Spiral Architect

That is a slippery slope - He could counter the trader principle also prevents societies from forcing cigarettes and contraceptives on him then demand payment. That is a dead end argument - I'd steer clear of market based "goods and services" examples for a non-market issue. ~ Spiral "Helping Both Sides" Architect.

To posit a different line of thinking, the matrix question really is about refuting what is given through the senses, or proposing a realty is not what it seams therefore we cannot gain any certainty of knowledge. I've always looked at the matrix question as two basic points which disqualify themselves: 1. We are in a matrix designed by others from the same universe we live in, which means the same scientific laws apply, and the only difference is they are superior technology wise and we are simply plugged into their virtual provided program. In this case we can gain certainty over realty since the same physical laws apply. They are simply projecting those laws into the virtual world we interact. Also note this is a courtesy response since we are using the same laws of nature and the argument is disqualified since it cannot prove itself. It is a proposition no different than God at this point. That only leaves us with option 2... 2. We are in the matrix designed from a completely different universe where different scientific laws apply and reality is vastly different as a result. They are projecting what is in essence a fantasy world for us to view. In this case we are at a dead end since our laws of science and reason are a fantasy and not capable of any identification of reality, proof, or even cohesive arguments, including the proposition that we are in a matrix. Further, they did not produce a matrix for us since it is our fantasy, not their reality where science is different, meaning they had no way of programming in our knowledge of what a matrix is since it is scientifically unknowable to them. They have no reason to project something they have never identified onto us. If the have any kind of scientific laws to follow they would have to project those into their matrix which takes us back to point 1. At least, that is how I see such arguments.

I second this - I have watched my own method of thinking improve from effort to practically automated after years of correcting bad habits in thinking. Now I see those habits in others and I'm amazed at how they go out of there way mentally.

That sounds like the left friends I know, and I just laugh and say they are institutionalizing such nonsense as they now have given these people access to the same system to get equal time. Better to let it be privatized and allow such thinking to atrophy.

The fact you have to go outside the existing system to find new sources of revenue by definition means the math will not add up. If the math added up you wouldn't have to charge more taxes. Reality is you can't wave your hands and claim it works if we increase the number of victims participating. By that logic Socialism works if you simply go outside of it and force more victims to participate and exploit to keep the scheme alive.

Values are virtually reinforcing to each other. But it is also important to distinguish between values that are necessary to survive as a man (productive work or honestly) and those values inherit to you as a thinking man of free will (like snowboarding). Values exist in hierarchy only as an epistomological tool as they really "go off" in real life all at once, and you certainly don't learn them in any order. Order is simply a matter of proof and conceptualizing. The truth is in the whole really applies to them. The issue is the subjective part in which you determine the things that make you individually happy. For example, the snowboard from your example is a choice unique to you. I like other hobbies, like music or games. We should pursue those as they are values to us individually. What we cannot do is ignore our job to do it since we have to work to sustain ourselves and that is a metaphysical requirement by being a man that requires self sustaining action. That would be irrational. But on the other hand you should not give up snowboarding and work all the time because it doesn't neatly shoehorn into a value scheme strictly defined by your nature as a man. Then you are working to be man qua work. You work to live, but as a human you also work to gain time to enjoy other pursuits that make you happy. The fact you have free well and can conceptualize gives you greater needs then an average animal. In a bit of irony, the phrase Carp Diem, something normally applied to subjective whim worship, if used properly only applies to an objective reality based ethics as it is through observing the requirements of reality can you project the subjective things unique to you and then properly work to them. Remember, life as defined by Objectivism is to live in the full sense of the word - to thrive. Ethics, virtue, lets you achieve values, both the ones required by being a man and the ones unique to you that bring you happiness as a conceptual being with free will. If not then your simply practicing ethics for the sake of ethics and your life is no longer the standard. That is a robot. Does that help?

Create Wealth: I create or add vale. This would be classical entrepreneurship. Invention, innovation, efficiency, etc. I either create a new product, I improve a product quality or cost wise, or through trade improvements. Example: I invent a new corn crop, I create more corn with the same land, or reduce my costs to create the same corn. Trade: This would be a fair and equal exchange of value. Example: I give you my labor to harvest your corn and you pay me to do it. Charity: I voluntarily give value for nothing material in return This is the hard one since you can give value and it's due to values like friendship or goodwill which is hard to quantify. For the sake of argument that is why I'm restricting it to receiving nothing material in exchange which make it a trade. Example: Farmer donates corn to local food kitchen or you your time to help farmer work on his house. Theft: Value is taken without permission of the owner. This is everything from outright theft on the street, fraud, or other forms of seizure without your consent. Example: Someone sneaks onto the farmers land and takes corn, the Government taxes his income, etc. As a complete aside: Following this model the Theft percentage goes up to over 50%. That is alarming indeed.

Ah - Well yes if we consider the current state. I was in "ideal state" form of thinking. That is actually a very good consideration, for if either of us could intact our version of the perfect system we'd have to untangle the current mess slowly in degrees based more or less on considerations like that.

I hate to punt it but you really have to define each first. For example if you treat the Government's massive wealth redistribution program then that number would go up alarmingly (especially if you include taxes). But I agree it's a question to ponder as not only would it be telling but if you could get a rough guess by by country or even historical period it could be another measure of freedom (aka the freedom index).

As a complete aside, you may want to rephrase that argument. That implies the group has the right to vote your property at best or that people are products of the state at worse. I know you don't mean that however but that is very open ended.

Way to ignore my point and the olive branch. For get it. I can't make you want to be free and I won't bother you with trying to work together on it any longer.

