1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Taxpayer Resonsibility

Discussion in 'Political Rants' started by petro, Aug 5, 2014.

    Aug 5, 2014
  1. petro

    petro Dormant account, per user request PABnoaccred2 PABaccred

    Occupation:
    N/A
    Location:
    Narnia
    This is a political topic that I have been examining for some years. I still haven't finished thinking about it.
    It started with a suspicion I had around 2010 and it was: paying tax makes me responsible for things my government does e.g. war.

    I examined all the typical arguments that people put up against it and found them all to be incorrect.
    One such argument is; We pay tax for things like roads and public schools.
    Yes, that is true but you also pay taxes for things like war.

    I think so many people deny responsibility because they like to imagine themselves as angels (or gods) who wouldn't do any harm. Secondly, they know before hand what it means to be responsible and don't like the result.
    But, the truth is we all have blood on our hands. People can deny it, but that doesn't change the reality of it.

    I ended up contacting Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein about this and they both had the same reply.
    They said; taxation does more good than harm.
    In fact, Mr. Chomsky said that he thinks we should be taxed more!

    This led to another question: is it okay to exchange good for harm? And I found this to be okay. It's a bit like what the police say; we do a little harm to prevent a big harm.
    If we define the word good as mitigating harm, then it is a question of weighing the good against the harm.
    One institution that I started analysing was the taxpayer funded legal system. My thinking was; if I find that the legal system does a great deal of good it should be enough to compensate for all the harm that I see taxation do.

    Analysing the legal system led to questions about evidence. Questions like; how trustworthy is census evidence?
    It really just branched off from the legal system to a study of evidence in and of itself.
    Questions like: Can what's on Wikipedia be considered as evidence? And if so what is its weighting?
    These questions are very complex I think.
     

Share This Page