Charity vs. Taxation

[Parodite]

82NPMM85B6o

Any takes on this? SM?

[Nonc Hilaire]

Charitable donations and taxation are not comparable. The entire project is sophistry.

[Parodite]

Charitable donations and taxation are not comparable. The entire project is sophistry.

Exactemento and Indeed.

[Simple Minded]

82NPMM85B6o

Any takes on this? SM?

Short answer, charity is voluntary, taxes are mandatory. Also moral and legal are two different concepts.

[Parodite]

82NPMM85B6o

Any takes on this? SM?

Short answer, charity is voluntary, taxes are mandatory. Also moral and legal are two different concepts.

Indeed. But the question asked to those students is a good one: why should taxes be mandatory to begin with... and who decides on them.

[Simple Minded]

Short answer, charity is voluntary, taxes are mandatory. Also moral and legal are two different concepts.

Indeed. But the question asked to those students is a good one: why should taxes be mandatory to begin with... and who decides on them.

"Should" is the tricky part. Taxes are mandatory for stability of the existing system. In theory, who gets to decide is the people with the guns, reflecting some vague notion of the common good loosely defined by those who choose to live in that system.

I heard a great thought the other day. When it comes to concepts like "fair," "just," or "the common good," "right wing," left wing," Christian," etc. it rapidly falls into the imaginary realm. Flux and subjectivity are always present.

[YMix]

[Parodite]

Short answer, charity is voluntary, taxes are mandatory. Also moral and legal are two different concepts.

Indeed. But the question asked to those students is a good one: why should taxes be mandatory to begin with... and who decides on them.

"Should" is the tricky part. Taxes are mandatory for stability of the existing system. In theory, who gets to decide is the people with the guns, reflecting some vague notion of the common good loosely defined by those who choose to live in that system.

I would describe "should" with "requirement" for the modern nation state not to fall apart. It is a nice though to think of societies where everything is voluntary, even going to prison after you commit a crime! I would also strongly argue for the right to go to Hell and the ability reject the offer of Heaven on Judgement Day.

I heard a great thought the other day. When it comes to concepts like "fair," "just," or "the common good," "right wing," left wing," Christian," etc. it rapidly falls into the imaginary realm. Flux and subjectivity are always present.

True. All is subjective, but not everything equally so. If we both decide we are Christians (or whatever) instead of it being a lone decision where nobody else cares.. we suddenly consider ourselves and each other less delusional or crazy. Imagine the Pope being the only Catholic around. He would be considered thoroughly crazy.

[Simple Minded]

True. All is subjective, but not everything equally so. If we both decide we are Christians (or whatever) instead of it being a lone decision where nobody else cares.. we suddenly consider ourselves and each other less delusional or crazy. Imagine the Pope being the only Catholic around. He would be considered thoroughly crazy.

You don't spend much time with Christians or Catholics, do you? They are as fractious as democrats, republicans, whites, blacks, males, females, Merikans, Yuropeans, etc.

I live in the Bible belt. You can't drive 3 miles without going by a small church. But as Louis La'mour said about Mormons "The best part is they're slow to kill."

Large populations both defy and encourage stereotyping. Getting the members to agree on the purity of the label is tough.

[Parodite]

True. All is subjective, but not everything equally so. If we both decide we are Christians (or whatever) instead of it being a lone decision where nobody else cares.. we suddenly consider ourselves and each other less delusional or crazy. Imagine the Pope being the only Catholic around. He would be considered thoroughly crazy.

You don't spend much time with Christians or Catholics, do you? They are as fractious as democrats, republicans, whites, blacks, males, females, Merikans, Yuropeans, etc.

Of course of course. And yes I did spend much time with Catholics, my high school time was on a Catholic Jesuit high school. I met loads of various people, Christians among them. My mother was nominally a liberal protestant Christian (Remonstrant), my father an atheist, I have a sister who is Jehovah Witness, a good college friend was Evangelical (a friendship that got sour when I started to give my own opinions about things he said to me about da faith.. I was supposedly possessed by a demon of sorts ), I had a close Muslim and Hindu coworker at work, no problems whatsoever. Our neighbors are Christians etc.

Using a Pope without believers just to make a point: in matters of faith, belief, personal identity, group identity and truth or "truth", the more imaginary things are, the more you need other people to believe the same to get the confirmation from that you'r ok as we'r ok. Lone wolfs have a harder time dealing with the imaginary as there are no others to back them up. Using a lone militant atheist without any co-patriots instead of a Pope that the only Catholic is ok too of course.

I live in the Bible belt. You can't drive 3 miles without going by a small church. But as Louis La'mour said about Mormons "The best part is they're slow to kill."

Large populations both defy and encourage stereotyping. Getting the members to agree on the purity of the label is tough.

It seems to me that these labels need constant maintenance, reinforcement, repair on occasion (restore points!), ongoing updates, upgrades.. lots of work indeed.

[Simple Minded]

True. All is subjective, but not everything equally so. If we both decide we are Christians (or whatever) instead of it being a lone decision where nobody else cares.. we suddenly consider ourselves and each other less delusional or crazy. Imagine the Pope being the only Catholic around. He would be considered thoroughly crazy.

You don't spend much time with Christians or Catholics, do you? They are as fractious as democrats, republicans, whites, blacks, males, females, Merikans, Yuropeans, etc.

Of course of course. And yes I did spend much time with Catholics, my high school time was on a Catholic Jesuit high school. I met loads of various people, Christians among them. My mother was nominally a liberal protestant Christian (Remonstrant), my father an atheist, I have a sister who is Jehovah Witness, a good college friend was Evangelical (a friendship that got sour when I started to give my own opinions about things he said to me about da faith.. I was supposedly possessed by a demon of sorts ), I had a close Muslim and Hindu coworker at work, no problems whatsoever. Our neighbors are Christians etc.

Using a Pope without believers just to make a point: in matters of faith, belief, personal identity, group identity and truth or "truth", the more imaginary things are, the more you need other people to believe the same to get the confirmation from that you'r ok as we'r ok. Lone wolfs have a harder time dealing with the imaginary as there are no others to back them up. Using a lone militant atheist without any co-patriots instead of a Pope that the only Catholic is ok too of course.

I live in the Bible belt. You can't drive 3 miles without going by a small church. But as Louis La'mour said about Mormons "The best part is they're slow to kill."

Large populations both defy and encourage stereotyping. Getting the members to agree on the purity of the label is tough.

It seems to me that these labels need constant maintenance, reinforcement, repair on occasion (restore points!), ongoing updates, upgrades.. lots of work indeed.

But are dem European Christians & Catholics the same animals as American Christians and Catholics? Shirley one must be better than the other.....

Amen on the above. That's why the whole flux of us, them, me, we is so fascinating to me. Over the course of a year, or even a single day, Fred uses a lot of labels on himself and the others. Poor Fred.

The big rub is when how "I" choose to view "me" differs from how "others" choose to view "me." Lack of confirmation bias is painful to me, refusal to accept the label the other prints is painful to them. Vanity is both cases? Not to mention the nasty free will words choose, choice, etc.

[Parodite]

But are dem European Christians & Catholics the same animals as American Christians and Catholics? Shirley one must be better than the other.....

Not sure, I only know the American tribes from TV. Mostly all nice people, kinda similar to most people here.

Amen on the above. That's why the whole flux of us, them, me, we is so fascinating to me. Over the course of a year, or even a single day, Fred uses a lot of labels on himself and the others. Poor Fred.

The big rub is when how "I" choose to view "me" differs from how "others" choose to view "me." Lack of confirmation bias is painful to me, refusal to accept the label the other prints is painful to them. Vanity is both cases? Not to mention the nasty free will words choose, choice, etc.

It seems to me both of us are sufficiently inoculated against taking labels too seriously. It (me vs you, us vs them) seems to grow from something rather factual though: when I accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer... it hurts me, not you, and vice versa. That might be the root that feeds the tree of life. Birds in trees are singing songs, and probably labeling stuff if thou asketh me.

2G8LAiHSCAs

[Simple Minded]

It seems to me both of us are sufficiently inoculated against taking labels too seriously. It (me vs you, us vs them) seems to grow from something rather factual though: when I accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer... it hurts me, not you, and vice versa.

