This is how I have always explained this to my friends and I find it funny that people would change their answer when it came to a human vs human, and human vs government. If the government is truly there to act for the people than it seems clear it could be the same as human vs human.
+Noivern I suspect it is rooted in the idea that Government will do it to Someone Else. Anonymously and at a distance, and never, never to *you* (the one answering the question). I suspect a strong correlation with the interviewee's personal views on the role of government in general, and the current (whenever it is) administration's alignment with the interviewee's views.
So... is it ok for the government to force me (through taxation) to "donate" to Planned Parenthood if I don't necessarily agree with that organization?
Thomas K. No but just because something is wrong doesn't mean someone won't do it. The government is very good at knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway.
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 interactions in society need to be voluntary in order for this to be logically consistent.
HitmannDDD You realize if you ask 80% of these lemmings the same question in a different way they will give you a contradictory answer? Polling distilled down to it's simplest form is leading herd animals to a desired result. Ask them about police, courts, military funding or social safety net programs and most if they have even a shred of integrity will tell you straight up they want a gun pointed at you.
Someone should conduct a study based on this idea- the findings would be really interesting. It should test how proportion of yes vs. no answers to the second question changes if you ask the first question or leave it out.
Bejoy Sen Well, the second questions is a trick one. It asks if it's moral for the government to force others. But since in a democracy the citizens are the government, this question must be about a country forcing citizens of a different country. In which case it indeed is immoral.
Connor Miles "But we don't live in a democracy" I got some replies to what I said in other comments on this video, none of which were as correct as this one. It's true, we don't live in a democracy. Essentially all countries are either dictatorships or corporatocracies. I think we should live in a democracy (is not the same as majority rules). Since I think it's not immoral to have a democracy set rules for those living in said democracy.
Connor Miles "desperate entity instead of a separate entity" I assumed as such. "how do you make a democratic government that is not majority rules? " Often times a responds to democracy is that it's mob rule. Which I meant that democracy doesn't always have to be majority rule. Any democracy that has a constitution is not purely majority rule. "which great political thinker said it, but someone once said "The problem with democracy is when the poor realize they can vote themselves money the system collapses"." Does the system collapse then though? Do we have any evidence of a system that collapsed because the poor voted themselves money? I know of a lot of systems where it collapsed since the rich and/or powerful took more from themselves resulting in collapse. But none where the least powerful did so and it reached in a collapse. But hey, we gotta love some fear mongering. "how is a democracy not also immoral? " Because of limited choice. The lesser of the evils is the best option and thus is not immoral. It might have aspects that are immoral, but by being the best option it is not immoral. If you'd be in a situation where you have the choice if 1 person dies, or 1 million (including that one that would die in the other option). Then choosing for the 1 person to die is NOT immoral (granted your choices are limited to those two options). It might be murder and murder is immoral. Absolutely. But it still is NOT immoral to choose that option. As far as we know, democracy is more moral than any authoritarian regime (dictatorship, theocracy, Leninist/Maoist/Stalinist style of communism etc). And more moral than any anarchy regime (Sicilian mafia, modern day Somalia etc) If it is the best option, it is not an immoral option. Even if it has some immoral aspects. "Similar to the video where people are asked if it would be moral for them to force others to donate to a charity they liked and they said no, how does a lot of people forcing a few make it better? " Because wordplay is fun. There is NOT a lot of people forcing a few. (Unless if like the USA forces Luxembourg to donate) There are a lot of people who consent to all donating to a charity. Or who force themselves to donate. Either way it is NOT in any way people who force others to do anything. Because those that are forced are not others. It's true that contribution and consent to this institution are forced. But that's a deeper question: -Should you be part of the country you are born in and/or live in? "Why not simply choose the volunteerism route instead?" Because cooperation makes us stronger. "Why make anyone do anything they don't believe in when there are plenty of people who do believe in your cause that you could ask for help instead?" Do you believe it's immoral for anyone to throw their garbage into your face? If so, we have to by extend, if we follow individualist logic, stop anyone from throwing their garbage into the open air, or into streaming water. Lets see how far Liberty fanatics go when we stop all carbon energy. Nobody pays any taxes, fossil fuel is largely in favor of liberty. Everyone is responsible for the damages they cause, fossil fuel no longer likes liberty.
