Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Legal adult age

Rate this topic


Hazmatac
 Share

Recommended Posts

I did not say paying taxes alone.

Well, why should a free individual be required to pay taxes?

It appears that you're making "paying taxes" part of your determination of "voter eligibility". What other requirements are you suggesting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have to ask, have you read Ayn Rand's ethics, and specifically, her explanation of how men are to deal with each other?

Oh sweet fancy Moses... here we go..

It does in fact work both ways.

When given a job description and a rate of pay and benefits for the job described one has a right to expect upon acceptance that this is the agreement and this is what they are working for.

Just as the employer has a right that the work agreed upon will be completed.

This situation is exactly what it would be moral to use the court system for as pertains to employment.

You response seems to imply that an employer can change all terms at any time.

If this is the case why can an employer not choose, when the pay period is over to pay less than the stated wage?

This really is no different than expecting more, seperate and unrelated work undiscussed at the time of work agreement.

I have sued exactly one employer in my lifetime of work.

I was moved across to another country having a contract in hand.

Once on the other side of the world and at my employment I was handed a new contract with different terms, responsibilities, pay scale (much lower for many more hours of labour) & benefits and told that I would be fired if I did not sign it. Being fired would have meant being forced to leave the country immediately as I was on an employer sponsered visa.

The employer had used this tactic on several people before.

So yes, I sued.

Unethical?

I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like your employer was guilty of breach of contract. As has been noted here, that does warrant your suing him. Contract breach is fraud, which is a form of force, which is prohibited in a free society.

Of course. And of course I won.

Perhaps we are starting from a different premise? Have your employers been less formal?

Because I insist on a clearly stated & signed job description.

I don't know of many jobs that don't provide one.

So what I was saying, and am restating is that if someone gives you a job description along with a wage....

You take the job, based on that description and wage meaning that you turn down other jobs, at other wages.

By, after acceptance of one description, attempting to force you to do work outside of the job description for which you aren't paid an employer is commiting fraud. And deserves to be sued.

The protection for the employer (I have my own business and am now the employer) is the "must comply with any reasonable workplace request" part of the job description.

This means if you work as a prep cook in a kitchen you could be asked to do other kitchen work, or things pertaining to the operation in which the food is prepared or even stocktake, bussing, etc and as a reasonable request could be fired immediately for refusal to do so. However if I demand they spend the night at my house cleaning, attempting to train my ill-tempered German shepard and entertaining my children they have every reason and right to refuse.

All this of course is moot if one is too foolish to get a written job description.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we are starting from a different premise? Have your employers been less formal?
In some cases yes, and in some no. But my personal experience doesn't determine what principles should govern employment. That is derived from grasping the nature of man's rights.

So what I was saying, and am restating is that if someone gives you a job description along with a wage....

You take the job, based on that description and wage meaning that you turn down other jobs, at other wages.

By, after acceptance of one description, attempting to force you to do work outside of the job description for which you aren't paid an employer is commiting fraud. And deserves to be sued.

How does the employer force the employee to do work? Physical assault? All the employer can do is threaten to fire the employee, something that is well within his right to do.

The protection for the employer (I have my own business and am now the employer) is the "must comply with any reasonable workplace request" part of the job description.

This means if you work as a prep cook in a kitchen you could be asked to do other kitchen work, or things pertaining to the operation in which the food is prepared or even stocktake, bussing, etc and as a reasonable request could be fired immediately for refusal to do so. However if I demand they spend the night at my house cleaning, attempting to train my ill-tempered German shepard and entertaining my children they have every reason and right to refuse.

All this of course is moot if one is too foolish to get a written job description.....

This is the law being used to engineer society, forcing men to deal with each other not through mutual agreement, but according to the capricious whims of bureaucrats. Nor do one's rights hinge on whether one has gotten (or provided) a written job description. I'll say it again: apart from contractual terms, enforced by objective law, people are rightly free to associate and dissociate from each other however they wish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? What specifically does it have to do with taxation? What about "if you're subject to laws, you should have the right to vote for or against the people who are deciding what laws to pass"?

