Are taxes essentially the same thing as making Rob give to Jim?

Really? Which is the bigger dilemma:
1. Watching a man starve to death because a greedy fuck won't share his bread
2. Taking a 2 dollar loaf of bread away from a chunky mofo
Hmm...

Rights are a lie.

My biggest problem with this is the idea that one 'earns' what they attain in life, that those living in poverty must simply not have worked hard enough, and million dollar salaried CEO's actually are worth their bank accounts. I think it's bullshit. I don't have anything to base my argument on save for my emotions, but that is how I feel, I don't wanna get in a debate about it...

Nobody makes a living in a vacuum in this world, we are all connected, and we all make our money off the work and living of those around us. If a guest at my hotel loses his job and can't stay anymore, it effects me, I have a personal interest in making sure he stays stable and maintains a good job. I rely on the state to stay healthy and build the roads I drive to work on, of course they are building them with my tax dollars, but can I honestly call them 'MY' tax dollars when everyone and everything around me had a hand in me 'earning' that money?! Each and every one of us has an interest in keeping society as a whole stable, steady, employed, healthy, because without it none of us would be making a damn thing. Everybody works in this world, so that everybody can work, it's a cooperative system if their ever was one, and the wealthy class has just as much interest in seeing a stable and secure working class as anyone, they 'earn' their living off of it. And I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of letting private enterprise handle the support and well-being of the working class, but fact is they have done a pretty piss poor job of it so far...

I mean, I want to think of myself as an individual just as much as anyone else, I like to think I am free to do anything in this world, but fact is people have no concept of what their mere existence requires in this life, the work it takes to truly support life, just one life...

We work together because it serves the interest of everyone to do so...

Anyone who sincerely believes they 'earn' their living completely outside of everyone else, on their own, by the sweat of only their own brow, is lying to themselves...

Anyways, end of rant, I am sure it's all quite juvenile or whatever, I don't care, and I don't care to argue it with anyone...

Anyways, my point with that was, how did rob get this loaf of bread?! Did he till the field, plant the seed, grow the wheat, harvest it, mill it, forget about WHERE he got his fucking yeast from, baked the bread, in a bread oven he made for sure of cob or something, made from straw he harvested and cow shit he collected from the cows(oh jesus, the cows!!) he ranches, fired by wood he harvested from the tree he chopped down, lit by rubbing sticks together or some shit, and yea, Rob totally has a fucking loaf of bread!!! He earned that motherfucking loaf!! Take a bite Rob, eat it down, it's all yours...

Shit, I forget the salt, he mined the salt himself too...this Rob is one bad motherfucker, I tell you!

what? anyway watch debra winger in The Sheltering Sky, its about paul bowles and she rocks, then read her book Undiscovered

Anyways, Rob has a personal interest is keeping both himself AND Jim healthy and fed, because without Jim, once that loaf is gone, Rob is fucked...the two working together?! Maybe they have a fighting chance...

i so can't relate

The initial question is stupid. Reality is not a lab where you can put people and judge the way they act separately from any context. We don't live in a vacuum.

Why do you feel the need to impose your ideas on Rob? How dare you make him even /think/ of Jim. Jim is not his problem. Rob's life doesnt depend on Jim. Youre there, why dont /you/ give Jim some fucking bread? Oh whats that? You dont have any bread either? I guess we should all just take from those who have.

Personally, Id give Jim some of my bread. Not all of it. Like in Aladdin, when Aladin gives the little boy his ENTIRE half of bread and then looks at Aboo and Aboos all fuck that little boy and takes a big ol bite out his bread. But Aladdin goes hungry.

What happens when Aladdin dies because he gave up all his bread? Whos bread are you going to take next time?

But how dare you try to make me do something I dont have to do... something that I dont /want/ to do. Bitch, the bread /mine/ and Ill fight for it.

Its a moral obligation to fight for your country but no one wants to be drafted.

edit: in fact, I think Id feel worse asking for Robs bread than I would not giving some to Jim.

If Jim is literally starving? I don't know that Rob should be legally compulsed to do so, but he's morally incorrect if he doesn't.

I mostly agree with Angie. No man is an island, and to think that you take care of yourself completely is short-sighted. And really, if you never take care of anyone else when they need you, you'd better pray to God that the stars never align against you and you're left in dire circumstances, like Jim, where you end up in a situation where you need help.

I don't think it's a moral obligation to fight for my country. They don't put it to a popular vote before they decide to declare wars.

And if it was put on a vote ? Would it be a moral obligation, then ?