Connor Miles "Ok so you literally never explained how to make democracy not just majority rule" -- "A constitution cannot account for every eventuality so trying to rely on one entirely to avoid mob rule is impossible, it will fail eventually." A constitution means there's more to the democracy than majority rule. Which is all I have to proof for my claim that democracy doesn't have to be only majority rule. Sure a big enough mob for a long enough time can change it legally. But considering a big enough mob with enough time can also change it illegally (war etc), it's just unreasonably to ask for a system that can't be overturned with enough time and effort. "You've never heard of a system where the poor voting themselves money resulted in economic collapse? Um, what about Greece? Lol." When did the poor vote themselves money and when did the economic collapse of Greece happen? And did that hurt Greece more than wallstreet's fuckup hurt Greece? "democracy is still not perfectly moral just because it is less immoral" That's what I said, like 5 times. "Forcing people to do things is not cooperation and you literally just told me that volunteerism isn't cooperation. You've actually perfectly contradicted these definitions here." Volunteering is definitely a way to cooperate, I never said anything against that. My point, perhaps not well spoken last time, is that since if you only have volunteers for public money (pay as you like tax), many people will not cooperate with this. Because they will pay nothing. Thus forcing does lead to more cooperation and volunteering only does lead to less cooperation. Please don't take what I say and say it means things it doesn't mean... "Have you heard of the non aggression principle and universally preferable behaviors?" I have some time ago, I believe they would make all fossil energy immoral. "Suddenly you just threw in some random paranoid nonsense about fossil fuels that is completely incoherent. " Many anti-taxes places get money from fossil fuel industries. Yet if you take what they say, we should not only get rid of taxes (makes fossil fuel industry happy). We should also ban the current way the fossil fuel industry works. Does it hurt you that if you breath air where the fossil fuel industry has dumbed their garbage in is poisonous? Yes, that would make them the aggressor. So what would you say we should do about this? And there's quite a large list of things that happen today that violate the non aggressor principle. Cars within hearing distance being another one.
Connor Miles "can never prevent it (democracy) from being a majority rules situation unlike how you started this argument" I started that democracy can be more than majority rule. With enough time and effort a big enough majority can change anything in a democracy, but again at that point wars etc have the same exact result. Without really more effort needed. Will edit or post on rest...
If it's immoral for the government to spend money on things with which you disagree, doesn't it follow that the only moral spending would be where all the governed are in agreement?
Miles Clark I do think so, but that range of items is very limited. For example, I am sure most everyone wants an armed force, even if it's just the Navy, but not the wars overseas. Everyone wants to be free to travel from state to state without needing a visa or to change their currency, but not make all market rules uniform across all the states. The more limited, the better.
Prof Rob Gressis, thanks for this video. Have you studied the impact of including or omitting the first question on how people answer the second question? Also, it would be great to drill into the reasons people give for government's special status.This would make a nice empirical supplement to Michael Huemer's book on political authority.
What if government provided the currency (which it does already) and the use of this currency to facilitate exchange would cost a certain fee to be tacked on, either from the buyer, the seller or both? Through that fee all other functions of government would be funded and most other taxes eliminated. Would that violate the question of morality proposed in this video? In addition, since we are using fiat based money and an expanding population requires more money to be printed and added into the pool, this newly printed money could be circulated into society by paying people with it to do government work. Would that work out?
Charity cannot do what taxation does and vice versa, there has to be tax. what things we should be taxed for and by how much is a different question altogether.
liner986 The only time tax is justified, is if initiating theft of violence is justified. I cannot think of anything that justifies initiating theft or violence.
I want to hear the explanations given by the couple persons who did think it was ok for them to personally use force to make others give to their charity.
This kind of approach is too good. It works with =most. Similar approach is asking what should we do to solve the poverty issue? We get answers like welfare state. And If we put the same question in a way that What should we do to improve economy and gdp, they give entrepreneurship/free market answers. Then we can say Isn't the second answer solves first question. These kind of approaches actually work with neutral minds. Thanks for the video.
Non sequitur. Taxes are paid not in the context of charity but by inherent compulusion of sovereignty. It is not paid to the government but to the state.
Allright here is my rebuttal; When you go and live in a country you chose to abide by their rules and thus their taxes, regardless of whether you agree with what they are spent on. You are free to come and go as you please (in most countries at least). People do not really have a peaceful way of opeting out of extortion or violence with out compromising their morals. You can move away from places that tax but you can't really move away from the threat of violence. Let me know what you think.
You make a fine case. And I would say that yes, how we operate is still within moral confines as we all belong to a democracy. But it is perfectly valid, and not immoral, for a person to think that government should not tax and spend too much. These days, the left treats anyone who does not believe in this to be a villain. Meanwhile, conservatives give much more to charity, and if taxes were not taken and spent on these things, they would probably give even more. so would liberals I am sure. but that would be better in my opinion, because it would allow any person to give to what they feel is important.
Here's a conundrum: RUclips is such a crappy, overbearing, sewer of humanity and yet through RUclips channels like this one I have learned and grown so much. I've learned how to clarify and express concepts I've only suspected all my life. What am I to think of RUclips now?
Taxation isn't force because money belongs to the Federal Reserve not you. You're simply allowed to use it to account for your transactions with the stipulation that you give a portion of it back to the Fed with each transaction.