People voted into office determine how our tax dollars are spent. Simple. It's part of what fueled the revolutionary war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People voted into office determine how our tax dollars are spent. Simple. It's part of what fueled the revolutionary war.

That's quite collective.

So, "the people" have rights over individuals? What is your morality standard for the minority?

What if the people vote groups into office that decide that certain minority groups should be jailed and exterminated? Or that some groups should receive tax money because they meet certain criteria that these people voted into office have determined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the people vote groups into office that decide that certain minority groups should be jailed and exterminated? Or that some groups should receive tax money because they meet certain criteria that these people voted into office have determined?

That's where the rule of law comes into play. That is why we were founded as a republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where the rule of law comes into play. That is why we were founded as a republic.

So, the rule of law trumps individual rights that the government is bound to protect? Where is the objective rationality and morality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that isn't collective in the least. I'm saying that minors who pay taxes deserve to have some say in how they are spent. I'm defending a minority (minors), and I am always for the rights of individuals (assuming their rights don't inhibit the rights of others). Part of the reason they don't have as many rights is bound to be because they can't vote the lawmakers into office. Someone had asked the connection between minors being taxed and not being able to vote, so I told them. I have no idea why you think that is collective.

That's quite collective.

So, "the people" have rights over individuals? What is your morality standard for the minority?

What if the people vote groups into office that decide that certain minority groups should be jailed and exterminated? Or that some groups should receive tax money because they meet certain criteria that these people voted into office have determined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that isn't collective in the least. I'm saying that minors who pay taxes deserve to have some say in how they are spent. I'm defending a minority (minors), and I am always for the rights of individuals (assuming their rights don't inhibit the rights of others). Part of the reason they don't have as many rights is bound to be because they can't vote the lawmakers into office. Someone had asked the connection between minors being taxed and not being able to vote, so I told them. I have no idea why you think that is collective.

Well, how do "minors" have say?

Why are taxes moral? Because?

Taxes should be voluntary.

Edited by SD26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People voted into office determine how our tax dollars are spent. Simple. It's part of what fueled the revolutionary war.
Simple and yet inadequate. It's pretty obvious that people voted into office influence how tax dollars are spent. Now explain why that fact determines that the selection of public officials should be exclusively based on the fact of whether you pay taxes. Reduce it to the function of government. Show me how "I pay taxes" logically means that I get to determine who runs the government, and "he doesn't pay taxes" logically means that he doesn't get to determine who runs the government. Remember what a government actually is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, technically, minors do not have say because they don't vote on the elected officials. I don't think you understand me at all. I never said taxes were moral, I would be the last person to say that. What I am saying is this: If our tax system remains the way it is (which it is likely to do for a while), minors that pay taxes should either be able to vote or they should be exempt from taxes.

Well, how do "minors" have say?

Why are taxes moral? Because?

Taxes should be voluntary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I remembering what a government should be or the way they actually are? In our current system, taxes play a big role in the function of our government. Anytime we go to war, tax dollars are used. Anytime we defend our borders, tax dollars are used. I could go on with more examples, but I trust you already know these things.

Let me take a moment to clarify. I don't think that whether or not you pay taxes should be the sole decider in whether or not you can vote. That said, I do think that if you can't vote, you shouldn't have mandatory taxes.

Ideally, I think people should be able to specify where their money goes. Pooling money together for a common goal doesn't have to be a bad thing (for example, taxes). However, ignoring the rights of individuals (and where, or if they want their money to go) is not moral. Our tax system isn't like this, but ignoring the rights of individuals is still amoral. Currently the only way we can influence what our tax money is being used for is through voting (and campaigning). Minors cannot vote, but they are still subject to taxes. Their money is being used for wars they might not support, healthcare systems they want nothing to do with, etc and they have no voice in the matter. Explain to me how this is ethical.