I'm going to make another thread where we can discuss whether it's a moral obligation to fight for your country, so this one doesn't lose focus.

Will Rob starve if he gives up the bread? If Jim get the bread will he have enough strength to walk to a town that offers relief services? Does Rob have any neighbors that have cake?

I don't think it's a simple question.

I understand that some people (like franc) have issues with thinking about things in the abstract like this, and I respect that opinion. But to answer your questions about the abstraction itself,

Rob will not starve if he gives the bread to Jim. Rob has a full stomach, and doesn't need the bread at all.

If Jim gets the bread, he will survive and be able to make it on his own from then on. If he doesn't get the bread, he will die.

I'm not sure what you're asking with the cake, but there's no one else around besides Rob that has food. Either Rob gives Jim the bread, or Jim dies.

Let them eat cake! ;)Also, I was hoping that Betty Crocker lived next door to Rob because women tend to be more compassionate and cooperative and I bet she would not think twice about feeding a starving man.

If Rob is the only one around with food and he won't starve, he should save Jim's life by giving him the bread. That's the ethical thing to do.

move it over

I think we all agree with you there, that Rob *should* feed Jim. But my question is, should we go so far as to *make* Rob feed Jim, by, for instance, enacting a law that makes Rob do it.

Yes, we as a society should make laws that ensure our citizens don't starve. The govt. (as in us, the people) should buy the bread from Rob and give it to Jim. So I guess that means, yes, we should *make* Rob feed Jim.

If it's a literal law that says if a starving man knocks at your door you must give him food, I'm not sure how that would be enforced. Like a good Samaritan law? But then you run into the problem of people saying "he didn't look like he was starving." and refusing to give up the bread.

Does Rob know that this will be the last piece of bread Jim will ever have to not work for? Does he know that he'll die if he doesnt get it?

While its the right thing to do to give him the bread, fuck you for trying to force him. (not you you but you know... anyone)

Rob understands that this is the only time Jim needs to be saved, and Jim will not require anything of Rob ever again if Rob saves him. Rob understands that if Jim doesn't get the bread, Jim will die.

I'd be curious what you'd do if we altered the scenario a bit. Let's say that instead of Rob having a single loaf of bread, he has an entire warehouse of bread, with millions of loafs inside, and let's say that Rob has absolutely no need for the bread, and in fact plans to set the whole warehouse on fire and dispose of it. Now let's say that there are a million starving people who would, like Jim, all be saved if Rob hands over his bread, but Rob doesn't want to hand it over, cuz he's a wicked SOB. Would you then force Rob's hand? I know I'm painting an extreme situation, but I'm curious if making it this extreme changes things for you, or if you'd still be opposed to forcing Rob's hand?

No I would not force Rob to do anything. If Rob feels like burning his warehouse down and then torching all the money in his personal safe- let him. Its his and he can do with it what he wants.

Just because its right doesnt mean he has to do it. I dont like anything that tells me what to do. I dont mind things that tell me how to do something should I chose to do it... but forcing me to do something is kind of unconstitutional, isnt it? Life Liberty and happiness.

Didnt happiness used to be property? Does that mean that we dont have a right to property anymore and that it can be taken away at any time?

JudasCow, I find it interesting that you identify so closely with Rob, but try to imagine if you were Jim. I bet you if you really were Jim, your perception of things would be mightily different.

If I were Jim, Id want that bread. I might even try to steal it. Id try to force Rob to give it to me. But Id be the one in the wrong if I stole it and I would have to try to understand that sharing isnt a rule in the real world when Rob still doesnt give it to me.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd have such an altruistic attitude about other people's food when you were starving to death.

But don't you think it's interesting that you admit you yourself would break the property rights law you're pretty vigilant about upholding? It's as if you're saying, "These are what they laws should be, but of course I would break 'em!"

As far as the "real world" is concerned, the rich people pay for the poor people's stuff all of the time. There's a whole lotta sharing going on! (And there's a huge MOFO gun in the room.) I'm not saying this is good, in fact, I think it's pretty f'ed up. And most of the time, someone's life isn't at risk, just their discomfort. It's only because someone's life is at risk in the scenario that I am willing to bring the gun into the room; normally, I don't think I would.

But this is good, this discussion. I mean, you're bringing really good things to the table, and though we may not agree with each other, we're forcing each other to think hard about our ideas of things, and that I think is the main goal here. I know things can be kind of contentious when we disagree with each other, and I wish it wasn't that way, but it's just in the nature of what happens when people disagree, I guess. I think some people plain don't like debating because of this, and that's understandable.