***** Yes it is force, government mandated money is the only way to pay for taxes. So you cannot hold a job, offer services, or do business with anyone on any realistic level without using government money, or you end up in jail.
mediahound Well, I mostly use an alternative currency called Numero Set. It's issued for free instead of as a debt so there is no tax or fee feature associated with its use. So I guess I don't care what the Fed policies are for their money.
"Is it moral for the government to for OTHERS to give to the cause of YOUR choice" So like of country A is like "Hey country B, give money for stuffs"...? Unless you think democracy is forced this is not about a government forcing it's own citizens.
Julie Monroe "To make an extreme example on democracy being force: 2 men and 1 women vote if they should all have sex, she votes no, both men vote yes. I'm sure she'll be comforted by the fact that she got a vote so it's not force." But that is not how the democracies we live in work. They all have constitutions and all fall under international law. It still remains that the question is worded to mean something else than it's intended to mean. If the people are the government (democracy etc), then the government forcing others to do something has to mean people who are not citizens of the state this is the government of.
Fistwagon "Democracy lets 51% oppress the other 49%. Mob rule is not freedom, it's force." Oh really? In which democracy is this the case? Name a democracy without a constitution that also doesn't fall under international law (by not being in the UN) Okay, I'll give it. North Korea is ruled in a way that's not moral. I'm very happy we've found that out!
Person "Let's say two wolves and a sheep have a vote on what's for dinner" Go find me a country with a democracy, but without a constitution. Otherwise, this is something that doesn't apply.
I'm concerned how many people think its moral to be forced to give to give money to a cause you may not support. Of course, someone there said PETA is a good charity, so their morality compass is already way off.
Exactly I can just imagine an idiot like that running the country, forcing money into a bullshit radical organization that doesn't event help humans (or animals for that matter) when people could have donated money to help starving people.
Sylverias Well even the PETA dude ended up saying it was wrong for govt. to use force so perhaps there's hope. I bet if he were really familiar with them he wouldn't support them either.
The problem with this analogy is that private charities are not run by public participation, unlike government. It is not "force" when a democratic society determines what it choose to fund and individuals disagree. A better analogy might be when an individual running back goes along with the coach's playbook on a football team even if the player disagrees. Government is (or should be) of, by, and for the people... so it's not an issue of force when that body makes collective decisions on that basis.
RUclips users regularly inform me that I am a total statist idiot for thinking public programs are a good idea just because the most economically and socially prosperous countries utilize them. I know that already. So you can return to your Rand and Rothbard readings now.
They worded the questions in a skewed way. The fact is that we rely on charities to take on societally problems that government itself should be taking care of.(taking care of vets, disease research, feeding the poor, helping the sick etc). Is it ok for the government to tax its people and use the revenue to help society as a whole? hell fucking yes. The vast majority of our tax money funds wars, just fucking spend it at home.
neonspikes "hell fucking yes." So if asking people what is actually happening it is bad. But the magical title of government makes it OK. "The vast majority of our tax money funds wars" Why not have a system where your vote counts 100%, and your dollar only supports causes you support. It is called liberty.
No, asking people about taxes isn't wrong, I love that people are thinking about things they normally wouldn't. All I'm saying is they worded the question in an odd way to a small sample size who don't understand taxes too well so the yes-no tally is no Gallup Poll. "and your dollar only supports causes you support. It is called liberty." And then hope that those votes align with the necessary pillars of society? Tax dollars must fund universal healthcare, the feeding of the poor, and public colleges. Among other things these shouldn't go to a vote. Kinda like how we don't vote on constitutionally issues. Through this perspective I'd say liberty is still intact.
neonspikes "Tax dollars must fund universal healthcare, the feeding of the poor, and public colleges." You do not know the meaning of the word must You are either stupid or dishonest. Let me restate your idea in a more honest manner. "The only way to fund healthcare, feeding the poor, and colleges is through theft and violence."
lol, alright man. SHOULD go to those things. I still stand by my point, and have no animosity for you or your difference of opinion. So if you're beefing you're beefing with yourself. lol
Name one developed nation that funds its essential functions and services through charity rather than revenue collection? Would you rather pass around a collection plate or know that publicly-funded programs are available when you are diagnosed with cancer or your house burns down?
Emberwilde Productions The problem with your argument is that it is an emotional appeal and as clearly demonstrated in western nations that go down this route, the slippery slope only gets wider, bigger, taller and more slippery. Or in other words the excuses to take more money from producers to give to some pet emotional cause only ever increases. You can't keep arbitrarily increasing the load on producers and not expect to destroy your society in the process. Oh and by the way, if you think that the increasing wealth gap is an argument in your favor, think again. The increasing wealth gap is actually caused by the sorts of policies you are arguing for. When you take from producers, the first producers hurt are not the wealthy, they are what is commonly referred to as the middle class. As the middle class gets decimated, the wealth gap grows. I really hope you understand all this or are at least willing to think again about your position.
Emberwilde Productions " let's start by having a military funded by charity" Its called bearing arms. In fact, government has to violently suppress security, in order to legitimize itself.
