Yeah, it is among people who understand what they're getting in exchange. And some people do not - and there is no accounting for what some people cannot or will not understand.Taxation isn’t the voluntary transfer of property. — NOS4A2
What’s your counter argument, Tim? Maybe you pay taxes voluntarily. Except I wager you would never pay more or less than what they tell you to pay. Tell me why you are not a slave to their whims. — NOS4A2
That's called being a citizen. The same way children are children and not slaves, even when they are "slaves to the whims" of their parents. Especially the first few years. It's really quite pathetic you're equivocating paying taxes to being a slave when we all know what a slave really looks like. You aren't it. You're just a pathetic selfish whiner.
When you offer me something in return for my labor, and we both agree, and the transaction is satisfied, that’s a moral transaction. — NOS4A2
See: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/historical-highlights-of-the-irs#:~:text=From%201868%20until%201913%2C%2090,of%20Internal%20Revenue%20was%20created.So what did the US do before the 16th amendment? — NOS4A2
The Bangladeshi is paid too little for the pants he sows, his neighbour is affected by the toxic dyes that are unregulated there and you pay an exorbitant amount for the same pants considering the low quality (which fall apart after about a year), while being brainwashed to think the quality is acceptable and you need new pants next year (no wait, every other season) to stay fashionable. This conduct killed local tailors who couldn't compete fairly and in the end everybody is worse off. But hey, everybody "agreed" to the underlying transactions; so it's all fine and dandy and you can rest easy that as long as the market runs free, everybody gets what they deserve. — Benkei
Wrong
What nonsense - the part about their agreement with their employer as if that established any "morality." It seems to me that to achieve morality, there must be something like a level playing surface, and when did, or does, that ever happen between employer and employee? Unless the morality of applied force, sometimes gloved, sometimes not. Is that your morality?That income is theirs because that is the terms they agreed to with their employer. — NOS4A2
Yeah those Bangla-whatevers - one-horned or two, or is it humps they have one or two of? And to be sure, their employers know best how to care for them in the way that they like and thrive within. And which of course, those Banglas not being people, it would be immoral for us to even think about interfering in any way on their behalf. because of course we all know, or should know, as you do, that those bangers like to live in poverty and subject to every catastrophe of the moment and would neither choose nor aspire to anything better. Thank you, nos4, for setting us straight and keeping us straight.You know better how one ought to live better then the Bangladeshi does, — NOS4A2
Will you ever address the question - which you dodge and run from like an adulterer from a husband with a gun - of infrastructure, its desirability and benefits and cost, and who pays and how and why?I fear you are willing to treat people as a means in order to achieve your desired end, namely, “moral outcomes”. — NOS4A2
you don't have morality only a procedure.
That you are the beneficiary of a transaction doesn't mean you should be.
That is true. That one is the beneficiary of a transaction doesn't mean he should be. At some point one must prove he is entitled to the benefits. As an uninvited third party, the tax collector cannot provide that proof, therefor he should not be the beneficiary of the transaction. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.