Marxist ßastard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 If you give it to me, it's mine. You give, I accept, consent on the part of both parties... If you want to put some preconditions on it before you hand it over, and I agree to those conditions, then yes you might have something coming your way, depending on those conditions. Consent again. Very important.The precondition is implied within the social contract. If you reject the social contract, you may as well go around killing people because "you never agreed not to." So yes, a precondition exists. The only question left if whether that precondition should be there, and it absolutely should – it's only fair to pay back into the fax-funded infrastructure which makes it possible for you to get an income in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quetzlsacatanango Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 \The precondition is implied within the social contract. If you reject the social contract, you may as well go around killing people because "you never agreed not to." So yes, a precondition exists. The only question left if whether that precondition should be there, and it absolutely should – it's only fair to pay back into the fax-funded infrastructure which makes it possible for you to get an income in the first place. It's doubtful that another person would consent to me murdering them. There's that darn word again. "Social contract" is something of a copout. Put it on paper, let me agree to it or not, opt in or not. If you're afraid to do that, then what are your motives exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 So – a precondition exists, and it's only right that the precondition should exist. You just don't "agree" to be bound by it. ... 'k. Go on and don't pay your taxes, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Though I rarely agree with MB on much of anything, he is absolutely correct in that all taxes are immutably linked with coercion, you don't pay and there will be repercussions. If there was not that linkage then NOBODY would pay taxes ever. Since no state can operate without funds there would be no infrastructure what so ever and no form of modern life possible. If one wants to avoid this outcome then taxes are a necessary evil. Arguing about the morality of taxes is just so much Don Quixotish titling at windmills. How this thread got side tracked away from what are useful and necessary taxes is another forum mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quetzlsacatanango Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I do not agree that all taxes are "immutably" linked with coercion (sales tax). I get that you don't agree that that is a voluntary tax.I don't agree that in a sales tax only nation, no one would pay taxes ever. On the contrary, anyone who wanted anything beyond basic foodstuffs, clothing, and medicine, could not avoid paying their taxes.I don't agree that the state would have no funds and therefore there would be no infrastructure, see above. I guess we agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Though I rarely agree with MB on much of anything, he is absolutely correct in that all taxes are immutably linked with coercion, you don't pay and there will be repercussions. If there was not that linkage then NOBODY would pay taxes ever. Since no state can operate without funds there would be no infrastructure what so ever and no form of modern life possible. If one wants to avoid this outcome then taxes are a necessary evil. Arguing about the morality of taxes is just so much Don Quixotish titling at windmills. How this thread got side tracked away from what are useful and necessary taxes is another forum mystery. This argument is silly because it presumes that people are hopeless without Big Brother government there to hold their hands. Spontaneous order does happen, and much of the infrastructure required to sustain society will be built and maintained by this. Whether or not its "modern" is irrelevant, because modernity is just a meaningless buzzword concept that presumes progress has occurred where it actually hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) This argument is silly because it presumes that people are hopeless without Big Brother government there to hold their hands. Spontaneous order does happen, and much of the infrastructure required to sustain society will be built and maintained by this. Whether or not its "modern" is irrelevant, because modernity is just a meaningless buzzword concept that presumes progress has occurred where it actually hasn't.When I quit laughing I must ask you to cite examples of spontaneous enduring civil order among more than 1000 people, keep in mind that you can't use any hierarchical structures to cite as examples since that isn't spontaneous. You may take up your quill any time you like since one of us isn't in this century. Edited February 16, 2012 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 This argument is silly because it presumes that people are hopeless without Big Brother government there to hold their hands. Spontaneous order does happen, and much of the infrastructure required to sustain society will be built and maintained by this. Whether or not its "modern" is irrelevant, because modernity is just a meaningless buzzword concept that presumes progress has occurred where it actually hasn't.When I quit laughing I must ask you to cite examples of spontaneous enduring civil order among more than 1000 people, keep in mind that you can't use any hierarchical structures to cite as examples since that isn't spontaneous. You may take up your quill any time you like since one of us isn't in this century. Okay. Let me go ahead and quote you pretty much the entire history of mankind. No, the universe itself I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 This argument is silly because it presumes that people are hopeless without Big Brother government there to hold their hands. Spontaneous order does happen, and much of the infrastructure required to sustain society will be built and maintained by this. Whether or not its "modern" is irrelevant, because modernity is just a meaningless buzzword concept that presumes progress has occurred where it actually hasn't.When I quit laughing I must ask you to cite examples of spontaneous enduring civil order among more than 1000 people, keep in mind that you can't use any hierarchical structures to cite as examples since that isn't spontaneous. You may take up your quill any time you like since one of us isn't in this century. Okay. Let me go ahead and quote you pretty much the entire history of mankind. No, the universe itself I think...Well since we can rule out the universe as not being an association of people but rather a cosmological concept, that leaves us with entire history of man..so pick your examples since you have such a plethora of them (same preconditions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Headache gone now. Enjoying this immensely... :biggrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts