fletch

Are you suggesting that the motivation for socialized medicine--as well as any other social program--is religion? How then would you explain that it is the irreligious that seek the forced implimentation of these programs, and offer a non-religious justification for them? How then do you explain the 1800's in America? It seems to me that capitalism and Christianity got along just fine. Or was that an example of 'cloud cuckoo land?'

No. But then again, many would consider Bush just such a proxy, and despite the fears to the contrary, six years into the Bush presidency(most of it with a republican majority) he didnt bring a return to a theocratic dark ages. How much damage would a president Hillary and six years of democrat majority bring to liberty and capitalism in the US? Quite a lot, I suspect. Crackpots like Robertson are no threat to my freedom. Crackpots like Hillary are. If Robertson were running for president and leading the field, then I might join you and be worried. But right now, he is as far on the fringe of society as he is on the fringe of reality. Giuliani, Mccain, and Thompson, the fronrunners for the GoP hardly strike me as fundamentalists. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards do. I think the resurgence of Christianity is more a reaction to the increasing power of the irrational irreligious left. They are trying to defend their moral positions from the assaults of the amoral leftists. Christianity does have to retreat in the face of reason, and its resurgence is due to the fact that the socialist left does not represent the face of reason. Socialism is, at least in my opinion, more irrational and dangerous than Christianity. People who agree with that position will begin heading back to church in droves to help defend what they see as traditional moral values from attack. There is no viable third alternative. You either throw in with the leftists who openly seek to destroy everything you value or you throw in with the church which, while hardly perfect, will fight to defend at least some of what you value. I think it was you (if not, I appologize) who said earlier that Christian ethics often mirror Objectivist ethics. It is these ethics and values that are under assault from the irrational irreligious left.

Oh, I see. So the media elites, the Hollywood elites, the elites in education, and those in the halls of government power have given up their belief in socialism? I wasnt aware of that. And here I was all worried. I guess I was just imagining all that talk about the socialization of medicine. Good to know that both democrats and republicans are now united in the goal of dismantling the welfare state.

We have constitutional protections against religious domination in America. We have no such protections against socialism. While all religions are irrational, some of them are less so. An enlightened religion such as Christianity is far preferable than is, say, the so called 'religion of peace.' And as for the Soviet Union lasting less than a century, for the perhaps hundreds of millions who lived and died during that century, that will be of little consolation. For them it lasted a lifetime. For both the theist and the socialist, their beliefs are an article of faith and, therefore, are equally impervious to reason. There are no ethical hurdles that the socialist must overcome to deprive you of your rights. In fact, they dont really even recognize the concept of rights. To the socialist, rights are not something that belong to the individual but are things doled out by society and, as such, can just as easily be taken away. Christians largely see rights as eminating from God. If thier faith leads them to support my rights then to that I say, great. I fear socialism and Islamic fascism, and in general, Christians would agree. The way I see it, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is the agnostic/atheistic left that is destroying this country, not the Christian right. The choice in America is not Objectivism vs. sujectivism, it is right wing subjectivism vs. left wing subjectivism. Right wing subjectivism offers capitalism and liberty with a few Puritan strings while left wing subjectivism offers the death of capitalism and liberty. Pretty simple choice there.

I am with you completely on this one, Moose. It is the secular left that is the driving force behind the advance of collectivism in this country and around the world, not the christian right. I have found that outside of their atheism, the secular left is completely deviod of rationality. I have spent a great deal of time (too much probably) debating the virtues of capitalism and liberty on other forums. What I have found is that the typical atheist is far more likely to have no concept of rights, a contempt for capitalism, and a warm spot in their hearts for any totalitarian who uses oppressive tactics to achieve altruistic goals. Having rejected any higher authority, they have convinced themselves that morality is subjective, and that truth is whatever the majority happens to think it is at any given moment. They equate good and evil with religion. Having rejected religion, they deny the existence of good and evil. Everything, to them, is a shade of gray and only a fool would think otherwise. I fear these people far more than I fear any Christian movement. My experience with Christians has been the exact opposite. Outside of their belief in God, they can be quite rational. They often support and defend the free market, respect the rights of others, and have a general distaste for socialism. They acknowledge the existence of good and evil and are generally right in their diagnosis. America has lived with Christian morality since its discovery and seems to have gotten along just fine. We now have a political party in this country that openly seeks an American defeat in the war in Iraq, schmoozes with the likes of Hugo Chavez and would like nothing more than for this country to follow in the footsteps of Cuba or Venezuela. There could not be a more open or obvious threat to liberty than the DNC.