Yes, I have heard about this "bearing arms." It seems not to have worked well based on CDC statistics of gun violence in the US as compared to every other developed country on the planet.
Define charity. The military, the police, courts.... are they charities? Because when I think of charities, I think of social justice. No, it is not ok for the government or anyone else to use force for a social justice type cause; however, protecting natural rights is a legitament way of using "stolen" tax payer money. Also, as that one guy was apparently debating, anarchy isn't stable. People are inherently either followers or leaders. Their will always be people who want change, and without democracy, the only way change can happen is by revolution. Government essentially needs to be in place, so people have some sort of authority. Also, so when people try to change things, they have to do it in a long and tedious fashion through a democratic government instead of violent revolution.
taxes are important because if people had to choose where their money goes, critical systems wouldn't work, i bet some of you would rather give money for a hospital than sewage and the sewage is more important
This is more the power of leading questions and sociology than pure philosophy and logic, since each question was predetermined by the surveyor than successively inferred by the questioned individual. ruclips.net/video/G0ZZJXw4MTA/видео.html This does show a predisposition for "it's ok when the government does it"' since the final question still had the most yes's regardless.
Let me try to understand. Is this video implying that we as citizens should not be taxed by our government? LMAO! I hope that's not the point of the video because its shocking to see how many people liked this video. How could we as a society fund public education, infrastructure, military, healthcare, or anything else that our communities utilize for the betterment of our country? Without taxation, we would see a society similar to that of feudal Europe where the wealthiest people have access to almost all public good (but making it private) and the poor would have 0 opportunities to get out of poverty. Privatizing all parts of society is not logical. How would government function? If that's your argument then you are also arguing that we should live in a world with no government. Government exists to protect from the excesses of unfettered capitalism. Don't get me wrong, a free market economy is certainly the best economic model there is but it needs to be regulated and the only entity that has the authority to regulate is the government. Without regulation, there would be no laws enforcing environmental protection or consumers from predatory business practices. This video has to be a joke.
Free is not free. A free market does not exist. It's a profit market. There is no free market economics. This reveals the con in economics. Sure you can change around the meaning of free and say it means that one is free to trade with whomever one chooses. This is passed of as a definition of freedom. Its still not free as freedom always has its costs. In commerce one creates contracts and one becomes an entreprenuer. In French this is known as a middleman or "one who 'takes' from the middle." This is an insult made to appear as something good and noble. Prophets of profit are those who gain from the labor of others. In the same way those who profit from lending money at interest. This is the big lie as these are both a form of theft. Cap-it-ALL-ists have done this for centuries and the mon-eye system is a perfect reflection of this subtle form of theft where fiat currencies represent a sale. One takes natural resources from the earth and sell them back to humanity while using the labor of others who work for "wages" in a war of commerce. Human resources are the free range slaves of capitalism! The word government means mind control and government is a corporation. The ruling corporation creates other corporation both profit and nonprofit. The corporations are also defined as LEGAL PERSONS. Legal personhood gives life to a corporation even though it is a dead fictional entity because it has no real life of its own except on paper. It is a corpse-oration, a dead legal entity spoken to life on paper. Paper is dead trees!
Philosophy is not always complex. Sometimes is simple. But some people can't even think about simple questions.
This is how I have always explained this to my friends and I find it funny that people would change their answer when it came to a human vs human, and human vs government. If the government is truly there to act for the people than it seems clear it could be the same as human vs human.
+Noivern I suspect it is rooted in the idea that Government will do it to Someone Else. Anonymously and at a distance, and never, never to *you* (the one answering the question). I suspect a strong correlation with the interviewee's personal views on the role of government in general, and the current (whenever it is) administration's alignment with the interviewee's views.
So... is it ok for the government to force me (through taxation) to "donate" to Planned Parenthood if I don't necessarily agree with that organization?
Thomas K. Apparently so ... with this government.
mediahound with this complacent society*
Keegan Bradshaw
Yes ... that too.
Short answer: yes...
Thomas K. No but just because something is wrong doesn't mean someone won't do it. The government is very good at knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway.
It's immoral to force people to pay for things they never agreed to pay for. That should be common sense.
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 interactions in society need to be voluntary in order for this to be logically consistent.
HitmannDDD You realize if you ask 80% of these lemmings the same question in a different way they will give you a contradictory answer? Polling distilled down to it's simplest form is leading herd animals to a desired result.
Ask them about police, courts, military funding or social safety net programs and most if they have even a shred of integrity will tell you straight up they want a gun pointed at you.
Great video Learn Liberty !!
Someone should conduct a study based on this idea- the findings would be really interesting. It should test how proportion of yes vs. no answers to the second question changes if you ask the first question or leave it out.
Bejoy Sen Well, the second questions is a trick one.
It asks if it's moral for the government to force others.
