Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Food Stamps?

Rate this topic


Schtank

Recommended Posts

When the government runs a deficit, in order to return your property to you it has no course of action but to find more victims, or take more property from its existing victims because it doesn't have any property to return to you. That is a crime which would not have occurred (all things being equal) had you not demanded your property back (in the form of food stamps).

I'm not going to go back over the argument I've previously present for why I think this is wrong because we didn't get anywhere last time. However, I think you are ignoring the reality of this situation; REGARDLESS of whether or not I ask for the return of my property, the current government is STILL going to rob from me and others again, repeatedly, while it is in a deficit and probably while in surplus. My actions in this context are immaterial to what the government has already taken from me, and will continue to take from me in the future. I'm not sure you mean it this way, but your position is essentially; I'm already being victimized by the government so the moral thing to do is continue to be victimized by the government. I also think that the reality of the situation is that we are facing a robber who will never get caught, so to speak. There is NO legal recourse to seek the return of my property OTHER than the manners prescribed by the robber himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... REGARDLESS of whether or not I ask for the return of my property, the current government is STILL going to rob from me and others again,...
I think this is the typical stumbling point, where the other side disagrees. Sure, they see that the government will continue to take from some to give to others, regardless of whether one asks for food-stamps. However, their point is that the government will take some particular quantity. By becoming a receiver of such wealth-redistribution -- the argument goes -- one would cause the government to take more than it otherwise would. I don't think this is actually true if one considers the long-term. I think governments end up taking as much as they can get away with. They will take what the political climate allows in terms of taxes and attitudes toward government debt. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think governments end up taking as much as they can get away with.

I agree. They keep trying to invent new ways to "serve" the people by creating more, larger agencies and services. The government could obviously be cutting back programs and services A LOT in order to address deficit issues but instead they keep taxing, taxing, taxing.

The latter part of my point though was equally important. Your ONLY recourse is through the robber himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by "simple" you mean "unrelated to reality" and "false" then mission accomplished. Once you switch to my analogy, your whole argument falls apart because C can't "demand" anything from Rob, he's the one with the gun remember.

Who is initiating force is a crucial issue and you've been trying to skirt it and pretend that it doesn't matter since I entered. It is not only disingenuous of you to pretend there is no difference between your analogy and mine, it is dishonest. It is dishonest because I pointed this issue out to you and you conceded the point before you constructed your failed analogy.

Unreal. So, the OP can't demand food stamps from the government, right? The government has the guns, remember?

This is reality: we live in a nation of some 300 million people. Of those, somewhere around 170 million pay federal income taxes totaling around $5 trillion. Some pay willingly, some do not. Of that $5T, the federal government spends all of it, then it borrows money and spends more. If you asked for your money back you could not get it, the government could not give it to you, your property does not exist, it has already been consumed. The only way the government could return your property to you is if it went out and collected more revenue - i.e. it must get money from someone. Even if the government borrows money to return your property to you, that only delays the inevitable - the governmnt must get money from someone who has produced something of value.

If you go from paying federal income taxes to not paying federal income taxes, then federal revenue goes down. If you then accept welfare of any sort, federal expenses go up. Net result: the gap between what the federal government receives and what it spends gets even wider. This doesn't change the fact that the government spends all of the revenue it receives and that any money you personally have had taken from you has already been consumed.

The question is: Where does the government get the money to provide you with welfare when all the money it took from you has already been consumed? It has to get that money from someone who produced something of value, Marc. It can't reach into its bag of surplus money because there is no surplus money! So, where does the government get that money?

You want to rationalize that the government will just go to those who agree with wealth distribution to obtain the money to give to you. "Oh, the government won't take the money from those who agree with me that the government shouldn't steal. In order to pay me back, the government will just take money from the socialists." That's fine. Rationalize away.

I'm done with you, Marc. Your continued insulting tone, dishonesty, obfuscation and intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation of my argument has already wasted far too much of my time.

REGARDLESS of whether or not I ask for the return of my property, the current government is STILL going to rob from me and others again, repeatedly, while it is in a deficit and probably while in surplus. My actions in this context are immaterial to what the government has already taken from me, and will continue to take from me in the future.

I don't see how that is relevant to the current topic. Yes, the government will continue to rob from us at least until everyone understands the proper function of government. Are you arguing that since the crime is going to occur anyway, being party to its perpetuation isn't such a big deal? If so, then I disagree. Whether or not your actions are immaterial is somewhat beside the point. The important thing is not the effect - the important thing is the principle upon which the action taken is based.

