Please tell me I'm missing something. I've gotten into heated debates over this, specifically government grants for musicians.
While pooping, I thumbed through the Ethics Of Liberty and stumbled up to chapter 24...
THE MORAL STATUS OF RELATIONS TO THE STATE ...This means that it cannot be unjust or immoral to fail to pay taxes to the State, to appropriate the property of the State (which is in the hands of aggressors), to refuse to obey State orders, or to break contracts with the State (since it cannot be unjust to break contracts with criminals). Morally, from the point of view of proper political philosophy, “stealing” from the State, for example, is removing property from criminal hands, is, in a sense, “homesteading” property, except that instead of homesteading unused land, the person is removing property from the criminal sector of society—a positive good...
THE MORAL STATUS OF RELATIONS TO THE STATE
...This means that it cannot be unjust or immoral to fail to pay taxes to the State, to appropriate the property of the State (which is in the hands of aggressors), to refuse to obey State orders, or to break contracts with the State (since it cannot be unjust to break contracts with criminals). Morally, from the point of view of proper political philosophy, “stealing” from the State, for example, is removing property from criminal hands, is, in a sense, “homesteading” property, except that instead of homesteading unused land, the person is removing property from the criminal sector of society—a positive good...
Okay, so I'm a stand up guy if I get some tax money for myself? Did Murray just give me a green flag to appropriate a music grant?..
I'm at odds with myself on this one.
Why not take government money? It doesn't belong to anyone; certainly not the government.
Not anyone anymore, but only because of force and redistribution of stolen property.
Does this not make me as guilty as the government itself? And surely the laws of economics apply to stolen merchandise - it's discount will always make it a popular product in even the super-duper free market we all dream about. Are we not stimulating a demand of coercion and theft on a whole when more people are encouraged to consume more of it individually?
Ricky James Moore II:Why not take government money? It doesn't belong to anyone; certainly not the government.
So when a thief steals something from you, you lose any title to it?
If you can't figure out who he stole it from, yes. Pretending all that money slushing around in the State, much less the Federal, treasury can be meaningfully traced to any tax payer is crankish.
Are we not stimulating a demand of coercion and theft on a whole when more people are encouraged to consume more of it individually?
So what? I live in the real world for myself, not some ideal. Your contribution is trivial.
Ricky James Moore II: So when a thief steals something from you, you lose any title to it? If you can't figure out who he stole it from, yes.
If you can't figure out who he stole it from, yes.
We know exactly who was taxed and how much. We know exactly how much they paid in which fiscal year and into what particular government departments.
Ricky James Moore II:Pretending all that money slushing around in the State, much less the Federal, treasury can be meaningfully traced to any tax payer is crankish.
You assert it is crankish, which we both know is intellectually sloppy and makes you look like a dolt with no argument, so why not explain why it cannot meaningfully be traced to any tax payer. Isn't that what tax returns document?
Which totally ignores the money they get paid out and the various in kind grants they get, not to mention any complicity they might have in the state, not to mention the fact that lots of people are robbed, expropriated and disrupted by the State in indirect ways aside from the IRS, not to mention that there is never going to be enough money to pay these people back, not to mention all of them will die before the State goes away, not to mention that if the state goes away Federal Reserve notes won't even be money.
Basically, your ideas are useless and unrelated to the problem of whether property and cash funds existing in the State are viable to be claimed by any specific person; they are 'finders, keepers' as any living person could easily find some reason the state 'owes' them some arbitrary amount of compensation for harm done.
You Rothbardians with your fantasy ethical views really go in circles with this crap; assigning ownership to tax funds is epistemically and practically impossible; not to mention useless; not to mention it's not going to get done. For those of us living in the real world your little spiel is just a non sequitur. There is no 'ownership' or 'right' to any property, property and disputes are directly tied to it being epistemically and funcitonally possible to resolve it for a specific person in a specific situation; the state makes a giant clusterfack out of society where everyone is complicit and nobody has any real authority or rights. Your moralizing BS doesn't work, and real legal logic is hard pressed, too.
Anyways, you're a lunatic and I am not arguing with you.