But since in a democracy the citizens are the government, this question must be about a country forcing citizens of a different country. In which case it indeed is immoral.
Connor Miles "But we don't live in a democracy"
I got some replies to what I said in other comments on this video, none of which were as correct as this one.
It's true, we don't live in a democracy. Essentially all countries are either dictatorships or corporatocracies.
I think we should live in a democracy (is not the same as majority rules). Since I think it's not immoral to have a democracy set rules for those living in said democracy.
Connor Miles "desperate entity instead of a separate entity"
I assumed as such.
"how do you make a democratic government that is not majority rules? "
Often times a responds to democracy is that it's mob rule. Which I meant that democracy doesn't always have to be majority rule.
Any democracy that has a constitution is not purely majority rule.
"which great political thinker said it, but someone once said "The problem with democracy is when the poor realize they can vote themselves money the system collapses"."
Does the system collapse then though?
Do we have any evidence of a system that collapsed because the poor voted themselves money?
I know of a lot of systems where it collapsed since the rich and/or powerful took more from themselves resulting in collapse. But none where the least powerful did so and it reached in a collapse.
But hey, we gotta love some fear mongering.
"how is a democracy not also immoral? "
Because of limited choice. The lesser of the evils is the best option and thus is not immoral.
It might have aspects that are immoral, but by being the best option it is not immoral.
If you'd be in a situation where you have the choice if 1 person dies, or 1 million (including that one that would die in the other option). Then choosing for the 1 person to die is NOT immoral (granted your choices are limited to those two options).
It might be murder and murder is immoral. Absolutely. But it still is NOT immoral to choose that option.
As far as we know, democracy is more moral than any authoritarian regime (dictatorship, theocracy, Leninist/Maoist/Stalinist style of communism etc). And more moral than any anarchy regime (Sicilian mafia, modern day Somalia etc)
If it is the best option, it is not an immoral option. Even if it has some immoral aspects.
"Similar to the video where people are asked if it would be moral for them to force others to donate to a charity they liked and they said no, how does a lot of people forcing a few make it better? "
Because wordplay is fun.
There is NOT a lot of people forcing a few. (Unless if like the USA forces Luxembourg to donate)
There are a lot of people who consent to all donating to a charity. Or who force themselves to donate. Either way it is NOT in any way people who force others to do anything. Because those that are forced are not others.
It's true that contribution and consent to this institution are forced. But that's a deeper question:
-Should you be part of the country you are born in and/or live in?
"Why not simply choose the volunteerism route instead?"
Because cooperation makes us stronger.
"Why make anyone do anything they don't believe in when there are plenty of people who do believe in your cause that you could ask for help instead?"
Do you believe it's immoral for anyone to throw their garbage into your face?
If so, we have to by extend, if we follow individualist logic, stop anyone from throwing their garbage into the open air, or into streaming water.
Lets see how far Liberty fanatics go when we stop all carbon energy. Nobody pays any taxes, fossil fuel is largely in favor of liberty. Everyone is responsible for the damages they cause, fossil fuel no longer likes liberty.
Connor Miles "Ok so you literally never explained how to make democracy not just majority rule"
--
"A constitution cannot account for every eventuality so trying to rely on one entirely to avoid mob rule is impossible, it will fail eventually."
A constitution means there's more to the democracy than majority rule. Which is all I have to proof for my claim that democracy doesn't have to be only majority rule.
Sure a big enough mob for a long enough time can change it legally. But considering a big enough mob with enough time can also change it illegally (war etc), it's just unreasonably to ask for a system that can't be overturned with enough time and effort.
"You've never heard of a system where the poor voting themselves money resulted in economic collapse? Um, what about Greece? Lol."
When did the poor vote themselves money and when did the economic collapse of Greece happen?
And did that hurt Greece more than wallstreet's fuckup hurt Greece?
"democracy is still not perfectly moral just because it is less immoral"
That's what I said, like 5 times.
"Forcing people to do things is not cooperation and you literally just told me that volunteerism isn't cooperation. You've actually perfectly contradicted these definitions here."
Volunteering is definitely a way to cooperate, I never said anything against that.
My point, perhaps not well spoken last time, is that since if you only have volunteers for public money (pay as you like tax), many people will not cooperate with this. Because they will pay nothing. Thus forcing does lead to more cooperation and volunteering only does lead to less cooperation.
Please don't take what I say and say it means things it doesn't mean...
"Have you heard of the non aggression principle and universally preferable behaviors?"
I have some time ago, I believe they would make all fossil energy immoral.
"Suddenly you just threw in some random paranoid nonsense about fossil fuels that is completely incoherent. "
Many anti-taxes places get money from fossil fuel industries. Yet if you take what they say, we should not only get rid of taxes (makes fossil fuel industry happy). We should also ban the current way the fossil fuel industry works.
Does it hurt you that if you breath air where the fossil fuel industry has dumbed their garbage in is poisonous?