Ouch! I would assume that pain is proof you are not selfless. Kinda like a tree falling in the woods makes no sound if no one hears it. You hit yourself in the thumb, and I feel no pain, yet you claim it hurts. How can I believe you?

That might be the root that feeds the tree of life. Birds in trees are singing songs, and probably labeling stuff if thou asketh me.

Probably, and Zack would claim the Blue Jays are correct, while Mr. P would claim the cardinals are correct.

[Parodite]

It seems to me both of us are sufficiently inoculated against taking labels too seriously. It (me vs you, us vs them) seems to grow from something rather factual though: when I accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer... it hurts me, not you, and vice versa.

Ouch! I would assume that pain is proof you are not selfless. Kinda like a tree falling in the woods makes no sound if no one hears it. You hit yourself in the thumb, and I feel no pain, yet you claim it hurts. How can I believe you?

I think you don't really need to make an effort to believe or not believe, it has little added value and won't change much anyways.

For whatever reason, we all seem to be wired (if not impaired by some psychopathological disorder) to naturally assume the other is hurt as we would be hurt, when we see someone hitting his thumb with a hummer and curse like a maniac with rolling his eyes. Not too long ago I was behaving myself like that when I nearly lost the tip of my right middle finger on a garbage dump. It looked like a drunk Mohel had done a circumcision that went all wrong. Near decapitation. Why did bystanders believe I was in pain, needed help and rushed me to a hospital? I have no idea.. but they did. Which is the only thing that mattered to me at that moment.

That might be the root that feeds the tree of life. Birds in trees are singing songs, and probably labeling stuff if thou asketh me.

Probably, and Zack would claim the Blue Jays are correct, while Mr. P would claim the cardinals are correct.

That's how it is.

[Mr. Perfect]

All whistling past the graveyard at this point. In the US government is 40% of the economy and very little goes to the poor. Rather now, ask not how much bloat you can do for your government but how much bloat you can give to your government. That government that bloats the best is the best. The only thing we have to fear is a spending cut itself. I did not have relations with that spending cutter. You can keep your bloat plan. A thousand points of bloat. You are either with the bloat or against the bloat.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Closer to this. As Saint Ambrose said, "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." It is justice, not charity.

[Parodite]

Closer to this. As Saint Ambrose said, "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." It is justice, not charity.

+1

Or as the old native American elder once said: you can't hold the wind in your hand.

[Simple Minded]

Closer to this. As Saint Ambrose said, "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." It is justice, not charity.

+1

Or as the old native American elder once said: you can't hold the wind in your hand.

Sounds like the perspective of those on the receiving end. The perspective of those of the paying end is sometimes more akin to "WTF do you mean you want to sleep with my wife and my daughter? How about one or the other?"

[Parodite]

Or as the old native American elder once said: you can't hold the wind in your hand.

Sounds like the perspective of those on the receiving end. The perspective of those of the paying end is sometimes more akin to "WTF do you mean you want to sleep with my wife and my daughter? How about one or the other?"

We both probably agree that "capitalism is consensual sex, socialism is rape" (tm Ben Shapiro from daily wire). But some things, like the oxygen in the air (and hence wind) raise a question. Should the oxygen in the air also be eligible to become property of individuals and used in consensual sex?

Add the fact that air over the land is not static but moves around all the time and in different hard to predict directions and force. It is technically rather hard to control those volumes of atmospheric gasses that contain the oxygen (or any other valuable elements in the air) in order to harvest it and trade it on the market. Elements contained in the earth are easier to harvest and market. So for probably purely technical reasons it is no surprise that so far no big industries have emerged that make money by harvesting elements contained in the atmosphere. (apart from some goofy ideas to extract CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce assumed global warming).

So methinks that the native Indian elder who said that one cannot catch nor own the wind.. had a great insight in the limitations of future industries that extract stuff from land, sea and water. Oxygen.. is simply not marketable. With the good news being that everybody can use it for free on a daily basis. Free lunch does exist. And no one is being robbed.

[Simple Minded]

Or as the old native American elder once said: you can't hold the wind in your hand.

Sounds like the perspective of those on the receiving end. The perspective of those of the paying end is sometimes more akin to "WTF do you mean you want to sleep with my wife and my daughter? How about one or the other?"

