And once again, this is a shitty argument that means nothing. Living in a society is not a la carte. If you don’t like it, move, or vote for new representatives. You don’t pay for anything. Just like you don’t pay a store clerk’s salary, or for children’s schoolbooks. You pay taxes, that’s it.
I would imagine not, since the tax in question probably would not have been considered a “wrong” at the time of the type which would be justiciable.
But that is one of the purposes of limitation periods - to avoid “non-actionable” wrongs becomming “actionable” with the passage of time, changes in social norms and the law, and the evolution of private and public morality.
As far as I know, the only exception to the operation of limitation periods is the notion of “discoverability” - that is, where the victim did not in fact know of the wrong. However, this notion refers to knowledge of the facts which make up the wrong, not to evolving notions of what constitutes a “wrong” or changes in the law which make certain types of wrong actionable.
If you read it in context, you will note I’m not making that argument. I’m saying that the argument should not proceed on those lines at all.
Hmmm. In Canada, does the goverrnment theoretically derive its authority and legitimacy from the people, or from the Crown? If the former, then each person has a share in ownership, no matter how small, in the government’s money. If the latter, then I agree the people no longer have any share of ownership in government money. If it’s a mix, though, we’re back to each person having some share in ownership.
Ah, so you do agree that taxation is nothing more than the government taking one’s money by brute force, simply because they are more powerful? If I don’t pay for anything, then I’m not paying for the government’s operation, but rather they are just taking money from me for their own purposes, which is generally known as “theft”.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were.
Brute force? Are they forcing you to stay wherever you are? If you don’t like the taxes move elsewhere. You enjoy government services, so you must pay for them. It’s not theft, it’s paying your share.
If I own and live on my own land, why should I be forced to abandon it (presumably without compensation) in order to be able to opt out of paying tribute to a government? Are you suggesting that the government is the ultimate owner of all real property, and we are merely its tenants? If the government does not in fact own my land, why should I be forced to pay them in order to remain on it?
Hold up. Didn’t you say just a few posts ago, “You don’t pay for anything. Just like you don’t pay a store clerk’s salary, or for children’s schoolbooks. You pay taxes, that’s it.”?
You are not being forced to leave, and if you did leave, you could recieve compensation for your land. You cannot “opt out” because it is impossible to do so. Your land ownership doesn’t exist w/o a government to enforce your deed. You don’t have a job without relying on several people educated, protected, and emplyed by the government.
You don’t pay for anything. You pay taxes. Taxes pay for things.
Although I don’t see the wisdom in allowing old accusations of wrongdoing to surface ad infinitum, I’m uncomfortable with the notion of a statute of limitations for reparations cases. Through its law-making body, the government dictates the statute of limitations. It’s judicial machinery decides what cases have merit and which ones don’t. Thus, it would be easy enough for a government to escape punishment and never be called to the carpet. It has all the power.
I see it with the case of slave reparations here in the US. Following Emancipation, ex-slaves and their children did not have the means or political clout to make a case for reparations…due mainly to a century of government-sanctioned racism. But now that black people have the political wherewithal to make their voices heard, the government can claim a “statute of limitations” to avoid prosecution. Um, does anyone see a problem with this?
Governments, like corporations, exist in perpetuity unless they are overthrown, their constitutions or charters wiped clean (like Iraq). And it makes sense that they do, if you think about it. If they didn’t, the US’s deed on the Lousiana purchase would be null-and-void now, because Thomas Jefferson isn’t around anymore.
Of course the current government is held morally responsible for what it did in the past. It’s the very same government. Present-day Canadians still benefit from what back-in-the-day Canadians produced. If benefits are inherited, so do wrong-doings.
That’s why it is imperative for immigrants to study the history of their new country. By signing up for citizenship, you are taking on the responsibility for both the good and bad choices made by your new home. And if you are born in a country, you also have the choice to renounce citizenship if you don’t like what’s been done in its name. Study its history and decide what risks you’re willing to make by staying, because skeletons don’t stay in the closet forever, and the avenging ghosts don’t discriminate.
Personally, I think Canada has done the right thing. If other groups have been treated unfairly by the Canadian government and can demonstrate as much in the court of law, I feel that they too should get justice. What they shouldn’t do is wait, because waiting makes their case harder to prove and opens the door for nebulous “statutes of limitations” arguments.
IMHO, the victims of the Jim Crow legacy in the US would do well to use this case as a motivator.
From whom?
There are other ways to enforce ownership besides relying on a government. And why should I be forced to pay the government because they happened to choose to educate, protect, and employ various other people?
You said, “You enjoy government services, so you must pay for them.” But you also said “You don’t pay for anything.” So either I’m paying for government services or I’m not. Which is it?
The person you sell it to.
Because you use the roads they build, the electricity lines they put up, etc.
hard to comprehend.
You must pay the government for the services they provide. There is an intermediate step there. This point cannot be that hard to comprehend.
[QUOTE=yBeayf]
If I own and live on my own land, why should I be forced to abandon it (presumably without compensation) in order to be able to opt out of paying tribute to a government? Are you suggesting that the government is the ultimate owner of all real property, and we are merely its tenants? If the government does not in fact own my land, why should I be forced to pay them in order to remain on it?
QUOTE]
No; in a democracy the government is (or at least, should) be made up of the people, not exist as a seperate entity. As part of that community, you have the right to take a part in the decision-making process (vote) but also a duty to abide by the decisions of that community. If you take issue with this, you are free to leave that community, doing whatever you like with your land. That’s how it should be.
