If only there was a few million of you on every school campus doing this; you've clearly caused a lot of people to think of something they never bothered to before. Very well done sir.
I've used this logic in so many arguments. It really is eye opening for some people. I think the problem is, most people don't think about government as force. Because it's so indirect. It's very well camouflaged force, so people can swallow that pill. But pointing out to people how it is the same as stealing from someone yourself fundamentally, is like exposing them to the Matrix for the first time. Overwhelming, and they wonder if they should have taken the blue pill.
***** Absolutely. I live in Quebec, Canada myself. I don't make much money, about $16,000 a year. At this income, I basically pay no income tax. Last year I had the opportunity to work more, increasing my income by about $10,000. If I had taken that, my tax bill for the year would have been $4,500. Yeah, no. Not worth working that much harder for 55% of what I earned. It really is insane.
+UnknownXV This is an argument for a reform of the progessive tax rate, not the tax system itself. The thing about taxes is that the money has not been yours to begin with. You are just collecting it on its behalf. For Deontologists that may be hard or even impossible to accept, however (most) Utilitarians and Virtue Ethicists don't have a problem with it as long as it increases utility/virtue in the end. Of course the taxes have to be used efficiently, which is not always the case. That's why transparency and a strong civil society are central to a democracy. Are you arguing for a nightwatcher state or no state at all?
A Ton Money is a representation of my economic energy. When I work, I am paid in currency instead of food, rent, clothes, etc. It's just a medium of exchange. If I work for it, if I obtain it fairly, it is entirely mine. Who else would the fruits of my labor belong to?
recynd77 Does the "all or nothing" approach really count as "thinking" in your book? What if an electronic device wouldn't be working the way it should, are using it in a broken state and throwing it away the only two options?
Michael Haimerl Are you using a malfunctioning or faulty electronic device as an allegory of corrupt government? If so, I think you're assuming that governments aren't specifically designed to be corrupt. It is inherent in the incentive structures created by governments that they attract corrupt, parasitic and violent people into their fold. They attract thieves, murderers and con men, because those people stand to gain the most from becoming part of the government. The reason why governments don't 'work the way they should' is because they _can't_ work the way they're advertised to work. They aren't even the most efficient option towards accomplishing the things they purport to be necessary for.
HamsterPants522 While I agree that governments usually don't attract the brightest, I still think you exaggerate. What you say might be true for the US, because everyone in power, be it politicians, judges or police officers has a tendency to abuse their power and get away with it, but this is not true for every government around the world. You would be surprised to see for what reasons some of them lose their jobs. Concerning the efficiency, I think there are things where they can be more efficient than the private sector, and that is financing of things like infrastructure for example. I'd rather pay taxes than having a toll booth on every corner. You can still get roads build by private companies though, which is preferable in my opinion.
Michael Haimerl *"While I agree that governments usually don't attract the brightest"* Well I never said that. The people in government are very smart. They get to make tons of money without putting in any effort whatsoever. Sounds pretty smart to me.
HamsterPants522 Smart for a politician, yes. But when I say not the brightest, I mean they do not have what the private sector is looking for. They just found a niche where they can prosper. Lot's of talking that sounds smart, but not a lot of knowledge.
"It's ok for the government to use force, when it's ok for you to use force. But when it's not ok for you to use force, then maybe it's also not ok for the government to use force." The most logical statement I've ever heard.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison
@@karlzipp181 no! lol thats not what he said at all. its what people consent to give to or agree to. you can have a large government that people agree unanimously.
It is so eye opening that most of the answers comes down to "That's just the way society is". This is an excellent video. Truly one of the best I've ever seen.
Think of the government as a vampire. Government doesn't really create wealth, it just takes taxes to survive, laws to rule, and an army/police to enforce.
Jon Electronic toll collection (ETC) has been around since the 90s in Japan; it's not hard to imagine solutions where tolling is automated without having drivers stopping at every intersection. Plus public roads are not free, you just don't realize the costs because they're obfuscated by taxes, inflation and government debt. And with a state service, not only is it a financial cost, but it's also opportunity costs (due to coercive monopoly taking away competitive or innovative solutions that could advance society); and increasing debt costs future generations because they have to pay not only for themselves but for people who died long before they were born. If I pay you to do a job and you take my money but also take out a loan against my children, did you really do the job?
hag12100 The Government may not create wealth directly, but it does do some things that allow everyone to be wealthier then they would be otherwise. For example, governments create institutions that allow for economic growth. Consider the tort system. Suppose we make a deal where you give me money, and then I fix your house. Then I take your money, but then do not fix your house. With the tort system you can sue me, and you therefore have a means of redress. Without the tort system you would have to resort to other means to get me to pay what I owe you. With these kinds of systems in place people are more willing to make deals knowing that if the other person defaults they have a way to avoid being ruined. Therefore more deals are made and the world is a better place.
Well done. My props to the prof. I have similar discussions with folks. It is incredible the metal gymnastics people will go through to make it moral for government to destroy liberty, life and wealth.
The constitution gives the government the right to tax individuals and spend that on certain things, specifically defined within the constitution. As citizens we all agree to live by the constitution. All government officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution. The problem is that the government has gone far beyond what the constitution allows it to do, and we have allowed it for the obscure reasons these students gave. Government officials have violated their oath by doing this, and citizens have been negligent in allowing it to happen.
+12over7 If you haven't seen it already, our video with Prof. Nigel Ashford on public choice theory and social contract: ruclips.net/video/ffJFNEujeL4/видео.html He articulates a lot of what you just expressed.
+12over7 You are correct, Sir, the gov't "has gone far beyond" its Constitutional authorities. But, the Constitution authorizes the U.S. gov't to tax "incomes." Per a number of Supreme Court rulings, "income" is derived from Privileged-Activity... and NOT Private-Activity. Privilege-Activity is connected to the U.S. gov't. Private-Activity is NOT connected to the U.S. gov't. (The Statutory/legal definition is operative... NOT the Webster's Dictionary definition/idea of "everything that comes in.") Analogies for you: I mow the grass around your house, and you pay me $10. This is Private-Activity, therefore it isn't Court-defined ("Statutory") "income". - Change that scenario to me being on a U.S. payroll and I mow grass, trim bushes, plant flowers, etc.. This is Privileged: My pay comes from the U.S.Treasury. - Change it again: I'm a lawn contractor. I mow around several U.S. gov't buildings, BUT... I also do home yard contracts. The gov't contract is Privileged, but I'm not directly on the payroll: This is Self-Employment (because the pay is coming out of the U.S.Treasury.) But... the home yard work is still Private-Activity. - Let's add to this last scenario: I also mow around several State Capitol buildings. Is that Privileged Activity ? No. The money is coming from the State Treasury, so it's still Private-Activity, because the "activity" and pay is not connected to the U.S. gov't. These differences were designed that way, on purpose: to keep funding of the U.S. gov't small... to keep the gov't small. One can learn more about what the "income tax" at LostHorizons .com
+12over7 But things do change, and our government is constantly evolving. To say that in 1800's they knew what the proper size for government was for all of time is naive at best. Could the founding fathers imagine companies (companies didn't exist then) that were worth more than a countries GDP, that would willingly dump toxic material into the ground? As our society has become much more complex, and really, the rate of complexity is increasing much faster than the 1800s, we need to adapt. Hedge funds didn't exist, automatic weapons, chemical weapons, internet... these things are things that were never even imagined. But we gave government a way to expand so that it could. Do you honestly think that people in the 1800s could foresee the complexity of society today? This seems very backwards to me, and very dogmatic. Like "god wrote the 10 commandments, so that is all that we should ever need for any laws". I mean even in the bible they expanded on the 10 commandments into 2 books of laws. I, for one, think government should punish companies that pollute my drinking water, which was not in the original constitution. Do you believe a company should be legally allowed to dump toxic materials into the drinking water? If you answer no, then you are just as bad as the people in this video. To liberty lovers, the proper action is to get sick from drinking toxic water, then citizens would have to research and prove it was that specific company doing it, of course you can't go onto their private property, which makes things difficult. So which is better? Regulations saying you can't dump toxic materials into the drinking water? or should a citizen have to pay an investigation in order to sue the company that is doing it?
+bluefootedpig "But we gave government a way to expand so that it could." Which is what? That the government has no rules at all and the constitution is utterly irrelevant? Is that your idea of an optimal government?
+bluefootedpig Your assumption is that government is the only mechanism that can build roads, operate schools, punish corporations which pollute, etc. Why?
A past co-worker in the Navy used to argue the point that he never had any kids and he gets no benefit from paying towards the schools and teacher's union, yet the families with kids get tax breaks essentially making it twice as hard on him.
I am a single dad and a journey man cement mason and 3rd year ticketed Bricklayer... volunteer journalist, human rights activist and life skills coach... what I'm saying comes from their rules from their books anyone can go to the law library, anyone can goto the Government website and read what they use to govern...a law dictionary is not the same as a school dictionary legalizes is not English....it's a separate language
I wish to applaud the editing of this video. Too many of these "man on the street" videos are edited to mock people or focus on some ignorance revealed through the interview. This one actually dwelled on the interviewees for a significant amount of time and showed people working through a process...one that really does not present a clear "yes" or "no" answer. I was impressed to see these young people recognize and work with the dilemma presented. The hope is that they never stop thinking critically about these issues.
@@coolbeans6148 They use it to buy votes for re-election and favor with the corporations where the money goes then the corp pays them with inside information, campaign contributions, or cushy jobs when they quit their public job.
This phenomenon is best described by Kahneman and Tversky's nobel prize winning work on how humans actually think (check out the book "Thinking fast and slow"). People rarely put great effort into thought. They put in only as much effort as is required to solve the problems they are facing. Thinking is hard work, so we do it only when we anticipate benefits from doing so. When it comes to thinking about government, a big, complex system over which we have very little individual control, people don't see an obvious reason why they should think deeply about it. At a glance, things seem to be working. On the other hand, people do think about the social arrangements they have with friends. They know they have power to change them. They can see the problems, and they are empowered to address them. So, they think about them. Philosophy provides the well-reasoned arguments, but it's psychology that explains why people are not naturally inclined to discover these arguments for themselves.
What is missing from this discussion is: (1) the intrinsic cost vs benefit of living in a society (2) human nature The benefits of society are obvious. We enjoy having roads, sewage systems, police, power, postal service etc. But this comes at a cost that must be divided up and paid for by the individuals in that society. This brings me to human nature. If you get the benefits of living in a society, but you are not forced to pay for these benefits, then you probably won’t. Especially if your neighbour doesn’t. Why should you pay for all these good things when he pays nothing and still enjoys all the benefits. That’s why government must assume the role of enforcement. Moreover, government must assume this role for the sake of justice. If it was left up to the individual we end up with vigilantism. To keep the government in check we appeal to democracy in deciding how we want the government to act. Yes, you will have to pay for things that the majority want but you don’t. That’s a necessary compromise you trade for societal benefits. Perfection is elusive. However, the overall result is the best result you can expect since everyone must endure such compromise. Your argument fails because you can’t extrapolate everything out and neglect the economy of scale. New considerations enter into the model and you must factor these as I have described above.
Great process for getting people thinking! I personally believe it’s OK to let the government force us to give to group causes (taxes) but it also OK for the people to constrain through legislation which causes and which amounts are acceptable.
I think I'm in the same boat as you here. I believe that *somebody* forcing another to pay towards group causes is necessary for maintaining a large modern society, and the only real question that's left is to *whom* we delegate the authority to apply this force. Just delegating it to the same entity to whom we've delegated the sole authority to initiate violence seems like a plausible answer, although one can play with the idea of more independent bodies. Maybe a country's revenue service should have its own "president" who gets elected by the people, rather than being appointed by the spending-arm of the government as today?
In a truly free society the Government cannot force it's citizens, at least those who abide the law, to do anything, it is through mutual consent that we agree to be taxed under the auspice that that tax revenue will be used to the benefit of all, anything beyond that is immoral. Today, we do not have that freedom.
some of these people are fools. Our earned income was never meant to be taxed! guess what!? before taxes, we still had roads and schools! Shocker!!!!!!!!
In modern times we can go one step further and have direct tariffs where people pay to use the roads or some shared system. It could cover public water or waste disposal. There is a thousand things it could cover. And if you do not use it you do not pay for it.
There are services that the government provides for public benefit, and it is proper to pay taxes to pay for that. However, giving tax dollars to special interest which benefits only a few is wrong. Yet we see this all the time.
Such a brilliantly elegant way of getting people to think about the whole premise of taxation and even government! It is amazing to see how such a simple exercise got people to start to question something that we just automatically assumed was natural and moral.
Give that young man in the blue shirt and reversed hat an award (at 4.44). He actually showed some critical thinking, and appeared to learn from this experience.
This is a great video. One way to make government agencies more efficient and responsive to the voter is to have every agency compete for the tax dollar. Suppose you keep the tax system the same as it is now but allow each tax payer to allocate his or her tax dollars in whatever proportion they wish. That way, every government department headed by a member of the cabinet has to reach out to the tax payer and improve their service or product offering in order to get a bigger share of the tax pie. Competition between government departments will improve efficiency and cut waste. For example, if the department of education had to compete for tax dollars wouldn't they do more to improve test scores for high school graduates? If HUD had to compete for tax dollars wouldn't they be able to offer more housing units to the poor more efficiently?
I understand the idea behind why these guys made this video and for the most part agree with the premise. And while I'm for minimal government, I think the guy asking questions kinda overstepped in the sense that there are basic responsibilities that the government has. Those basic responsibilities must be paid for in tax dollars. Although I have a similar if not the exact same belief of Milton Friedman who believed it was fine that we pay taxes as long as we got something that held equal value back. So for basic things like Military and Foreign affairs, we should pay for those things because we're kept safe because of them. Any promises that are made by politicians should include an approximate price for the project itself, that way the people can keep them in check, and pay the taxes that are only equal to anything needed for the budget of such things. Perhaps it would be difficult to keep track of, but it would be a much more effective and cost efficient way of making physical things happen on the government's part. And such a thing would also apply to politicians and bueracrats as well. They should get a much lower pay and implemented in the tax collected. If these things wouldn't work, then perhaps charging a fixed tax percentage and using that as a baseline federal budget would work instead. But sadly politicians seem to make being a politician the only thing that they do. When in fact, most of the original founding fathers either owned land, businesses, were massive intellectuals, or had massive influence, aka, things that contributed to the overall bettering or worsening of the people. They had stakes in matter because if they screwed laws and policies up, they screwed themselves up. Now it just seemed all of them are just passing laws just to pass laws, not for any real moral reason, but just to say that they did because they have no other goals or ventures. So we wind up with retarded and stupid laws, causing people to become angry and/or confused. Idk. Maybe I'm just a stupid kid with stupid ideas. But I thought they sounded alright.
The problem with this video is that it doesn't differentiate between the legitimate and illegitimate use of government force with regard to taxation. Namely, we as the taxpayers have hired politicians to organize and pay the suppliers of public goods and services, i.e. those that build and maintain public infrastructure, then firefighters, police officers, soldiers, doctors, nurses, judges, etc. Meaning, using taxation, i.e. government force, to collect money for salaries and revenue of these people is legit since they invested their labor and material resources into goods and services that we as taxpayers use. Basically, we as citizens are in debt to these people and using force to collect a debt is legitimate. But, bit by bit, the politicians started to abuse taxation system by imposing high taxes on citizens and seizing their property well above the debt citizens owe to the above mentioned people. Money collected with this abuse, the politicians use like it is their own, by sending it to the pockets of people that belong to the specific social groups related to ideological interests of politicians, be it: immigrants, single moms, poor people, crony capitalists, farmers, civil rights activists, etc. Now, since citizens owe no debt to these people, there is no rational bases for the politicians to use force and seize property of citizens to fund them. Instead, politicians and those who support their ideologies, must use their private money to fund people in these social groups. Since politicians don't do that, but instead, they fund these groups with money they seized from the citizens via taxation, this represents the illegitimate use of government force. Besides tax money, the politicians also abuse social security funds, whose legitimate purpose is payment on the bases of disability or old-age insurance, by extending payments to young and healthy individuals who are capable of working (so-called poor people). Since participation in social security is mandatory, funding mentioned individuals with social security funds also represents the illegitimate use of government force.
We need to go back to the original bargain agreed upon before our government was formed officially. That government has no place telling people what they should be doing with their lives and money. They should only focus on what we shouldn't be doing (as specifically and deliberately explained in the first amendments to the constitution). I'm a fundamentalist. Replace all instances of Men stated in the constitution with Citezens of this Country, but other than that don't change a damn thing. Taxes are used (both state and federal, and even local) to keep to the original bargain and that bargain is to provide national, state and local police as well as an army, navy, national and coast guard to keep this nations citizens clearly defined rights from being infringed. To protect against those who would do so, whether foreign or domestic. All other programs should be regulated and controlled by the basis of the free market system because by nature these things will be forced to operate on transparency and accountability to those they wish to purchase what they provide. Such a system also ensures a high level of innovation and affordability via competition. Monopolies by their very nature tend to infringe on our rights as consumers (or, in the case of social media, our rights period) and it's frustrating to learn that the government has been in bed with big business for a long time and in many instances has BECOME the monopoly. We voted in Trump for more than the fact that half the country's nerves had officially been grated on by this authoritarian, identitarian pc culture. He asked the right questions and promised the right things and despite the fact that he's been fought against tooth and nail by both democrats as well as never trumper republicans, he's actually managed to accomplish a lot.
It is always more valuable to give in person. Show interest in a person or a problem. Don't force others to give when you display no interest in solving it beyond giving money or having it forcibly extracted. The old way of the left was kind of like the song that said, "Come on, people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another..." Nowadays, it's, "I will pay the government to hire someone to care." Pretty awful. I think most people would agree.
A reason that people changed answers at the second question is because the government represents the people, however whether they actually do a good job doing it is another story.
madman3891 People vote. In a democracy, a pure majority wins. The minority is not represented. In a republic, people vote although through a delegate system not always the majority wins. No matter what system you have there will always be minorities who didn't win.
UnknownXV Milton Friedman put it very nicely. Does the 51% have the right to steal from the 49%? How about 99% vs 1%? When you are an altruist / collectivist / utilitarian, you ascribe moral justification to others, or to the majority, or to whatever makes the most people happy. When you're an individualist / liberal / objectivist, you recognize that your rational self interest is above the desires of others, your liberty and property rights are out of the reach of any majority, and the morality of an action is not related to who or how many it satisfies but depends on the principles that underpin it. These two views are trying to optimize different things. I can see situations where both views would seem problematic. It's easy to debunk the collectivist view: it seems wrong for 8 men to rob 2 men, or for 800 to rob 200. It also seems wrong for 1 man to horde mounts of food in his house when everyone outside is starving and begging for food. But I'm a liberal, because I believe that people should still convince the hoarder to give up some of his food voluntarily, and usually this is easy to do, because it is in his own rational self-interest to live among happy people. If you allow them to steal from him, then others will later steal from them. If you allow the violation of the rights of 1 person, you allow the violation of anyone's and everyone's rights.
Edit: Responding to the question "Why does government get bigger?". The government provides a powerful narrative. Of protecting people against all kinds of harms. People ask the government to grow all the time. They believe in the promise of government that it can prevent negative outcomes.
I think a way to fix this debate is to allow people to allocate their tax money to what is important to them. A tax form that has items you want your tax money spent on. You would eventually see where people would prefer their money to be spent, example for a municipality: roads, schools and education, welfare, etc. You could pick all items which would divvy up your tax funds to each one or pick just a few and again it would be divided evenly into the items you chose.
You hit the nail right on the head. However, one must ask, what is government but a monopoly on the legal initiation of force? All of our interactions with society need to be voluntary to be logically consistent.
HitmannDDD Gov't is a lot besides the monopoly on force. In the US and other republics we have a charter or constitution meant to describe the mechanisms of government,and the limit the arenas where gov't may act. A judiciary that restricts the use of gov force. An election mechanism that allows the representatives of a voting majority to legislate when force is to be applied, and an executive intended to wield that force sparingly and with justice. The fundamental problem is that once the monopoly on force exists, it tends to erode the protection mechanisms and accrete added powers never intended - and no one can stop it. The corruption that has occurred isn't so much about personal aggrandizement as the attraction of taking more power toward ends that the office occupants 'feel' are good. This path is paved with good intention, not ill. So for example we have the creation of social security, the war on drugs, the patriot act, the NDAA, the ACA. Each of these extra-constitutional acts is sold to the public via pandering - appealing to fears or wants. So legislators create and executives enforce these, and rather strangely the judiciary ignores the law & Constitution and accedes to popular sentiment too. Representative democracy doesn't work well.
It would have been interesting to ask if it should be a centralized Federal taxation or State / local. I was glad to see the critical thinking of the students.
It's not that it's moral for government to force people to give to charity of _my_ choice, but it is moral for government to force people to give money to fund the _collective_ choice as decided by our representatives in congress. Aside from the necessary services it provides (law & order, defense, etc.) it can legitimately fund infrastructure/education that provide benefits to all and social services that help the poor (which reduces crime and is a moral end of itself).
+HumbleVladimirTheGreat A lot of limited government advocates would agree with you. You mentioned collective choice. Does that also imply that there is such a thing as collective guilt or responsibility? Collective mind or conscience? Should you be held accountable for what somebody else does as a representative of the government which claims you as its citizen?
+Learn Liberty There is a limited amount of collective guilt/responsibility. It is our moral responsibility as citizens to speak out against atrocities committed by our government (protests against war, cover-ups, etc. are moral) and to legally try to change it through political participation. I say this is a limited responsibility because of course you should not be directly punished for what a representative of your government does, although indirect consequences occur naturally (bad decisions made by our representatives do have repercussions felt by the population). Collective consciousness is a fascinating philosophical idea, the collective intelligence of modern machine learning systems, crowd-sourced applications, provide many benefits over relying on the intelligence of an individual, and I also believe in the idea of a collective unconscious posited by Carl Jung.
+HumbleVladimirTheGreat wouldn't this also mean that we as the people are responsible for the horrible decisions our representatives make even if we didn't vote for them? or what if we did? would this also mean we are responsible for every insistent person wrongfully executed for things they didn't do even if we where against it? are you sure you really think that people are guilty of things they didn't even do? because you cant say that its okay for government to collect money for a cause we don"t agree unless you also say we are guilty when the government makes mistakes we didn't agree with.
+HumbleVladimirTheGreat It is never moral to force anyone to do anything they do not wish to do. Governments are the most immoral organizations on the planet.
Here's the formulated answer to that question - it is ok for the government to use force because the government has a monopoly on violence. Monopoly on violence is necessary as it is a threat preventing the majority of people from also using violence. This whole Hobbesian line of arguementation seems to be explaining the phenomena you demonstrated in the video. I do not necessarily think that it is true, but it is something important to consider in the Libertarian school of thought
Sounds great. Should we have unilateral peace on a personal level? Sure. Then why not declare unilateral peace and disarm on a national level. Sure. Go ahead and enact unilateral peace and see how long it takes before you are conquered. Will the conqueror allow you to ask thought provoking philosophical questions? NO.
