Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Centinel]

Libertarian ism is a morally flawed pseudo-philosophy that is childishly naive and utterly unsustainable. Not to mention hideously exploitative and steeped in moral cowardice.

I would actually question the morality of any system in which the initiation of aggression against innocent people is justified. That seems hideously exploitative to me.

 

[Skylar]

Libertarian ism is a morally flawed pseudo-philosophy that is childishly naive and utterly unsustainable. Not to mention hideously exploitative and steeped in moral cowardice.

I would actually question the morality of any system in which the initiation of aggression against innocent people is justified. That seems hideously exploitative to me.

Where as libertarianism uses the violence of starvation to offer folks a simple choice: submit or die. And since its the desperate person's own body that is killing them and not the libertarian directly, they're absolved of any degree of exploitation or abuse. As long as the person who faces 'submit or die' offers 'consent'.

Its the single most loathsome portion of libertarianism. As its steeped in deep seeded moral cowardice. And the fact that consent isn't binary, but analog is usually what makes libertarianism a college aged fascination that people become disillusioned with the more they know about it.

Its not a coincidence that the periods of our own history closest to libertarianism were also the era of slavery and indentured servitude.

 

[Centinel]

Why you expect our laws, programs, funding priorities, and policies to reflect only your personal tastes?

I don't. I simply make the argument in favor of the programs, funding priorities, and policies that I consider right and just, as you do. That is the nature of political debate.

You're not taking anything. The government is collecting taxes. Once collected, its no longer your money, or your neighbors. But the governments. And its the government that pays expenses.

So the premise of your argument is flawed to start. Well, unless you object to mandatory taxation at all. If so, then your argument is internally consistent. But still fatally flawed.

The state is taking the property of my neighbor. I can't condone or support such uncivilized and morally hideous behavior. I was taught that it's wrong to take what belongs to others.

 

[Centinel]

In terms of 'taking money from my neighbor and giving it to someone else', what would it matter if the Federal government was doing it or the State government? Its still everything you insist you don't support. Taking money from one person to benefit someone else. At least by the standards you've applied.

Understood, but I was under the impression we were talking about federal taxes.

 

[Timmy]

Lets abolish all taxes . The country will run on smiles and sunshine !

 

[Skylar]

Why you expect our laws, programs, funding priorities, and policies to reflect only your personal tastes?

I don't. I simply make the argument in favor of the programs, funding priorities, and policies that I consider right and just, as you do. That is the nature of political debate.

In an ivory tower sense, perhaps. But any political system worth its salt would need to work in a real world setting. And as such, any democratic application of power would necessitate compromise. Making your expectation of what 'should' be wildly unrealistic.

As its predicated on spending priorities matching your personal tastes and yours alone. Rather than reflecting the people's tastes and priorities together.

The state is taking the property of my neighbor. I can't condone or support such uncivilized and morally hideous behavior. I was taught that it's wrong to take what belongs to others.

So taxation in any mandatory form would be 'uncivilized and morally hideous' then?

 

[Centinel]

Where as libertarianism uses the violence of starvation to offer folks a simple choice: submit or die. And since its the desperate person's own body that is killing them and not the libertarian directly, they're absolved of any degree of exploitation or abuse. As long as the person who faces 'submit or die' offers 'consent'.

Its the single most loathsome portion of libertarianism. As its steeped in deep seeded moral cowardice. And the fact that consent isn't binary, but analog is usually what makes libertarianism a college aged fascination that people become disillusioned with the more they know about it.

Its not a coincidence that the periods of our own history closest to libertarianism were also the era of slavery and indentured servitude.

I'm not sure that I've ever heard any libertarian thinking/writer/speaker propose the policy of "submit or die". Can you provide any citations?

 

[Skylar]

In terms of 'taking money from my neighbor and giving it to someone else', what would it matter if the Federal government was doing it or the State government? Its still everything you insist you don't support. Taking money from one person to benefit someone else. At least by the standards you've applied.

