California Considers Placing A Mileage Tax On Drivers

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lemuel said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
As I said, you can’t take so much that the other person is left without the means to survive themselves.
Click to expand...
And you’re the one to decide who needs it the most? Sounds sick to me . . .
Click to expand...
No, I’m one to decide that without this my family will die, and by taking this, I am not robbing the other person of the means to survive themselves. It’s not a matter of “who needs it most”, it’s a matter of “who needs it.” The same concept applies to those who have a great deal. They have a moral obligation to help those in need, and to not hoard basic necessities to the detriment of other people.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
No, I’m one to decide that without this my family will die, and by taking this, I am not robbing the other person of the means to survive themselves. It’s not a matter of “who needs it most”, it’s a matter of “who needs it.” The same concept applies to those who have a great deal. They have a moral obligation to help those in need, and to not hoard basic necessities to the detriment of other people.
Click to expand...
Most of the time it’s really not that hard to figure out who is in immediate need and who isn’t. If one person has to choose between food and medicine, while another owns multiple houses, I think anyone over the age of 5 can figure out which one is in need.

I think an additional principle is it is better to empower people to provide for themselves, than to simply meet needs. Often that means removing barriers (like transportation or education) that keep people from being able to work a job that is sufficient.
 
DarkLight said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
No, I’m one to decide that without this my family will die, and by taking this, I am not robbing the other person of the means to survive themselves. It’s not a matter of “who needs it most”, it’s a matter of “who needs it.” The same concept applies to those who have a great deal. They have a moral obligation to help those in need, and to not hoard basic necessities to the detriment of other people.
Click to expand...
Most of the time it’s really not that hard to figure out who is in immediate need and who isn’t. If one person has to choose between food and medicine, while another owns multiple houses, I think anyone over the age of 5 can figure out which one is in need.

I think an additional principle is it is better to empower people to provide for themselves, than to simply meet needs. Often that means removing barriers (like transportation or education) that keep people from being able to work a job that is sufficient.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. I believe the best way to help people is to help them develop the skills they need to be productive and get a job. Handouts don’t do much for anybody, and are only a temporary measure. That said, in the cases we’re discussing, we’re dealing with “if I don’t get this I or my family is going to die” situations. In those cases, handouts are the only real option for an immediate fix.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the person who has the good fortune to own five houses is using them to house people in need. Maybe he is using the rent money to feed the poor. You don’t know what goes on in everyone else’s lives. You’re just setting yourself up to be the judge. You’re coveting what you don’t have.
 
No, I’m seeking out the basic necessities for life. These are very, VERY limited circumstances where you literally have no other options, and where someone is actively preventing you from getting the food and water you need to live.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
No, I’m seeking out the basic necessities for life. These are very, VERY limited circumstances where you literally have no other options, and where someone is actively preventing you from getting the food and water you need to live.
Click to expand...
At the possible risk of taking it from someone else who needs it. You are the judge.
 
Lemuel said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
No, I’m seeking out the basic necessities for life. These are very, VERY limited circumstances where you literally have no other options, and where someone is actively preventing you from getting the food and water you need to live.
Click to expand...
At the possible risk of taking it from someone else who needs it. You are the judge.
Click to expand...
…Have you just not bothered reading anything I’ve written, or are you choosing to ignore it. You cannot take from someone if it would cause them to lack their necessities.
 
Lemuel said:
Not really. I can opt in or opt out. That’s a huge difference. It’s the difference between freedom and tyranny.
Click to expand...
Well, you can do that in general, on a large scale. You can renounce your US citizenship, become a stateless person, and wander through the wastes of Mongolia or Yemen. You’ll have no obligations to anyone else and can be totally self reliant.

But really, this extreme liberty “opt-in” model doesn’t work. The entire idea of having a society or a political structure is that some problems must be socialized. Assuming you’re not living way out in the boonies, your lack of fire protection might make my house catch fire. We can’t have some areas of the city where people haven’t “opted-in” to police protection, because some areas of the community are going to become Somalia, and that kind of chaos doesn’t stay contained. You can’t have some people “opting-out” of paying their military protection membership fee or whatever, because the Air Force can’t say “Well, we can let the Russians bomb 123 Main Street, they haven’t paid their protection dues. But we have to protect 124 Main Street, they’re up to date.” It’s completely unworkable. Who administers the courts? How do we provide juries? The list goes on and on.

Not to mention that for things like police and the military, being a public institution gives them more legitimacy than if they were some kind of private paramilitary mercenary force.
 
Thou shalt not steal–unless in your opinion you need it more than someone else does.
 
Lemuel said:
Thou shalt not steal–unless in your opinion you need it more than someone else does.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you’re just completely ignoring the context and nuance of the discussion. Enjoy your self-inflicted ignorance and misplaced sense of superiority.

If you ever want to actually listen to what we’re saying, feel free to shoot me a PM.
 
Last edited:
I don’t feel superior. I believe in living my life and not trying to control others. It’s the need to control others that breeds superiority.
 
I mean, at some point you have to acknowledge that being part of a society/political unit means you are giving up some part of your autonomy. We can argue over how much, but you have to accept that basic idea.
 
Lemuel said:
I don’t feel superior. I believe in living my life and not trying to control others. It’s the need to control others that breeds superiority.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a question of control though. This is a discussion about being purposefully denied access to basic needs. For instance, I was just hearing this morning about the famine in Syria being caused by someone (Assad or the rebels, who knows) preventing aide shipments from reaching the people in need. Those are the types of situations we’re talking about here. Not, “Oh hey, my neighbor has some really nice stuff. Think I’ll help myself to some of it.”.
 
If you have no desire to control me through taking any of my property then I’m good with that. 😎
 
Lemuel said:
Maybe the person who has the good fortune to own five houses is using them to house people in need. Maybe he is using the rent money to feed the poor. You don’t know what goes on in everyone else’s lives. You’re just setting yourself up to be the judge. You’re coveting what you don’t have.
Click to expand...
Yeah that would be why we have ways of documenting charity for tax purposes.

But here’s the fundamental thing: it is not fundamentally immoral for the government to impose taxes. It is also not immoral to appropriate what I need to live. It is not coveting if someone cannot afford basic medical care and wants to be able to afford it, but is not able to provide the funds for themselves.

You can set up endless “what if” scenarios, but the fact of the matter is we already have a situation where things like education or transportation are significant barriers to people being able to care for themselves and their families. That one theoretical person might be doing good with their money doesn’t outstrip the fact that there are people in need right now, and that taking away what we do have of transportation and education and the like would make those barriers even higher.

It is not immoral to use the government to “control others” insofar as that control ensures my rights are met. After all, telling me that I’m not allowed to take your stuff is also a form of control. Similarly, it is moral for me to use the government to ensure I can get my basic needs, even if that means taking money from someone else.
 
1 Peter 2:13-17

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the King as supreme or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good. For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish people. Be free, yet without using freedom as a pretext for evil, but as slaves of God. Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the King

It seems to me that you are echoing what Peter told us.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top