Taxes?

[crizon]

First of all:

I was notified by a moderator that I'm not allowed to argue against Objectivism (in a sense) by the forumrules in this subboard and i respect that. So let's interpret my responses as a way to find the answer to the question about objevtivism. If that's not ok, please notify me and I will stop responding.

I think we have to clear a few things again. When we are talking about this hypothetical world were there are no forced taxes, are we talking about an ideal objectivist society? Does that include the fact that every member of this society is an objectivist and always acts that way?

I actually feel that this leads me to other questions that might be best answered in a new Topic:

Can objectivism be disproved by reality? If so, then how?

Must reality be the exact objectivist ideal? If not, how close must it be?

I ask here, because maybe there is no reason to debate about it.

I feel, for you, being a reasonable man follows acting in a way that is ok with objectivism, which leaves not room for argument. So i use other words:

A man who uses what he knows about his environment and his ability to make choices in the best way, that he can at this point for this particular choice, who thinks that other people will donate enough or that if they don't his own contribution will not change it anyways, might not pay, since a new car will increase his personal happiness more than a payment to the government.

Also i dont see the irrefutable connection between these two sentences:

A reasonable man would adopt an ethical system that makes possible his long term survival and happiness, and act in accordance with it. A reasonable man would have no trouble understanding why he cannot expect from others what he isn't prepared to do himself.

Maybe the word ethical needs to go or you exactly describe it in a way that follows the next sentence, then i would question why reason follows ethics first and not firstly happiness and survival.

In other words, i think a reasonable person _would_ adopt a system that allow _his_ survival and happiness. That does not follow where the understanding that he can't expect more or less from others than he is prepared to do himself.

IE a disabled person that is very well able to reason, but not able to work, would not adopt a system that is based on voluntary donations for his survival, since he can't pay for the costs to keep him alive. This person might concludee that other people will see no reason to donate money for a stranger (him) and therefore would not adapt it.

His survival will be based on whether or not donating to disabled persons like him will make people happy or not.

[Zip]

I think we have to clear a few things again. When we are talking about this hypothetical world were there are no forced taxes, are we talking about an ideal objectivist society? Does that include the fact that every member of this society is an objectivist and always acts that way?

No but it does presuppose that there has been a fundamental shift in the main stream thinking that puts Objectivism and its ideals in place of the common philosophies and ideals of today.

I actually feel that this leads me to other questions that might be best answered in a new Topic:

Can objectivism be disproved by reality? If so, then how?

Must reality be the exact objectivist ideal? If not, how close must it be?

This should be in the debate forum.

In other words, i think a reasonable person _would_ adopt a system that allow _his_ survival and happiness. That does not follow where the understanding that he can't expect more or less from others than he is prepared to do himself.

IE a disabled person that is very well able to reason, but not able to work, would not adopt a system that is based on voluntary donations for his survival, since he can't pay for the costs to keep him alive. This person might concludee that other people will see no reason to donate money for a stranger (him) and therefore would not adapt it.

His survival will be based on whether or not donating to disabled persons like him will make people happy or not.

You are trying to sneak your own bias' into this. The premise you are starting with is that we should be supporting another person. That's it that's all... point blank, no question, regardless of how much we value him, regardless of our own situation. There is no such compulsion.

The next thing you do is assume from your own bias that a disabled person can not support himself. Just because he may not be able to do physical labour that does not condemn him to a life of helplessness. I imagine you are familiar with Stephen Hawking, but he isn't the only one, Rick Hanson, Steven Fletcher and many more afflicted with physical and mental disabilities. Work does not necessarily have to be physical, nor does it necessarily require a huge intellect.

Happy? Who said anything about happy? I wouldn't donate to support a proper government because it makes me "happy" I'd do it because I would see the reason for it. I'd acknowledge that the only way for me to live in a truly free nation would be to support that nation so that it in turn would protect my individual rights.

[crizon]

You are trying to sneak your own bias' into this. The premise you are starting with is that we should be supporting another person. That's it that's all... point blank, no question, regardless of how much we value him, regardless of our own situation. There is no such compulsion.

The next thing you do is assume from your own bias that a disabled person can not support himself. Just because he may not be able to do physical labour that does not condemn him to a life of helplessness. I imagine you are familiar with Stephen Hawking, but he isn't the only one, Rick Hanson, Steven Fletcher and many more afflicted with physical and mental disabilities. Work does not necessarily have to be physical, nor does it necessarily require a huge intellect.

Happy? Who said anything about happy? I wouldn't donate to support a proper government because it makes me "happy" I'd do it because I would see the reason for it. I'd acknowledge that the only way for me to live in a truly free nation would be to support that nation so that it in turn would protect my individual rights.

Where did i say that one should support another person?

I did not say disabled person who can do some work, but how can't work. Hawking does not fit, but there are people who just can't communicate well or fast enough to work effectively in any realistic scenario.

And donating for the government is a different story in this example, because, as you said, it is not based on the direct feeling of happiness.

Edited April 20, 2009 by crizon

[AllMenAreIslands]

I did not say disabled person who can do some work, but who can't work. Hawking does not fit, but there are people who just can't communicate well or fast enough to work effectively in any realistic scenario.

What I think you are implying here is that someone's inability to provide for himself ought to be deemed to constitute a valid claim on those who can provide for themselves. Sorry, but no, it doesn't. The proper course of action for such a person is to turn to charity. Such people are dependent on the voluntary contributions of others.

There is no justification for using force to compel the able to provide by law for those who cannot provide for themselves. There may be a powerful persuasive argument to be made to the able to contribute to a charity that helps such people, but that must be as far as it goes.