Yes, that would make them the aggressor. So what would you say we should do about this?
And there's quite a large list of things that happen today that violate the non aggressor principle. Cars within hearing distance being another one.
Connor Miles "can never prevent it (democracy) from being a majority rules situation unlike how you started this argument"
I started that democracy can be more than majority rule.
With enough time and effort a big enough majority can change anything in a democracy, but again at that point wars etc have the same exact result. Without really more effort needed.
Will edit or post on rest...
If it's immoral for the government to spend money on things with which you disagree, doesn't it follow that the only moral spending would be where all the governed are in agreement?
***** There is somewhere where all the governed are in agreement. The individual's self-governance.
***** Do another video damnit!
Miles Clark I do think so, but that range of items is very limited. For example, I am sure most everyone wants an armed force, even if it's just the Navy, but not the wars overseas. Everyone wants to be free to travel from state to state without needing a visa or to change their currency, but not make all market rules uniform across all the states. The more limited, the better.
Prof Rob Gressis, thanks for this video. Have you studied the impact of including or omitting the first question on how people answer the second question?
Also, it would be great to drill into the reasons people give for government's special status.This would make a nice empirical supplement to Michael Huemer's book on political authority.
What if government provided the currency (which it does already) and the use of this currency to facilitate exchange would cost a certain fee to be tacked on, either from the buyer, the seller or both? Through that fee all other functions of government would be funded and most other taxes eliminated. Would that violate the question of morality proposed in this video?
In addition, since we are using fiat based money and an expanding population requires more money to be printed and added into the pool, this newly printed money could be circulated into society by paying people with it to do government work. Would that work out?
Charity cannot do what taxation does and vice versa, there has to be tax. what things we should be taxed for and by how much is a different question altogether.
Connor Miles If you believe that then you don't understand "welfare" and who benefits most from it.
liner986 Why not?
Connor Miles Thanks
liner986 The only time tax is justified, is if initiating theft of violence is justified. I cannot think of anything that justifies initiating theft or violence.
I want to hear the explanations given by the couple persons who did think it was ok for them to personally use force to make others give to their charity.
I am really curious with the two dudes who voted "yes" at 1:31.
This kind of approach is too good. It works with =most. Similar approach is asking what should we do to solve the poverty issue? We get answers like welfare state. And If we put the same question in a way that What should we do to improve economy and gdp, they give entrepreneurship/free market answers. Then we can say Isn't the second answer solves first question.
These kind of approaches actually work with neutral minds. Thanks for the video.
Very true and well said
Non sequitur. Taxes are paid not in the context of charity but by inherent compulusion of sovereignty. It is not paid to the government but to the state.
Smuth Nine Difference between 'government' and 'state'? Just wondering
Person state is composed of people, government, territory and soverienty. Government is an element of the state.
Allright here is my rebuttal;
When you go and live in a country you chose to abide by their rules and thus their taxes, regardless of whether you agree with what they are spent on. You are free to come and go as you please (in most countries at least). People do not really have a peaceful way of opeting out of extortion or violence with out compromising their morals. You can move away from places that tax but you can't really move away from the threat of violence. Let me know what you think.
You make a fine case. And I would say that yes, how we operate is still within moral confines as we all belong to a democracy. But it is perfectly valid, and not immoral, for a person to think that government should not tax and spend too much. These days, the left treats anyone who does not believe in this to be a villain. Meanwhile, conservatives give much more to charity, and if taxes were not taken and spent on these things, they would probably give even more.
so would liberals I am sure. but that would be better in my opinion, because it would allow any person to give to what they feel is important.
Here's a conundrum: RUclips is such a crappy, overbearing, sewer of humanity and yet through RUclips channels like this one I have learned and grown so much. I've learned how to clarify and express concepts I've only suspected all my life. What am I to think of RUclips now?
Taxation isn't force because money belongs to the Federal Reserve not you. You're simply allowed to use it to account for your transactions with the stipulation that you give a portion of it back to the Fed with each transaction.
***** So all money belongs to private bankers and they can just take it from us whenever they want?
mediahound Yup.
You okay with that?
***** Yes it is force, government mandated money is the only way to pay for taxes. So you cannot hold a job, offer services, or do business with anyone on any realistic level without using government money, or you end up in jail.
mediahound Well, I mostly use an alternative currency called Numero Set. It's issued for free instead of as a debt so there is no tax or fee feature associated with its use. So I guess I don't care what the Fed policies are for their money.
If people voluntarily opt in to governance that gives coercive powers to a central enforcer, I have no problem with that.
"Is it moral for the government to for OTHERS to give to the cause of YOUR choice"
So like of country A is like "Hey country B, give money for stuffs"...?
Unless you think democracy is forced this is not about a government forcing it's own citizens.
Darckense Onoda Democracy lets 51% oppress the other 49%. Mob rule is not freedom, it's force.
