Politics.be Problemen met registreren? Of een verloren wachtwoord? Gelieve een mail te verzenden naar maarten@politics.be met vermelding van je gebruikersnaam.

Ga terug   Politics.be > Debatclub > Algemeen
Registreer FAQForumreglement Ledenlijst Markeer forums als gelezen

Algemeen Hier kan een gesloten groep deelnemers debatteren over allerhande onderwerpen. Indien je wil deelnemen dan moet je toegang vragen bij de moderator via je control panel.

Antwoord
 
Discussietools
Oud 23 augustus 2008, 22:00   #1
AdrianHealey
Secretaris-Generaal VN
 
AdrianHealey's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 28 november 2006
Locatie: Antwerpen Stadstaat
Berichten: 28.292
Standaard Interessante libertarische opmerking

Citaat:
Three Different Ways of Using Force
Saturday, August 23, 2008 2:43 PM

So here's the idea: there are at least three different ways that libertarians generally think of coercive force, and I think they've been harmed by treating them as if they were essentially the same sort of thing. The first kind of coercive "force" is the use of someone else's property without their permission, or in direct defiance of their wishes. The second kind is the initiation of physical force upon a person, again without permission or in violation of their explicit desires. The third kind is the threat of physical force directed at coercing a person into doing something against their will. I don't deny that there might be more "kinds," but these three came to mind first, so they're the one's I'll address here.

It seems to me that when many libertarians decry "coercion" or "aggressive force," they do so by means of certain kinds of arguments. These arguments sometimes take the form of identifying the "true nature" of certain kinds of coercive actions, and extending that characterization to other kinds of coercive actions which may or may not fall into different categories of force as expounded above. This, I think, can lead to mistakes.

For example, "Taxation is slavery because the product of your labor doesn't belong to you." The idea here is that the government "steals" some of your income from you (which depends on the rejection of the idea that you voluntarily live on the government's land by living in a country), and this money is the product of your own labor. But you know what you call a system in which you work, but someone else gets the product of that work? Yea, slavery. Blammo, take that government! *high fives from the libertarians*

Except here's the thing. There is exactly one sense in which taxation is like slavery, and it's not the sense that these people are talking about. The way that taxation is like slavery is that the government demands that you, or your employer, or someone not actually on their own staff, actually sends them the money. That is, if you don't put the check in the envelope, stamp it, and send it, you get punished. That's the third kind of force discussed above, where the threat of violence is used to coerce a person into doing something against their will. And that's exactly like slavery.

However, the reason that taxation is like slavery has nothing to do with the fact that the government gets the product of your work. That kind of thinking is not only sloppy, but in many ways anti-libertarian and Marxist. We live in a country where we are told that we will be taxed if we decide to work. In a slave society, slaves are told that they will be taxed and they will work, whether they like it or not. The government does not use the threat of force to make us produce income. That would be like the third kind of force, which is the kind that can be associated legitimately with slavery. We choose to work, and can choose not to do so without any government-enforced consequences.

The idea that the product of our labor should belong to us, even when we are explicitly a part of an arrangement in which it will be taken from us, is an idea that can be traced back to Marx and the labor theory of value. The very same idea is used to explain why capitalists exploit their workers: the workers produce, and the corporation gets the product of that labor. It's like wage-slavery! *high fives from the socialists*

The difference between a voluntary agreement to work and government taxation is not that corporations let you keep the product of your labor and the government doesn't. Rather, the difference is that you don't agree to the arrangement the government enforces upon you (well, under certain conceptions of voluntarity), and you do agree to the arrangement the corporation enforces upon you. In a corporate agreement, you are "paying" your employers with the product of your labor in exchange for them paying you with money that you want more than the product of your labor. In a government agreement, you are paying the government with the product of your labor so that they won't use the first kind of force (the use of your property against your will) or the second kind (the use of physical force against your person).

The slavery part of that bargain is the part where they actually make you pay the tax with the threat of those other kinds of force. If they just went to your bank and took the money from you, the slavery component would be gone. But ostensibly, nobody's complaining because we have to put a check in an envelope and mail it, or fill out a form every once in a while. I mean, that's a pain in the ass, but I really don't think that's the problem. The problem is not that taxation is like slavery, but rather that taxation is like theft.

