Mnrchst
-
Posts
319 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mnrchst
-
-
I really don't know if you're pulling my leg or not.
I'm asking if YOU think there should be restrictions on expression, and if so or not, WHY so or not.
-
Is the book going to have less coverage of these lectures, or is it going to be 1,000 pages?
-
I'm saying it's literally okay to initiate force, in the context of an emergency situation
Then you're not initiating force--it's already been initiated. I think this is similar to if the cops are pretty sure there's a criminal hiding in your home, and you aren't aware of this, and they go into your house without your permission.
If the US were being invaded by Canada/fascist regimes/aliens/robots, with guns and all that, anyone not immediately giving money then and there is truly a problem to your existence.
I disagree--they aren't a part of the invasion force, so I don't see how they're "a problem to your existence." You could just as easily say that someone who saves their wealth in their basement is a problem for the existence of a cancer patient simply because they're not using their wealth to help them. However, I think you're still justified in taking wealth from people in the robots scenario because there's a good chance they wont have their wealth/freedom soon anyway.
-
Rand does not suggest that anyone can actually figure out how much "the system" has cost them or how much they have paid in as taxes.
I didn't say she did.
A mixed economy is necessarily such a mess of regulation, cross-subsidization and redistribution that it is actually impossible to come up with a good number and say "this is what was taken from me".
Right, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt to. If you pay the government one billion dollars in taxes and it wants to give you two billion back in subsidies for building solar panels, I think you should refuse half of what they're giving you.
-
it sounds awfully like an emergency scenario, which would make the usual reasons that taxation is wrong no longer applicable.
Yeah, I think you're right. The people doing the taxing didn't want/cause the foreign invasion, so they're forced to choose between two bad situations, so they gotta go with what's better.
I think we can reconcile this with NAP thusly: If we can't eliminate aggression, we must minimize it.
Rothbard's take on lifeboat situations might be illuminating here: http://mises.org/daily/1628
-
Maarten, suppose bonds aren't enough.
-
So we're guaranteeing easement, but someone still owns them? So why not just call it "public property"?
-
Force and threats of force are both categorized as crimes. Slander is a civil wrong resolved by a civil suit, not a crime.
Ok, but do you think about restricting speech?
-
yes, that's what i'm referencing.
-
Peikoff has said no, but I'm not convinced of his argument. I'm definitely undecided on this though.
One way of looking at this is "Two wrongs don't make a right" or "If you commit aggression to oppose aggression, you're just doing the thing you're opposed to."
However, if an O-ist society temporarily has taxes just to fight off a fascist foreign invasion and then gets rid of it as soon as the threat is gone, then we can go back to a tax-free society, which isn't an option if the fascists win. You could argue that those who aren't willing to contribute to fight off the fascists have basically given up their rights (like a murderer or someone who attempts to institute anarchy by force), and it's obviously preferable for us to live in a tax-free society than a fascist one.
I'm not sure how to reconcile my support of NAP with either these positions.
-
Is this an argument against accepting subsidies under these circumstances?Why would you need money if you are living off the land
? -
Rand said it's OK to accept subsidies because you've already paid taxes. Since she also opposed people being parasites, I assume she also wanted people to only take in subsidies in some proportion to what they're paying the government.
However, what about those who don't pay any taxes? Should they accept subsidies/use amtrak. For example, suppose I'm unemployed and pay no taxes and I set up some solar panels on my roof and get a subsidy for it. Is this moral?
I'm leaning towards yes if I'm still paying the "embedded taxes" on goods--the prices go up because the businesspersons are getting taxed.
However, suppose I'm not buying anything from anyone else--I'm "living off the land" somewhere, and I get the solar subsidy. Is this moral?
-
interesting tidbit: Ron Paul voted against Glass-Steagal repeal not because he didn't want investment and regular banks to join, per se, but because within the context of FDIC, it meant the spreading of moral hazard to more investment.
-
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could be be more specific?
-
So if we allow easements...
1) how far should this go? should we allow everyone in society to use all the previously "public" roads? If so, why? If not, why?
Also, what do you make of the idea that we must provide easements to all in our society once the roads are privatized indefinitely because our society has organized itself around everyone being able to use them? In other words, if I buy a house in the middle of a big block of private property, I shouldn't complain if I can't get to my house, but if my house is connected to a road, which is connected to many other roads, I can't expect to be prepared for not being able to get to my house (and the owner(s) can charge a high rate because of a near-monopoly on access to it).
2) What would the benefit(s) be of owning the roads if you can't make money off of it by charging a fee? Would it just be that you own something that's below the road (like if there's gold under there or in the sewers)? Graffiti?
-
I read here that the distinction between these two discoveries is that one involves purely identification, while the other involves creation (you've created an idea).
I don't think this is true.
