fisharmor: It is completely unethical for the government to imprison, beat, torture, rape, and kill people for refusing to pay taxes!!
Xerographica: Would you want to be able to use your taxes to boycott the tax enforcement GOs?
fisharmor: No!!
Xerographica: No?
fisharmor: You don't get it...I find theft of my property to be unethical.
Xerographica: But...you wouldn't want to deprive the tax enforcement GOs of your taxes?
fisharmor: No! You're being unreasonable for not understanding how strongly I feel about taxes.
Xerographica: But in a pragmatarian system you'd be able to withhold your taxes from all but one GO...
fisharmor: Taxes are unethical and I could care less what my stolen money is used for
Xerographica: Even if your taxes paid for unnecessary wars?
fisharmor: Look, the problem here is that you've never heard of the self-ownership principle.
Xerographica: I'm pretty sure I understand and appreciate the concept...but I don't think you're grasping that pragmatarianism is a system that would allow you to allocate your taxes according to your moral principles
fisharmor: You don't truly understand the self-ownership concept if you support taxes
Xerographica: I'm not supporting taxes...I'm supporting freedom...
fisharmor: The only way to support freedom is by advocating for the total elimination of taxes
Xerographica: Even if advocating for the total elimination of taxes guaranteed that you wouldn't get any freedom?
fisharmor: Yes, that's what it means to be ethically principled...you never compromise your ethical principles even if doing so helps perpetuate the very thing that you're ethically opposed to.
Xerographica: But...I'm not asking that you compromise your ethical principles....
fisharmor: Are you advocating for the elimination of taxes?
Xerographica: Well...no...
fisharmor: Then you're asking me to compromise my ethical principles.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Pragmatarian Challenge to Stefan Molyneux
How many "natural rights" (deontological) oriented anarcho-capitalists are barking up the wrong tree? That's a link to my challenge to Stefan Molyneux.
My challenge to Stefan is to explain whether the biggest obstacle to his World of Beautiful Freedom is people's "immorality" or their unfamiliarity with the concept of the invisible hand. This challenge is in response to his video on Beautiful Freedom where he answers frequently asked questions on how a stateless society might work. By far and large the video consists of him explaining how the invisible hand works.
As a pragmatarian I say nothing about whether "taxes are theft"...my only argument is that taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes. Even though the total amount of taxes would be exactly the same, the most common response to pragmatarianism is that some "important" public good would be underfunded. For a mountain of evidence that supports this conclusion see my post on Unglamorous but Important Things.
It's clear that the biggest obstacle to a stateless society isn't that people are immoral...it's just that they have no idea how the invisible hand works. Therefore, the revolution wasn't postponed because of immorality...it was postponed because it was outside of everybody's area of expertise.
My pragmatic recommendation is for everybody to bark up the right tree by focusing on helping people understand how the invisible hand works. In my opinion...asking people to consider the outcome of allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their individual taxes...aka pragmatarianism...is a really good way to introduce them to the invisible hand concept.
My challenge to Stefan is to explain whether the biggest obstacle to his World of Beautiful Freedom is people's "immorality" or their unfamiliarity with the concept of the invisible hand. This challenge is in response to his video on Beautiful Freedom where he answers frequently asked questions on how a stateless society might work. By far and large the video consists of him explaining how the invisible hand works.
As a pragmatarian I say nothing about whether "taxes are theft"...my only argument is that taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes. Even though the total amount of taxes would be exactly the same, the most common response to pragmatarianism is that some "important" public good would be underfunded. For a mountain of evidence that supports this conclusion see my post on Unglamorous but Important Things.
It's clear that the biggest obstacle to a stateless society isn't that people are immoral...it's just that they have no idea how the invisible hand works. Therefore, the revolution wasn't postponed because of immorality...it was postponed because it was outside of everybody's area of expertise.
My pragmatic recommendation is for everybody to bark up the right tree by focusing on helping people understand how the invisible hand works. In my opinion...asking people to consider the outcome of allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their individual taxes...aka pragmatarianism...is a really good way to introduce them to the invisible hand concept.
Kent's Critique of Pragmatarianism
Kent "The Hooligan Libertarian"...recently dedicated an entire blog entry to his evaluation of pragmatarianism. Lot's of good criticisms from a very strong "rights" based perspective.
Kent and I have had quite a few surprisingly reasonable exchanges. Here's our first discussion...Abortion: This Libertarian/Anarchist's position. The discussion started off addressing abortion from the perspective of property rights and then transitioned into a discussion on taxes.
My position was that abortion was unethical from a strict interpretation of property rights. As soon as unique DNA is created the individual has the right not to have their property violated in any way. The concept of property is only meaningful when there is some way to differentiate what I own from what you own. When a woman is pregnant it becomes a situation where the woman can do whatever she wants with her body right up until the point her actions harm the individual within her.
From a pragmatic perspective though I believe that abortion should be legal.
For a couple other exchanges between Kent and I you can check out these search results.
For a critique of pragmatarianism from a revolutionary communist's perspective check out A "Hard Times" Milestone.
Kent and I have had quite a few surprisingly reasonable exchanges. Here's our first discussion...Abortion: This Libertarian/Anarchist's position. The discussion started off addressing abortion from the perspective of property rights and then transitioned into a discussion on taxes.
My position was that abortion was unethical from a strict interpretation of property rights. As soon as unique DNA is created the individual has the right not to have their property violated in any way. The concept of property is only meaningful when there is some way to differentiate what I own from what you own. When a woman is pregnant it becomes a situation where the woman can do whatever she wants with her body right up until the point her actions harm the individual within her.
From a pragmatic perspective though I believe that abortion should be legal.
For a couple other exchanges between Kent and I you can check out these search results.
For a critique of pragmatarianism from a revolutionary communist's perspective check out A "Hard Times" Milestone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)