As for saying that people that are subject to laws should be allowed to vote; Minors are also subject to laws, but not to the extent that everyone else is. They are treated differently in a courtroom even if their crimes are the same as those of an adult (with some exceptions). A lot of aspects our culture seem to suggest that minors should not be held as accountable for their actions as adults are. I am for a system where anyone who is self-sufficient and willing to take full responsibility for their actions should have the same rights as anyone else. They have earned them. A child would obviously not qualify, logic tells us they aren't able to be self sufficient or responsible for their actions. You might argue that minors might not make the right decisions in their lives, but at least this way they are taking responsibility. If they are unwilling to take responsibility, they get fewer rights, regardless of age. Furthermore, in a rational world, anyone (regardless of age) who continues to make the wrong decisions in life will have to change or perish. This is the kind of environment I wish I had could have grown up in. Setting an arbitrary age to earn rights is detrimental to everyone. Responsible minors are being held back for no reason other than to make others more comfortable. Irresponsible minors are being enabled and then set out into the world no questions asked.

I hope I have made my case in some way even if I am not arguing the point you were expecting me to. Look at the many ways minors are oppressed and ask yourself whether or not you can justify them. They range from the very important (voting, taxes, inability to enter contract) to the downright silly (not able to use certain equipment at work, getting longer breaks at work than everyone else) and then to the downright insulting (certain malls not allowing unaccompanied minors). The problems exist in our laws and in our culture. I've seen it from both sides very recently (a minor and an adult) and I can't justify it logically. Can you?

Simple and yet inadequate. It's pretty obvious that people voted into office influence how tax dollars are spent. Now explain why that fact determines that the selection of public officials should be exclusively based on the fact of whether you pay taxes. Reduce it to the function of government. Show me how "I pay taxes" logically means that I get to determine who runs the government, and "he doesn't pay taxes" logically means that he doesn't get to determine who runs the government. Remember what a government actually is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the many ways minors are oppressed and ask yourself whether or not you can justify them. They range from the very important (voting, taxes, inability to enter contract) to the downright silly (not able to use certain equipment at work, getting longer breaks at work than everyone else) and then to the downright insulting (certain malls not allowing unaccompanied minors). The problems exist in our laws and in our culture. I've seen it from both sides very recently (a minor and an adult) and I can't justify it logically. Can you?
Yes: children are incapable of forming contracts (not able to enter into an actual binding agreement), and lack the basic mature judgment needed to be allowed to determine the law and lawmakers. I don't know what you're referring to w.r.t. taxes; laws that dictate to employers how any employees should be treated are improper, but I refer you back to the point that children are incapable of entering into contracts which is where such matters are properly handled. You will notice my deliberate use of the word "children".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, technically, minors do not have say because they don't vote on the elected officials. I don't think you understand me at all. I never said taxes were moral, I would be the last person to say that. What I am saying is this: If our tax system remains the way it is (which it is likely to do for a while), minors that pay taxes should either be able to vote or they should be exempt from taxes.

You're not giving any reason for your link between taxes and voting. Why are you linking being a victim of gov. sanctioned theft to voting rights?

Here's the alternative you're offering: tax paying minors should either be allowed to vote ( let's call this A ), OR they shouldn't be made to pay taxes ( B ).

However, if C is that our tax system remains the same, then you did not offer any reason why "A OR B" follows from C. You just made the statement. Logically, for the statement "A OR B" to follow from C , meaning C => (A OR B ) either A has to follow from C ( C => A ) or B has to follow from C ( C => B ). Makes sense so far, right?

The statement C => ( A OR B ), and the statement ( C => A ) OR ( C => B ) are logical equivalents, to any A, B, C. Agreed?

So let's break up your sentence into two, and now you'll see how illogical it is:

1. C => A, meaning that if our tax system stays the same, minors should be allowed to vote. Surely, you see there's no connection whatever there? Minors should either be allowed to vote or not, whatever the tax system.

2. C => B. If our tax system stays the same, minors should be exempt. Why? Seems like this goes against your entire wish, to not treat minors differently from adults. It's odd that now you would want positive discrimination, is it not?