Great to let students/people think about this question... I have a bit of a double feeling on the use of the word "cause" though, which kind of misleads the conversation into thinking that government spending is the same as donating money to a cause. When talking about a cause to donate money to, we usually think of causes to support where there are no/limited government support systems for, but do feel it is important. Kind of a wealth problem, now the government has organized most of our existential needs. Let´s see what we have to say about forcing other people to support causes when the government doesn´t support any causes like health care, education, transportation, public safety, etc, (where we pay tax for, with indeed some force in order to maintain the system).
Good video. I liked backward hat guy's logic, identifying himself as government (by the people, etc.). A valuable lesson in the power of juxtaposition.
the answer is really simple. There is a difference between a random individual forcing others to donate to a specific cause and the government doing it. And the difference is that I get to choose representatives that are part of the government through voting. While there are flaws with representation, such as distributed costs and concentrated benefits, fundamentally there *is* a difference between these two things.
The signature is written in the blood of strikers in the three 1934 General Strikes (Social Security Act of 1935) and the Blood of Black people fighting for equality in the 1960's "Great Society Programs".
@@ABQSkywatcher "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." Karl Marx Does that sound 'beta' to you?
very interesting question as one needs to justify a different position in light of the 2 questions. outside the fact that there is tons of government spending on with each being its own concern,the best idea I can answer is that non rival goods have to be taxed in order to be enjoyed,otherwise most people can reap the benefits of the goods without the payment of such. hence no one would pay for it.
Taxation is theft. You don't give it, they take it, whether you agree or not. People need to start asking some very basic questions regarding the nature of government, and what it is supposed to represent. If government is the collective will of the people, and the collective exercise of our individual rights, how is it possible for the government to exercise a right or power which we the people do not have? How can we delegate a power which is not innately our own, individually? For example, I have the natural right to self defense. Because I have this right, I can authorize the government to defend me if I need help. I DO NOT have the right to beat up my neighbors, so I CAN NOT authorize the government to do that on my behalf. Similarly, I have the right to give to any cause I feel is worthy of my dollars. I do NOT have the right to force my neighbor to give to my cause if he doesn't want to, NOR can I authorize the government to do so on my behalf.
+JulianBaynes1 I basically agree with what you're saying, but out of curiosity may I ask whether you've ever formally studied logic? I find most people who evoke the word haven't made any rigorous attempt at logic or philosophy, but take for granted that they are "logical" thinkers.
I think the difference when it comes to the government is that there are things that we would like to have in place for our interactions in society that it would be hard for us to pay for by ourselves, or even with a group of others. The reason why people feel like they've agreed and that they trust the government is because they recognize that there are things which society enjoys that exist because of the funds we pay into the government. The issue comes when people feel like they can't trust the government because it is using those funds improperly. Then we come to realize that there is no real contract that we signed and instead its more of an implicit agreement that is sometimes followed, on the side of the government, and sometimes not. Unfortunately, people on the whole tend to be somewhat lazy and even if we personally had the funds available to pay to create a school for our children, roads for our travel to work, and the like, we would much rather lay that responsibility on an entity like a government than go through the work of finding the people and resources necessary in order to build these things. Having a government allows working people to keep working rather than involve themselves in the intricacies of large scale projects. Some individuals will devote the resources to create private institutions, but the rest of us can't depend on then. We can depend on a government. Somewhat. Always helps to pair that optimism with a little bit of cynicism.
we are all born into this world cold, naked, and hungry. the only way we have to survive, apart from charity, is to trade the one thing we innately own, our selves and our ability to work, for all the other things we don't have. If you can justify taking the fruits of my labor, in any degree, the only thing stopping you from taking ALL my fruits is your beneficence and my willingness to fight. Income taxation is antithetical to freedom. Other sorts of taxation, such as VAT, allow the person to participate or not. It is also still "progressive" since the rich pay taxes on yachts that poor people don't and shopping at the goodwill wouldn't amount to much or could be, along with necessities, be exempted all together.
In people's mind, government = God, that's perhaps why? God is the one deciding on laws, rights, benefits and privileges... In society, that's seems to be the role of government... Therefore, one fears and trust in government religiously... The proper role of government isn't being taught in school growing up...
These would have been my answers to his line of questioning. "Is it moral to force others to give to the cause of your choice? When discussing this on individual level, as in myself personally, forcing someone else to contribute to a cause I deem worth supporting, no, it is not moral to do so. Because, morally speaking, I am equal to that other person. "Is it moral for the government to force others to give to the cause of your choice?" Yes, absolutely. We already do this with other causes as is, through taxation, think of taxes that pay for roads, schools, hospitals. If the government were to do this, it would be no different. "But why is it moral for the government to do so, and not you as in individual?" Because unlike myself, the government has been given the authority, either directly or indirectly, by it's very citizenry, to enact policies and allocate whatever resources however it sees fit. I don't have that authority, nor the backing of the collective populace to do the same. This is most commonly known as - the social contract. As an individual we've entered it from the moment of our birth, as a citizen of this nation. It really is that simple. And yes, there is a way out of this social contract. It's called leaving. This is when you rescind all the privileges granted to you by this government, and in exchange don't have to deal with the responsibilities associated with said government, like having to contribute to this cause. But just be aware that if you do, good luck finding someplace where you won't have to accept some form of this social contract. There's a government in pretty much every continent on this planet. The odds are more likely, that you'll have to some form of social contract somewhere else. And there's reason why that is the case. It is because at some point, humans decided that the primary law of nature: "Might makes right" doesn't work for us collectively. So we created the institution known as "government", to create and enforce the rule of law. Now I know you're probably thinking, that in essence, government has just a clever extension of the same natural rule: "Might makes right." Because it's usually the case that a government has more strength than a single solitary individual (the military, a police force, so on). And you'd be half right. The half, you're correct about - is that yes, a (efficient) government does tend to have more strength than any of it's individual citizens. And yes, the primary basis of a government's authority, is force. Because otherwise, a private citizen or a handful of private citizens with more firepower than the government could just disregard it's authority, and do whatever they wanted, regardless of the laws put in place at the behest of the rest of the collective populace. And indeed, it is very possible, that a government bases the entirety of it's authority solely on force (see: Monarchies, Dictatorships). Because the use of force, is what is referred to in Latin as, "Ultima Ratio Regum!" In other words, the last argument of Kings. Which brings me to the half which you would be incorrect about - not all governments rely solely on the use of force, and therefore they are not solely using the "Might makes Right" argument of nature. Before the use of force, their authority is derived from the perceived wishes of the people, usually reflected through voting (see Republics, Democracies). In that instance, what they are doing is right - because it has been agreed upon by the enough of the populace as the best course of action. And the beauty of these types of governments is that if you disagree with them using their entrusted authority to contribute to my cause, there is an easy way to change the course of action this government takes - voting the people in government out of power and replacing them with people who think like you and will change the law, or perhaps gathering others who think like you together to forcefully overthrow said government, thus making the government incapable of forcing others to contribute to the cause. Because ultimately, the governments only there because the people want it to be, and therefore it makes the rules. And if you, or anyone else doesn't like it... do something about it. "Every country has the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre.
yeah, many run on tolls and are just fine. I think some ppl just push the "it's all okay exactly how it already is" statement as a denial defense mechanism to avoid stress of having to dislike the way things are and be unhappy or feel a duty to push changes. Or feel like what mommy said when they were 5 is right b/c mommy is always right. Another sentiment that same clown implied was, "don't worry, you paying for MY and my friends' 'education' benefits YOU." Lol
@@robinsss Then they lose out on the tolls they would have gotten. Since that would be a particularly unpopular position, other road users will change routes, losing the bigoted toll road operators even more money, possibly making them broke.
It is a "social contract" in between the society and the government legitimized under the constitution. The problem is when the government surpasses those granted rights we all agree on to tax and take far more money it should take.
To me this is more a sad statement of how poor our colleges are at training students to think, and when these kids are presented with any structured argument, their spoon-fed knowledge leaves them unarmed. The difference between one person using force to give another person's money away and the Government is that ideally the Government is acting on behalf of the majority's wishes. According to the utilitarianism philosophy, moral action is that which maximizes utility to the whole, and thus it could be moral for a Government to force others to give, but not an individual. This is not to say I agree with utilitarianism, but being aware of other perspectives and schools of thought arms me with being able to think on these "difficult questions."
Eric Gragsone "According to the utilitarianism philosophy, moral action is that which maximizes utility to the whole"... How does utilitarian philosophy base any claim of morality ?
From my perspective, college is an excellent way to indoctrinate young people about the real world before they enter the work force and start contributing to society and getting taxes stolen from them. I gotta hand it to those socialist jerks - their brainwashing methods are effective.
Eric Gragsone *"According to the utilitarianism philosophy, moral action is that which maximizes utility to the whole, and thus it could be moral for a Government to force others to give, but not an individual."* Right, so majoritarianism. Tyranny of the majority. How about no?
Gamle Ole wrote “People who want to pay for all kinds of crap should be free to do so.” =========== There is nothing stopping people from paying for “all kinds of crap.” What makes you think they are not free to donate their money? THIS DUDE IS A FUCKIN’ GENIUS !!!!!!!!!!
First Excellent Survey! My first remarks where maybe a little to deep to understand. Remembering once a quote I saw I looked it up and would like to share it with you all. Yes, is was done by the founder of this country and its meaning is now as powerful today as was probably more then when he made it. Because back then we didn't have the educational society we have today. Love to hear others comment on this. I feel it is in direct response to this survey. Hope I am right? George Washington letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island - 1790 Category: Citizenship The citizens of the United States of America have the right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were by the indulgence of one class of citizens that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
There is something called authority. You learn that at home with your parents, who take care of you and make decisions for you before you were born and in exchange you obey, at Church where you learn a transcendent superior being has taken decisions that affect your life way before you ever existed and you have the choice to follow suit or not (although not without consequences in the future), at school where you learn to obey your elder strangers called teachers and professors. They all have held authority without your consent. Likewise government, in whichever form, also holds authority and does not need your consent, unless you are capable of contesting that authority.
Bah - I usually like Learn Liberty, but I feel like this argument doesn't hold water. 1. This argument would denigrate ALL government spending. Military, infrastructure, police, you name it. 2. This ignores the basic idea of social contract. The reason why the government has the right to use force to collect taxes from its populace is because the populous has power over the government. 3. This argument ignores the type of spending, which is important when speaking about government (this is why even if the majority voted to take away the rights of the minority, it would be illegal/immoral for the government to do so).
+Evan Witt There are plenty in the "individual liberty" tent who agree with you. For your own viewing pleasure, here is Prof. Nigel Ashford discussing the ideas of those who disagree with you: ruclips.net/video/1r99Ae6gmgg/видео.html
+Book Forge You're right, I can't imagine it working. But I don't think it's because "Government is a teat that I'm used to". I think it's because over the course of my almost 40 years on this earth, every time I've seen anything that is traditionally government run be privatized, it's always ended up far worse for the people who rely on that thing. It makes zero sense to me that once this losing equation is scaled to totality, it will all of a sudden reverse course and be beneficial. Examples of this kind of system are rare if even existent, but the ones closest approaching it are far from model societies that you'd want to live in.
+Evan Witt thats the point. taxation is theft. the social contract doesnt hold water. you mean to tell me, because i fell out of my mothers womb on this piece of dirt im obligated by some unwritten contract to pay money and have to abide by all these laws and rules, even though the other party in said contract can change the agreement at any time, change the prices, and toss me in jail if i refuse? do you know any legally binding contract that you can sell your unborn children into? find a court that would support any contract using the logic of the "social contract" and ill give you a unicorn.