The problem, bob, is that you are not agitating, you are hiding. You have gone underground. You have chosen to evade the laws, not fight them.

I think it is in the context of a hierarchy of values that the whole idea of tax evasion falls apart. I could be said that it is in everyones short term interest to evade taxes. It is the equivalent of an immediate and sizable raise in income, and the chances of being discovered in the near term are nil. Virtually anyone can get away with it for a year or two or perhaps longer. It is only in the long term that the real consequences for tax evasion appear, and that is what rational self interest is about--the long term. When considering the question you posed: 'what action is actually in my life-serving long term interest?' Tax evasion should immediately be scratched off the list. It is little more than a short term strategy--actually, there is nothing strategic about it. It is, rather, as its name suggests, an evasion, not just of taxes, but of long range thinking. I guess my difficulty here is in trying to come up with a scenario where tax evasion can be considered to be a benefit to ones long term well being. The person who places a higher value on the dollars he saves by evading taxes is really putting in jeopardy everything those added dollars might net him. How does one plan for and build a long term future, when that future is so clouded with uncertainty? If at any point in the future the evasion is uncovered, everything that man has worked for could be lost--business, savings, liberty and even ones family can be destroyed. Is this not exactly the type of trouble the rational man seeks to avoid? I suppose if someone could supply me with an example of an argument whereby a rational man sees tax evasion as an integral part of his long term strategy for success, then I might reconsider. But until then, I will view it as short sighted, irrational and self-destructive.

I dont have a problem with that. And I wasnt trying to blur the issue. Besides, osha non-compliance isnt the issue, tax evasion is and I dont see a link between the two. But as long as we are talking about it, you are not likely to report yourself to osha, nor are you likly to file suit against yourself. Osha regs are designed to protect employees against evil and unscrupulous task masters like me. As a business owner, risk is the name of the game. If a crummy piece of equipment costs you a finger or two, you go on with life with a couple less digits. Those are the types of risks a business owner takes, but you cannot expect your employees to face those same risks. The day you hire your first employee, you would be crazy to continue to ignore the law. But back to tax evasion....If it is a moral, victimless activity whose practitioners are modern day equvalents to Washington and Jefferson, why do you not join them in their evasion of the law?

I think it matters if you are working alone in your basement, or you have employees working for you. If you have employees, and one gets injured on the job, are you not opening yourself up to a lawsuit? If you openly flaunt safety regs, and someone in your employ gets hurt, a good lawyer will have you for lunch. No? Isnt it possible that there can be victims where there is non compliance with osha rules? It seems to me that there is a difference between tax evasion and non-compliance with federal regulations.

Isnt that a rather rude thing to say, considering it was you that started this thread by asking for other peoples opinions?

I have to admit that I dont think about suicide very often. I think the last time it came to mind was on 9/11. I remember wondering to myself how horrible it must have been up there for people to decide that throwing themselves out of a window 100 stories up was the better of all other possible alternatives. Compared to that, the scenario for your friend James does not seem quite so bleak. Suicide in his case would be the worst possible decision. He has already survived all of the wounds of his early life. All he needs now is help dealing with the scars. Because he has not found happiness in life does not mean that he will not find it. Unless, of course, he stops looking.

The immorality in my mind, beyond the utter disregard for the law, is that tax evasion is not a rational act. It is totally self-destructive. I have seen people loose everything because they wanted to cheat the system. All they succeeded in doing was cheat themselves out of a productive existence. Only a fool, or a revolutionary would make such a choice. I dont see any modern day Jeffersons around anywhere, so I have to assume that most tax evaders are of the former variety. And as Sophia said, these people are not trying to change the system, they are trying to slip through the cracks. That reason alone should nullify any relationship between the founders and modern day tax evaders.

No. The were prepared to put their lives, liberty, and property on the line in defence of their position. I see little evidence that modern day tax evaders are prepared to do likewise. No. I am not asking anybody to fall on their sword. Nor am I here to defend govenment tax policy or regulatory policy. There are government regulations that I skirt as well, but I do not pretend that dont exist. I try to abide by them as best as possible and as often as possible. They are often contradictory, irrational, unnecessary or just plain incomprehensible. I try to operate within the legal framework, not outside of it.

My point about Bonds was more along the lines of who the victims of his actions were. But you are right, he is lying and cheating to gain a value he might not otherwise gain through honest means. But if the man had any integrity, he would argue in defence of steroid use regardless of the consequences, but he will not because he values the record books higher than personal intergrity. With regard to taxes, the government may not have the 'right' to take your wealth, but it certainly does have the legal power to do so. Look, I am no defender of taxation, but I see nothing moral in tax evasion. It is ultimately self-destructive. If a man spends a lifetime building a business, a career, and a family, but does so while evading taxes, he could, and probably will, lose everything. Explain to me how that is rational. If you want to protest taxation, then by all means protest. But until the tax laws are changed, obey them. In regards to the gunman scenario, is it dishonest to tell him a falsehood about the whereabouts of your children? Yes. Is that bad? No.