The two of you have obviously thought about this a lot and are very passionate about it. Instead of telling us how voluntary funding will not work, how about you put that passion to work in coming up with some ideas to come as close as possible? Did it ever occur to you to find the line and work towards that? Instead of saying no, you say yes "but I think we have to draw the line here". I think if you laid out that line everyone here would agree it would certainly be better than where we are at right now. Possibly, through the process, with the largely tax free society and the minimum forced taxation you advocate, others can help improve upon the model to take it the rest of the way (or even prove you right). I mean, we agree on a lot here actually so moving the conversation to what we can do might really open up the concept.

At least we are at the fundamental of the argument and here is the impasse. I simply will not agree to continuing thousands of years of force because of expediency or the lack of will to move beyond it.

OK DA, let's question the argument instead as you suggest: "Again, my point is that the whole "confiscation/redistribution of wealth" argument is a misrepresentation of what taxation does. Your wealth isn't confiscated or redistributed in matters of payment of debt. This is money you owe for services rendered..." A services is something I choose to purchase. I do not choose to be taxed. "... and you are morally obligated to pay for them to avoid getting something for nothing, i.e., violating the Trader Principle." Morality deals with choices we make, and as established I did not choose to be taxed. Morality ends where the barrel of a gun begins. The trader principles is exactly about two consenting adults choosing to trade. Not one forcing the other. "Taxation is essentially an automatic payment plan opted for by a majority of members of the household you reside in." Classical collectivist justification for mob rules - See my points above for choice vs. Force. "Look at the effort that goes into arguing against taxation. " Look at the excuses people make to justify force. The 20th Century is a testament to such compromises. "Apparently taxation is evil because democracy is evil because enacting a majority vote is evil because being held accountable in any social context is evil. " You do understand the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic, right? "We should all be free as anarchists in Voluntaryland, nevermind AR's view on taxation, cited by myself et al, which explicitly states we "would and should" pay for services rendered a la insurance. " I have no idea what this means. Evidently advocating a free society backed by moral law (aka Constitution) = Anarchy. "A policy holder does't get to choose not to pay for the insurance he receives." A policy holder chooses the policy and agrees to the payment option at the time. Thank you for making the point. "Individual mandates would be a wonderful place to start, provided we can at least agree that reality is the only credible source of what individuals must do to survive in this world." Reality and the desire to live is why I choose not to settle for a life without choice and voluntary association

I should have my wealth confiscated because a handful of people didn't participate enough in the system on an island? I'm willing to listen to counter arguments but your going to have to do better than forced participation insures the system will work. It was a bad argument for Obamacare's individual mandate and it's worse for this.

To the OP: The purpose of ethics is happiness. Productivity is a virtue and it is there to join ethics to the metaphysical fact you have to sustain yourself. It is not an either/or situation. If you just focused on productive work you would be living man qua work, not man qua man. Productivity helps you achieve values and is not an end itself (just like other virtues).

Yes, it's from there. To follow up for the OP, Values are simultaneous in day to life and the "truth is in the whole" as each is dependent on each other. For example, you have to be honest to be successfully productive. Hierarchy exists more or less as an entomological tool

There are four general methods of gaining wealth: 1. Create it 2. Trade for it 3. Charity 4. Theft As for any one individual it all depends on context, even for millionaires, as Henry Reardon vs. Oren Boyle being a good example.

It would not be a tax by definition. It would anything from Use Fee (currently done with gas or parks), "Contract Fee" (as floated by the courts idea), or even the much maligned lottery (which despite being disparaged got things built in the time of the Founding Fathers). Or it could imply be a fund raiser. Imagine Memorial Day having a telethon like Labor Day but for the military. People could donate through the year, companies would have donation jars, events, and everything the do for Jerry's kids. Toss in celebrities lined up to show their patriotism, a few sad stories of soldiers injured who need out help, etc. etc. etc. and you have a winner. Obviously it wouldn't be enough but if there is no income tax, capital gains tax, ghoul tax, etc. combined with the national pride that gets veterans out booing Jane Fonda to this day and it would do surprisingly well. Basically, you have to think outside the box. Certainly not the one we are handed.

I don't consider them opposing, just the tow main arguments. I thought I ready you scoundrel, but that might have been another point. But basically people are bad in that as best they will not participate and at worst we will need a system to protect us.

Trying to catch up over the past half a week and this diversions, so let me just ask to see if I have the two major opposing points in this thread down: 1. It has never been done so there is no evidence to suggest that a voluntary tax system will work. The closest examples still needed taxation to avoid collapse. 2. Mankind, or at least a significant enough portion of it to matter, are scoundrels that will make a voluntary tax system inoperable as they will either freeload through the system at best or cause it to collapse at worse due to lack of funding.

If anything this has been an interesting exercise in showing why an argument from utility is futile as the counter arguments have been how Tax Free Society is impractical.

Ha! Considering that one of our cats thinks my wife's head is a pillow at night you may be on to something...

This whole exercise boils down to "Why we cannot be free". Instead of doing the job of the religious left why don't we use the creative thought process to ask "How can we make it happen."

There is no case of a society being completely free which is the whole point. That is why it's called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. The evidence is in the evil of initiating force and the virtue of a contract society based on voluntary association, not forced. It's in the sorry history of man kind looting it's members through force and the painfully obvious consequences of those actions. It's in looking at the nature of man and integrating what it takes for man to thrive and be happy, then reasoning how that works in a social setting. Etc. As for the rest about justice, that is just a straw horse. I have no idea how you get from free association to moochers getting tossed in jail. Economy of Scale render the cost argument moot at any rate.