@@dragonlance1121 All things are balance. Their is a point of diminishing return for anything. Lincoln said that for nearly everything, there are consequences, there is a little bad in the good and a little good in the bad, so that our constant diligence is required to weigh the details and consequence of a thing to the best of our ability. To put your question in such simplistic terms leaves too much room for absolutism. Those that say government is evil are telling us democracy doesn't work...oh really? Government we can fix with our vote, but as Lincoln also said, the great problem is to bring the people the real facts. The propagandists for deep pockets and special interests spin for fascist excess that would render our government control of special interest one trick ponies moot. That's corporatism or fascism, pick you term. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Uncontrolled no-holds-barred capitalism is exactly what our founding fathers tried to protect us from as the British East India company was just that...with the King as a primary stockholder and deck-stacker. Money has power whether we do or not. We either remain a strong democracy to control special interests and big money, or it will control us. For nature abhors a vacuum. ..................... It's the very top of the scale that tells us government is out to get the average man. It's time we turned our pitchforks in unison toward them at the top .001 percent and up, with their wannabees and subsequent propagandized useful idiots, that are pushing for Parker Brothers Monopoly rules. Everyone knows how that ends...with everything in a few hands. Saying government is evil neglects to mention that when it is, it's usually special interests with their fingers in the pie and on the scales that have made it so. Personally, I hate being herded like sheep for the benefit of a handful at the top. Take a look at the Powell Memo...and history professor Nancy MacLean's book Democracy In Chains, then there's Vice President Henry Wallace's 1944 NYT op/ed on the potential for fascism in this country. And see General Smedley Butler's account of the fascist coup attempt in the 30's against democracy during FDR, which he nearly single handedly thwarted. Then read Jefferson's 1816 letter to Samuel Kerchival. He also admonished us to study our history, for history knows, this has all been seen before. Better yet, do in reverse order...but any order will do.
@@dragonlance1121 Dan, you're fixated on evil government...or on your own greed. Democracy implies responsibility. There is a percentage of the common good we are responsible for at a general level. It's the commons of infrastructure for which everything else runs on. That's democracy...deal with it. The alternative is fascism when special interests do our thinking for us...like most on this sight that think they are geniuses for spouting the party line handed them by the Koch bros., etc. To say government is evil is to say democracy doesn't work, so the special interests whose only real goal is profit by Parker Bros. Monopoly rules should run the show...instead of the best people we can find to try to get things done for us instead of special interests trying to stack the deck in their own favor. Money has power whether we do or not, and nature hates a vacuum. We either keep a representative government that can control big money on our behalf, or it will control us...period. Those that point to evil government are blind to evil and self centered business who are one trick ponies for which democracy was created to control to limit their power over us. Get a clue chief. This nonsense of screwing up government to make it look bad so they can point is bullshit. It's propaganda to get useful idiots behind their band wagons marching to their tune. It's silly, stupid, fraudulent logic whipped up with shortsighted nonsense for simple minds. History knows. This has all been seen before, which is why Jefferson, among others, implored us to examine history so we might know ambition under every disguise it might adopt. Fascism is just the modern form of feudalism. They want us like surfs again...with no power and no voice. So...your either an idiots or a Russian troll, another poor dumbfuck just trying to make a living and selling his soul to do it. That's what fascism and or any form a totalitarianism does. Read Jefferson's 1816 letter to Samuel Kirchival for summary...if you're real anyway. And no, to put it plainly enough if you haven't gotten it yet, taxes are the price we pay for living in a representative democratic society. We either pay people to represent us and for infrastructure, or assholes take it our of our hides and our backs. Get a clue.
@@dragonlance1121 As simple as I can make it for you is that representative democracy is the answer...who is it again that's been telling us it isn't? Business interests are the ones that screw it up for their own benefit. And when crooks win, others either lose out or convert. Fraud is killing us as a country masking itself as righteous profit seeking. When we let them do it because we're to stupid or brain dead to know or care, we do it to ourselves. But I'm done letting them sell greed and tear down government that they've screwed up so they can point. It's a put-up job, a con, a game on their part. Authoritarian asshole whose only game is to win...and they throw democracy under the bus in the process. This circle jerk logic most here claim is righteous truth are full of it. And the clueless agree with the Russian shills in a fest of stupidity. Schmucks.
A thought on the idea that private industry "cares"...As Steve Forbes said in a recent Reason TV interview when speaking about free markets: "You may not love your neighbor but you want to sell to your neighbor." Private industry doesn't have to care about me, but if they want to do business with me in a free market they will have to produce a product I want at a price I am willing to pay in the face of competition for my business. As Jim Rohn used to say they are practicing "enlightened self-interest." They do what they do for their own interests, not mine, but I benefit because they must compete for my business.
I don't think it has anything to do with the idea that Government "represents the people" or are "looking out for the majority." In many cases, the Government is actually taking money from the majority and giving it to the minority. The varying answers from the two posed questions goes to the Randsian concept of giving up power to enter a relationship with another that benefits parties (e.g. a commensalistic or symbiotic relationship). As to the first question, if you force me to give you money, it doesn't matter that you are giving it to charity, people are generally opposed to it because the relationship doesn't benefit them, so they are not willing to cede such power to you. However, in the second question, you are now asking whether an entity that they are in a relationship with can do it, and their answer will depend on whether they think the relationship is beneficial to them and, accordingly, whether they are willing to yield some power to the entity because of the benefit. Citizen/Government is not the only example here - there is parent/child, husband/wife, infirmed/caregiver, etc. In history, there are other examples - serf/lord, monk/monastery, etc. We are all in a relationship with the Government, so the answer to the second question likely flows from whether I think the actions of the Government are beneficial to myself. A Classic Liberal (like myself) may believe that some government actions are necessary, but for the most part the discretionary acts of the Government tend towards waste and fraud and do not benefit them, and they are therefore much less likely to cede any power to the Government to make such decisions.
I think there are two ways to go about this. First is to differentiate between what is a public good and a charity. If there is such a way of drawing an objective line, this argument would be pretty much ended. You then limit the Gov role to only things that are a public goods (Roads, Police, Military etc), where the Democratic process would choose which public goods the Gov should then take on. Then charity and the public goods which aren't covered by Gov will be given over to the free market and citizenry. The second way that I can see, is to figure out which "charity" (using the implicit definition he is using in the video) is best covered by Gov. Which is pretty much how we are doing it right now through the Democratic process.
Sorry, I know I just left a comment, but to answer the question, I think the answer if to mandate the tithe. You can give your money to wherever you think it should go, without someone else reaching into your pocket to support their favorite charity. If someone feels that even this is wrong, fine. They can give their tithe to the Ayn Rand Institute.
It makes me weep that so many people on campus have broken or severely underdeveloped critical faculties. Even the dude who's ignorant enough to support PETA can work out the logical equivalency between the two questions. Also I was interested in the reasoning of the two people who said it was moral for them to force someone to give to the cause of their choice, and wondered if two out of such a small sample agree to that what percentage of the total population think that way.
Thanks for pointing those simple things out. Those forced taxes should rather be an optional in the tax form. People who want to pay for all kinds of crap should be free to do so.
To me, this is key to the "General Welfare" clause of the US Constitution. It is never ok to force others to give to things that they have no benefit from. "General Welfare" is very different that "Specific Welfare".
“An agreement, a social contract” I didn't sign any contract with the government to carry out any civic duty. What duty I have offered to the government was of my own free will. The rest, the government has stolen from me.
To be fair, one person did strike on an important reason for compelled taxation, which is the prisoner's dilemma issue behind common goods. If everyone benefits, such as for defense, why would someone "donate" if they received the same protection as when not donating.
Yep! Those are the same people who turn into looters. The police are gone, the repercussions are gone.... Those people get shot. Because the repercussions are NOT gone.
i understand your point about the morality of taxation,but i wonder,will the volunteering taxation be enough to properly fund things like police army and other public services? i am particularly curious about the army part.if a war happens will the nation have enough weapons and soldiers to defend itself?
It should be no surprise students think this way. They have been brought up and taught by people who depend on the government for their salaries. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
The problem is with this logic no taxes would be collected at all. I don't mind forcing people to pay tax on gasoline if the money from that tax is used to make an improved roads. Not all tax is used for arbitrary projects or endeavors. A good tax serves a purpose for the community. And a bad text serves a purpose for only a few individuals. This point is clearly overlooked in this video.
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
If only there was a few million of you on every school campus doing this; you've clearly caused a lot of people to think of something they never bothered to before.
Very well done sir.
Schools grade your ability to read, remember, repeat. Not think or reason. Logic does not give your grades. It gets you into trouble.
I've used this logic in so many arguments. It really is eye opening for some people.
I think the problem is, most people don't think about government as force. Because it's so indirect. It's very well camouflaged force, so people can swallow that pill. But pointing out to people how it is the same as stealing from someone yourself fundamentally, is like exposing them to the Matrix for the first time. Overwhelming, and they wonder if they should have taken the blue pill.
***** Absolutely. I live in Quebec, Canada myself. I don't make much money, about $16,000 a year. At this income, I basically pay no income tax.
Last year I had the opportunity to work more, increasing my income by about $10,000.
If I had taken that, my tax bill for the year would have been $4,500.
Yeah, no. Not worth working that much harder for 55% of what I earned.
It really is insane.
UnknownXV I would say come to Alberta where the taxes are lower, but that will probably no longer be true in 10 years. Also, the rent is insane!
+UnknownXV This is an argument for a reform of the progessive tax rate, not the tax system itself.
The thing about taxes is that the money has not been yours to begin with. You are just collecting it on its behalf.
For Deontologists that may be hard or even impossible to accept, however (most) Utilitarians and Virtue Ethicists don't have a problem with it as long as it increases utility/virtue in the end.
Of course the taxes have to be used efficiently, which is not always the case. That's why transparency and a strong civil society are central to a democracy.
Are you arguing for a nightwatcher state or no state at all?
A Ton Money is a representation of my economic energy. When I work, I am paid in currency instead of food, rent, clothes, etc. It's just a medium of exchange. If I work for it, if I obtain it fairly, it is entirely mine. Who else would the fruits of my labor belong to?
Good to see another thinker on here.
"But I trust the government." Famous last words.
Great job. Keep getting the kids to think...go anarchy!
recynd77 Does the "all or nothing" approach really count as "thinking" in your book? What if an electronic device wouldn't be working the way it should, are using it in a broken state and throwing it away the only two options?
Michael Haimerl Are you using a malfunctioning or faulty electronic device as an allegory of corrupt government? If so, I think you're assuming that governments aren't specifically designed to be corrupt. It is inherent in the incentive structures created by governments that they attract corrupt, parasitic and violent people into their fold. They attract thieves, murderers and con men, because those people stand to gain the most from becoming part of the government.
The reason why governments don't 'work the way they should' is because they _can't_ work the way they're advertised to work. They aren't even the most efficient option towards accomplishing the things they purport to be necessary for.
HamsterPants522 While I agree that governments usually don't attract the brightest, I still think you exaggerate. What you say might be true for the US, because everyone in power, be it politicians, judges or police officers has a tendency to abuse their power and get away with it, but this is not true for every government around the world. You would be surprised to see for what reasons some of them lose their jobs.
Concerning the efficiency, I think there are things where they can be more efficient than the private sector, and that is financing of things like infrastructure for example. I'd rather pay taxes than having a toll booth on every corner. You can still get roads build by private companies though, which is preferable in my opinion.
Michael Haimerl *"While I agree that governments usually don't attract the brightest"*
Well I never said that. The people in government are very smart. They get to make tons of money without putting in any effort whatsoever. Sounds pretty smart to me.
HamsterPants522 Smart for a politician, yes. But when I say not the brightest, I mean they do not have what the private sector is looking for. They just found a niche where they can prosper. Lot's of talking that sounds smart, but not a lot of knowledge.
