General

Re: NAP violations ?

bloomj31 — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:57:14 GMT

JAlanKatz:

You know, I agree with your conclusion that there's no problem taking the money, but psychologists have a name for the type of reasoning you've used here. If material benefits can "outweigh" moral objections, what is a person not to be encouraged to do for gain?

Well, there's always a risk of loss associated with every potential for gain.

JAlanKatz:

I don't think it's quite correct to say that the US was founded by a violent revolution. It was founded by a revolution of ideas, and then subsequently violently invaded from across an ocean.

Well, ok fine.

Re: NAP violations ?

Jeff — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:00:01 GMT

The simple answer to that is since the revenues taken in my the government are far less than the expenditures we are all tax eaters. Our government is nothing but a fractional reserve bank pyramiding loans on top of public funds. Our politicians sell us wars and social services that are funded by these loans. In reality, it doesn't matter in what way we expand these services, the bank wins simply because the services are expanded, thus increasing our debt. Our taxes are merely a mortgage payment on the great public debt the Fed started expanding in 1914.

Re: NAP violations ?

JAlanKatz — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:28:15 GMT

bloomj31:

Instead of looking at this from a moral angle, I suggest looking at it from a practical one. If it's something that's available to you, why not take it? I mean it might have come out of someone else's pocket, but if it doesn't go to you it will most likely go to someone else. In my mind, the price of doing something immoral on this level is more than made up for with the material benefits. Ultimately, it's still a judgment call you have to make. If you truly have moral reservations about it then you've really answered your own question.

You know, I agree with your conclusion that there's no problem taking the money, but psychologists have a name for the type of reasoning you've used here. If material benefits can "outweigh" moral objections, what is a person not to be encouraged to do for gain?

bloomj31:
Then again, the US was founded on a revolution and I like the US a lot.

I don't think it's quite correct to say that the US was founded by a violent revolution. It was founded by a revolution of ideas, and then subsequently violently invaded from across an ocean.

Re: NAP violations ?

Mtn Dew — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:44:03 GMT

How does one figure out if he or she is a net taxpayer or tax eater? Is it okay for someone making 100k in the private sector to take government funds that were originally theirs but not someone making 15k that is probably a tax eater?

Re: NAP violations ?

Jeff — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:40:49 GMT

In the state where I live, unemployment is 'insurance' and the fee for the 'insurance' is deducted from one's paycheck every payday. I doesn't matter if you buy insurance willing or the government makes you buy it at gun point, it is not wrong to collect on insurance benefits that are rightfully yours when you qualify per the insurance agreement. You questions are as silly as asking if we should all drive on the grass (refunding the owners of the private property for the damage of course) to avoid driving on state roads or avoid using public transportation because it is state subsidized.

Re: NAP violations ?

Ash Lawson — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:00:47 GMT

Ok so what about unemployment 'benefit', I've been working full time since i got out of college 2 years ago and of course paying taxes. If i were to be made redundant today, i couldn't sign on, i have been, it was a long time ago but i held different opinions then.

My question to everyone is, would you (personally) 'sign on' after being made unemployed and do you feel you are claiming what is rightfully yours ?

Re: NAP violations ?

Conza88 — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:13:15 GMT

Yep.

So there are really no libertarian qua libertarian "objections", they are actually in the general ethics / personal ethics sphere. i.e along the lines of, accepting welfare money is bad, because you run the risk of being dependent, being less productive than you otherwise would, etc etc.

Re: NAP violations ?

Jeff — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:44:34 GMT

The government is the only institution I know of that can make one feel like a thief for getting his own money back...

Re: NAP violations ?

Conza88 — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:27:47 GMT

Ash Lawson:

DD5:
But regarding your decision not to apply for any government "favors". I have to ask - Why not?

Bacause if i take, i knowingly steal.

Increasing the size of the state / burden is a no, no. See;

Living in a State Run World - MNR

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2002/02/section_13.html

You can't 'steal' from a thief. They are not the rightful owners. As long as you're not a net tax benefiter, you're essentially taking back your own property.

Re: NAP violations ?

bloomj31 — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:23:25 GMT

Instead of looking at this from a moral angle, I suggest looking at it from a practical one. If it's something that's available to you, why not take it? I mean it might have come out of someone else's pocket, but if it doesn't go to you it will most likely go to someone else. In my mind, the price of doing something immoral on this level is more than made up for with the material benefits. Ultimately, it's still a judgment call you have to make. If you truly have moral reservations about it then you've really answered your own question.

As far as violent revolutions go, history shows they can be done but there's no guarantee that you don't end up with something much less desirable than what you had to begin with. Then again, the US was founded on a revolution and I like the US a lot. That's a purely subjective value judgement though, some people don't like the US.

Re: NAP violations ?

Aquila — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:41:16 GMT

There have been some discussions on this in the past. I find the notion of out-violencing the state to be rather dubious from a practical standpoint. Morally, I have mixed feelings. Violence also frequently results in backlash against the cause that perpetrated in and is used as a justification for further expansions in state power.

Peaceful civil disobedience, on the other hand, has none of these drawbacks.

Re: NAP violations ?

Libertyandlife — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:11:57 GMT

Violence is great for self defense. However, violent revolutions tend to create power vacuums, and the real incentives of a group may not even be reached.

Re: NAP violations ?

Sebastian — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:54:27 GMT

Ash Lawson:

DD5:
But regarding your decision not to apply for any government "favors". I have to ask - Why not?

Bacause if i take, i knowingly steal.

You can't steal was is rightfully yours. Lets say a thief takes 10 apples from everyone in the neighborhood and he shouts that he will give away 1 apple to each who ask who is living in the neighborhood, now he just have 9 of your original 10 apples he stole from you.

Ash Lawson:

DD5:
Of course, if you think it will make you dependent on the State in anyway, perhaps to a point that it compromise your firm stance on freedom, then by all means, avoid taking anything from the government. If you can.

Exactly what i want to avoid. I don't think applying for tax credits falls into this category though.

Thanks DD5

Any suggestions on violent revolutions?

No comment.

Re: NAP violations ?

Ash Lawson — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:56:41 GMT

DD5:
But regarding your decision not to apply for any government "favors". I have to ask - Why not?

Bacause if i take, i knowingly steal.

DD5:
Of course, if you think it will make you dependent on the State in anyway, perhaps to a point that it compromise your firm stance on freedom, then by all means, avoid taking anything from the government. If you can.

Exactly what i want to avoid. I don't think applying for tax credits falls into this category though.

Thanks DD5

Any suggestions on violent revolutions?

Re: NAP violations ?

DD5 — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:43:32 GMT

Ash Lawson:
After finding the Austrian school though, i won't be applying for anymore government favours

Austrian economics is a value free science. It makes no such recommendations for anyone.

But regarding your decision not to apply for any government "favors". I have to ask - Why not?

The more burden you put on the State, the more difficult it is for it to run our lives, and the quicker it runs out of money.

There is a huge difference between supporting the government system and all of its apparatus, and as a victim of theft, trying to get as much back from the State as you can. In fact, once too many become too expensive to be ruled, the State will either collapse or have to roll back .

Of course, if you think it will make you dependent on the State in anyway, perhaps to a point that it compromise your firm stance on freedom, then by all means, avoid taking anything from the government. If you can.