Understood, but I was under the impression we were talking about federal taxes.

Your standard is 'The state is taking the property of my neighbor. I can't condone or support such uncivilized and morally hideous behavior.'

Which allows for no 'federal/state' distinction. But would apply equally to any government applying taxation. With both state and federal governments do. Making your basis of distinction (state and not federal programs, etc) inconsistent with your stated position.

 

[Centinel]

In an ivory tower sense, perhaps. But any political system worth its salt would need to work in a real world setting. And as such, any democratic application of power would necessitate compromise. Making your expectation of what 'should' be wildly unrealistic.

And I consider your expectations of what 'should' be to be equally wildly unrealistic.

As its predicated on spending priorities matching your personal tastes and yours alone. Rather than reflecting the people's tastes and priorities together.

So taxation in any mandatory form would be 'uncivilized and morally hideous' then?

Obviously. Taking what belongs to others is uncivilized and morally hideous. Didn't your parents teach you this?

 

[Centinel]

Your standard is 'The state is taking the property of my neighbor. I can't condone or support such uncivilized and morally hideous behavior.'

Which allows for no 'federal/state' distinction. But would apply equally to any government applying taxation. With both state and federal governments do. Making your basis of distinction (state and not federal programs, etc) inconsistent with your stated position.

I don't see any inconsistency in my position that it's wrong for one person to take what belongs to another.

 

[Skylar]

Where as libertarianism uses the violence of starvation to offer folks a simple choice: submit or die. And since its the desperate person's own body that is killing them and not the libertarian directly, they're absolved of any degree of exploitation or abuse. As long as the person who faces 'submit or die' offers 'consent'.

Its the single most loathsome portion of libertarianism. As its steeped in deep seeded moral cowardice. And the fact that consent isn't binary, but analog is usually what makes libertarianism a college aged fascination that people become disillusioned with the more they know about it.

Its not a coincidence that the periods of our own history closest to libertarianism were also the era of slavery and indentured servitude.

I'm not sure that I've ever heard any libertarian thinking/writer/speaker propose the policy of "submit or die". Can you provide any citations?

Of course not. But its intrinsic to their conception of consent, which exists as moral binary. You can do, well, pretty much anything to a person if they're desperate enough to agree to it. You can agree to pay them a nickel a day, or sell you their internal organs, or submit to the most draconnian living or working conditions.

And if their choice is starvation or submission......they'll agree. With the moral cowardice intrinsic to Libertarianism absolving itself of responsibility for any such abuse. As its the body of the desperate who would be killing them. Not the Libertarian themselves. Thus technically they've committed no 'violence'. They've merely exploited the violence of starvation to make a person submit to their will.

Its still violence. But the chickenshit kind.

 

[Skylar]

In an ivory tower sense, perhaps. But any political system worth its salt would need to work in a real world setting. And as such, any democratic application of power would necessitate compromise. Making your expectation of what 'should' be wildly unrealistic.

And I consider your expectations of what 'should' be to be equally wildly unrealistic.

Given that my explanation is pretty much the system we have now, history would seem to contradict your assessment.

Obviously. Taking what belongs to others is uncivilized and morally hideous. Didn't your parents teach you this?

It seemed pretty obvious to me too that you'd oppose any form of mandatory taxation. But I wanted to make sure i wasn't putting words in your mouth.

So lets follow your logic chain. Since mandatory taxation is off the table due to the application of force.....would then mandatory laws also be 'uncivilized and morally hideous'?

And by 'mandatory laws', I obviously mean laws backed by violence.

 

[Centinel]

Of course not. But its intrinsic to their conception of consent, which exists as moral binary. You can do, well, pretty much anything to a person if they're desperate enough to agree to it. You can agree to pay them a nickel a day, or sell you their internal organs, or submit to the most draconnian living or working conditions.

