expanding the economy for all, and by the people in the country taking responsibility for themselves and others, and by limiting the role of government to the necessary."


Fair enough?

What the fuck does that even mean? Why do you bother with your disingenous word salads, old man? Go back to counting your pension money and writing letters to the editor whinging about the dollar a week increase in your local property rates or whatever you call it over there. I bet you spy on your neighbours too

Maybe he's referring to "trickle down economics". Give all the money to the wealthy and the poor will have more table scraps.

[Immanuel Can]

...institutionalizing assistance programs to handle things more quickly (even if they cost a bit more).

Is that what you think happens? You think government is more efficient and fair at delivering people's needs? You won't find that's the case anywhere.

Helping people must happen here and now...

Well, it depends what we're "helping" them to do. In general, we're both in favour of that. We're just debating the means.