noabsolutes Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 (edited) Moderator's note: Topic split from another thread. - sn I agree with your case in point; however, I would disagree with your initial comments on the opposition to the existance of income taxes and the welfare program. Not to say that I agree with our government's current use in the distribution of the income tax. Lastly, I would be curious to read you allaborations of opposition to the existance of a welfare purpose. Granted, I am opposed to the existence of income taxes and the welfare program. But, given that it already exists, I'd like to propose the following scenario by which it would not be immoral to go on welfare: A man graduates college and gets a respectable job which allows him to live in relative comfort. Then, he undergoes a personal tragedy or just makes a series of bad decisions. Assume, for the sake of simplicity, that he paid $1000 in income taxes, before this tragedy/bad decision. He decides to go on welfare, just long enough to get back on his feet, and he promises himself that the total amount of his welfare checks will not exceed $1000, the amount he has paid in taxes. Is this immoral? My answer is no. He has only taken back part of what was rightfully his in the first place, and it is likely that the confiscatory tax system in this country greatly contributed to his current predicament. The fact that he actually paid this money into the system in the first place is why I included "bad decision" as a suitable reason for him to go on welfare. We all make bad decisions from time to time, and we are free to use our economic resources to correct them. In his case, that $1000 is rightfully his, and I think that he has the moral right to use it to learn from his mistakes and ensure that they don't happen again. Edited March 3, 2007 by softwareNerd Fixed missing quote tag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 I'm thinking you don't understand what this messageboard is. Pretty much everyone here believes in laissez-faire capitalism--that is to say, complete separation of economy and state. Everyone here is opposed to income tax, as well as any type of entitlement program. In fact, your very screenname is a complete repudiation of the most fundamental value that everyone on this board has in common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noabsolutes Posted March 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 Incorret, The fact that this message board is a polar opposite of what I claim to be is exactly why I'm here. How will one ever learn to agrue there point if they don't truly understand the foundation of the opposite. And again- If you believe in "hands off" governing and free reign of interest; mind not my background or stance, but answer the question of what is wrong with the theory of welfare and income tax... Tim I'm thinking you don't understand what this messageboard is. Pretty much everyone here believes in laissez-faire capitalism--that is to say, complete separation of economy and state. Everyone here is opposed to income tax, as well as any type of entitlement program. In fact, your very screenname is a complete repudiation of the most fundamental value that everyone on this board has in common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 This thread presumes that the people who participate in it believe in laissez-faire capitalism and are opposed to entitlement programs. If you wish the ask questions like the one that you're posing, you should go to the "Questions about Objectivism" section of this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 The fact that this message board is a polar opposite of what I claim to be is exactly why I'm here. How will one ever learn to agrue there point if they don't truly understand the foundation of the opposite.I'd like to make two points. First, we do understand the irrationalist POV as well as the term "understanding" can be said to be applicable to irrationality. However, there is a dedicated sub-forum where an opponent of Objectivism can propose a debate and argue against some aspect of Objectivism. The subforum is here, and there are two pinned notes at the top that you can read. Otherwise, HPO is a more appropriate forum for arguing against Objectivism -- our purpose here is serious discussion of Objectivism. Second, "argue" is spelled "argue", similarly "elaborations" is not spelled "allaborations", the 2nd person possessive pronoun is "your", and "existance of a welfare purpose" (existence, in fact), doesn't mean anything. We strongly prefer to focus on the actual ideas under discussion, which is why we have a forum rule pertaining to grammar and spelling -- I assume that you are familiar with the forum rules. We cannot read minds, which is why we require participants to communicate using the standard means of communication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 If you believe in "hands off" governing and free reign of interest; mind not my background or stance, but answer the question of what is wrong with the theory of welfare and income tax... If you just want to know our position on this, there is a forum called "Questions about Objectivism," where you can ask that. That is, after doing a search to make sure it hasn't already been asked and answered. And if you seek a debate, then there is a section for that, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noabsolutes Posted March 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 If you just want to know our position on this, there is a forum called "Questions about Objectivism," where you can ask that. That is, after doing a search to make sure it hasn't already been asked and answered. And if you seek a debate, then there is a section for that, too. -Sincere apologies for not reading through materials before attempting come to discussion with Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 If you believe in "hands off" governing and free reign of interest; mind not my background or stance, but answer the question of what is wrong with the theory of welfare and income tax... Welfare and income tax are immoral because they violate the property rights of the individuals being taxed. No group of people (ie, the government) should have the power to seize wealth that was earned by other people, and spend it to serve ends they have in mind (whether those ends are egalitarian, utilitarian, or nihilistic)--people are ends in themselves, not means to the ends of others. What welfare ends up doing is rewarding the unproductive while punishing the productive. That is an obscene injustice. (These are just some brief preliminary arguments against welfare statism. For more complete arguments, see Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, for starters). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 Welfare and income tax are immoral because they violate the property rights of the individuals being taxed.Or, to expand this a bit more, taxation (income, sales, property, sin) is immoral because it violates the rights of individuals, and putative benefits to the masses from using coersion to provide for the welfare of the few is not a justification for massive aggression against individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 To put it another way, even if the ends of the welfare state were noble (and they are not)... the ends do not justify the means. If you want to give your money to the poor (or whatever), then go ahead and give every last cent. But you have no right to force other people to do so. The welfare state isn't about giving to the poor (the state wouldn't be needed for that; you are free to give as much as you want to whoever you want); it's about taking the money of others by force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanG Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 Completely off topic but... Did you realize that your Nick "noabsolutes", as stated, is an absolute? Not sure if you intended it to be funny/ironic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.