Re: The p00n thread
Somebody read too much ayn rand and milton freedman.
You know what, to really prove your point why don't you go full Henry Thoreau. Quit paying taxes. Go on do it. Since taxes are essentially theft right? Go on argue in court why not paying taxes is ok. Tell us how you enjoy the roads everybody uses, police service, firemen, education and what not but you hate taxes. Would you even be at UNSW if you paid 30k a year for education? I highly doubt it.
You know why we have public education? Even if you don't have kids it BENEFITS YOU. You know how? By having a better educated population. You want someone to design a new microchip? Boom public education. You want someone to become a doctor? boom public education. Maybe we should go back to the 1850s when half the population can't even fucking read. How well will that do for society? Let's only have the people who can afford education be educated. That'll really create a well balanced society.
I can't quit paying income taxes first of all you moron because if I do a bunch of cops will break down my door and throw me in a rape cage. Secondly, anything I buy is subject to either tariffs, goods and services taxes and/or excise taxes, how do you suggest I stop paying those? I don't even know how to address the other nonsense you've written after that about courts.
You're also falsely conflating all of those services with the state, which is even dumber. I mean it's not like there were ever roads before income taxes existed, right? I would love if I didn't have cops constantly writing off my civil liberties because they want an even easier job of catching criminals, let alone paying them for the privilege. That would be great, where do I sign up? I would be more than happy to pay a private business that operates as a fire brigade service to insure and fire damage to my property is mitigated, where do I sign up? Where did you get this figure of "30k" from? Thin air?
All of the points you're making are absurd in the extreme. Public education doesn't magic up doctors or exist as the sole provider of education, regardless of how much you want it to. Asserting that the only way to go about advancement of a society is through spending obscene amounts of other peoples' money is asinine.
Do you honestly believe that the market cannot provide private policing, fire brigade services, medicine services or education? Do you really believe that the world is the same as it was in the 1850's?
if by property you mean money and if by someone believing they are owed it you mean education, then why not? Isn't that the entire point of taxation? I mean if there are reasonable tax laws and you only pay enough tax such that your remaining income allows you to live easily within your means, and this tax is used to provide universal education and expand opportunities for Australians that could in the long term result in greater progress and benefits, I don't see why this is an issue.
Yes it is the point of taxation, but its end doesn't automatically justify the means by which it is obtained. There is also an extremely subjective idea in what is deemed "reasonable" and "easily within" and "means". If a political party decided that "reasonable" was taking 80% of the income of people who earn over a certain amount because thereafter they could still live "easily within" their "means" by that party's standards, then you'd be all right with this? It's not a logically sound position to hold. Taxation isn't only used for the purposes of education, either but that's not really the point we're discussing.
Liberty is perhaps the most fundamental human right, but if this liberty expands to not giving back to society and doing whatever you want, it's not necessarily a good thing. Whilst violating human rights via murder etc. is obviously way more abhorrent, it's still bad to completely neglect the rights of others because you're hellbent on keeping every single bit of your own shit even if you don't need all of it.
But this is the point, you aren't neglecting the rights of others by refusing to give up your life, liberty or property to them. Even if I don't "need" 100% of my income (pro-tip: I do) by your standards, why are you owed it? What right do you have to my property? Because you want it and you think I don't need it? How is this any different to robbing me in the street? Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?
I don't think obligation to society is an inherently bad thing, particularly as society is the very reason you have what you have in the first place.
This is true in a very loose way and not in the way that you intended it. You're conflating the state with society, which is a grave and all too common mistake people make in this day and age. You aren't giving to society by paying tax. You aren't taking from society by receiving tax either. The government is not and should most certainly not be the arbiter of what is good and best for society, nor should it be treated as 'society' in itself.
Education is also a bit different because it involves kids who obviously cannot necessarily pay for their own education. Should they be excluded from an education system just because their parents can't afford it? That's pretty much not letting them have an education due to the inability of their parents to pay, rather than any sort of selection based on whether the kid themself is capable. The concept of property doesn't really apply because those kids can't really trade anything for their education. It's not so much an obligation as investing in the future.
You've confused yourself here. The concept of property most certainly does exist because you're taking someone's property to give to others in order to provide cheap services. This is ethically and morally bankrupt, regardless of the warm and fuzzies you get from it.
Both of these conversations are pointless. Mob rule will sustain and the rights of the individual will be continually and further subjugated for the safety of the majority. I was pointing out the moral and ethical implications of the current system in which we live. I wasn't advocating for the overthrow of it, just a shift in ideas about how individuals should interact with the state and vice versa. I would *like* to see taxation reduced far beyond its current scope, but that isn't going to occur overnight.
Do I dislike the current system? Yeah, it's not perfect. Do I want to remove all and every public service that exists? Of course not. I want individuals to have opportunities to create better lives for themselves, their children and the lives of the men and women around them. I want people to be educated so they can be informed voters. I want men and women to be educated so they can be aware of what the implications are when politicians make policy and especially how it will affect them and their communities. The state doesn't do a great job of this and I concede it is indeed better than none, but I would also like to see how the market would deal with this sort of situation.
With this in mind, it's interesting to note that public education was originally (and continually) instituted as a means of social control (why do you think commies and socialists love it so much?). The idea was that young boys and girls could be brainwashed into loving the State and the people educating them. It was done so kids would adopt the ideas and values that the educators wanted them to. It's the same thing parents do to their kids with religion.
) 