And if their choice is starvation or submission......they'll agree. With the moral cowardice intrinsic to Libertarianism absolving itself of responsibility for any such abuse. As its the body of the desperate who would be killing them. Not the Libertarian themselves. Thus technically they've committed no 'violence'. They've merely exploited the violence of starvation to make a person submit to their will.

Its still violence. But the chickenshit kind.

I'm not sure how you see giving someone money as violence.

But clearly you are advocating actual violence, with guns and flash-bangs, in order to take the property of your neighbor. Since I don't regard myself as having the right to take what belongs to my neighbor, I can't very well condone other people doing so on my behalf. Apparently you don't have such qualms and are happy to outsource your violent predilections.

 

[Centinel]

So lets follow your logic chain. Since mandatory taxation is off the table due to the application of force.....would then mandatory laws also be 'uncivilized and morally hideous'?

And by 'mandatory laws', I obviously mean laws backed by violence.

If you describe the law you have in mind, I can tell you whether or not I would consider it "uncivilized and morally hideous".

 

[Skylar]

Of course not. But its intrinsic to their conception of consent, which exists as moral binary. You can do, well, pretty much anything to a person if they're desperate enough to agree to it. You can agree to pay them a nickel a day, or sell you their internal organs, or submit to the most draconnian living or working conditions.

And if their choice is starvation or submission......they'll agree. With the moral cowardice intrinsic to Libertarianism absolving itself of responsibility for any such abuse. As its the body of the desperate who would be killing them. Not the Libertarian themselves. Thus technically they've committed no 'violence'. They've merely exploited the violence of starvation to make a person submit to their will.

Its still violence. But the chickenshit kind.

I'm not sure how you see giving someone money as violence.

When the choice is starvation or submission and exploitation, you're using the violence of starvation to compel obedience.

Save for a Libertarian, they bullshit themselves on it. Insisting that *technically* they're weren't compelling anyone. Because *technically* they weren't the one applying the violence of starvation. The body of the person they were compelling and exploiting would do it for them.

Which, of course, is pure chickenshit.

Worse, because of this moral abdication of responsibility for violence.......libertarianism can justify *far* more severe degrees of abuse and exploitation than most systems. Pretty much anything up to and including direct killing....as long as the person in question was desperate enough to agree to the abuse. You can quite literally sell yourself into slavery. And as long as your signature is on the contract where you gave up your freedoms, that's 'consent'.

But clearly you are advocating actual violence, with guns and flash-bangs, in order to take the property of your neighbor. Since I don't regard myself as having the right to take what belongs to my neighbor, I can't very well condone other people doing so on my behalf. Apparently you don't have such qualms and are happy to outsource your violent predilections.

Of course. The idea of order within a nation and between them being maintained with snuggles and unicorn kisses is historically unjustified. And violence or the threat of violence is method by which societies are ultimately organized.

What separates me from Libertarians is two fold. First, I don't bullshit myself on it. I own it. And the recognition of the application of violence mandates that its application be moderated and responsible. Where as a libertarian can justify pretty much any abuse if they can slap the white wash of 'consent' on it. I can't. There are degrees of abuse and exploitation that are unjustified.

Second, I recognize that any concentration of unchecked power will be abused eventually. Government power. Religious power. Personal power. Financial power. Any of it. And that the greatest degree of practical freedom is found in a balance between concentrations of power, where each is checked by the others. With power being diffused, ridiculously difficult to truly consolidate, and hideously inefficient to wield. .

Whereas a libertarian fully recognizes the abuses possible by government authority. But has an almost child like obliviousness for concentrations of personal power. Having no real checks on them save their binary conceptions of 'consent'. And these concentrations of personal power have and will be hideously abused if left unchecked.

To which a libertarian will shrug and scratch their nuts.

 

[Skylar]

So lets follow your logic chain. Since mandatory taxation is off the table due to the application of force.....would then mandatory laws also be 'uncivilized and morally hideous'?

And by 'mandatory laws', I obviously mean laws backed by violence.