In reality, of course, the government does actually own the land- or at least, if they can think of a reason to take it from you (the words “national” “interest” and/or “security” will be involved there somewhere) the chances of you holding onto it or getting it back are close to zero. In addition, governments do tend to exist as entities seperate from the populations they theoretically represent, and their decisions may seem (for that matter, may be) unfair and arbitary to you. But we’re discussing the theoretical issues involved here, and in a democracy, you can’t really complain about what goes down in legislative terms- or, at least, it won’t do any good.
Alright. We’ve established that one does, in fact, pay the government for the government’s services, whether willingly or not. If this is the case, why is it a shitty argument, as you said in post #21, to object to paying for the government to provide a specific service that one doesn’t think they have any business providing? After all, one is paying for it.
Even as a libertarian (which is what I’m guessing you are) you must recognise the benefits that living in a society grants. Attempts to build societies without the mechanisms of a state on a large scale have been universally disastrous. As Plato said “The man who can live apart from society is either beast or god.” Wihout a government to enforce ownership, the individual is left prey to the mercy of any robber-bands who happen along. Yes, governments can also be bad, but (hopefully) through democracy and liberalism the individual can gain enough autonomy and authority in the community.
By entering into the social contract, and by taking advantage not only of the outward manifestations of the government’s presence (roads, clean water, law and order) but also of the society that exists only due to the government’s presence, you are recognising a right of that government to have some control over how you live your life, even if it is only to protect those same advantages. Furthermore, unless you are an extreme Objectivist you will probably admit some obligation to your fellow humans, even if only from enlightened self-interest (do as you would be done to). This would surely include returning to them what was stolen from them, even if you have inadvertantly profited by it. Would you object at the government returning a stolen car that you had bought to its rightful owner? This differs only in scale.
A tricky question, and the best answer would be to say that, firstly, each penny of your money is not earmarked for something (ok, here’s yBeayf’s income tax return. Send one half-penny to the Ministry of Defense, send half a dollar to the IRS, knock off a few cents for shipping…), and it would be highly impracticable both to calculate what each individual was contributing to each program in terms of taxation revenue and to determine whether that individual wanted to have stricken from their tax burden (my guess? All of it.).
Secondly, there is a kind of “in for a penny, in for a pound” element. By agreeing to enter the society/community/government, you agree to obey all its laws, even the ones with which you personally disagree. This has obvious practical benefits (yes officer, I killed that man, but I don’t believe in the concept of murder), and also theoretical ones: after all, what you or I personally believe or want may not be the wisest course of action either for ourselves or our community. Here, we go on the idea that what the majority wants is the best course of action (yes, I :smack: too), but it has its benefits. The next time that you hear an idustrialist complaining he can’t dump his toxic waste in the water supply because the oppressive majority is restricting his freedom, you may not think it such a stupid system. 
That’s certainly not what brickbacon implied. He or she said, "Once you pay taxes, it is NO LONGER YOUR MONEY. " If the government is made up of the people, then I am a part of the government, and therefore have a right to have some say in how the money I am forced to pay to the government is used.
So, theoretically, in a “democracy” such as the US or Canada, I am able to opt out of the society, and cease paying taxes, participating in government, and receiving government services?
What of individuals who voluntarily join together for mutual defense?
Way I see it, I should be able to opt out of the social contract (especially since I was never asked to join it in the first place) and be able to make a go at it alone, or in cooperation with like-minded individuals. Of course, I can’t think of a government on earth that would willingly let that happen.
If I had voluntarily agreed to be a subject of that government, and abide by its decisions, then no. If not, then yes. In either case, of course, I would feel personally obligated to return the car to its rightful owner.
Well, other than the practicalities issue (governments dislike giving up sovereignty), how can one drop out of what the government provides, unless you propose moving to an uninhabited continent somewhere? The benefits (and penalities, of course) are so pervasive that you cannot break yourself free of them. There’s scarcely an action you can take in a modern state that is not somehow impacted by the actions of the government, for better or for worse.
Travel somewhere? You’re using a transport system created by the government (road, rail, airspace, whatever).
Involve yourself in any kind of transaction? You are protected (and hindered) by government regulation as to the place, time, nature and legality of that transaction.
Live in a population centre? No population centres without some sort of government, if only to control crime.
Live in a rural area? The enviroment around you is the way it is due to the actions of the government.
I’m not saying it might not be nice to break free of all laws and regulations once in a while, simply that it is completely impossible without reverting to a hunter-gatherer society in a prehistoric wilderness. Modern life is defined by society, and society means governments. And if you are a member of a (democratic) society, you have to abide by majority decisions, or face the wrath of the system.
That is exactly what I implied. I figured, since this is a basic concept, that I would not have to hold your hand and walk you through an explanation.
No, you are not part of the government. You are a citizen. Your control comes when you vote.
Yes, but in reality, doing so is impossible.
If it means that much to you, go buy an island and live there alone.
Indulge me. What seems self-evident to you is far from being such.
That’s not what Happy Clam said. Which of you is right, I wonder?
(I suspect, at least on this issue, that it is you, but I agree with HC that per democratic rhetoric every citizen should have some say in how the government is run; that’s enough to count them as a tiny part of the government, in my book.)
Really? If I wrote to the US government and said “I’d like to renounce my citizenship, stop paying taxes, and stop being subject to your laws, but remain on my land and not have you come take it away” they’d agree that in theory that was a perfectly valid idea?
Why the hell would I want to do that? I have nothing against societies, only governments.
The government theoretically derives its authority from the Crown. Theoretically, tax monies belong to the Queen who dispenses them as the Prime Minister advises her to. Okay, well, actually she has the Governor General do that for her. I’m not sure when the last time the Queen actually signed Canadian legislation herself, rather than leaving it for the GG. Probably the Constitution Act in 1982.
But that’s just theoretical. Practically speaking, the authority and legitimacy of the government is derived from the people (as would be made very clear if the Queen ever tried to wield any authority), and tax monies belong to the voting public en masse.