Julie Monroe "To make an extreme example on democracy being force:
2 men and 1 women vote if they should all have sex, she votes no, both men vote yes. I'm sure she'll be comforted by the fact that she got a vote so it's not force."
But that is not how the democracies we live in work. They all have constitutions and all fall under international law.
It still remains that the question is worded to mean something else than it's intended to mean. If the people are the government (democracy etc), then the government forcing others to do something has to mean people who are not citizens of the state this is the government of.
Fistwagon "Democracy lets 51% oppress the other 49%. Mob rule is not freedom, it's force."
Oh really?
In which democracy is this the case? Name a democracy without a constitution that also doesn't fall under international law (by not being in the UN)
Okay, I'll give it. North Korea is ruled in a way that's not moral.
I'm very happy we've found that out!
Darckense Onoda Let's say two wolves and a sheep have a vote on what's for dinner
Person "Let's say two wolves and a sheep have a vote on what's for dinner"
Go find me a country with a democracy, but without a constitution.
Otherwise, this is something that doesn't apply.
I'm concerned how many people think its moral to be forced to give to give money to a cause you may not support. Of course, someone there said PETA is a good charity, so their morality compass is already way off.
Exactly I can just imagine an idiot like that running the country, forcing money into a bullshit radical organization that doesn't event help humans (or animals for that matter) when people could have donated money to help starving people.
Sylverias Well even the PETA dude ended up saying it was wrong for govt. to use force so perhaps there's hope. I bet if he were really familiar with them he wouldn't support them either.
Berelore But the problem is that idiots follow organizations blindly because they only look at what an organization stands for not what it does.
WHAT ARE YOU.. AN ANARCHIST??? yes.
I used to be NAP like you, but then I took a Red Cross bullet to the knee. :'(
Ah, the non aggression principle turning more acolytes daily
The problem with this analogy is that private charities are not run by public participation, unlike government. It is not "force" when a democratic society determines what it choose to fund and individuals disagree. A better analogy might be when an individual running back goes along with the coach's playbook on a football team even if the player disagrees. Government is (or should be) of, by, and for the people... so it's not an issue of force when that body makes collective decisions on that basis.
Emberwilde Productions " It is not "force" "
So what happens when you stop "paying". You are a either stupid or dishonest.
RUclips users regularly inform me that I am a total statist idiot for thinking public programs are a good idea just because the most economically and socially prosperous countries utilize them. I know that already. So you can return to your Rand and Rothbard readings now.
Emberwilde Productions
So you are dishonest, thanks for clarifying.
Taxes weren't enforced when the Articles of Confederation were in place and look where that got the country..
Will V
Where did that get the country?
This video is encouraging anarchy.
Will V
You didn't answer what bad thing happened under the Articles of Confederation.
Buffalo122333 The collapse of the government good enough for you?
Buffalo122333 Do you know what the Articles of Confederation are?
They worded the questions in a skewed way. The fact is that we rely on charities to take on societally problems that government itself should be taking care of.(taking care of vets, disease research, feeding the poor, helping the sick etc).
Is it ok for the government to tax its people and use the revenue to help society as a whole? hell fucking yes. The vast majority of our tax money funds wars, just fucking spend it at home.
They already took your money. They'll do what they want.
neonspikes "hell fucking yes."
So if asking people what is actually happening it is bad. But the magical title of government makes it OK.
"The vast majority of our tax money funds wars"
Why not have a system where your vote counts 100%, and your dollar only supports causes you support. It is called liberty.
No, asking people about taxes isn't wrong, I love that people are thinking about things they normally wouldn't.
All I'm saying is they worded the question in an odd way to a small sample size who don't understand taxes too well so the yes-no tally is no Gallup Poll.
"and your dollar only supports causes you support. It is called liberty."
And then hope that those votes align with the necessary pillars of society? Tax dollars must fund universal healthcare, the feeding of the poor, and public colleges. Among other things these shouldn't go to a vote. Kinda like how we don't vote on constitutionally issues. Through this perspective I'd say liberty is still intact.
neonspikes
"Tax dollars must fund universal healthcare, the feeding of the poor, and public colleges."
You do not know the meaning of the word must You are either stupid or dishonest.
Let me restate your idea in a more honest manner. "The only way to fund healthcare, feeding the poor, and colleges is through theft and violence."
lol, alright man. SHOULD go to those things. I still stand by my point, and have no animosity for you or your difference of opinion. So if you're beefing you're beefing with yourself. lol
Name one developed nation that funds its essential functions and services through charity rather than revenue collection? Would you rather pass around a collection plate or know that publicly-funded programs are available when you are diagnosed with cancer or your house burns down?