We both probably agree that "capitalism is consensual sex, socialism is rape" (tm Ben Shapiro from daily wire). But some things, like the oxygen in the air (and hence wind) raise a question. Should the oxygen in the air also be eligible to become property of individuals and used in consensual sex?

Add the fact that air over the land is not static but moves around all the time and in different hard to predict directions and force. It is technically rather hard to control those volumes of atmospheric gasses that contain the oxygen (or any other valuable elements in the air) in order to harvest it and trade it on the market. Elements contained in the earth are easier to harvest and market. So for probably purely technical reasons it is no surprise that so far no big industries have emerged that make money by harvesting elements contained in the atmosphere. (apart from some goofy ideas to extract CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce assumed global warming).

So methinks that the native Indian elder who said that one cannot catch nor own the wind.. had a great insight in the limitations of future industries that extract stuff from land, sea and water. Oxygen.. is simply not marketable. With the good news being that everybody can use it for free on a daily basis. Free lunch does exist. And no one is being robbed.

that's not a bad analogy. I always liked Hazlett's phrase "The private sector is the voluntary sector. The public sector is the coercive sector."

Big problem with building the coalition of "we" is all the subjective, ephemeral opinions held by members who choose to self-identify. Given the choice, they all seem to prefer freedom of association.

If your wife agrees to have sex with me, as often as she does with you (for the common good, not for selfish purposes, of course), and one of us or both of us are not completely happy with the arrangement, convincing her that our unhappiness is all her fault might be a tough sell.

But the only alternative, is bitter medicine.

[YMix]

that's not a bad analogy. I always liked Hazlett's phrase "The private sector is the voluntary sector. The public sector is the coercive sector."

As long the state steps in to prevent the formation of various monopolies.

[Simple Minded]

that's not a bad analogy. I always liked Hazlett's phrase "The private sector is the voluntary sector. The public sector is the coercive sector."

As long the state steps in to prevent the formation of various monopolies.

Hence the use of the word "coercive" in the above quote. Unfortunately, the state is a monopoly. Except if you are a Gypsy.

[noddy]

the state creates as many monopolies as it fixes, the primary cause of rich and powerful folks getting their way doesnt change no matter what the politics, the only possibly solution is the decentralised approach that means you need to bribe lots of politicians instead of just a few federal ones.

as for charity vs taxation, it would be nice if taxes actually went to charitable outcomes and the levels of fear for the future in the general populace would go down.


in most of the anglosphere payments to the poor is less than 10% of government expenditure and you better have friends or family if times go bad or you will end up on the street. the government safety net is very fragile indeed.

its the official charities like salvation army and the unofficial charities like friends and family that keep most countries from collapsing.

[Parodite]

that's not a bad analogy. I always liked Hazlett's phrase "The private sector is the voluntary sector. The public sector is the coercive sector."

As long the state steps in to prevent the formation of various monopolies.

Agreed. It should be one of the main roles of gvt to do that. If we-the-people want maximum speeds on roads for good normal common sense reasons, then why mot more maximums of sorts, like bank size. But also minimum requirements for things. On highways there are minimum speeds usually as well. Managers who run big corporations, notably banks, should have a minimal (I would say significant) private exposure to the risks they take with other peoples money. Systems where gains are cashed-in and losses socialized are destructive, and the opposite of healthy capitalism. It is socialized rape of the worst kind. The New Communism under the guise of deregulated free markets. Corporate Commies.

[noddy]

i dont buy this angle at all, its coming from the final solution mindset and isnt taking into account chaotic humans chasing moar moar moar.

the real world outcome of this 'toxic product' horseshit analysis was 20 years of record low interest rates and easy to get credit that made for a massive boom for the entire planet.

everyone genuflecting loved it, everyone voted for it, left, right, centre and reverseflipped wankeroonie.. they only cared when the party stopped and the debt required paying back.

the old farts mumbling about not taking on too much debt less you find yourself over leveraged were laughed at and called idiots that didnt understand the new reality

the smart kids all said that money not leveraged was money being wasted.

the very governments you want to legislate against this DEMANDED it to maintain the social services they promised, you sound like endo blaming the germans.