Mnrchst

Also, I don't see how copyrights can be reconciled with freedom of speech, which I see as a consequence of NAP/not using force against the mind.

Yeah, I know. I wanted to start a new thread becuase of how old that one was. "it follows from the non-agression principle coupled with an examination of the nature of man and the world." How so?

I've read/heard a few justifications for this, but I'd like to hear it promoted succinctly. Specifically, how it is a logical consequence of Rand's ethics.

I think this is a pretty weak argument. You're just saying that two wrongs make a right, and appealing to our understanding that one of these wrongs is much less wrong than another. First of all, those people you're taxing aren't the ones doing the invading--it's not their fault. Could you repel the invaders by taking their stuff? Perhaps, but who produced that wealth? They did. Second, you're implying that people have to be forced to give up as much as possible to win. What if this requires that you have total socialism? Does that mean no one deserves to enjoy the fruits of their labor? Finally, I'd like to point out for the sake of the discussion that even if this argument validates the idea that we should have taxes in some situations, that is very different from Grame's argument for (a little) taxation as long as we've a need for military/courts/police.

This is nonsense. Suppose I'm a serial killer and someone pulls a gun on me and tells me about how naughty I've been. Well?

This whole debate is over what people have the right to. You appear to be arguing "You've agreed to having people vote on stuff and make it the law that people will have to follow or face the consequences of force used by the government, therefore, if the government uses force against you because people voted for them to do that, then it doesn't violate your rights." That's pretty much just argumentum ad populum. "Hey, 75% of people in the US decided we should tax you, so it's moral, and you've consented to it being moral because you think people should be able to vote on the law and force others to abide by it." But the whole point of this discussion is what the law should be.

I understand, but he said "Justified wars by proper governments are not initiations of force but responses to initiations of force" as an argument for taxation (which doesn't follow) and not as if someone was arguing against governments ever going to war (I'm pretty sure that didn't happen).

All this does is invalidate one argument for no taxes--it doesn't prove that there should be taxes. It can be effective if enough people understand why they need to fund the government. Your argument appears to be "some people won't contribute to the government, therefore, let's take their money by force." How is that moral? Just because there are going to be free riders doesn't mean there should be taxes. In fact, in any society free from coercion, free riding and an increase in the wealth of the society go hand in hand (people will free ride off the minds of the most productive-wealthiest). You're basically saying "What if there isn't enough money donated for the government to work?" Then this means that too many people are stupid, which will result in a sub-optimal society under any form of social organization. I can throw this back at you and say "What if, under your preferred model of social organization, a bunch of people start going around murdering people?" Wouldn't this mean that your life is in jeopardy? Of course it is, but does that mean that we need Big Brother to watch over us? In any society, your life/prosperity/rights are subject to the judgement of others. Heck, even if you lived in a society that organized 99% of the way to how you'd want it, there still might be some laws which you think are immoral. Does this mean we should get rid of voting?

So Ayn Rand should never have advocated getting rid of social security?

Until their consumers boycott their products and buy them from competing corporations that pay the government more.

So your standard for morality is wealth and not rights?

But what if the government is fighting a foreign nation that it shouldn't be fighting. Now you're forced to pay them and the money is being spent poorly. Just because 90% of the people in your country want to fight a war with a nation (thereby being enough to get a declaration of war) were this other nation doesn't pose a threat to the O-ist nation doesn't mean you should be forced to pay for it because the its the government that's doing the fighting. Not having taxation creates a check against the stupidity of most of the people in your society.

Yes--to get a good government. If the police/courts are corrupt, then you can withdraw financial support of the government until the problem gets solved to your satisfaction.

So what if the war is justified? We're debating how it should be financed.

Ninth Doctor, I'm honestly can't follow you train of thought in your first post. What's the point? What is your question/objection/argument? All I can say is (1) It makes no sense either to argue "You haven't figured out how to implement X, therefore, it is immoral" or (2) "The Confederation failed, therefore, anything similar to it will always fail."

So what? This is ridiculous. Slavery could be used to support infrastructure that you probably would want in a capitalist society.

And anyone can take what DonAthos just said about slavery and apply it to taxation if they want to know my view on the elimination of taxation.