It’s chilling to see the high percentage of authoritarian personalities among us. Though it explains the driving habits..
It’s amazing how far a little logic will go
It is! I’d like to know the results of this same experiment 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago etc.
Sus
Until about two years ago, I blindly trusted governments. I now have become sceptical about governments controlling too much.
Love that guy at 4:45. He realized he was holding two contradictory thoughts.
"It's ok for the government to use force, when it's ok for you to use force. But when it's not ok for you to use force, then maybe it's also not ok for the government to use force." The most logical statement I've ever heard.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison
Much less government = Good
@Damiel Oudnarine Hogwash. It depends on the role that government has.
No government = best.
@@username5502 Completely agree! :)
@@karlzipp181 don't be a drip, Zipp.
Gov't is inherently B A D .
@@karlzipp181 no! lol thats not what he said at all. its what people consent to give to or agree to. you can have a large government that people agree unanimously.
It is so eye opening that most of the answers comes down to "That's just the way society is".
This is an excellent video. Truly one of the best I've ever seen.
Think of the government as a vampire. Government doesn't really create wealth, it just takes taxes to survive, laws to rule, and an army/police to enforce.
Jon Compare a public road with a private road and you can tell the differences.
Jon Private industry tend to care more than the government.
Jon Electronic toll collection (ETC) has been around since the 90s in Japan; it's not hard to imagine solutions where tolling is automated without having drivers stopping at every intersection.
Plus public roads are not free, you just don't realize the costs because they're obfuscated by taxes, inflation and government debt. And with a state service, not only is it a financial cost, but it's also opportunity costs (due to coercive monopoly taking away competitive or innovative solutions that could advance society); and increasing debt costs future generations because they have to pay not only for themselves but for people who died long before they were born. If I pay you to do a job and you take my money but also take out a loan against my children, did you really do the job?
hag12100
The Government may not create wealth directly, but it does do some things that allow everyone to be wealthier then they would be otherwise.
For example, governments create institutions that allow for economic growth. Consider the tort system. Suppose we make a deal where you give me money, and then I fix your house. Then I take your money, but then do not fix your house. With the tort system you can sue me, and you therefore have a means of redress. Without the tort system you would have to resort to other means to get me to pay what I owe you.
With these kinds of systems in place people are more willing to make deals knowing that if the other person defaults they have a way to avoid being ruined. Therefore more deals are made and the world is a better place.
+Michael Eldredge I think you're precisely hitting on the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
Watching that guy become a libertarian in real time was the most beautiful moment I have seen in a long time.
red pill instant!!
Well done. My props to the prof.
I have similar discussions with folks. It is incredible the metal gymnastics people will go through to make it moral for government to destroy liberty, life and wealth.
6:11 she's shielding her eyes with her hand rather than putting the sunglasses on?
A true anarchist.
It's quite possible that she forgot that she had them. She is a college student, after all. lol
I don’t like talking to people with sunglasses on if they don’t have any on... idk if it’s just me.. I just think it’s kinda rude
The constitution gives the government the right to tax individuals and spend that on certain things, specifically defined within the constitution. As citizens we all agree to live by the constitution. All government officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution.
The problem is that the government has gone far beyond what the constitution allows it to do, and we have allowed it for the obscure reasons these students gave. Government officials have violated their oath by doing this, and citizens have been negligent in allowing it to happen.
+12over7 If you haven't seen it already, our video with Prof. Nigel Ashford on public choice theory and social contract: ruclips.net/video/ffJFNEujeL4/видео.html He articulates a lot of what you just expressed.
+12over7 You are correct, Sir, the gov't "has gone far beyond" its Constitutional authorities.
But, the Constitution authorizes the U.S. gov't to tax "incomes." Per a number of Supreme Court rulings, "income" is derived from Privileged-Activity... and NOT Private-Activity. Privilege-Activity is connected to the U.S. gov't. Private-Activity is NOT connected to the U.S. gov't.
(The Statutory/legal definition is operative... NOT the Webster's Dictionary definition/idea of "everything that comes in.")
Analogies for you:
I mow the grass around your house, and you pay me $10. This is Private-Activity, therefore it isn't Court-defined ("Statutory") "income".
- Change that scenario to me being on a U.S. payroll and I mow grass, trim bushes, plant flowers, etc.. This is Privileged: My pay comes from the U.S.Treasury.
- Change it again: I'm a lawn contractor. I mow around several U.S. gov't buildings, BUT... I also do home yard contracts. The gov't contract is Privileged, but I'm not directly on the payroll: This is Self-Employment (because the pay is coming out of the U.S.Treasury.) But... the home yard work is still Private-Activity.
- Let's add to this last scenario: I also mow around several State Capitol buildings. Is that Privileged Activity ? No. The money is coming from the State Treasury, so it's still Private-Activity, because the "activity" and pay is not connected to the U.S. gov't.
These differences were designed that way, on purpose: to keep funding of the U.S. gov't small... to keep the gov't small.
One can learn more about what the "income tax" at LostHorizons .com
+12over7 But things do change, and our government is constantly evolving. To say that in 1800's they knew what the proper size for government was for all of time is naive at best. Could the founding fathers imagine companies (companies didn't exist then) that were worth more than a countries GDP, that would willingly dump toxic material into the ground?
As our society has become much more complex, and really, the rate of complexity is increasing much faster than the 1800s, we need to adapt. Hedge funds didn't exist, automatic weapons, chemical weapons, internet... these things are things that were never even imagined. But we gave government a way to expand so that it could.
Do you honestly think that people in the 1800s could foresee the complexity of society today? This seems very backwards to me, and very dogmatic. Like "god wrote the 10 commandments, so that is all that we should ever need for any laws". I mean even in the bible they expanded on the 10 commandments into 2 books of laws.
I, for one, think government should punish companies that pollute my drinking water, which was not in the original constitution. Do you believe a company should be legally allowed to dump toxic materials into the drinking water? If you answer no, then you are just as bad as the people in this video.
To liberty lovers, the proper action is to get sick from drinking toxic water, then citizens would have to research and prove it was that specific company doing it, of course you can't go onto their private property, which makes things difficult.
So which is better? Regulations saying you can't dump toxic materials into the drinking water? or should a citizen have to pay an investigation in order to sue the company that is doing it?
+bluefootedpig "But we gave government a way to expand so that it could." Which is what? That the government has no rules at all and the constitution is utterly irrelevant? Is that your idea of an optimal government?
+bluefootedpig Your assumption is that government is the only mechanism that can build roads, operate schools, punish corporations which pollute, etc. Why?
A past co-worker in the Navy used to argue the point that he never had any kids and he gets no benefit from paying towards the schools and teacher's union, yet the families with kids get tax breaks essentially making it twice as hard on him.
I think you would get a different response from working adults
I am a single dad and a journey man cement mason and 3rd year ticketed Bricklayer... volunteer journalist, human rights activist and life skills coach... what I'm saying comes from their rules from their books anyone can go to the law library, anyone can goto the Government website and read what they use to govern...a law dictionary is not the same as a school dictionary legalizes is not English....it's a separate language
I wish to applaud the editing of this video. Too many of these "man on the street" videos are edited to mock people or focus on some ignorance revealed through the interview. This one actually dwelled on the interviewees for a significant amount of time and showed people working through a process...one that really does not present a clear "yes" or "no" answer. I was impressed to see these young people recognize and work with the dilemma presented. The hope is that they never stop thinking critically about these issues.
"But I trust the government"
I wish I could be this naïve...
And there is no accountability that the government will use the money wisely, and of course, they don't.
European governments arnet to bad.....Lichtenstein, Monaco, Malta have no property tax...
@@masterpalladin You a palladin in wow?
Because they have no incentive to use our money efficiently when they can just demand more.
@@masterpalladin Many European governments are terrible.
@@coolbeans6148 They use it to buy votes for re-election and favor with the corporations where the money goes then the corp pays them with inside information, campaign contributions, or cushy jobs when they quit their public job.
Avoid at all costs the two persons who put their tacks in the YES column on the left sign!
This phenomenon is best described by Kahneman and Tversky's nobel prize winning work on how humans actually think (check out the book "Thinking fast and slow"). People rarely put great effort into thought. They put in only as much effort as is required to solve the problems they are facing. Thinking is hard work, so we do it only when we anticipate benefits from doing so. When it comes to thinking about government, a big, complex system over which we have very little individual control, people don't see an obvious reason why they should think deeply about it. At a glance, things seem to be working.
On the other hand, people do think about the social arrangements they have with friends. They know they have power to change them. They can see the problems, and they are empowered to address them. So, they think about them.
Philosophy provides the well-reasoned arguments, but it's psychology that explains why people are not naturally inclined to discover these arguments for themselves.
What is missing from this discussion is:
(1) the intrinsic cost vs benefit of living in a society
(2) human nature
The benefits of society are obvious. We enjoy having roads, sewage systems, police, power, postal service etc. But this comes at a cost that must be divided up and paid for by the individuals in that society.
This brings me to human nature. If you get the benefits of living in a society, but you are not forced to pay for these benefits, then you probably won’t. Especially if your neighbour doesn’t. Why should you pay for all these good things when he pays nothing and still enjoys all the benefits. That’s why government must assume the role of enforcement.
Moreover, government must assume this role for the sake of justice. If it was left up to the individual we end up with vigilantism. To keep the government in check we appeal to democracy in deciding how we want the government to act.
Yes, you will have to pay for things that the majority want but you don’t. That’s a necessary compromise you trade for societal benefits. Perfection is elusive. However, the overall result is the best result you can expect since everyone must endure such compromise.
Your argument fails because you can’t extrapolate everything out and neglect the economy of scale. New considerations enter into the model and you must factor these as I have described above.
The social contract has got to be one of the most destructive ideas to human freedom that has ever arisen.
Contract? You never even made a deal
Great process for getting people thinking! I personally believe it’s OK to let the government force us to give to group causes (taxes) but it also OK for the people to constrain through legislation which causes and which amounts are acceptable.
I think I'm in the same boat as you here. I believe that *somebody* forcing another to pay towards group causes is necessary for maintaining a large modern society, and the only real question that's left is to *whom* we delegate the authority to apply this force. Just delegating it to the same entity to whom we've delegated the sole authority to initiate violence seems like a plausible answer, although one can play with the idea of more independent bodies. Maybe a country's revenue service should have its own "president" who gets elected by the people, rather than being appointed by the spending-arm of the government as today?
In a truly free society the Government cannot force it's citizens, at least those who abide the law, to do anything, it is through mutual consent that we agree to be taxed under the auspice that that tax revenue will be used to the benefit of all, anything beyond that is immoral. Today, we do not have that freedom.
some of these people are fools. Our earned income was never meant to be taxed! guess what!? before taxes, we still had roads and schools! Shocker!!!!!!!!
Tariffs for the win.
In modern times we can go one step further and have direct tariffs where people pay to use the roads or some shared system.
It could cover public water or waste disposal. There is a thousand things it could cover.
And if you do not use it you do not pay for it.
preach sister !!
Uh I mean... when? Even the Ancient Egyptians collected taxes.
AbsolemLNG There was no income tax in the US until the First World War.
There are services that the government provides for public benefit, and it is proper to pay taxes to pay for that. However, giving tax dollars to special interest which benefits only a few is wrong. Yet we see this all the time.
Great video Learn Liberty!
Thanks Rand
Rand is that you, or a bot?????
Rand Paul, one of my favorites!
Such a brilliantly elegant way of getting people to think about the whole premise of taxation and even government! It is amazing to see how such a simple exercise got people to start to question something that we just automatically assumed was natural and moral.