If you describe the law you have in mind, I can tell you whether or not I would consider it "uncivilized and morally hideous".

Lets start with......speed limits and traffic laws.

Ultimately, its backed by violence. If you resist consistently, there will eventually be a point where they'll physically impose their will violently. Perhaps even kill you depending on the degree of resistance.

 

[Timmy]

So lets follow your logic chain. Since mandatory taxation is off the table due to the application of force.....would then mandatory laws also be 'uncivilized and morally hideous'?

And by 'mandatory laws', I obviously mean laws backed by violence.

If you describe the law you have in mind, I can tell you whether or not I would consider it "uncivilized and morally hideous".

Lets start with......speed limits and traffic laws.

Ultimately, its backed by violence. If you resist consistently, there will eventually be a point where they'll physically impose their will violently. Perhaps even kill you depending on the degree of resistance.

See 1/2 the black lives matter cases . Regular traffic stops , then dead!

 

[Centinel]

Lets start with......speed limits and traffic laws.

Ultimately, its backed by violence. If you resist consistently, there will eventually be a point where they'll physically impose their will violently. Perhaps even kill you depending on the degree of resistance.

The state has co-opted ownership of roads. Hence, it's all fucked up.

In a free society, the owner of a road would be able to specify the speed limits and the user and the owner could agree to the repercussions of any violations of those conditions.

 

[Skylar]

Lets start with......speed limits and traffic laws.

Ultimately, its backed by violence. If you resist consistently, there will eventually be a point where they'll physically impose their will violently. Perhaps even kill you depending on the degree of resistance.

The state has co-opted ownership of roads. Hence, it's all fucked up.

In a free society, the owner of a road would be able to specify the speed limits and the user and the owner could agree to the repercussions of any violations of those conditions.

So that's a no then on traffic laws? They shouldn't ever exist.

 

[Centinel]

When the choice is starvation or submission and exploitation, you're using the violence of starvation to compel obedience.

Save for a Libertarian, they bullshit themselves on it. Insisting that *technically* they're weren't compelling anyone. Because *technically* they weren't the one applying the violence of starvation. The body of the person they were compelling and exploiting would do it for them.

Which, of course, is pure chickenshit.

Worse, because of this moral abdication of responsibility for violence.......libertarianism can justify *far* more severe degrees of abuse and exploitation than most systems. Pretty much anything up to and including direct killing....as long as the person in question was desperate enough to agree to the abuse. You can quite literally sell yourself into slavery. And as long as your signature is on the contract where you gave up your freedoms, that's 'consent'.

Of course. The idea of order within a nation and between them being maintained with snuggles and unicorn kisses is historically unjustified. And violence or the threat of violence is method by which societies are ultimately organized.

What separates me from Libertarians is two fold. First, I don't bullshit myself on it. I own it. And the recognition of the application of violence mandates that its application be moderated and responsible. Where as a libertarian can justify pretty much any abuse if they can slap the white wash of 'consent' on it. I can't. There are degrees of abuse and exploitation that are unjustified.

Second, I recognize that any concentration of unchecked power will be abused eventually. Government power. Religious power. Personal power. Financial power. Any of it. And that the greatest degree of practical freedom is found in a balance between concentrations of power, where each is checked by the others. With power being diffused, ridiculously difficult to truly consolidate, and hideously inefficient to wield. .

Whereas a libertarian fully recognizes the abuses possible by government authority. But has an almost child like obliviousness for concentrations of personal power. Having no real checks on them save their binary conceptions of 'consent'. And these concentrations of personal power have and will be hideously abused if left unchecked.

To which a libertarian will shrug and scratch their nuts.

I don't see why it is my fault that another person is starving. Given that, if I offer to give him money in return for a service, I can't see why you would consider offering a less-well-off person money to be a bad thing.

Regarding your use of the word "power", could you please provide a definition? That would help me to adequately respond to your post.