If Barry Bonds has been on steroids and he gets the home run record, who has he cheated? The fans? Not really. They have been entertained by him. The game of baseball? Maybe. But wasnt one of baseballs best seasons the season that Sosa and Mcguire (both likely steroid induced) battled it out? The real victims are those players who played by the rules and Bonds himself. The same is true of tax cheats. Like Bonds, tax cheats or tax evaders believe that they are above the rules that apply to the rest of us. Like Bonds, tax cheats are dishonst. If Bonds believes that steriod use is good for baseball, he should stand up, admit his usage, and fight for its legitimacy. Same applies to tax cheats. If they believe taxation is wrong and wish to take a principled stand, then that is great. Stand up and do it. Dont hide in the shadows. But in baseball, the real victim is Bonds, who has to live with the fact that he cheated his way to the top of baseballs greatest list. Tax cheats are their own victims. They cheat themselves. Like it or not, tax evaders are criminals. They have chosen, essentially, a life of crime. And as scofflaws, they must spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder, and trying to stay one step ahead of the government bean counters. This hardly seems rational, nor something that would serve a man's long term rational interests.

This would likely be the main reason why there has not been and unlikely will be any large scale tax revolt. I deal regularly with other self employed individuals, some of whom do not accurately report their income (if they report at all). I wish I could attribute to them some grand, morally principled stance, but I cannot. They dont pay because they think they wont get caught. I happen to know two people, both bar owners, who got caught not paing taxes. Both lost their businesses, their homes, and their credit. After more than a decade, neither has recovered. In my mind, tax cheats are just that: cheats. It is a short term gain that puts at risk long term success. I dont see any value in a life spent trying to stay one step ahead of the Feds.

bobsponge, I dont think that even you believe that that is a fair comparison. Should Amercia become a totalitarian state, I might join you. But until then, the government is worthy of my support (even if a large measure of that support goes to the welfare of others). We cant pick and choose the laws we wish to abide by. To do so would be anarchy. Just out of curiosity, did you stop paying taxes because of your Objectivist beliefs, or are you using Objectivism to rationalize what you were already doing?

bobsponge, I share your distaste for taxation, particularly of the wealth transfer variety. But unlike you, I pay my taxes in full for one reason--I prefer liberty to incarceration. As unjust as the tax code is, it is the law. No sense in compounding the injustice by risking jail time and a lifetime of payng penalty and interest.

In the 9/11 attacks, the 'enemy's capacity to wage war' was nothing more than 19 men with box cutters. The result was 3000 dead Americans. With an enemy this dedicated, eliminating the capacity to wage war will be impossible. Genocide will hardly solve the problem either. Even if you could get past the moral problem with the genocide of hundreds of millions of people, the practical difficulites in getting it done should stop you. The only solution is to destroy the enemy's desire to wage war. Liberty, free markets, and a long overdue religious renaissanse should do the trick.

Methinks Mr. Olberman protests too much. Looks like Mr. Giuliani hit the nail on the head--and the surrendacrats know it.

Not only that, but a person with a billion dollars to 'donate' would have a far greater interest in seeing that the judicial system was not corrupt.

Look, Dan, its either you or me. And being the fair guy that I am, Ill let you have her.

If we are going to correct the unfairness in the world, why stop at intelligence and wealth? What about looks? Surely it is unfair that some people are better looking than others. In the name of fairness, should not the beautiful be sacrificed to the ugly? Why not re-distribute beauty? Hot chicks would have to date ugly guys and hot guys date ugly chicks. That would certainly go a long way to alleviate the inequalities of nature.

In other words, the first nature of existence for man is that of a parasite. Maybe that explains why so many are willing to live their whole lives that way.

If Objectivist ethics refer to rights as a "right to act" then the answer would be none. But how is that different from the 'rights' of a newborn? Outside of throwing up all over themselves, I dont dont see what actions a newborn could take that would be all that different from a human embryo still in the womb. Thank you, Doctor, but it does. My wife was in labor for 20 hours with our first, 3 hours with our second. My second child was literally in there one minute, out the next. The elapsed time between first sighting of his bald head to him being all the way out could not have been 30 seconds. My point is, to say that human life begins when the cord is cut is to pretend that thing in there is neither human nor alive. The truth is, it is both.