If I make a philosophical/scientific (i.e. about gravity)/mathematical discovery, I've created an idea that didn't exist before (just like with the discovery of a new type of engine). You could say that this philosophical/etc discovery already existed, so I didn't create it, but, then, the fact that this engine could be made already existed, so I didn't create it. You could argue that I created the new engine by the work in my mind, but, then, I created the philosophical discovery by the work of my mind.
You could argue that the engine has never existed before, therefore, that's why it's gets patented, while the discovery about gravity was already going on, but, that would have to mean you could patent a scientific discovery about a situation which has never occurred before (electricity will behave in X way if it is exposed to Y), and, therefore, you have a patent on any invention that makes use of this knowledge even though you can't think of the invention that will make use of it.
However, I still think some intellectual property is justified and reconciled with not patenting philosophical/other discoveries on the following grounds:
The critical difference between philosophical/scientific discoveries and technological ones is that one discovery, by itself, cannot be acted upon to do anything, while another can.
If I discover something new about gravity/electricity, this alone doesn't accomplish anything tangible--it doesn't automatically get us a new invention, so we can't really "do anything" with it, except have new rigorous debates about its implications. This newly discovered property about gravity could end up being exploited with a new invention, but we haven't actually invented it. However, the discovery of the new invention itself does accomplish something tangible--we can build it now.
Thoughts?
-
Should there be restrictions on speech? I'm not talking about in someone's home (they can tell you to leave), but anywhere (the government uses force against you). For example, should you be punished for writing a letter to the president that says "I'm gonna kill you!"? What about "slander"?
-
What do you think is the best method of privatizing government property? Should it go to paying off the government debt first? And if not, or if all government debt is paid off, should it go to a "fund" or "lock box" that the government will withdraw from to pay for services? Or should it go to the citizenry ecumenically in the form of direct payments?
-
This video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDhIUPo382g
makes the case for government pretty concisely.
I'm curious, does anyone see a gap in the reasoning here? Does this video not provide enough detail to justify government (assuming we already accept NAP)?
-
"Perhaps not in the way you are thinking, as in a person literally cannot get off his land to go anywhere"
Yes, that is what I'm thinking. The only way to avoid that would be to have government regulations over how the ownership of roads can be conducted.
-
it would violate the non-aggression principle.
Why? Because it's public? Then that would mean we should have no government.
If you're saying that all property should be privately owned, and land is property, then all land should be privately owned.
Not necessarily. Just because someone thinks some land is property doesn't mean all land should be property (newly discovered land isn't automatically property).
you need autonomous control over your values in order to live morally.That seems like an endorsement of anarchism.
Look at it this way: Let's suppose there's an otherwise O-ist society where there are public roads. There are no taxes, so the roads get maintained by donations. What's wrong with this arrangement? If roads are privately owned, then (without govt regulation) that creates the possibility of a person being unable to legally leave their property to get to another's property (where said property owner is OK with this person coming over). If the government addressed this problem by requiring that anyone could travel over the roads, then there would be no point in owning roads that I can see.
However, let's say that the government partitions the roads (when they're privatized) into a set number of groups with a set number of borders (subject to change in the legislatures), and, anyone who owns property within a "road zone" gets to travel within the road zone, and the owner(s) of the roads get to set prices for others entering their zone (possibly setting it at nothing). Do you think this scenario (where all the roads are privately owned) violates NAP? Or is this OK?
I assume this is how it would work, because having the roads be owned by any number of people trading any portions of roads without some form of guaranteed easement could result in total chaos. And since having a zones within major cities would make enforcement of entrance into the zone almost impossible, every city/town would be its own zone.
-
This explains why we need property and why all property should be privately owned, which was my question. However, I've realized that "why should all property be privately owned" isn't really what I'm asking.
What I'm actually asking is "Why should all land be property?"
We don't allow a market on the use of force (government), so we don't necessarily want a market on everything.
What would be wrong with having (some) roads be public?
-
Unfortunately, this graph isn't adjusted for price-inflation or population growth
-
Only if doing so is necessary to keep the Earth able to support human life, which I think is extremely unlikely to ever occur. However, within the context of the oceans being "public property", I suppose you could justify having such regulations as a check against the tragedy of the commons.
Also, I seem to remember Peikoff saying perople shouldn't own oceans in a podcast because (something to the effect of) "people can't live there" which I find to be a silly argument.
Are taxes justified to fight fascist foreign invasion?
in Political Philosophy
Posted
But that doesn't mean that you're initiating it against--it's already been initiated against them by the foreign invasion (not tangibly, but they're on their way). If you don't tax them (in this scenario), their property/rights will be completely taken, so they're no worse off if you tax them. Someone could argue that they're worse off until the invasion comes to them, but people have to think long-range. It's like saying that sawing off someone's limb is evil if it's necessary to save their life.
I understood you perfectly: I'm saying they aren't invading you. Just because someone doesn't help solve a problem doesn't mean they're a "part of the problem"--they simply aren't making the problem better or worse.