And yet, your sentence is the logical equivalent of these two statements, with an OR sign between them. For your statement to be true, at least one of these has to be true. You're spoiled for choice, it's enough to prove one of them. Which one do you want?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the rule of law trumps individual rights that the government is bound to protect? Where is the objective rationality and morality?

I missed this earlier. You missed the point, the rule of law is to protect the individual's rights through a system of objective justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the link between taxes and voting. In our current system, the only way we have to influence where tax dollars go is through voting. In my opinion, this is inadequate, but we are speaking in terms of things staying the same. Government funded healthcare is a popular example right now. The money would come from our tax dollars to pay for everyone else's healthcare. Those that want that may have voted for Obama and similar minded politicians. Others may have voted for someone else. The minor voted for neither, but their money will still be given to that purpose if certain bills are passed. The same would apply to any situation where the government spends tax money (I trust we don't need more examples, they are all around you). Voting directly affects who is making these decisions. The decisions made are directly related to how tax dollars are spent. Thus, it would logically follow that anyone not voting is not deciding how their money is being spent. I definitely see a connection, but other factors should come into play with voting since it involves more than just tax money.

That said, neither C=>A or C=>B are accurate representations of what I said. I believe there is no way to justify having someone pay taxes without them determining how it is spent. This would lead to an entirely different system of taxes for things to be ideal. If things stay the same however, they can only do this through voting for elected officials to make these decisions for them. If you cannot justify a system, it should be changed. I do not want "positive discrimination." I want a system that does not base rights on an arbitrary age. This would mean that once a minor is willing to accept all of the responsibilities of rights, they should have them. If they fail, rights are taken away just as they are with adults. With the way things currently are, minors are accepting a responsibility of a right (paying taxes) without having the right. Voting should be the primary decision, and paying taxes would be just one of the responsibilities involved afterwards. It is not the logical chain of events for a cause to come after an effect just as it wouldn't be logical for a responsibility to come before a right. Voting first, then taxes. Minors being treated equal to adults means both good and bad things. Having just bad, or just good is still discrimination. At the very least, all you can ask for is consistency in a system. It is not consistent to say you are responsible enough to work and pay taxes, but not responsible enough to determine how your earned money is spent. The only way to be consistent with the current system is by only giving the responsibility to those that have the right. That is reality. I was not saying that either option is ideal, but these are our choices to be able to justify what we are currently doing. I personally am hoping for a much better system such as the one I described.

You're not giving any reason for your link between taxes and voting. Why are you linking being a victim of gov. sanctioned theft to voting rights?

***Here's the alternative you're offering: tax paying minors should either be allowed to vote ( let's call this A ), OR they shouldn't be made to pay taxes ( B ).

However, if C is that our tax system remains the same, then you did not offer any reason why "A OR B" follows from C. You just made the statement. Logically, for the statement "A OR B" to follow from C , meaning C => (A OR B ) either A has to follow from C ( C => A ) or B has to follow from C ( C => B ). Makes sense so far, right?

The statement C => ( A OR B ), and the statement ( C => A ) OR ( C => B ) are logical equivalents, to any A, B, C. Agreed?

So let's break up your sentence into two, and now you'll see how illogical it is:

1. C => A, meaning that if our tax system stays the same, minors should be allowed to vote. Surely, you see there's no connection whatever there? Minors should either be allowed to vote or not, whatever the tax system.

2. C => B. If our tax system stays the same, minors should be exempt. Why? Seems like this goes against your entire wish, to not treat minors differently from adults. It's odd that now you would want positive discrimination, is it not?

And yet, your sentence is the logical equivalent of these two statements, with an OR sign between them. For your statement to be true, at least one of these has to be true. You're spoiled for choice, it's enough to prove one of them. Which one do you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, neither C=>A or C=>B are accurate representations of what I said.

That's not up for debate. I applied the rules of Logic flawlessly to your very clear statement that C => ( A OR B ). You can't brush off something that is clearly perfect logic, as not accurate.

[ C=> ( A OR B ) ] <=> [ ( C=>A ) OR ( C=>B ) ]. is an accurate statement! (I used <=> to signify equivalence) If you wish, I can give you a reference for the proof of that statement.