I'm not sure you mean it this way, but your position is essentially; I'm already being victimized by the government so the moral thing to do is continue to be victimized by the government.

Certainly not, and I don't know how many times, or how many different ways I need to say so.

I also think that the reality of the situation is that we are facing a robber who will never get caught, so to speak. There is NO legal recourse to seek the return of my property OTHER than the manners prescribed by the robber himself.

I can't subscribe to such a defeatist attitude. The robber will get "caught" when the majority of the population has a rational philosophy, or at least understands the importance of principles and living by them. We can't get there if those who purport to hold a rational philosophy try to rationalize away those principles.

By becoming a receiver of such wealth-redistribution -- the argument goes -- one would cause the government to take more than it otherwise would. I don't think this is actually true if one considers the long-term. I think governments end up taking as much as they can get away with.

Sure, but that's just another rationalization: "The government's going to take it anyway, I might as well get in on the action." If we keep disregarding the principles that would stop governments from taking as much as they can, then we'll never escape it.

Edited by JeffS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you arguing that since the crime is going to occur anyway, being party to its perpetuation isn't such a big deal? If so, then I disagree. Whether or not your actions are immaterial is somewhat beside the point. The important thing is not the effect - the important thing is the principle upon which the action taken is based.

Not at all. I've always argued that I'm not a party to it to begin with. I'm the victim, the victim is not a party to a crime simply because they seek to get back the value that was taken from them. One seeking the recovery of what was taken from them is not "getting in on the action".

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for compromising on one's principles, tell me, have you: attended public school? driven on roads? accepted a tax refund from the govt? accepted any check from the govt? used the DMV? eaten food produced on a farm? drank tap water? used paper money? visited a hospital? used electricity?

These are the questions I would like to see answered as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to rationalize that the government will just go to those who agree with wealth distribution to obtain the money to give to you. "Oh, the government won't take the money from those who agree with me that the government shouldn't steal. In order to pay me back, the government will just take money from the socialists." That's fine. Rationalize away.

No one has attempted to argue this anywhere in this thread, and I'm quite sure everyone here would agree that such a view is ridiculous. I have no idea where you got this from, but it wasn't this thread.

Whether or not your actions are immaterial is somewhat beside the point. The important thing is not the effect - the important thing is the principle upon which the action taken is based.

But moral principles are formed based on their long-term effects on the life of the actor. The importance of the principle and the importance of the (long-term) effect are one and the same. If your actions are immaterial in improving and furthering your own life, then either you're applying the principle wrong or the principle itself is wrong. In this case, I would argue the former.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. I've always argued that I'm not a party to it to begin with. I'm the victim, the victim is not a party to a crime simply because they seek to get back the value that was taken from them. One seeking the recovery of what was taken from them is not "getting in on the action".

Given that the government currently runs a deficit, where will the money come from to provide the OP with food stamps?

These are the questions I would like to see answered as well.

Of course I have. What's the point? That I'm a hypocrite? When have I stated that I live a moral life? I haven't, and I don't. Hypocritical would be claiming that I'm living a moral life while ignoring all the principles upon which morality is based.

No one has attempted to argue this [that the government will just take money from the socialists] anywhere in this thread, and I'm quite sure everyone here would agree that such a view is ridiculous. I have no idea where you got this from, but it wasn't this thread.

Here's where the analogy differs from the robber; many people willingly give the money to the government without the reservation of thinking it is stolen from them; they think it is proper. Its nigh on impossible for me to tell where the money I recoup comes from, but I generally suspect (based on my experiences) that the number of people who think the government is forcibly a robber is in the minority. Since they are supportive of the "robber", I have no qualms recouping my money at their expense.

Especially don't sacrifice yourself to the lowest scum in society.... The people who actually condone the welfare state: socialists, communists, collectivists.

Not the ones who explicitly condemn the welfare state and would be happy to see it go but who, nonetheless, must live non-sacrificially while it does exist.

But moral principles are formed based on their long-term effects on the life of the actor. The importance of the principle and the importance of the (long-term) effect are one and the same. If your actions are immaterial in improving and furthering your own life, then either you're applying the principle wrong or the principle itself is wrong. In this case, I would argue the former.

I didn't argue that actions are immaterial, I argued that the question of their materiality is beside the point. Shouldn't actions properly follow from principles? One must first form their principles, then apply them before any evaluation of their efficacy can be made. If the principle is flawed, and properly followed, then the action is flawed. But if the action is correct, the principle may still be flawed. We must begin with principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the government currently runs a deficit, where will the money come from to provide the OP with food stamps?

