Quote from: Hawker on September 29, 2011, 07:31:55 AM

Quote from: MoonShadow on September 28, 2011, 11:39:27 PM

@Hawker,

I would like to take this discussion in a slightly different direction, perhaps to illustrate a point.

I will assume that you own some kind of property, that you bought using funds that you honestly earned. This kind of property doesn't need to be anything contriversial, let's say that you own a video game machine. The common kind that can be bought at any toy store. You own a video game, of a non-contriversial type; say Mario Kart.

You enjoy your game, and like to play it often. You invite friends over to play with you. When the night is over, one of your friends declares that he's taking your game with him. He doesn't ask, he just states it as a fact. I say it's obvious enough that you are within your rights to object, as it's your property and it's thus your's to do with what you like. Even so far as to destroy it, if you so wish. If you don't agree with this statement, then we have a greater chasm to cross than I presently assume.

So I will continue with the assumption that you agree with the above.

In light of this, here are my questions.

Who own's you? Who own's your spouse? Who own's your children?

The problem with your analogy is that society is not a group of friends playing a video game. You don't get invited to be part of society and you can't ignore the fact that your actions have consequences for other people in society.

A better analogy is an apartment block. At the owners AGM, one owner says "Hang on I never agreed to the stairs being cleaned 4 times a month. When my father bought this place 40 years ago, stairs were cleaned twice a month. You guys are spending money hand over fist and the management fee is going through the roof. And its on stuff I've opposed at every meeting. I want to withhold my management fee because I never agreed to all this stuff."

I've been the head of a residents company in financial difficulties where people who themselves were broke made this exact argument. But if we have voted and the majority said to clean the stairs four times a month, I can enforce collection. Mostly people realise that the administrative costs of fighting are a waste of money and pay up.

Taken to a bigger scale, we have common needs that must be met and taxation is the means we use to pay for them. There is no invitation to join - you inherited the citizenship. You may not agree with where the money goes but its up to you to change the system. There isn't really a way to opt out/move away but that's the limit of the analogy rather than of the logic.

You didn't even attempt to address any of the questions that I asked. Where do you get the idea that libs don't know that our actions affect others?