Also, you did say [ C=> ( A OR B ) ] , where C is that we have the same tax system, A is that minors should vote and B is that minors should be exempt. If you wish, I can quote it back to you.

So, where exactly do you see an inaccuracy?

I believe there is no way to justify having someone pay taxes without them determining how it is spent.

That's also not true. There is no way to justify having someone pay taxes is a true statement. Always.

Also, once you pay your taxes, you can't determine how it's spent. Voting, in today's America, is not a way to determine how your money is spent, it's a way to determine how other people's money is spent. Otherwise I would want the gov. to hold on to my tax money until it's about half a million, and then buy me a sportscar with it. Specifically, the new AM DB9 (not the Vantage please, and not the stupid Volante, I don't like those).

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the link between taxes and voting. In our current system, the only way we have to influence where tax dollars go is through voting.
That is false, since the real influence on tax spending is via mass declarations of approval / disapproval for a plan to spend. Public officials make a very crude inference from observed outcry and numerous other political facts to yea / nay votes on legislation. Public outcry is not labeled as to "opinions of registered voters" vs. "other opinions". The only connection to voting is the presumption -- poorly supported by fact -- that if a politician spends money the wrong way, he runs a risk of not being re-elected.

But that connection is not limited to appropriations matters -- it extends to various other regulatory matters. The government will limit your freedom in various ways that are not related to taxation, and again via the system of public outcry, we can very indirectly influence what freedoms are taken from us, or (rarely) restored. Your position, that there should specifically be a connection between voting and tax-paying ignores the fact that freedom to conduct business, to buy and sell land, to possess firearms, and myriad other rights, are also infringements of your rights that voters should also have a say in.

And finally, you have not explained the logic behind claiming that people should be able to determine how their tax money is spent. The logically first "ought" is that people ought to be able to determine whether they will be taxed. And then the parallelism with other rights is clearer -- people ought to be able to determine whether their right to buy or use property will be infringed, and in what way.

In my opinion, this is inadequate, but we are speaking in terms of things staying the same.
If we are speaking of things staying the same, then only age, citizenship, residence, plus certain criminal or mental states can be considered. Taxpayer status is definitively out of bounds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some cases yes, and in some no. But my personal experience doesn't determine what principles should govern employment. That is derived from grasping the nature of man's rights.

How does the employer force the employee to do work? Physical assault? All the employer can do is threaten to fire the employee, something that is well within his right to do.

This is the law being used to engineer society, forcing men to deal with each other not through mutual agreement, but according to the capricious whims of bureaucrats. Nor do one's rights hinge on whether one has gotten (or provided) a written job description. I'll say it again: apart from contractual terms, enforced by objective law, people are rightly free to associate and dissociate from each other however they wish.

I think you aren't getting the point... because what I am reading here from you is completely contradictory..

on the one hand you said that a contract should be enforced and on the other you are saying signed work agreements shouldn't be enforced, signed work agreements are a form of contract.

When I mentioned my work situation where I sued you seemed to be in agreement that an illegal fraud was committed- in that an agent of my employer attempted to force me into a different work situation at a different rate of pay.

But then when talking of signed work agreements stating job descriptions and rate of pay in other instances you say that those are immoral and going to court to have it enforced would be unethical.

You can't really have it both ways can you?

I am not saying that employment should not be "at will".

I am however saying that once an employer has an employee sign a work agreement stating what work will be done for what amount of money then it is a binding agreement the breaking of which on the part of the employer is fraud, and subject to recompense.

You can fire a person for wearing the wrong color hat for all I care.. but as soon as you say that you are firing them for not performing task A when they are being paid for doing task B and you as the employer have signed a contract stating this you are in fact in breech of contract.

So as you can see plainly, what I have been talking about all along is mutual agreement- the employer could choose to not have an employment agreement and therefore could fire for any reason they choose- but once they do then they are legally bound by the terms they themselves chose to put in it. I'm not sure how this can be stated any more clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...