What do you mean, "you Rothbardians"? You're the one taking the Rothbardian position here (which I agree with, BTW).
Someone is going to get the money whether or not you take it. Better you recieve it than some statist does.
I mean Rothbardian in the natural rights sense. I agree with Rothbard on most things, I just think his moralizing and rightsism was useless nonsense.
Bardock: Someone is going to get the money whether or not you take it. Better you recieve it than some statist does.
That's basically what Block says, better that some random person get it than the thief keep it.
Ricky James Moore II:Which totally ignores the money they get paid out and the various in kind grants they get, not to mention any complicity they might have in the state, not to mention the fact that lots of people are robbed, expropriated and disrupted by the State in indirect ways aside from the IRS, not to mention that there is never going to be enough money to pay these people back, not to mention all of them will die before the State goes away, not to mention that if the state goes away Federal Reserve notes won't even be money.
You're changing the argument, but I have an answer for this too. I tackled this subject on these forums 2 years ago.
It doesn't matter what got paid out, because that has receipts too. The government documents all of it. You just thought you could make a lazy argument that it all goes in a big pot and no one can be bothered to look at the books. I'm sure there are a few people here would have accepted such a sloppy answer, but I am not one of them.
Ricky James Moore II:Basically, your ideas are useless and unrelated to the problem of whether property and cash funds existing in the State are viable to be claimed by any specific person; they are 'finders, keepers' as any living person could easily find some reason the state 'owes' them some arbitrary amount of compensation for harm done.
More assertions without proof. Yawn.
Besides red herrings and strawmen, do you have anything to contribute?
Ricky James Moore II:You Rothbardians with your fantasy ethical views really go in circles with this crap; assigning ownership to tax funds is epistemically and practically impossible; not to mention useless; not to mention it's not going to get done. For those of us living in the real world your little spiel is just a non sequitur.
I am not a Rothbardian, so once again, you are wrong. Mind you, it was a lame attempt to ignore my argument and use another red herring. No one here is debating ethics.
I have already demonstrated that it is possible to solve this problem because the government documents the flow of all taxes in and out.
Appeals to the "real world" are empty and usually the sign that the individual bringing it up doesn't have an argument. I haven't yet seen an argument from you that refutes my answer. Taxes are paid in the real world. Tax returns are filed and documented in the real world. Pretty simple stuff.
Next time, think a little more before you post.
Ricky, it pains me to do this, because I find the insights and information in your posts so excellent, but you simply can't go around insulting people here. 1-week ban.
Even though RJM is on hiatus, I want to address more of the stuff he added to this, because it is an opportunity to instruct.
Ad hominem
Ricky James Moore II:You Rothbardians with your fantasy ethical views really go in circles with this crap ... Anyways, you're a lunatic and I am not arguing with you.
Red herrings
Proof by assertion, non sequitur
More proof by assertion, non sequitur, red herring
Ricky James Moore II: assigning ownership to tax funds is epistemically and practically impossible; not to mention useless; not to mention it's not going to get done. For those of us living in the real world your little spiel is just a non sequitur. There is no 'ownership' or 'right' to any property, property and disputes are directly tied to it being epistemically and funcitonally possible to resolve it for a specific person in a specific situation; the state makes a giant clusterfack out of society where everyone is complicit and nobody has any real authority or rights. Your moralizing BS doesn't work, and real legal logic is hard pressed, too.
Dear reader, just because someone claims to use logic, doesn't mean they actually are. Ricky failed to substantiate one point in his responses, but he did manage to avoid directly addressing the points I did substantiate. This is sloppy argumentation, and frankly, the standard here is a lot higher. Shouting past people and demeaning them or their position won't win arguments. You need to address the subject in good faith.
liberty student:I have already demonstrated that it is possible to solve this problem because the government documents the flow of all taxes in and out.
The government also expropriates by another method other then by just taxation: All those other millions of decrees which comprise the total sphere of government action that we call interventionism. Those things cannot be measured or assessed by the method of accounting, but they inflict damage and result in a loss of wealth to the individual no less then taxation, perhaps even more.