[ahomescu1]

> you are not, but society is an organism with more than you in it, and if he's thrown into the bin because he's can't make it in it the guy may think it's fair to take it from you...

I already had a similar discussion on Slashdot recently. Taking other people's money by force is, IMHO, theft. My question then isn't why it would be OK for the guy, but why does theft become OK for society? Why are you arguing that stealing is acceptable if you're desperate enough? I say it's never acceptable.

EDIT: Paying people so they don't steal from me is called a protection racket. If that's what you're arguing for, let's call it what it is.

[rjtavares]

People like you scare me. I can't even understand that point of view, and I don't think we can have a productive argument if we don't share a basic understanding of what a society is. Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.

[ahomescu1]

> Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.

I'm not arguing that "taxes are theft". I'm arguing that giving money to poor people so they don't attack me is theft. buzaga was saying that if I/we don't "take care of the unfortunate", they'll decide to take our money/stuff by force. Sounds like a veiled threat to "give them money, or else..." That is theft, in my opinion.

I'm perfectly fine with taxes as long as they go to things that benefit everyone equally, including me (like roads, schools, police and courthouses).

EDIT: Also, please point out where I said (or implied) that "taxes are theft". You completely misread what I wrote, therefore I have to agree that we can't have a productive argument.

[rjtavares]

We are proposing a public funded program. That program is funded by taxes. This is what you said:

> why does theft become OK for society? Why are you arguing that stealing is acceptable if you're desperate enough? I say it's never acceptable.

The implications are obvious. Taxes don't have different natures depending on the use we as society give to the money we collect. In fact, the very economic definition of taxes is that you aren't promised anything specific in return[1].

Regarding the tyranny of the majority argument, that would only apply if we were proposing a ridulous amount of taxation. We are not. It's been pointed out that this program could be funded by replacing it with current expenses, and by a minimal raise in taxes. That's not oppression, that'a a choice that we as society are well within our rights to make.

In short: spending taxpayers money can't be theft, and taxes aren't a service you pay if you like how the money is spent.

[1] > From the view of economists, a tax is a non-penal, yet compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the public sector levied on a basis of predetermined criteria and without reference to specific benefit received (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax)

[buzaga41]

+misery = +violence -misery = -violence +people participating in the economy = +business, +salaries better society = better society for everyone

You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems.

Misery breeds violence, there's no "or else", there's no "they", it's reality, I could resort to violence to survive and so could you.

[ahomescu1]

By that logic (extending it a bit), we could fire all the cops, and just give our money over to criminals who ask for it. There's a point at which I draw the line, and prefer to fight instead.

[buzaga41]

You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems.

[ahomescu1]

What box is that? I can't contradict or agree with you unless you're actually making an argument.

[saraid216]

It's easier to understand people like this if you study how religious fundamentalism works. The key is in understanding that everything in the world, in their point of view, boils down to a basic set of axioms. This simplified reality allows them to extrapolate claims outwards that are otherwise absurd if approached from another direction, because contrary facts have already been discarded as irrelevant; it gives them the comfort of feeling that their beliefs are "holy" or "logical", which reinforces it in an infinite loop.

[bryanlarsen]

The only reason that you can make the money you do is because you're standing on the shoulders of giants. Aristotle, Newton, Watt, Tesla, Von Nuemann, et cetera. Left to your own devices (and assuming that the other 7 billion people are in the same boat) you'd be starving as a subsistence farmer making the equivalent of about $1 a day. If you currently make $35K a year, that means that you owe 99.9% of your income to society. Your income taxes are only about a third of that. Who's the thief now?

[ahomescu1]

> Left to your own devices (and assuming that the other 7 billion people are in the same boat) you'd be starving as a subsistence farmer making the equivalent of about $1 a day.

That's an unreasonable assumption. There are differences in productivity even among farmers. Some people are much better at farming than others.

> If you currently make $35K a year, that means that you owe 99.9% of your income to society.

So my own creativity, labor, skills, talents and education only matter for 0.1%, nothing more? Also, you're arguing that I owe part of my success to the drug addict who gets high all the time, and to the drunk who starts drinking early in the morning, and to the mugger who robs people at gunpoint? Even to people who play World of Warcraft all day?

Society is a mix of people that make wildly different contributions, and in some cases hugely negative impacts. I am immensely grateful to people like Leibniz, Newton, Shakespeare and others, but not so much to people who just coast through life. I also wish Stalin, Hitler and many others would have never existed.

[bryanlarsen]

"There are differences in productivity even among farmers."

Not if you don't have access to machinery, modern seeds, chemicals, weather forecasting, tens of thousands of years worth of agricultural research and oral history, et cetera.

"So my own creativity, labor, skills, talents and education only matter for 0.1%"

Pretty much useless to the subsistence farmer. Basically the only thing that matters is luck and hard work. Not to mention that society provides the source of your inspiration, provided your education, an outlet for your talents, et cetera.

Obviously my argument is a little bit of reductio ad absurdum. But much less so than "taxation is theft".

[ahomescu1]

> Not if you don't have access to machinery, modern seeds, chemicals, weather forecasting, tens of thousands of years worth of agricultural research and oral history, et cetera.

I disagree with that. Half my native country is rural, with a really long history of agriculture, and it's far from homogenous. Work ethic and intelligence really matter, even for farmers (especially work ethic; some people just work harder than others). There's always that one farmer who has more cattle or pigs than the others (or takes better care of their crops), and a few who can barely feed themselves. This was true even centuries before modern equipment, like tractors and chemicals.

> Basically the only thing that matters is luck and hard work.

Not everyone is equally hard working; in fact, I'd say the differences among individuals are quite significant. Also, you're ignoring intelligence/creativity.

> But much less so than "taxation is theft".

Also, as I already said in another comment, I'm not arguing that "taxation is theft" (as I already asked another commenter, please point out where I explicitly claimed that). I'm only arguing that paying people so they don't hurt me is theft (or extortion or a protection racket).

Two ideas seem insane to me in this whole thread: 1) that "we should pay poor people to stop them from killing us" and 2) that "we as a society are punishing people who can't find a job", with the corollary of "we're rewarding people who do have jobs". So far, I've only been arguing against these.

[buzaga41]

Of course it's acceptable. Depending on the circumstances, killing can be acceptable, eating human flesh can be acceptable, why wouldn't stealing be?

It's not taken from you, if everybody receives basic income, how can it be taking from you? You're missing the point.

[ahomescu1]

> Depending on the circumstances, killing can be acceptable, eating human flesh can be acceptable, why wouldn't stealing be?

Maybe you find those acceptable, but I find all of them horrible. Killing someone is only acceptable in self defense (in which case someone else is trying to kill you first), while cannibalism is just sick.

[dllthomas]

"Killing someone is only acceptable in self defense"

How is that not "depending on the circumstances"? Is not "killing is needed to defend myself" a circumstance?

"while cannibalism is just sick."

So, if someone is genuinely in a situation where their options are 1) starve to death, or 2) eat the other guy who just starved to death, you think it's clear that they should choose 1?