Why does someone's need make such theft morally right? I defy you to come up with a sound ethical argument for how the poor's need justifies government-sponsored income seizure. All you've done so far is repeat that there is a need.so when anyone suggests that it's legitimate to use public money (yes I know where it comes from) to help with basics those who cannot help themselves (I gave examples), they call you a welfare-supporting, entitlement-pushing socialist.
No you can't. You think that government-sponsored theft for the "truly needy" is legitimate taxation and not confiscatory taxation.I can distinguish between confiscatory taxation and the concept of taxation?
When did I say that all taxation was theft? In fact, I acknowledged there can be legitimate taxation when I said, "You think that government-sponsored theft for the "truly needy" is legitimate taxation and not confiscatory taxation."If however you see ALL taxation, at ANY level, for ANY purpose as "theft".
I couldn't agree more. I don't have to be a libertarian to agree with that.The federal government is limited by the constitution to very basic duties. Centralized government does not work. Ask the USSR or Poland. That is where we are today: centralized government with centalized planning, the same recipe for disaster that was concocted behind the iron curtain.
Obviously, taxation is theft, since if I don't pay it, men with guns will come to my house and take it by force. That's the same thing as when a mugger takes the money from my wallet (or, if you prefer, when two muggers vote to take 50% of it).If however you see ALL taxation, at ANY level, for ANY purpose as "theft" then I guess this discussion is pointless.
Third, it is theft.
Oh, be my guest, take it as evidence for whatever you like. Along with my acceptance that further discussions is pointless, I also accept that people will reach some opinion or conclusion about me based on some "evidence..."I'll take your failure to answer my question as evidence...
Hey, I've given you multiple opportunities to explain your position. Yet you refuse. What else should I think than you are unable to explain it?Oh, be my guest, take it as evidence for whatever you like. Along with my acceptance that further discussions is pointless, I also accept that people will reach some opinion or conclusion about me based on some "evidence..."
I'm philosophically a libertarian, and that goes to not trying to have the government enforce my cultural standards (outside of the criminal code) on others.
Once again: come up with a sound ethical argument for how the poor's need justifies government-sponsored income seizure.
some people are going to starve, or go without health care,etc.
You are right. It is the method of procuring funds for that that's an assault on basic decency.it's not an assault on capitalism simply to have a social safety net available.
No. Rather, many libertarians recognize that certain -- and very limited -- "general welfare" items like nation defense require some limited taxation. We don't like it, but we accept it. However the modern welfare state does not help the "general welfare" ... it doesn't help/protect all citizens equally. And it isn't a necessary state function.They like the military but they don't like welfare, so they call the latter theft.
Hence the aforementioned comment about morally consistant libertarians evolving into market anarchists. It's an almost inevitable process...Taxation is only "theft" when libertarians disagree with what the purposes to which tax money is going. They like the military but they don't like welfare, so they call the latter theft. It's as simple as that. Both constitute "income seizure".
But not everybody does. And the people who don't make use of a service shouldn't be forced to pay for it, no?Everyone can benefit from the welfare system.
Oh, please. This is the same kind of pseudologic that gun control advocates use - if everybody goes about armed, then the police have to assume that everyone they meet is packing a gun, and there will be more police shootings as a result.Now obviously you can take the welfare state too far, and there is a lot of waste. You can go too far in the opposite direction as well, and get people locked into crushing poverty with no job, no health care, no prospects. That breeds crime or in extreme circumstances revolution. So welfare does end up benefitting everyone indirectly.
the people who don't make use of a service shouldn't be forced to pay for it
Leaving aside the fact that you've stated false fears and assumed that goverment force is the only way to help them, you are making the self-contradictory argument that doing good justifies doing wrong. That's not an ethically sound argument.some people are going to starve, or go without health care,etc.
I don't know. Whatever the answer, taking money from one group of citizens and giving it to another remains theft. Your question changes nothing and simply is a red herring.What if someone decides they don't "need" the military to protect them? Can they stop paying an appropriate proportion of their taxes then?
