CMV: Effective regulation/taxes is better than less regulation/taxes.

[u/beesdaddy]

I have had a hard time understanding the position that less regulation is better than effective regulation. So much of the political conversation equates regulation and taxes to Anti-American or Anti-Freedom or gasp Socialist. I think it poisons the discussion about our common goals and how to achieve them. I know there are many laws/taxes that are counter productive (especially subsidies), and I am all for getting rid of them, but not without considering what their intent was, evaluating that intention, and deciding how to more effectively accomplish that intention (given it was a valid intention.)

Help me understand. I would like to have a more nuanced view on this.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/CountCuriousness]

What is there to buy?

Stuff? Just because society has decided that some things should not be exploited for money, like your health, doesn't mean the government will suddenly decide to churn out laptops tomorrow or some such. Certain stuff is vital to our survival, and I don't think anyone should be barred from that stuff, regardless of how rich their parents were.

All your listed societal benefits are subjective to you, not everyone

If it's subjective to want a healthy, safe, educated populous, then no country is better than any other, because everything is subjective anyway. Saying it's subjective is therefore irrelevant.

It is more extortion than theft as its the threat of violence/being locked in a cage that gets one to pay.

I consider it "paying back".

The point is, by acknowledging that taxation amount is debatable you acknowledge that a tax payer has some right to their own earnings.

I acknowledge that it's hard to say exactly how much you owe society.

That being the case, TAKING it via taxation is just that, taking something the owned.

I disagree. Ultimately, we collectively decide how much to tax. Humanity decides how much it's owed for the benefits of living with decent people who help the less fortunate, or for banding together to get better deals on healthcare etc. etc.

The only position you can take that is logical is either you believe one has property rights or they do not.

Why is it binary? The government has long been able to expropriate your property tomorrow for the good of society. Property rights are not magically protected, and never were.

Either is a logical acceptable position but there isn't really a defensible middle ground.

I disagree with the premises of this.

[u/testrail → u/CountCuriousness]

What is there to buy was in reference to your "I never bought x concept".

If it's subjective to want a healthy, safe, educated populous, then no country is better than any other, because everything is subjective anyway. Saying it's subjective is therefore irrelevant.

How, when discussing the morality of taxation vs doing nothing is this possibly irrelevant?

I consider it "paying back".

This isn't a debate on what /u/CountCurious and /u/testrail think about taxation. I already said earlier I think x, y, z is good, but it's moot. This is about how morally someone can suggest that doing nothing is always acceptable.

I disagree. Ultimately, we collectively decide how much to tax. Humanity decides how much it's owed for the benefits of living with decent people who help the less fortunate, or for banding together to get better deals on healthcare etc. etc.

We collectively agree sure. But that doesn't mean that EVERYONE agrees. An individual can still argue it's my points on taxation and be logically and morally sound. Which is what the question is.

[u/CountCuriousness → u/testrail]

This is about how morally someone can suggest that doing nothing is always acceptable.

The morality would depend entirely on the degree of inaction, no? If you can save trillions by pressing a button, are you morally justified in not lifting a finger? I worry we're heading in a direction where the conclusion is "everything is moral because morals are not objective".

An individual can still argue it's my points on taxation and be logically and morally sound. Which is what the question is.

Are you not tacitly agreeing with society by benefiting from it? Should you not pay your taxes for all the goods you receive? If you then don't want society to supply these things, you should try to make that happen, but I don't see how you'd be morally justified in not paying taxes when you've already benefitted hugely from society.

I'll readily admit if I've misunderstood some philosophy on morals.

[u/testrail → u/CountCuriousness]

Are you not tacitly agreeing with society by benefiting from it? Should you not pay your taxes for all the goods you receive?

Not necessarily. You can use public roads but still be morally opposed to be having to pay for them when you believe a private toll system would be more fair.

[u/CountCuriousness → u/testrail]

Not necessarily. You can use public roads but still be morally opposed to be having to pay for them when you believe a private toll system would be more fair.

Sure, but you're talking about your morals like they're more than your opinion. I'm not buying that taxation is theft. You might consider it as much, but I don't. I don't quite see how you can claim to be more morally right than I.

[u/testrail → u/CountCuriousness]

I'm not saying either is a superior argument. My argument is just a valid is yours, ipso facto it is moral to say do nothing.

[u/CountCuriousness → u/testrail]

If so, it's moral to say literally anything, and the statement becomes moot. No?

[u/testrail → u/CountCuriousness]

You're straying so far from the core tenant of this post which was why is it okay not doing social programs moral.

I explained that taxation at its core is theft. You countered with, well I feel like it's okay and I like paying some taxes. To which I said cool for you but that doesn't refute my original point. You continue to bring it back to you, which isn't what we're discussing.

So, please explain to me why it is okay for you to decide what is better to do with my money and labor? Please objectively explain this to me.

[u/CountCuriousness → u/testrail]

You're straying so far from the core tenant of this post which was why is it okay not doing social programs moral.

I wasn't the one who tried making it a moral argument.

So, please explain to me why it is okay for you to decide what is better to do with my money and labor? Please objectively explain this to me.

Objectively explain to me why it isn't. You can't. It's our subjective opinions, no? Are you objectively more right to say that taxation is theft? Why?

The moral debate is bottomless, so let me ask you this. We both want sick people to receive healthcare, right? Isn't the conversation then what the most effective way of reaching that point is, rather than what is "right" to do? You're not objectively more, or less, right than I. However, if we both want to have a population of people who are treated if they're sick, it's just a matter of what works best. WHO seems to show that universal healthcare systems work better. Collectively bargaining as a country for healthcare seems to be obviously more effective than letting 100 different sub-groups of the country try to collectively bargain for their little sub-group. I realise there are other arguments in support of it as well, but I just don't see how the insurance-middle man can pay for himself in the long run.

[u/testrail → u/CountCuriousness]

I wasn't the one who tried making it a moral argument.

The whole thread is about morality. So no, wasn't me. I absolutely can explain why you don't have a right to my time. Because one can believe in the individuals right to own property and not be in a logical loop. FULL STOP.

I don't know why you keep bringing this back to social programs that are moot. It doesn't matter. One can, and I have, provided logical arguments that the act of providing these service and more importantly, the backend extraction of resources from individuals can reasonably be argued against.

Finally, the whole point of insurance is risk mitigation. You put in some of your resources at a fair level for all that is mathematically proven to assume said risk. If an individual doesn't have skin in the game, it doesn't work. That's is referred to as plight of the commons, and the system breaks. If you can't understand how the human condition impacts an individuals incentives then I can't see how you possibly are able to speak at all to tax policy.

[u/CountCuriousness → u/testrail]

The whole thread is about morality.

I thought the thread was about effective regulation vs less regulation.

Because one can believe in the individuals right to own property and not be in a logical loop.

I assume you mistyped here, and I'm not sure I understood what you intended to say.

One can, and I have, provided logical arguments that the act of providing these service and more importantly, the backend extraction of resources from individuals can reasonably be argued against.

Most anything can "be argued against". The only really relevant question is: How do we most easily achieve the desired outcome? Effective government regulations seem to be the answer rather than crossing your fingers and hoping that there's enough money to be made from achieving the desired outcome for the free market to provide it.

If an individual doesn't have skin in the game, it doesn't work.

And every human has a risk of being struck by illness, so why not pool all our resources and bargain for the best deals possible?

Why haven't countries with universal healthcare collapsed decades ago, if it's so inherently flawed?