INVESTING CRYPTO NOW IS VERY COOL EXPECIALLY WITH THE CURRENT RISE IN THE MARKET NOW.
You're right ma,
That is why I had to start forex
trading 2months ago with Mr Jackson
Williams and now am making benefits
from it.
Thanks for introducing me to Mr
Jackson Williams.
My first investment with Mr
Jackson Williams gave me profit of
over $44,000 Us dollar..
O' Yes I'm a living testimony of Mr Jackson Williams.
Give that young man in the blue shirt and reversed hat an award (at 4.44). He actually showed some critical thinking, and appeared to learn from this experience.
This is a great video. One way to make government agencies more efficient and responsive to the voter is to have every agency compete for the tax dollar. Suppose you keep the tax system the same as it is now but allow each tax payer to allocate his or her tax dollars in whatever proportion they wish. That way, every government department headed by a member of the cabinet has to reach out to the tax payer and improve their service or product offering in order to get a bigger share of the tax pie. Competition between government departments will improve efficiency and cut waste. For example, if the department of education had to compete for tax dollars wouldn't they do more to improve test scores for high school graduates? If HUD had to compete for tax dollars wouldn't they be able to offer more housing units to the poor more efficiently?
@PessiOpt 9 Capitalism?👀
I understand the idea behind why these guys made this video and for the most part agree with the premise. And while I'm for minimal government, I think the guy asking questions kinda overstepped in the sense that there are basic responsibilities that the government has. Those basic responsibilities must be paid for in tax dollars. Although I have a similar if not the exact same belief of Milton Friedman who believed it was fine that we pay taxes as long as we got something that held equal value back. So for basic things like Military and Foreign affairs, we should pay for those things because we're kept safe because of them. Any promises that are made by politicians should include an approximate price for the project itself, that way the people can keep them in check, and pay the taxes that are only equal to anything needed for the budget of such things. Perhaps it would be difficult to keep track of, but it would be a much more effective and cost efficient way of making physical things happen on the government's part. And such a thing would also apply to politicians and bueracrats as well. They should get a much lower pay and implemented in the tax collected.
If these things wouldn't work, then perhaps charging a fixed tax percentage and using that as a baseline federal budget would work instead.
But sadly politicians seem to make being a politician the only thing that they do. When in fact, most of the original founding fathers either owned land, businesses, were massive intellectuals, or had massive influence, aka, things that contributed to the overall bettering or worsening of the people. They had stakes in matter because if they screwed laws and policies up, they screwed themselves up. Now it just seemed all of them are just passing laws just to pass laws, not for any real moral reason, but just to say that they did because they have no other goals or ventures. So we wind up with retarded and stupid laws, causing people to become angry and/or confused.
Idk. Maybe I'm just a stupid kid with stupid ideas. But I thought they sounded alright.
The problem with this video is that it doesn't differentiate between the legitimate and illegitimate use of government force with regard to taxation. Namely, we as the taxpayers have hired politicians to organize and pay the suppliers of public goods and services, i.e. those that build and maintain public infrastructure, then firefighters, police officers, soldiers, doctors, nurses, judges, etc. Meaning, using taxation, i.e. government force, to collect money for salaries and revenue of these people is legit since they invested their labor and material resources into goods and services that we as taxpayers use. Basically, we as citizens are in debt to these people and using force to collect a debt is legitimate.
But, bit by bit, the politicians started to abuse taxation system by imposing high taxes on citizens and seizing their property well above the debt citizens owe to the above mentioned people. Money collected with this abuse, the politicians use like it is their own, by sending it to the pockets of people that belong to the specific social groups related to ideological interests of politicians, be it: immigrants, single moms, poor people, crony capitalists, farmers, civil rights activists, etc. Now, since citizens owe no debt to these people, there is no rational bases for the politicians to use force and seize property of citizens to fund them. Instead, politicians and those who support their ideologies, must use their private money to fund people in these social groups. Since politicians don't do that, but instead, they fund these groups with money they seized from the citizens via taxation, this represents the illegitimate use of government force.
Besides tax money, the politicians also abuse social security funds, whose legitimate purpose is payment on the bases of disability or old-age insurance, by extending payments to young and healthy individuals who are capable of working (so-called poor people). Since participation in social security is mandatory, funding mentioned individuals with social security funds also represents the illegitimate use of government force.
We need to go back to the original bargain agreed upon before our government was formed officially. That government has no place telling people what they should be doing with their lives and money. They should only focus on what we shouldn't be doing (as specifically and deliberately explained in the first amendments to the constitution). I'm a fundamentalist. Replace all instances of Men stated in the constitution with Citezens of this Country, but other than that don't change a damn thing. Taxes are used (both state and federal, and even local) to keep to the original bargain and that bargain is to provide national, state and local police as well as an army, navy, national and coast guard to keep this nations citizens clearly defined rights from being infringed. To protect against those who would do so, whether foreign or domestic. All other programs should be regulated and controlled by the basis of the free market system because by nature these things will be forced to operate on transparency and accountability to those they wish to purchase what they provide. Such a system also ensures a high level of innovation and affordability via competition. Monopolies by their very nature tend to infringe on our rights as consumers (or, in the case of social media, our rights period) and it's frustrating to learn that the government has been in bed with big business for a long time and in many instances has BECOME the monopoly. We voted in Trump for more than the fact that half the country's nerves had officially been grated on by this authoritarian, identitarian pc culture. He asked the right questions and promised the right things and despite the fact that he's been fought against tooth and nail by both democrats as well as never trumper republicans, he's actually managed to accomplish a lot.
We need more people like this in every level of education.
Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
It is always more valuable to give in person. Show interest in a person or a problem. Don't force others to give when you display no interest in solving it beyond giving money or having it forcibly extracted.
The old way of the left was kind of like the song that said, "Come on, people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another..."
Nowadays, it's, "I will pay the government to hire someone to care." Pretty awful. I think most people would agree.
A reason that people changed answers at the second question is because the government represents the people, however whether they actually do a good job doing it is another story.
madman3891 They believe the government represents the people.
madman3891 No. Governments represent the majority of people (usually). Does being a majority allow you to impose force on a minority?
UnknownXV "No. Governments represent the majority of people (usually)" Explain.
madman3891 People vote. In a democracy, a pure majority wins. The minority is not represented. In a republic, people vote although through a delegate system not always the majority wins.
No matter what system you have there will always be minorities who didn't win.
UnknownXV Milton Friedman put it very nicely. Does the 51% have the right to steal from the 49%? How about 99% vs 1%? When you are an altruist / collectivist / utilitarian, you ascribe moral justification to others, or to the majority, or to whatever makes the most people happy. When you're an individualist / liberal / objectivist, you recognize that your rational self interest is above the desires of others, your liberty and property rights are out of the reach of any majority, and the morality of an action is not related to who or how many it satisfies but depends on the principles that underpin it.
These two views are trying to optimize different things. I can see situations where both views would seem problematic. It's easy to debunk the collectivist view: it seems wrong for 8 men to rob 2 men, or for 800 to rob 200. It also seems wrong for 1 man to horde mounts of food in his house when everyone outside is starving and begging for food. But I'm a liberal, because I believe that people should still convince the hoarder to give up some of his food voluntarily, and usually this is easy to do, because it is in his own rational self-interest to live among happy people. If you allow them to steal from him, then others will later steal from them. If you allow the violation of the rights of 1 person, you allow the violation of anyone's and everyone's rights.
Wow, some people just never thought of this but after a few questions they actually saw the light, amazing.
Edit: Responding to the question "Why does government get bigger?".
The government provides a powerful narrative.
Of protecting people against all kinds of harms.
People ask the government to grow all the time.
They believe in the promise of government that it can prevent negative outcomes.
What counterfactual are you comparing it to?
Greoric M
? Think I was answering why the government gets bigger.
Very well said!
I think a way to fix this debate is to allow people to allocate their tax money to what is important to them. A tax form that has items you want your tax money spent on. You would eventually see where people would prefer their money to be spent, example for a municipality: roads, schools and education, welfare, etc. You could pick all items which would divvy up your tax funds to each one or pick just a few and again it would be divided evenly into the items you chose.
You hit the nail right on the head. However, one must ask, what is government but a monopoly on the legal initiation of force? All of our interactions with society need to be voluntary to be logically consistent.
HitmannDDD Gov't is a lot besides the monopoly on force. In the US and other republics we have a charter or constitution meant to describe the mechanisms of government,and the limit the arenas where gov't may act. A judiciary that restricts the use of gov force. An election mechanism that allows the representatives of a voting majority to legislate when force is to be applied, and an executive intended to wield that force sparingly and with justice. The fundamental problem is that once the monopoly on force exists, it tends to erode the protection mechanisms and accrete added powers never intended - and no one can stop it.
The corruption that has occurred isn't so much about personal aggrandizement as the attraction of taking more power toward ends that the office occupants 'feel' are good. This path is paved with good intention, not ill.
So for example we have the creation of social security, the war on drugs, the patriot act, the NDAA, the ACA. Each of these extra-constitutional acts is sold to the public via pandering - appealing to fears or wants. So legislators create and executives enforce these, and rather strangely the judiciary ignores the law & Constitution and accedes to popular sentiment too.
Representative democracy doesn't work well.
It would have been interesting to ask if it should be a centralized Federal taxation or State / local. I was glad to see the critical thinking of the students.
It's not that it's moral for government to force people to give to charity of _my_ choice, but it is moral for government to force people to give money to fund the _collective_ choice as decided by our representatives in congress. Aside from the necessary services it provides (law & order, defense, etc.) it can legitimately fund infrastructure/education that provide benefits to all and social services that help the poor (which reduces crime and is a moral end of itself).
+HumbleVladimirTheGreat A lot of limited government advocates would agree with you.
You mentioned collective choice. Does that also imply that there is such a thing as collective guilt or responsibility? Collective mind or conscience? Should you be held accountable for what somebody else does as a representative of the government which claims you as its citizen?
+Learn Liberty There is a limited amount of collective guilt/responsibility. It is our moral responsibility as citizens to speak out against atrocities committed by our government (protests against war, cover-ups, etc. are moral) and to legally try to change it through political participation. I say this is a limited responsibility because of course you should not be directly punished for what a representative of your government does, although indirect consequences occur naturally (bad decisions made by our representatives do have repercussions felt by the population). Collective consciousness is a fascinating philosophical idea, the collective intelligence of modern machine learning systems, crowd-sourced applications, provide many benefits over relying on the intelligence of an individual, and I also believe in the idea of a collective unconscious posited by Carl Jung.
+HumbleVladimirTheGreat wouldn't this also mean that we as the people are responsible for the horrible decisions our representatives make even if we didn't vote for them? or what if we did? would this also mean we are responsible for every insistent person wrongfully executed for things they didn't do even if we where against it? are you sure you really think that people are guilty of things they didn't even do? because you cant say that its okay for government to collect money for a cause we don"t agree unless you also say we are guilty when the government makes mistakes we didn't agree with.
+HumbleVladimirTheGreat It is never moral to force anyone to do anything they do not wish to do. Governments are the most immoral organizations on the planet.
The collective choice can be funded by collective effort without using force.
Here's the formulated answer to that question - it is ok for the government to use force because the government has a monopoly on violence. Monopoly on violence is necessary as it is a threat preventing the majority of people from also using violence. This whole Hobbesian line of arguementation seems to be explaining the phenomena you demonstrated in the video. I do not necessarily think that it is true, but it is something important to consider in the Libertarian school of thought
Sounds great. Should we have unilateral peace on a personal level? Sure. Then why not declare unilateral peace and disarm on a national level. Sure. Go ahead and enact unilateral peace and see how long it takes before you are conquered. Will the conqueror allow you to ask thought provoking philosophical questions? NO.