Emberwilde Productions The problem with your argument is that it is an emotional appeal and as clearly demonstrated in western nations that go down this route, the slippery slope only gets wider, bigger, taller and more slippery. Or in other words the excuses to take more money from producers to give to some pet emotional cause only ever increases. You can't keep arbitrarily increasing the load on producers and not expect to destroy your society in the process. Oh and by the way, if you think that the increasing wealth gap is an argument in your favor, think again. The increasing wealth gap is actually caused by the sorts of policies you are arguing for. When you take from producers, the first producers hurt are not the wealthy, they are what is commonly referred to as the middle class. As the middle class gets decimated, the wealth gap grows. I really hope you understand all this or are at least willing to think again about your position.
Great. So let's start by having a military funded by charity and we'll speak again.
Emberwilde Productions " let's start by having a military funded by charity"
Its called bearing arms. In fact, government has to violently suppress security, in order to legitimize itself.
Yes, I have heard about this "bearing arms." It seems not to have worked well based on CDC statistics of gun violence in the US as compared to every other developed country on the planet.
Emberwilde Productions
Tell that to the 500+ million people murdered by government last century alone.
Define charity. The military, the police, courts.... are they charities? Because when I think of charities, I think of social justice. No, it is not ok for the government or anyone else to use force for a social justice type cause; however, protecting natural rights is a legitament way of using "stolen" tax payer money. Also, as that one guy was apparently debating, anarchy isn't stable. People are inherently either followers or leaders. Their will always be people who want change, and without democracy, the only way change can happen is by revolution. Government essentially needs to be in place, so people have some sort of authority. Also, so when people try to change things, they have to do it in a long and tedious fashion through a democratic government instead of violent revolution.
Lol. How about just lightly beating me up. Haha!
charity is giving by choice and taxation is forking over by loaded gun aimed at head....
@:59 why would you stick a gun and someones face and threaten to shoot them in the knee?
Government isn't charity. Now do a video on how taxation is definitely theft because well you're obviously going to do that next anyway.
I wish the showed the video of the psychos who put pins on the Yes section of the first board! Who ARE those people?
*LOL THEY DELETED MY COMMENT!*
*"LEARN LIBERTY" - EXCEPT FREE SPEECH.*
taxes are important because if people had to choose where their money goes, critical systems wouldn't work, i bet some of you would rather give money for a hospital than sewage and the sewage is more important
This is more the power of leading questions and sociology than pure philosophy and logic, since each question was predetermined by the surveyor than successively inferred by the questioned individual.
ruclips.net/video/G0ZZJXw4MTA/видео.html
This does show a predisposition for "it's ok when the government does it"' since the final question still had the most yes's regardless.
Force is immoral... end of story.
The brunette in the green tank top and shorts is HOT. Just saying.
the thing is we are all greedy bastards
aualexstanfield That is a good thing.
To any free mind stuck behind enemy lines in Commifornia GTFO NOW. It is a lost cause.
I wonder if all those hot girls still look the same six years later
Let me try to understand. Is this video implying that we as citizens should not be taxed by our government? LMAO! I hope that's not the point of the video because its shocking to see how many people liked this video. How could we as a society fund public education, infrastructure, military, healthcare, or anything else that our communities utilize for the betterment of our country? Without taxation, we would see a society similar to that of feudal Europe where the wealthiest people have access to almost all public good (but making it private) and the poor would have 0 opportunities to get out of poverty. Privatizing all parts of society is not logical. How would government function? If that's your argument then you are also arguing that we should live in a world with no government. Government exists to protect from the excesses of unfettered capitalism. Don't get me wrong, a free market economy is certainly the best economic model there is but it needs to be regulated and the only entity that has the authority to regulate is the government. Without regulation, there would be no laws enforcing environmental protection or consumers from predatory business practices. This video has to be a joke.
Moral intuition is a bitch. Fortunately cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to bother SJW's.
Free is not free. A free market does not exist. It's a profit market. There is no free market economics. This reveals the con in economics. Sure you can change around the meaning of free and say it means that one is free to trade with whomever one chooses. This is passed of as a definition of freedom. Its still not free as freedom always has its costs. In commerce one creates contracts and one becomes an entreprenuer. In French this is known as a middleman or "one who 'takes' from the middle." This is an insult made to appear as something good and noble. Prophets of profit are those who gain from the labor of others. In the same way those who profit from lending money at interest. This is the big lie as these are both a form of theft. Cap-it-ALL-ists have done this for centuries and the mon-eye system is a perfect reflection of this subtle form of theft where fiat currencies represent a sale. One takes natural resources from the earth and sell them back to humanity while using the labor of others who work for "wages" in a war of commerce. Human resources are the free range slaves of capitalism! The word government means mind control and government is a corporation. The ruling corporation creates other corporation both profit and nonprofit. The corporations are also defined as LEGAL PERSONS. Legal personhood gives life to a corporation even though it is a dead fictional entity because it has no real life of its own except on paper. It is a corpse-oration, a dead legal entity spoken to life on paper. Paper is dead trees!