From the college protests aimed at stifling people with opposing views, I doubt this.
This misses the point. I’m not asking whose individualism is better. I’m asking who is more supportive of individualism - regardless of good or bad.
It seems to have escaped your notice, but college students are students. They are mostly going to be drunk and display poor judgment even when they aren’t, so they’re not really a good barometer of what “the left” thinks.
There is no possible way to avoid this conflict of interest. That’s why elected governments are good: the people being taxed get to vote.
But the whole idea of theft is meaningless outside of a governmental context, because property rights in the way that we understand them (i.e., property only transfers based on mutual agreement) is nonsensical outside of a governmental context. It’s government that creates the possibility of property, that creates the possibility of theft being a punishable crime. (Note that an anarchist who kills the asshole who stole her toothbrush isn’t disproving this; the anarchist could equally have killed someone who had a toothbrush she wanted, because in anarchy, property transfers are prevented and instigated through violence all the time). (Settle down, anarchists: I said “in anarchy,” not “in anarchism.”)
Given the government’s creation of your property rights to begin with, it’s absurd to whine about taxation, as they don’t make your property rights absolute.
Taxes aren’t theft, because they aren’t forced. You don’t have to pay. Since you do pay, it’s contractual.
The fantasy that civilization is sustainable without laws is absurd and rather offensive. Anyway, it’s been tried, and some “big man” always ends up running things with his private army. And that’s a hell of a lot worse than taxes.
Nah, this is wrong. I signed no contract to pay taxes. But if I and someone else exchange services, not even using money, and I don’t pay taxes on them, I could go to prison. It’s definitely forced, and we shouldn’t try to find ways to finesse that.
The problem with “taxes=theft” is not that problem. The problem is that property itself is a government construct, and so theft is necessarily what the government defines theft to be.
On a slightly different note about who supports individualism more, 28% of Republicans support shutting down mosques in the United States, 46% support creating a national database of Muslims in the United States, 26% think Islam should be illegal in the United States, and an astonishing 30% support bombing Agrabah. Look out, Aladdin!
Taxes aren’t theft because money doesn’t exist except insofar as it is created by the very people who tax you — your government.
The rule that says you have to pay taxes is a part of the same game as the rule that says these quantified tokens called “money” have value.
Well, kinda, you did. You live in a land where taxes are the law, and you earned money anyway. That’s implied consent. You know how not to pay taxes, but you didn’t do what was required not to pay taxes.
(If, in fact, you have done those things required not to pay taxes, then this defaults to a “generic-you” and not you specifically.)
Dammit, don’t make me argue the other side.
You’re describing a situation in which, under the threat of prison time, I accede to a party’s demands. THAT IS NOT KIND OF A CONTRACT.
Sure, the party gave me two options: “Either you find a way to live entirely off the grid, in which I won’t make you pay taxes, or you pay taxes.” But the fact that they gave me two options that avoid their grabbing me and shoving me in a cell doesn’t obviate the coercion involved.
There’s definitely coercion involved. There’s definitely no contract involved. BUT TAXATION IS STILL OKAY, because there is no alternative to taxation except the dissolution of property rights entirely.
While it sometimes seems that “individualism” is a word that causes liberals to shy back in fright like vampires beholding a cross - there is a long and not so wonderful tradition of both liberals and conservatives exalting the individual only when it serves their ideologies.
The Right trumpets that it champions individual liberties but is considerably less enthusiastic when those rights are perceived to threaten preferred institutions (i.e. the state and religion).
The Left tends to favor the individual when he/she is considered part of a minority/oppressed group.
And to round things out, we have Libertarians, whose worship of the individual is akin to a disease.
So what? That’s only remarkable if you think that individualism is the One True Ideology. If people have other priorities than the idea that everyone should be able to do whatever they want without thought for other people, it should be no surprise that they subordinate absolute individualism.
Let me cripple that and walk it by you again (as a Texan might say) so you can grasp the point - which is that boasting of one’s devotion to individual liberties means less when one has a lengthy list of exceptions based on political/moral dogma.
Seeing as I need to spell this out again, I have little use for libertarian-style absolutism, which often boils down to “I don’t wanna and you can’t make me.”
Please don’t do that–your point started off too weak to take any more damage.
Of course it is a good thing to respect individual liberty. Your post implied that it was hypocritical to “exalt,” “trumpet” such respect, and then not to have it be the only goal.
Now, if you think condescension suits you, by all means get on with it, but it comes across kind of embarrassing for you. Next time, consider not making a weak point instead.
Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. I’m just making an argument for calling things what they are.
Often when a person thinks they’re “calling things like they are,” it means they just haven’t thought things through all the way. Again, theft is a meaningless concept in a state of anarchy, as property itself relies on a government body making and enforcing laws. That government body needs to gain resources from somewhere.
The old situationist slogan “Property is theft” is more reasonable than the new Tea Party saw that “taxation is theft.”
No, I post an opinion you disagree with. You make cracks about pedophile priest. They’re not the same thing.
No, I want people to be free period. Gay people should be free to marry. Religious people should be free not to do business with them if they so choose. That’s the proper balance of freedom.
Forcing somebody to cater a wedding for the sake of freedom is doublespeak.
First, I’m not defending the right, I’m disagreeing with the left.
Secondly, you’re just offering platitudes and nonsense about destroying freedom by letting people be free and maintain freedom by restraint. Your position is inconsistent.
Agreed. Taxation is theft. But perhaps theft is justified in some situations. It’s still theft however.
You’re getting into a chicken and egg problem here. Governments subsist on taxation. Taxation implies property. Individuals would have to have property that is liable to taxation before a government can exist.
Government doesn’t create property rights. Governments come into existence to defend property rights. Just ask my man Thomas Hobbs.
Taxes aren’t forced? Are you seriously claiming that?
Nobody said anything about laws. I just said taxation is theft.
I’m distinguishing between property and property rights. The idea that property should only change hands during a mutally-agreed-upon transaction is not a necessary precursor to taxation; indeed, taxation is millennia old, whereas this idea is not.
I’ve read my Locke and my Smith, but not my Hobbs. You’re welcome to summarize an argument that property rights can exist without government, but I suspect you’re misunderstanding either Hobbs or myself if you think he’s going to refute what I said.