Did you fight to defend my freedom?
If so, how, where and against whom?
How was my freedom at risk?
Did you save me? Am I safe?
Did I say that I did any of those things? Would the U.S. declaring unilateral national peace make the world a better place?
Great to let students/people think about this question... I have a bit of a double feeling on the use of the word "cause" though, which kind of misleads the conversation into thinking that government spending is the same as donating money to a cause. When talking about a cause to donate money to, we usually think of causes to support where there are no/limited government support systems for, but do feel it is important. Kind of a wealth problem, now the government has organized most of our existential needs. Let´s see what we have to say about forcing other people to support causes when the government doesn´t support any causes like health care, education, transportation, public safety, etc, (where we pay tax for, with indeed some force in order to maintain the system).
Good video. I liked backward hat guy's logic, identifying himself as government (by the people, etc.). A valuable lesson in the power of juxtaposition.
the answer is really simple. There is a difference between a random individual forcing others to donate to a specific cause and the government doing it. And the difference is that I get to choose representatives that are part of the government through voting.
While there are flaws with representation, such as distributed costs and concentrated benefits, fundamentally there *is* a difference between these two things.
And what's wrong with admitting that the only reason I clicked on this was to see that girl?
All human associations should be voluntary. This is the ideal to strive to.
Show me my signature on this "social contract" you speak of.
The signature is written in the blood of strikers in the three 1934 General Strikes (Social Security Act of 1935) and the Blood of Black people fighting for equality in the 1960's "Great Society Programs".
@@kimobrien.
Cool story. Where is MY signature, I asked. And quit being a beta male.
@@ABQSkywatcher The two capitalist party bosses decided your signature wasn't needed on the contract.
@@ABQSkywatcher "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." Karl Marx Does that sound 'beta' to you?
Yeah, I know all that nonsense. It's totalitarianism. You need to find God and stop wasting your life with that garbage.
very interesting question as one needs to justify a different position in light of the 2 questions. outside the fact that there is tons of government spending on with each being its own concern,the best idea I can answer is that non rival goods have to be taxed in order to be enjoyed,otherwise most people can reap the benefits of the goods without the payment of such. hence no one would pay for it.
Taxation is theft. You don't give it, they take it, whether you agree or not.
People need to start asking some very basic questions regarding the nature of government, and what it is supposed to represent.
If government is the collective will of the people, and the collective exercise of our individual rights, how is it possible for the government to exercise a right or power which we the people do not have? How can we delegate a power which is not innately our own, individually?
For example, I have the natural right to self defense. Because I have this right, I can authorize the government to defend me if I need help. I DO NOT have the right to beat up my neighbors, so I CAN NOT authorize the government to do that on my behalf. Similarly, I have the right to give to any cause I feel is worthy of my dollars. I do NOT have the right to force my neighbor to give to my cause if he doesn't want to, NOR can I authorize the government to do so on my behalf.
+JulianBaynes1 I basically agree with what you're saying, but out of curiosity may I ask whether you've ever formally studied logic? I find most people who evoke the word haven't made any rigorous attempt at logic or philosophy, but take for granted that they are "logical" thinkers.
I think the difference when it comes to the government is that there are things that we would like to have in place for our interactions in society that it would be hard for us to pay for by ourselves, or even with a group of others. The reason why people feel like they've agreed and that they trust the government is because they recognize that there are things which society enjoys that exist because of the funds we pay into the government. The issue comes when people feel like they can't trust the government because it is using those funds improperly. Then we come to realize that there is no real contract that we signed and instead its more of an implicit agreement that is sometimes followed, on the side of the government, and sometimes not.
Unfortunately, people on the whole tend to be somewhat lazy and even if we personally had the funds available to pay to create a school for our children, roads for our travel to work, and the like, we would much rather lay that responsibility on an entity like a government than go through the work of finding the people and resources necessary in order to build these things. Having a government allows working people to keep working rather than involve themselves in the intricacies of large scale projects. Some individuals will devote the resources to create private institutions, but the rest of us can't depend on then. We can depend on a government. Somewhat.
Always helps to pair that optimism with a little bit of cynicism.
Government should only have the right to do collectively what I can do individually.
You obviously don't deserve to live in a democratic society.
The guy at 4:02 was amazing ... you guys are making people think. Thank you. Maybe there is hope.
I think taxation is a form of slavery.
Yes. I'm an anarchist.
Yellow and black attack
we are all born into this world cold, naked, and hungry. the only way we have to survive, apart from charity, is to trade the one thing we innately own, our selves and our ability to work, for all the other things we don't have. If you can justify taking the fruits of my labor, in any degree, the only thing stopping you from taking ALL my fruits is your beneficence and my willingness to fight. Income taxation is antithetical to freedom. Other sorts of taxation, such as VAT, allow the person to participate or not. It is also still "progressive" since the rich pay taxes on yachts that poor people don't and shopping at the goodwill wouldn't amount to much or could be, along with necessities, be exempted all together.
Charity isn't charitable if coerced.
In people's mind, government = God, that's perhaps why? God is the one deciding on laws, rights, benefits and privileges... In society, that's seems to be the role of government... Therefore, one fears and trust in government religiously... The proper role of government isn't being taught in school growing up...
Very interesting point, Radinika. Thank you for sharing that.
These would have been my answers to his line of questioning.
"Is it moral to force others to give to the cause of your choice?
When discussing this on individual level, as in myself personally, forcing someone else to contribute to a cause I deem worth supporting, no, it is not moral to do so. Because, morally speaking, I am equal to that other person.
"Is it moral for the government to force others to give to the cause of your choice?"
Yes, absolutely. We already do this with other causes as is, through taxation, think of taxes that pay for roads, schools, hospitals. If the government were to do this, it would be no different.
"But why is it moral for the government to do so, and not you as in individual?"
Because unlike myself, the government has been given the authority, either directly or indirectly, by it's very citizenry, to enact policies and allocate whatever resources however it sees fit. I don't have that authority, nor the backing of the collective populace to do the same. This is most commonly known as - the social contract. As an individual we've entered it from the moment of our birth, as a citizen of this nation. It really is that simple.
And yes, there is a way out of this social contract. It's called leaving.
This is when you rescind all the privileges granted to you by this government, and in exchange don't have to deal with the responsibilities associated with said government, like having to contribute to this cause.
But just be aware that if you do, good luck finding someplace where you won't have to accept some form of this social contract. There's a government in pretty much every continent on this planet. The odds are more likely, that you'll have to some form of social contract somewhere else.
And there's reason why that is the case. It is because at some point, humans decided that the primary law of nature: "Might makes right" doesn't work for us collectively. So we created the institution known as "government", to create and enforce the rule of law.
Now I know you're probably thinking, that in essence, government has just a clever extension of the same natural rule: "Might makes right." Because it's usually the case that a government has more strength than a single solitary individual (the military, a police force, so on).
And you'd be half right.
The half, you're correct about - is that yes, a (efficient) government does tend to have more strength than any of it's individual citizens. And yes, the primary basis of a government's authority, is force. Because otherwise, a private citizen or a handful of private citizens with more firepower than the government could just disregard it's authority, and do whatever they wanted, regardless of the laws put in place at the behest of the rest of the collective populace.
And indeed, it is very possible, that a government bases the entirety of it's authority solely on force (see: Monarchies, Dictatorships). Because the use of force, is what is referred to in Latin as, "Ultima Ratio Regum!" In other words, the last argument of Kings.
Which brings me to the half which you would be incorrect about - not all governments rely solely on the use of force, and therefore they are not solely using the "Might makes Right" argument of nature. Before the use of force, their authority is derived from the perceived wishes of the people, usually reflected through voting (see Republics, Democracies). In that instance, what they are doing is right - because it has been agreed upon by the enough of the populace as the best course of action.
And the beauty of these types of governments is that if you disagree with them using their entrusted authority to contribute to my cause, there is an easy way to change the course of action this government takes - voting the people in government out of power and replacing them with people who think like you and will change the law, or perhaps gathering others who think like you together to forcefully overthrow said government, thus making the government incapable of forcing others to contribute to the cause.
Because ultimately, the governments only there because the people want it to be, and therefore it makes the rules. And if you, or anyone else doesn't like it... do something about it.
"Every country has the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre.
Cudos to the guy that brought up the social contract
There is no social contract. I sure as heck never agreed to one and I've been here a very long time.
How is it a contract? Do you have an option not to agree with it?
Greoric M
Yes! You can disagree with it, and even disobey it, but if you do, men with guns and opinions will come to make you change your mind.
I wish this was a television commercial that ran during prime time on all channels once per day.
3:01 "muh roads"
tell me how small businesses can afford an interstate in a small town. Oh, right, you cant.
@@jailbreaker1214 Co-Op organizations, plus tolls to pay back the investment.
yeah, many run on tolls and are just fine. I think some ppl just push the "it's all okay exactly how it already is" statement as a denial defense mechanism to avoid stress of having to dislike the way things are and be unhappy or feel a duty to push changes. Or feel like what mommy said when they were 5 is right b/c mommy is always right. Another sentiment that same clown implied was, "don't worry, you paying for MY and my friends' 'education' benefits YOU." Lol
but what if a private road owner decides to discriminate against Arabs and blacks blocks them from his road
@@robinsss Then they lose out on the tolls they would have gotten. Since that would be a particularly unpopular position, other road users will change routes, losing the bigoted toll road operators even more money, possibly making them broke.
It is a "social contract" in between the society and the government legitimized under the constitution. The problem is when the government surpasses those granted rights we all agree on to tax and take far more money it should take.
To me this is more a sad statement of how poor our colleges are at training students to think, and when these kids are presented with any structured argument, their spoon-fed knowledge leaves them unarmed.
The difference between one person using force to give another person's money away and the Government is that ideally the Government is acting on behalf of the majority's wishes. According to the utilitarianism philosophy, moral action is that which maximizes utility to the whole, and thus it could be moral for a Government to force others to give, but not an individual.
This is not to say I agree with utilitarianism, but being aware of other perspectives and schools of thought arms me with being able to think on these "difficult questions."
What amazed me was the girl who immediately went to, "Might makes right" when she was challenged.
Eric Gragsone "According to the utilitarianism philosophy, moral action is that which maximizes utility to the whole"... How does utilitarian philosophy base any claim of morality ?
***** You should seriously take it into consideration.
From my perspective, college is an excellent way to indoctrinate young people about the real world before they enter the work force and start contributing to society and getting taxes stolen from them. I gotta hand it to those socialist jerks - their brainwashing methods are effective.
Eric Gragsone *"According to the utilitarianism philosophy, moral action is that which maximizes utility to the whole, and thus it could be moral for a Government to force others to give, but not an individual."*
Right, so majoritarianism. Tyranny of the majority. How about no?
Gamle Ole wrote
“People who want to pay for all kinds of crap should be free to do so.”
===========
There is nothing stopping people from paying for “all kinds of crap.”
What makes you think they are not free to donate their money?
THIS DUDE IS A FUCKIN’ GENIUS !!!!!!!!!!
The government is no different then the mafia end of story
idiot.
George Roberts what a thoughtful and probable rebuttal to his point. Well done.
@@theelderjester4185 Its not like Rose substantiated his point, so this simple answer will have to suffice.
First Excellent Survey! My first remarks where maybe a little to deep to understand. Remembering once a quote I saw I looked it up and would like to share it with you all. Yes, is was done by the founder of this country and its meaning is now as powerful today as was probably more then when he made it. Because back then we didn't have the educational society we have today. Love to hear others comment on this. I feel it is in direct response to this survey. Hope I am right?
George Washington
letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island - 1790
Category: Citizenship
The citizens of the United States of America have the right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were by the indulgence of one class of citizens that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
awesome video! very thought-provoking! or basically to make you think.
