| | I was involved in a discussion on another site about Human Rights. One poster contended that his view of Human Rights included housing, food, and medical care. I was interested in why he and others thought this was a right and to see if he understood what this really means. Another poster though engaged me when I asked the all important question of "why?"
He said something to the effect that to not supply those things was immoral. I suggested that he was probably immoral then, as I'm sure people were hungry and he was not supplying for their rights. He din't like that. He said whether or not he was immoral was not the question at hand. Then he said this
**********************************
"We try to make something a Human Right to ensure that people don’t die because of that attitude. You do not, however, force that immoral individual to perform any action, since that would be enslavement and a violation of his own Rights. The government acts in his stead, using his tax dollars. That way he can remain immoral, and still retain Human Rights for the unfortunate.
**********************************
Yep. Read that again. Yep, he really said it. I then pointed out that this was, in fact, force. Taxation is a form of force. It amounted to enslavement of one for the benefit of others. He said:
************************************
"Opinion is not a defense against reason."
*************************************
Yep. He followed this up with this gem:
*************************************
"Enslavement is forcing someone to do what you want, when you want them. Your tax protestor is not in that situation. He can work at whatever he wants, in the shift that he wants, so long as someone is willing to hire him. Taxation is the enforced payment for infrastructure and programs that are of interest to society as a whole that would not be paid for without organized forced donations. At worst, you could call it theft. But it is in no way shape or form even approaching the definition of enslavement.
What is reasonable is not determined by the individual, when it comes to the benefits of society. A cyclist doesn’t get to not pay taxes for public roads for vehicles. The vehicles that use those roads may be vile to him, but they deliver his food to the grocer, his next bicycle to the store, the Fire trucks to his house, and the police to capture the escaped criminal in his backyard. His opinion that he shouldn’t pay is irrelevant, because society has use for that road. Taxes are a form of insurance, used to ensure that while a person’s current situation may not require the services Society provides through taxation, that when the situation changes, they are there to help all people, regardless of previous shortsightedness."
********************************
This is the face of the enemy. I pointed out the circular nature of his assertions and the fact that the whole thing was contradictory. It had no basis in reality and merely arose from starting with the idea that people should have these things rather than with reality. He called me a troll and a fool. Of course this is all you can expect when people refuse to challenge their own baseless assertions. When reality has no hold and "social benefit" trumps reason and personal rights.
|
|
