cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/12/85)
> In article <657@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: > > > In article <646@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP responds: > > > > Please be so kind mike to point out exactly when it > > > > becomes right for a group > > > > of people to decide to take the fruits of labor away from select members > > > > of that group... > > > > > > = Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > > > Can you tell me exactly when the hair on my chin grows into a beard? > > > "Beardedness" is no more a binary trait than right or wrong is. > > > > Yes, according to Webster's: > > > > beard, n. 1 (a) the hair that grows on the chin and cheeks and around the > > lips, especially of a man; hence, a mark of virility. > > > > So technically as soon as the hair is there it is a beard. > > You can also bet that all laws relating to beard use will have a legal > > definition of a beard. > > Wow, I'm so impressed that you used a dictionary to buttress your > misunderstanding of your logical fallacy. Are you trying to tell me that the hair isn't by definition a beard, or are you just pouting because you produced a poor example? > While it is possible to construct a legal fiction to designate some cutoff > point (ugh :-) for a beard, the fact is that there is a continuum of states > between bearded and beardless. At what point does a clean-shaven man become > bearded? At what point does a youth entering manhood become bearded? Aren't you glad that there are relatively few laws that attempt to construct a legal fiction for beardedness? > Well, if you want me to declare a legal fiction for when it becomes right > for a group to take away something of one member's, then if I answer > "whenever I say so", it has as much validity as your saying "never". Just as I suspected. Taxation is right, because Mike Huybensz says so. I am sure it doesn't bother you in the least that you consider the righteousness of a group taking something from one member to be totally arbitrary. Aren't we lucky that anytime Mike Huybensz says it is right to take something from someone that it is indeed just. Sounds like a good basis for a system of laws :-) > > > There is an entire range of niceness to badness in the varied forms of > > > exchange between humans. Including generosity, reluctant giving, > > > obligation, favoritism, nepotism, bribery, blackmail, theft, etc. > > > > Notice that in {reluctant giving, obligation, favoritism, nepotism, bribery} > > there is no force used to enact the exchage. Consider the group {blackmail, > > theft} both of these groups are explicitly dependant on the use of force. > > Into which of the groups would you place taxation? I would put it into the > > latter. Even if you consider it an obligation, it is still collected through > > the application of force. > > There is no application of force in collecting _my_ taxes. I never claimed that the collection of *your* taxes was theft. I think it falls under the category of a fool and his money. > There is an > implicit threat of force, but that threat of force is present in every > social code, else it would be toothless and unobserved. Do you mean social or governmental. In the circles I travel in the threat of force rarely rears its head (and when it does, it is out of place). My social code says that it is not polite to wash my hands in my soup while eating, yet I don't expect to get slapped if I were to do such a thing. Maybe the no-washing-hands-in-soup code is toothless, but I can assure you it is quite observed. > The threat of force > is just as present in a libertarian's claims of rights to keep something > "or I'll fight back" as it is in governments' claims of rights to tax. There is a difference between (as you put it) "I'll fight back" and "I'll step in and take your money." Indeed, this difference is not even as slippery as your beard :-), the former is a response, the latter is an example of the initiation of force (or threat thereof). > I'm afraid force is a fact of life that even libertarians can't make go away. I don't think force will go away. > If you wish to argue that libertarianism would reduce it, go right ahead. I have and will continue to argue just that. >>> You're welcome to believe in theological absolutes like "taxation is >>> theft". I don't. Life is more complicated than that. >> >> How about "taxation includes the act of taking and carrying away the personal >> property of another without his consent and with the intention of depriving >> him of it."? > > Clearly false, since some taxation occurs with consent. Includes...i-n-c-l-u-d-e-s...since you are so wary of dictionaries, perhaps you can ask someone about the meaning of "includes." I have spelled it out in case you pronounce it as badly as you understand it. > Nor is deprivation > the major intent. *Major*? Oh, I get it, it is sort of like "who is highly radioactive and sings?" Frank Sinatra...I added the bit about radioactivity to make it harder. The definition I provided said nothing about major intentions. > For example, would I say that my intent at work is to > deprive my employer of my wages? I can't predict what you would say, for all I know, you could be a mute typist. > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh --Cliff