I use this mind set and logic whenever my friends start talking about taxes or regulations.
Great stuff.
There is something called authority. You learn that at home with your parents, who take care of you and make decisions for you before you were born and in exchange you obey, at Church where you learn a transcendent superior being has taken decisions that affect your life way before you ever existed and you have the choice to follow suit or not (although not without consequences in the future), at school where you learn to obey your elder strangers called teachers and professors. They all have held authority without your consent. Likewise government, in whichever form, also holds authority and does not need your consent, unless you are capable of contesting that authority.
Is there a society working on complete volunteerism? Nope.
Derrick Jones Citation?
I want to see who said yes to the question on the first board, and what their justification for this is.
Bah - I usually like Learn Liberty, but I feel like this argument doesn't hold water.
1. This argument would denigrate ALL government spending. Military, infrastructure, police, you name it.
2. This ignores the basic idea of social contract. The reason why the government has the right to use force to collect taxes from its populace is because the populous has power over the government.
3. This argument ignores the type of spending, which is important when speaking about government (this is why even if the majority voted to take away the rights of the minority, it would be illegal/immoral for the government to do so).
+Evan Witt There are plenty in the "individual liberty" tent who agree with you. For your own viewing pleasure, here is Prof. Nigel Ashford discussing the ideas of those who disagree with you: ruclips.net/video/1r99Ae6gmgg/видео.html
+Evan Witt there is no social contract if you had no choice about where you were born
+Book Forge
You're right, I can't imagine it working.
But I don't think it's because "Government is a teat that I'm used to". I think it's because over the course of my almost 40 years on this earth, every time I've seen anything that is traditionally government run be privatized, it's always ended up far worse for the people who rely on that thing. It makes zero sense to me that once this losing equation is scaled to totality, it will all of a sudden reverse course and be beneficial.
Examples of this kind of system are rare if even existent, but the ones closest approaching it are far from model societies that you'd want to live in.
+Evan Witt thats the point. taxation is theft. the social contract doesnt hold water. you mean to tell me, because i fell out of my mothers womb on this piece of dirt im obligated by some unwritten contract to pay money and have to abide by all these laws and rules, even though the other party in said contract can change the agreement at any time, change the prices, and toss me in jail if i refuse? do you know any legally binding contract that you can sell your unborn children into?
find a court that would support any contract using the logic of the "social contract" and ill give you a unicorn.
Logan Waltz thats the problem with revolutions, you just trade one slave master for another. this is not how obtain freedom.
Wow the special pleading in this video is amazing!
Where are you hiding, Koch brothers, or Robert Mercer?
This is my favorite video ever!
Excellent video. The belief in government/statism IS the most dangerous superstition.
"Government" is an entity, not a person. That makes any comparison to one person compelling someone to give to charity a non sequitur.
This is still false equivalency. This is the old "taxes are theft" argument that libertarians break out while defining things in absurd terms.
So forcing someone to give up their property isn't theft?
@@dragonlance1121 All things are balance. Their is a point of diminishing return for anything. Lincoln said that for nearly everything, there are consequences, there is a little bad in the good and a little good in the bad, so that our constant diligence is required to weigh the details and consequence of a thing to the best of our ability. To put your question in such simplistic terms leaves too much room for absolutism. Those that say government is evil are telling us democracy doesn't work...oh really? Government we can fix with our vote, but as Lincoln also said, the great problem is to bring the people the real facts. The propagandists for deep pockets and special interests spin for fascist excess that would render our government control of special interest one trick ponies moot. That's corporatism or fascism, pick you term. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Uncontrolled no-holds-barred capitalism is exactly what our founding fathers tried to protect us from as the British East India company was just that...with the King as a primary stockholder and deck-stacker. Money has power whether we do or not. We either remain a strong democracy to control special interests and big money, or it will control us. For nature abhors a vacuum. .....................
It's the very top of the scale that tells us government is out to get the average man. It's time we turned our pitchforks in unison toward them at the top .001 percent and up, with their wannabees and subsequent propagandized useful idiots, that are pushing for Parker Brothers Monopoly rules. Everyone knows how that ends...with everything in a few hands. Saying government is evil neglects to mention that when it is, it's usually special interests with their fingers in the pie and on the scales that have made it so. Personally, I hate being herded like sheep for the benefit of a handful at the top. Take a look at the Powell Memo...and history professor Nancy MacLean's book Democracy In Chains, then there's Vice President Henry Wallace's 1944 NYT op/ed on the potential for fascism in this country. And see General Smedley Butler's account of the fascist coup attempt in the 30's against democracy during FDR, which he nearly single handedly thwarted. Then read Jefferson's 1816 letter to Samuel Kerchival. He also admonished us to study our history, for history knows, this has all been seen before. Better yet, do in reverse order...but any order will do.
@@georgeroberts613 So forcing someone to give up their property isn't theft?
@@dragonlance1121 Dan, you're fixated on evil government...or on your own greed. Democracy implies responsibility. There is a percentage of the common good we are responsible for at a general level. It's the commons of infrastructure for which everything else runs on. That's democracy...deal with it. The alternative is fascism when special interests do our thinking for us...like most on this sight that think they are geniuses for spouting the party line handed them by the Koch bros., etc. To say government is evil is to say democracy doesn't work, so the special interests whose only real goal is profit by Parker Bros. Monopoly rules should run the show...instead of the best people we can find to try to get things done for us instead of special interests trying to stack the deck in their own favor. Money has power whether we do or not, and nature hates a vacuum. We either keep a representative government that can control big money on our behalf, or it will control us...period. Those that point to evil government are blind to evil and self centered business who are one trick ponies for which democracy was created to control to limit their power over us. Get a clue chief. This nonsense of screwing up government to make it look bad so they can point is bullshit. It's propaganda to get useful idiots behind their band wagons marching to their tune. It's silly, stupid, fraudulent logic whipped up with shortsighted nonsense for simple minds. History knows. This has all been seen before, which is why Jefferson, among others, implored us to examine history so we might know ambition under every disguise it might adopt. Fascism is just the modern form of feudalism. They want us like surfs again...with no power and no voice. So...your either an idiots or a Russian troll, another poor dumbfuck just trying to make a living and selling his soul to do it. That's what fascism and or any form a totalitarianism does. Read Jefferson's 1816 letter to Samuel Kirchival for summary...if you're real anyway. And no, to put it plainly enough if you haven't gotten it yet, taxes are the price we pay for living in a representative democratic society. We either pay people to represent us and for infrastructure, or assholes take it our of our hides and our backs. Get a clue.
@@dragonlance1121 As simple as I can make it for you is that representative democracy is the answer...who is it again that's been telling us it isn't? Business interests are the ones that screw it up for their own benefit. And when crooks win, others either lose out or convert. Fraud is killing us as a country masking itself as righteous profit seeking. When we let them do it because we're to stupid or brain dead to know or care, we do it to ourselves. But I'm done letting them sell greed and tear down government that they've screwed up so they can point. It's a put-up job, a con, a game on their part. Authoritarian asshole whose only game is to win...and they throw democracy under the bus in the process. This circle jerk logic most here claim is righteous truth are full of it. And the clueless agree with the Russian shills in a fest of stupidity. Schmucks.
A libertarian professor at a California State University? Outrageous!! ;)
A thought on the idea that private industry "cares"...As Steve Forbes said in a recent Reason TV interview when speaking about free markets: "You may not love your neighbor but you want to sell to your neighbor." Private industry doesn't have to care about me, but if they want to do business with me in a free market they will have to produce a product I want at a price I am willing to pay in the face of competition for my business. As Jim Rohn used to say they are practicing "enlightened self-interest." They do what they do for their own interests, not mine, but I benefit because they must compete for my business.
I don't think it has anything to do with the idea that Government "represents the people" or are "looking out for the majority." In many cases, the Government is actually taking money from the majority and giving it to the minority. The varying answers from the two posed questions goes to the Randsian concept of giving up power to enter a relationship with another that benefits parties (e.g. a commensalistic or symbiotic relationship).
As to the first question, if you force me to give you money, it doesn't matter that you are giving it to charity, people are generally opposed to it because the relationship doesn't benefit them, so they are not willing to cede such power to you. However, in the second question, you are now asking whether an entity that they are in a relationship with can do it, and their answer will depend on whether they think the relationship is beneficial to them and, accordingly, whether they are willing to yield some power to the entity because of the benefit.
Citizen/Government is not the only example here - there is parent/child, husband/wife, infirmed/caregiver, etc. In history, there are other examples - serf/lord, monk/monastery, etc. We are all in a relationship with the Government, so the answer to the second question likely flows from whether I think the actions of the Government are beneficial to myself. A Classic Liberal (like myself) may believe that some government actions are necessary, but for the most part the discretionary acts of the Government tend towards waste and fraud and do not benefit them, and they are therefore much less likely to cede any power to the Government to make such decisions.
I think there are two ways to go about this. First is to differentiate between what is a public good and a charity. If there is such a way of drawing an objective line, this argument would be pretty much ended. You then limit the Gov role to only things that are a public goods (Roads, Police, Military etc), where the Democratic process would choose which public goods the Gov should then take on. Then charity and the public goods which aren't covered by Gov will be given over to the free market and citizenry.
The second way that I can see, is to figure out which "charity" (using the implicit definition he is using in the video) is best covered by Gov. Which is pretty much how we are doing it right now through the Democratic process.
It is moral for a morally credible government body to use force when necessary.
Sorry, I know I just left a comment, but to answer the question, I think the answer if to mandate the tithe. You can give your money to wherever you think it should go, without someone else reaching into your pocket to support their favorite charity. If someone feels that even this is wrong, fine. They can give their tithe to the Ayn Rand Institute.
It makes me weep that so many people on campus have broken or severely underdeveloped critical faculties. Even the dude who's ignorant enough to support PETA can work out the logical equivalency between the two questions.
Also I was interested in the reasoning of the two people who said it was moral for them to force someone to give to the cause of their choice, and wondered if two out of such a small sample agree to that what percentage of the total population think that way.
Thanks for pointing those simple things out. Those forced taxes should rather be an optional in the tax form.
People who want to pay for all kinds of crap should be free to do so.
To me, this is key to the "General Welfare" clause of the US Constitution. It is never ok to force others to give to things that they have no benefit from. "General Welfare" is very different that "Specific Welfare".
“An agreement, a social contract” I didn't sign any contract with the government to carry out any civic duty. What duty I have offered to the government was of my own free will. The rest, the government has stolen from me.
To be fair, one person did strike on an important reason for compelled taxation, which is the prisoner's dilemma issue behind common goods. If everyone benefits, such as for defense, why would someone "donate" if they received the same protection as when not donating.
ok, so I think everyone that said no then yes simply would use force personally if they were strong enough to not have repercussions.
Yep! Those are the same people who turn into looters. The police are gone, the repercussions are gone....
Those people get shot. Because the repercussions are NOT gone.
i understand your point about the morality of taxation,but i wonder,will the volunteering taxation be enough to properly fund things like police army and other public services?
i am particularly curious about the army part.if a war happens will the nation have enough weapons and soldiers to defend itself?
It should be no surprise students think this way. They have been brought up and taught by people who depend on the government for their salaries. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
The problem is with this logic no taxes would be collected at all. I don't mind forcing people to pay tax on gasoline if the money from that tax is used to make an improved roads. Not all tax is used for arbitrary projects or endeavors. A good tax serves a purpose for the community. And a bad text serves a purpose for only a few individuals. This point is clearly overlooked in this video.
I never signed the social contract. I want out.
This is why the government should be as small as possible.
No, you missed the whole point of the video.
_This is why the government should not exist_
@@avowliberty2250
This video does not establish that.