[T4iga]

Fulfilling your obligation to a society that brought you riches, however much risk you took and however much hard work vs luck that was, is not theft. Fueling that society, so that it can persist for your well-being is your obligation as a citizen.

If you fully play out your argument, the least wealthy and least successful deserve it the most to have their remaining wealth taken because they are not assuming any risk in this society.

I think that is a very destructive world view.

[roenxi]

> If you fully play out your argument, the least wealthy and least successful deserve it the most to have their remaining wealth taken because they are not assuming any risk in this society.

No, if you fully play out his argument then the least wealthy deserve not to have their wealth stolen. His argument is that theft is bad, it isn't a complex argument with unexpected implications.

Although it does seem a bit faulty regardless, the amount of risk someone is taking has no bearing on whether taking their stuff is theft.

[valval]

The line of thinking we’re trying to get across to you here is best put like this I find; even if 99% of the village thinks it’s a good idea to march into the most productive individual’s house and rob it clean, it doesn’t become morally right to do so.

[dxdm]

> 99% of the village thinks it’s a good idea to march into the most productive individual’s house and rob it clean

If this is what you believe raising taxes is like, I'm not surprised you're against it. But no wonder that you're struggling to get this point across, because it's outlandish in how far removed it is from what I perceive the instrument of taxation to be from concept to application to its morality... Forgive me for my own overblown comparison, but yours is a position I'd expect to hear in a comic from Scrooge McDuck.

[xorcist]

Even if that individual moved into the village knowing perfectly well that this is the rule in this village?

It is not unreasonable to me that you have to pitch in for common goods if you live in a village, and should you refuse to take part in this you might find yourself in a situation where you have to either move out of the village or forfeit your share.

[valval]

I don't think "you should just escape the oppression" is good advice per se. I think it's victim blaming, in today's terminology.

[xorcist]

Flouting laws does not a victim make. A more suitable modern expression is probably "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

[CleanRoomClub]

I like Ayn Rand as much as the next HN consumer, but let’s be a bit more judicious in how we apply her ideals.

If you earned your wealth through driving on public roads, after receiving a public education, without it actually being blatantly stolen due to a public police force, etc etc etc.

Then it is also your responsibility to pay for these items so that they dan continue to be used for future generation.

[valval]

If you're in eternal debt to the society you were fortunate or unfortunate enough to be born into since before you were lucid, when exactly is the cycle going to be broken?

Public roads can be taxed by use. Public education should be paid by people who participate.

You apply an "if" conditional here in a manner that's morally correct in my opinion. It's just that even if you didn't partake in those activities, you're forced to pay for them all the same. That's the issue.

You can move out of the country of course and find one that's more politically suitable, but the bottom line in my mind is that people in most societies are so different from each other that democracy just doesn't work at the scale it's trying to be applied. Sure, deciding what your society should collectively strive for at a neighborhood level might be possible. City level is reaching, and state or country level is ludicrous.

I think the only responsibility at the federal level should be watching the borders, and I can't convince myself otherwise no matter what material I read.

[StackRanker3000]

> If you're in eternal debt to the society you were fortunate or unfortunate enough to be born into since before you were lucid, when exactly is the cycle going to be broken?

Never. No human being has ever thrived in total isolation, and no one’s accomplishments are solely their own. You may not like it, but you are unavoidably part of a society (even if you move into the wilderness and never interact with another person again, you were still raised in one). You wouldn’t have been able to gather whatever resources you’ve managed to amass without that society, and in return it requires you to share the burden of helping everyone else thrive as well.