That's not what we're talking about. First, Atlas Shrugged is a bad example because it's been around for a long time. Also, if I make an exact copy of Atlas Strugged and put my name on it (in the place of Rand) and distribute it, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm literally claiming her work. And if I actually did, no one would believe me. What you appear to be talking about--taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own--doesn't necessarily entail a property rights violation. If you either stole some of their (physical) property with the information in question, or you obtained it by invading their privacy (perhaps you snooped a digital copy on their computer), that's one thing. But let's say someone reads you a story, and you're able to memorize it, and then you go off and tell people you did. Is it immoral? Sure, but it shouldn't be illegal. What I'm asking is how copyrights can be justified if they entail preventing people from distributing similar ideas they came up with. If someone writes a book and I make changes to it, those changes are a product of my mine. You can say most of the work was done by the other person, but (1) it doesn't change the fact that the new version is a product of my mind and (2) what about inventions that are only somewhat different derivations on a hugely innovative invention? Clearly, most of the work was done by the person who made the very innovative invention, and you've just figured out a few tweaks that still yields an invention (because it can do something that no other invention pulled off). O-ists support patenting this. So why should someone get a property right that prevents people from doing the same thing and distributing the use of that idea (copyrights)? If I make a few changes to a book, most of the work was obviously done by the author of the original, but it's still a new book--it's different from beginning to end, and that's a product of my mind.

How is a work slightly different from another not a new work? How is it not the product of a person's mind? Sure. Why not?

I think I get it now: you're saying that if 90% of people woke up tomorrow and decided to end all taxation now, it would be immoral to make that change because of what it would do to the 10%. However, if more and more people gradually reached this view, then it would be moral to pass legislation that immediately ends all taxation because the 40ish% of people who oppose such legislation knew there was a good chance such legislation would pass for at least a few months, if not years, ahead of time. So my question now is why it would be immoral to end all taxation immediately if 90% of people woke up tomorrow and reached this conclusion (virtually impossible, I know, but please indulge me).

Yes. Only if the ownership doesn't prevent others from owning their products. In other words, with patents and land, I'm not preventing someone from owning another patent or another piece land. However, because it's easy to make changes to a book/song, then the only way a copyright can have the effect of property ownership is if it applies to other ideas as well. In other words, I think people should only own property that doesn't prevent others from owning different products. Just because I'm opposed to some products being property doesn't mean I'm opposed to all products being property. Furthermore, we can already agree that there are some very original ideas that shouldn't be property (like the phrase "for shizzle dizzle", a very unique drawing, a fashion style, etc), even though we might think people have a moral right to owning it.

old link: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21985

What I meant was "Does philosophy answer this question?" The consensus here appears to be that it can't. I don't think that's true. I think that taxation should be eliminated immediately for moral reasons. I've responded to every objection so far. It appears Eiuol at least agrees with me that eliminating taxation immediately wouldn't be inherently immoral, even if s/he's not convinced it would be inherently moral. Is there anyone who wants to argue it would be inherently immoral?

So where do we draw the line between what is always good/bad and what depends on context? I assume thinking rationally is always good. Also, if we establish that there's no objective answer to this question, what, then, do you think would be the best? 5 years? 10 years? If not immediately, why not immediately? So you'd support the immediate elimination of taxation as long as there was sufficient planning to deal with its effects? You might say that's what you've been advocating, but let me draw a distinction: Scenario A: Legislation is passed that gradually eliminates taxes over 5 years, giving people sufficient time to plan for how to deal with the change. Scenario B: Legislation is passed that immediately eliminates taxes and there was sufficient planning done ahead of time for people to deal with the change. In either case, there has been sufficient planning to deal with the change.

I never said that. And the "51%" was a simplistic way of saying "enough people". (the whole Senate doesn't get changed every 2 years, for example, so that wouldn't automatically translate to a governing majority). My point is that if the idea of getting rid of all taxes immediately keeps getting more and more popular, exceeds 40%, and is growing at a rate a 5% per year, then people would start to anticipate the elimination of taxation. I sincerely hope you haven't bothered to read my posts, because I've already explicitly addressed this. I am NOT debating how likely ANYTHING is. I'm debating what is and is not moral. Why is eliminating taxation overnight immoral?