We already went down that road and didn't agree. I don't agree that you can determine exactly when specific funds are being spent, those specific dollar bills that were taken from one person and when those specific bills are no longer available to that person for the purposes of value recovery. I think that specific money goes into accounts (investment accounts even?) with a pool of other money, thus making it difficult to determine exactly whose money is being spent at a specific time. I do not agree that it is immaterial that the government will continue to take money from that person with no other recourse than those options made available by the robber himself. You keep denying it, but I think that in essence you continue to communicate that we should just keep being victimized and have no moral right to recoup what was taken from us.

You have argued that trying to recover the value that was taken from you is "getting in on the action". In reality, that is about as much "getting in on the action" as the abductee who takes food from their captor in order to survive. The initiation of force starts and stays with the robber, not his victims. Trying to minimize that victimization is not the same as "getting in on the action". The people "getting in on the action" are those (likely in the majority) who actively support this system of robbery, not those who oppose it but are powerless to change it and seek to lessen its affect on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that you can determine exactly when specific funds are being spent, those specific dollar bills that were taken from one person and when those specific bills are no longer available to that person for the purposes of value recovery. I think that specific money goes into accounts (investment accounts even?) with a pool of other money, thus making it difficult to determine exactly whose money is being spent at a specific time.

When the government is running a deficit, then one thing is certain: the total of money collected in taxes is greater than the total money spent on services. That's the definition of deficit, RB. We don't need to determine exactly when specific funds are collected or spent, and any attempt to do so, and use that as some sort of justification, is just rationalizaton. The simple fact is: money coming in is less than money going out. Any addition to the latter merely widens the gap.

You keep denying it, but I think that in essence you continue to communicate that we should just keep being victimized and have no moral right to recoup what was taken from us.

And I'll deny it yet again. You have no evidence for either of these claims, and it's irrational for you to believe them, especially since I've specifically denied them countless times and provided arguments why I deny them.

The initiation of force starts and stays with the robber, not his victims.

I agree completely, and have stated that all along. When my writing has implied that I do not believe this, and this was pointed out to me, I corrected it and made it clear that it is the government initiating force.

Can you just answer a simple moral question for me?

If someone stole my money, would it be moral of me to accept a return of the value of the money stolen if I know that the robber has to steal the money from someone else in order to return it to me?

Which is the same as saying they are immaterial.

No, it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone stole my money, would it be moral of me to accept a return of the value of the money stolen if I know that the robber has to steal the money from someone else in order to return it to me?

Among other things, you are excluding the fact that the robber has numerous willing accomplices providing him with money as well. You need to provide an equivalent context for your question to be meaningful.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. To say that it is material to the issue means it it pertinent or important. To say that it is beside the point is to say that it is not pertinent, not important, or... immaterial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Among other things, you are excluding the fact that the robber has numerous willing accomplices providing him with money as well.

Why should that matter? I know he stole money from me. I know he has no money now. I know the only way for him to get money is to steal it from someone else (i.e. no one is going to give it to him willingly, and he produces nothing so can not earn money). That is the context. Is it moral for me to accept money from him when I know he stole it from someone else?

It's a simple morality question.

Yes, it is. To say that it is material to the issue means it it pertinent or important. To say that it is beside the point is to say that it is not pertinent, not important, or... immaterial.

To say that something is beside the point is also to say that it is extraneous, incidental, off the subject, or not at issue, which is clearly my meaning.

Edited by JeffS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should that matter?

Because it means that not all of the incoming money is stolen from unwilling victims. Some of it, most of it likely, is being provided by accomplices of the robber (supporters of the system) who are themselves producing money and fueling the robber. In other words, not all of the tax money coming in is being stolen.

As I said, provide a question with a contextually equivalent analogy.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, provide a question with a contextually equivalent analogy.

Why can't I get an answer to that question? If it's not "contextually equivalent," then you can shoot me down for that if I ever use it in a context where it doesn't apply. I just want to know if it's moral to accept money from someone who steals money from me if I know that money is stolen. Why won't you answer that question? Should I start a new thread and see if you'll answer it there? I don't want to know if it's moral to accept money from a thief when I don't know where his money comes from.

You're evading, RB.

EDIT: Have a great Thanksgiving!

Edited by JeffS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're evading, RB.

EDIT: Have a great Thanksgiving!

No, I'm not evading, I'm sticking to the topic at hand.

I'm also done posting on this issue. I don't see us coming to any agreement. I've stated my position, you've stated yours and we each think ours is correct. Frankly, its becoming boring and redundant now.

Happy Thanksgiving!

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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