# Which side champions 'individualism' more - liberals or conservatives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654 "2015-12-17T01:53:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/221 "2015-12-23T14:19:06Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Once one reaches the age of majority. So in your opinion, is it possible to steal (commit theft) from someone who has not yet reached the age of majority? > [@](#): > > It’s ridiculous because you’re literally arguing since I could choose to starve I’m not being forced to pay taxes. > If a person puts a gun to my head and says “your money or your life” I’m not being robbed because I always have the option to be shot? Your analogy is not on point. In mine, only yourself is involved - no outside party exerting force. In your example, there is another that is directly asserting force. Can you construct a relevant analogy? In any case, your only option is not simply to starve. You can beg for the charity of others. There are very few people who actually starve to death in the US. I would say the number of people who pay no taxes, among the ones you mentioned, is orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who actually starve to death. Though that is somewhat of a guess. You could grow your own food, and make all of your own supplies necessary to live. The thing is, if you don’t want to be entirely self sufficient - that is a choice. The requisite taxation involved is part of that choice. An easy choice but a choice none the less and therefore your syllogism is defeated because there is no actual force involved. Which I note you still did not define. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/222 "2015-12-23T14:25:17Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Love or leave it. Got it. Any other advice? Try to convince a majority of your fellow citizens that they should ban taxation, of course. You might want to come up with some better arguments than “but it’s theeeeeeft!” first. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/223 "2015-12-23T15:24:47Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > The haughty scoffing that so often erupts when mention is made of personal responsibility originates from the left. There is no way on earth you can prove this. Is there? ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/224 "2015-12-23T15:48:18Z")
Okay, I’m going to drop in my thought-bomb in this clown show: The left’s infringements on individual rights in favor of society as a whole tend to be based on modern, enlightened understandings of science and economics. The right’s infringements on individual rights tend to be based on some version of Middle Eastern fairytales. Discuss. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/225 "2015-12-23T18:09:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Okay… > > Theft = A > Taxation = B > The taking of an individual’s property by force = C > > 1. A = C > 2. B = C > 3. Hence, B = A, and by the commutative property, A = B > [@Waymore](#): > > No, that’s not the syllogism I proposed. The two premises and the conclusion are: > > All A is B. > C is A. > Therefore C is B. So, substituting in, we have: 1. All theft is taxation. 2. The taking of an individual’s property by force is theft. 3. Therefore the taking of an individual’s property by force is taxation. I think it’s the definition of ‘taxation’ that’s squirrelly here, rather than (or perhaps in addition to) the definition of ‘theft’. More of a medieval notion of taxation then, basically the local knights ride up and demand your property, claiming that it’s ‘taxation’. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/226 "2015-12-23T18:14:12Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > So, substituting in, we have: > > 1. All theft is taxation. > 2. The taking of an individual’s property by force is theft. > 3. Therefore the taking of an individual’s property by force is taxation. > > I think it’s the definition of ‘taxation’ that’s squirrelly here, rather than (or perhaps in addition to) the definition of ‘theft’. > > More of a medieval notion of taxation then, basically the local knights ride up and demand your property, claiming that it’s ‘taxation’. Amusingly, he accused me of “affirming the consequent”, while his argument starts with the premise “All theft is taxation” (which is the idea that he was supposed to be _proving_) in a clear case of “begging the question.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/227 "2015-12-23T18:21:57Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > So, substituting in, we have: > > 1. All theft is taxation. > 2. The taking of an individual’s property by force is theft. > 3. Therefore the taking of an individual’s property by force is taxation. > > I think it’s the definition of ‘taxation’ that’s squirrelly here, rather than (or perhaps in addition to) the definition of ‘theft’. > > More of a medieval notion of taxation then, basically the local knights ride up and demand your property, claiming that it’s ‘taxation’. Clearly he meant B=A, given **Bryan Ekers’s** formulation. Folks picking on him for saying that taxation is theft are incorrect: his error is the definition of theft. Nowhere has he explicitly said, and multiply has he explicitly denied, that all theft is taxation. His syllogism is a valid syllogism stemming from a ridiculous definition. I could use a similar syllogism to show that all corn syrup products are lethally poisonous, just by defining "poisonous " in a nonstandard fashion. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/228 "2015-12-23T18:25:04Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > No, it is not. You can protest to your dying breath, but that will not make your analogy valid. Then come with a persuasive reason why. Until then you’re just ducking a question. > [@](#): > > Except, you _did_ enter into it voluntarily. The first dime you gave to the government was your assent. You are free to steadfastly refuse to pay taxes. But, you see, the thing about freedom is that it is not free. Do whatever you will, but do not expect your actions to come without any consequences. Taxation is voluntary because I could choose to starve instead. That’s blatant coercion. If a person is held at gun point and threatened for his money, would you argue he’s not being robbed because he could choose to be shot instead? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/229 "2015-12-23T18:27:16Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > The left’s infringements on individual rights in favor of society as a whole tend to be based on modern, enlightened understandings of science and economics. > > The right’s infringements on individual rights tend to be based on some version of Middle Eastern fairytales. In broad terms, I agree. But there are certainly examples to the contrary. There are a number of leftist “infringements” which are based not on science or economics but on more philosophical grounds. And there are right wing infringements or attempted infringements (like flag burning laws) which are independent of religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/230 "2015-12-23T18:27:38Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > His definition is absurdly meaningless. > > Which is the problem with the syllogism: the premise is ridiculous and exists only so that the conclusion may be reached. Using any common definition of theft, his syllogism fails. Except there’s nothing unique in my definition, as I’ve shown previously. I thought you were done. Don’t tap out then start snipping from the sidelines. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/231 "2015-12-23T18:33:59Z")