But if you accept the view that we voluntarily live on the government's land, and part of our contract is that we pay taxes to the government, then even this characterization doesn't apply. The first kind of force (using property without the owner's permission) doesn't apply to situations where the alleged "owner" is party to an agreement through which she surrendered the title to that property, just like it's not the first kind of force when my employer takes the product of my labor without my consent. And the second kind of force (physical force against someone's person) doesn't seem to apply when the person is doing something that they have a perfect right to be doing, and are resisted against forcefully. In a sense, it would almost be self-defense for the government to collect its "rent", just like my employer would have every right to use some reasonable amount of force if I suddenly refused to give up the products of my labor in the middle of the work day (well, more accurately, he would have the right to demand that I appear in court or something similar, and if I were found to be in breach of my contract, some force would be legitimate in enforcing that contract; I'm no opponent of procedural justice).

So we see that "Taxation is slavery" collapses into "Taxation is theft, and they even make me give it to them at gunpoint", which then collapses into "The government doesn't have any legitimate claim to my property." It seems to me that all that would be perfectly clear to anyone willing to think about it for a moment if they would only separate the different kinds of force and consider each in its own light.
Bron: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/don...ing-force.aspx

Het lijkt me dat hij hier een heel goede analyse maakt van hoe we zaken behoren te formuleren en hoe niet
__________________
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Avicenna
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."

Laatst gewijzigd door AdrianHealey : 23 augustus 2008 om 22:03.
AdrianHealey is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 24 augustus 2008, 08:04   #2
Bill Ayers
Burgemeester
 
Bill Ayers's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 26 mei 2006
Berichten: 515
Standaard

Citaat:
The idea that the product of our labor should belong to us, even when we are explicitly a part of an arrangement in which it will be taken from us, [...]
Ik heb expliciet een overeenkomst met mijn werkgever afgesloten, niet met de Staat.
Bill Ayers is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 24 augustus 2008, 12:07   #3
Alvas
Schepen
 
Alvas's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 14 februari 2008
Locatie: AARS-SCHOT
Berichten: 435
Standaard

Hele goede tekst , zo denk ik al zolang als de tijd bestaat zijn men voorouders al belastingen te betalen. ik denk dat geen enkele afbetaling in de wereld is waar je uiteindelijk geen eindproduct krijgt. De wereld is toch van iedereen? No borders!
Alvas is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 24 augustus 2008, 13:00   #4
netslet
Minister-President
 
netslet's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 25 mei 2006
Locatie: Isla Tortuga
Berichten: 5.857
Standaard

Wat is dat toch eigenlijk met die Georgisten en hun geocentrisme?

Heute das Welt, Morgen das Sonnensystem!
__________________
auction your future!
netslet is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 24 augustus 2008, 13:40   #5
lombas
Secretaris-Generaal VN
 
lombas's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 27 juni 2005
Berichten: 44.543
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door netslet Bekijk bericht
Heute das Welt, Morgen das Sonnensystem!
Ook. Gelezen.

?

__________________
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err. (Pope)
lombas is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 24 augustus 2008, 13:56   #6
netslet
Minister-President
 
netslet's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 25 mei 2006
Locatie: Isla Tortuga
Berichten: 5.857
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door lombas Bekijk bericht
Ook. Gelezen.

?

Net 1/3 momenteel. 'k vind het tot hier toe een nogal lichtjes fantastisch boek, alhoewel ik waarschijnlijk eerst een Master in Comparative Religion zou moeten halen om er alles uit te halen wat er in zit. En dan nog.
__________________
auction your future!
netslet is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 24 augustus 2008, 13:58   #7
lombas
Secretaris-Generaal VN
 
lombas's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 27 juni 2005
Berichten: 44.543
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door netslet Bekijk bericht
Net 1/3 momenteel. 'k vind het tot hier toe een nogal lichtjes fantastisch boek, alhoewel ik waarschijnlijk eerst een Master in Comparative Religion zou moeten halen om er alles uit te halen wat er in zit. En dan nog.
Ik zit in 1,5/3, wel al een paar maanden links laten liggen (thesis en zo).

Ongelofelijk grappig en spot-on.
__________________
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err. (Pope)
lombas is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Antwoord


Discussietools

Regels voor berichten
Je mag niet nieuwe discussies starten
Je mag niet reageren op berichten
Je mag niet bijlagen versturen
Je mag niet jouw berichten bewerken

vB-code is Aan
Smileys zijn Aan
[IMG]-code is Aan
HTML-code is Uit
Forumnavigatie


Alle tijden zijn GMT +1. Het is nu 13:03.


Forumsoftware: vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright ©2002 - 2016, Politics.be