Where did you show that? ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/232 "2015-12-23T18:37:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So in your opinion, is it possible to steal (commit theft) from someone who has not yet reached the age of majority? No, you can only steal from someone who has property. One year olds don’t own property. Typically one can’t contract until he or she reaches the age of majority. > [@](#): > > Your analogy is not on point. In mine, only yourself is involved - no outside party exerting force. In your example, there is another that is directly asserting force. Can you construct a relevant analogy? In your analogy there is force being exerted by the government. Live a normal life and pay taxes or be effectively barred from participating in society. It’s foolish to act like an individual isn’t being coerced in that situation. > [@](#): > > An easy choice but a choice none the less and therefore your syllogism is defeated because there is no actual force involved. Which I note you still did not define. It is force, as described above. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/233 "2015-12-23T18:42:34Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Except there’s nothing unique in my definition, as I’ve shown previously. Nobody said your definition was covered in a light dusting of glitter. Nobody said your definition had faint hints of spice, with a pleasing note of leather on the aftertaste. And nobody said your definition was unique. The fact that it’s silly, uncommon, opposite from normal usage, and specifically designed to reach a specific conclusion is what folks have said. > [@](#): > > I thought you were done. You were, once more, mistaken. That’s not what I said at all. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/234 "2015-12-23T18:44:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Where did you show that? He’s correct that it’s not unique: indeed, he’s copied his definition from someone else who was trying to make the tortured point that he’s making. You cannot accuse it of being an original point. That doesn’t move the point into the realm of reasonableness. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/235 "2015-12-23T19:27:01Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > So, substituting in, we have: > > 1. All theft is taxation. > 2. The taking of an individual’s property by force is theft. > 3. Therefore the taking of an individual’s property by force is taxation. > > I think it’s the definition of ‘taxation’ that’s squirrelly here, rather than (or perhaps in addition to) the definition of ‘theft’. > > More of a medieval notion of taxation then, basically the local knights ride up and demand your property, claiming that it’s ‘taxation’. That’s not the syllogism. 1. All taking of property by force is theft. 2. Taxation is the taking of property by force. 3. Therefore taxation is theft. The scenario you describe with the knights is only different in outward appearance. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/236 "2015-12-23T19:29:53Z")
And the part where the knights weren’t elected to lay and collect taxes. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > He’s correct that it’s not unique: indeed, he’s copied his definition from someone else who was trying to make the tortured point that he’s making. You cannot accuse it of being an original point. That doesn’t move the point into the realm of reasonableness. Well, yes, I’ve heard it before too. I meant has anyone other than politically overwrought internet philosophers made the same argument. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/237 "2015-12-23T19:51:36Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > In your analogy there is force being exerted by the government. Live a normal life and pay taxes or be effectively barred from participating in society. It’s foolish to act like an individual isn’t being coerced in that situation. Force in the same sense that you’re forced to pay after eating at a restaurant or forced to pay for a car at a dealership rather than just driving off in any one I like. You choose to participate in society, and that comes with certain benefits and responsibilities. Paying taxes is one of those responsibilities. If you don’t like it you’re free to leave - either go live off the grid or find another society that has different expectations of responsibilities. But if you choose to stay and participate, then yes, you are “forced” to pay your taxes, just like if you choose to eat at a restaurant, you can’t balk at paying up when the bill comes. ---
**Author:** ![dataguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eada6e/32.png) [@dataguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dataguy)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/238 "2015-12-23T19:55:28Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > A cat is a mammal. > A dog is a mammal. > Hence, a cat is a dog. > > You can’t even construct a classical syllogism. Waymore, you may be able to defend your position with rhetorical argument devices, but not with logical ones. You should pay attention to what Trinopus points out. Your syllogism is invalid. Look up the logical fallacy of the [undistributed middle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/239 "2015-12-23T20:22:27Z")
Out of curiosity, how comfortably can one live in the U.S. while paying no (or at least rock-bottom-minimum) taxes of any kind? If after divesting all taxable property one has accumulated a nest egg of, say, $500,000… then moves to a state with no sales tax (Delaware or New Hampshire or some parts of Alaska), takes a minimum wage job (assuming an income of ~$10,000/year carries no significant tax burden) and otherwise subsists with hunting and gathering… Could someone reasonably “retire” for 20 to 30 years? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654/240 "2015-12-23T20:27:56Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > That’s not what I posted. Using A, B and C, it would go: > All A is B > C is A > Therefore C is B. > > That’s a valid syllogism. The word “all” is not present in your original post. You’ve edited what you said, changing it so it now makes sense. But that isn’t what you actually posted. That’s shabby debate technique. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-side-champions-individualism-more-liberals-or-conservatives/740654.md?page=13)