But my basic philosophy I guess is this. Evaluate which is the greater wrong. In this case, it's someone's property rights being violated, vs someone losing their life. I think someone losing their life is the greater wrong. But I realize this is my own particular point of view, and I think your point of view is quite reasonable as well. Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, tells a parable that seems to apply. A rabbi is asked to settle a marital dispute. He hears the husband's view. "You're right," he tells him. He hears the wife's view. "You're right," he tells her. One of his students protests: "Rabbi, they both can't be right." The rabbi nods. "You're right," he says.

Im not saying that it wouldnt be stupid to not give the man the food. Im not saying that, were I in his position, I wouldnt try to take it. What I am saying is that you cannot force someone to do something they dont want to do.

My grandmother used to say "Shit in one hand wish in the other and see which one fills up faster"

There are two right answers here.

Its right to give him the food
Its right to do anything to save your own life

but you cant force me to save your life.

I'm so naive...I'm always shocked when I see how cruel human beings can be towards one another.

I think we're going in circles here a bit. Yes, I understand what you're saying. That people shouldn't force people to do anything. (I changed your word "can't" to "shouldn't" because the government forces people to do stuff they don't want to do all of the time.) And I'm saying that, in certain circumstances, you should force someone to do something they don't want, and I've given my reasoning: which is the greater wrong, infringing upon property rights, or a man dying a needless death? And yes, I understand that you object to the use of force, but I guess this is where we disagree. I'm willing to use force to save someone, and you're not; it's fine, let's move on.

Niggas gotta fiend for themselves.

Why can't Jim go out and get a job and earn his own bread? Rob should make Jim mow his lawn or something and then give him like an 1/8 of the loaf.

In my abstraction, there isn't enough time for Jim to earn any money for bread, he needs the bread right then and now. Also, Rob would never trust anyone but himself mowing his lawn, because the last person he had mow his lawn mowed right through Rob's wife's bed of roses, and his wife didn't sleep with him for a week cuz of it, and Rob's no fan of blue balls. So there.

But yes, in the real world things would be more complicated. This is why Franc T. objected to this exercise, because it's an abstraction and not real. But I think there are things you can learn by thinking about things in the abstract.

there are an awful lot of variables being added to this example as the thread goes along.

Yes, and I have to keep adding stuff (I wouldn't call them variables since they don't vary) if people try to break the purity of the abstraction. If someone were to say, "But what if aliens from above started showering the earth with loaves of bread", well then I'd have to say that that couldn't happen.

Sorry, I should have quoted there. I was actually responding to Jane.

And I agree that sometimes you have to force people to do things they dont want to do. Children should eat their broccoli and clean up after themselves. They should be taught to share.

But when it comes to adults, they shouldnt /have/ to be forced. Regardless of whether or not they should but you just cant do that. Its equally wrong to force someone to do something as it is to not feed a starving person.

I'd call the 'stuff' you add circumstances, which makes the abstraction variable, because circumstances change everything. The abstraction only exists to create a probable scenario, but if your scenario has ever changing circumstances, past present and future, it is improbable. So let's lose the abstraction and change the question: If a man had to take from another to live, should the governing party [in this case YOU] allow the person to do this and force the other to give up what is theirs?

I would say no. It isn't mine or anyone else's place to force somebody to give something to somebody else. People have a right to their own property. The man is morally obligated to share if he can, and the other, I think, should be forced by his own volition to take what he needs to survive.

In any likely scenario, the needing party would be either living in a starving economy in which it could mean death for the possessing party to deplete their rations, or the needing party would have needlessly put themselves in a position of starvation.

Yes, that's a better way of putting the question, Nightrious. Very good.

Edit: actually, I should make a new thread for a new question I was gonna ask. But not right now. Must sleep. Anyway, I think we've done this thread to death. It's been fun, but, moving on...

Why doesn't Jim have any bread? Was it because he lost all his money on hookers and blow? Because, if so, he doesn't deserve bread. Or, was it because he was swindled out of his money by a greedy corporation that preys on his fear of not having what his neighbor's have, so they convinced him to trade his bread money for a 50" flat screen TV. So we should set up a government agency to determine whether or not Jim deserves to have any of Rob's excess bread.

I think perhaps you would agree with franc t when he says,

The initial question is stupid. Reality is not a lab where you can put people and judge the way they act separately from any context. We don't live in a vacuum.

Which is a reasonable outlook, I suppose.

I have issues with it too. It sounds too much like an insurance company considering the following abstraction:

If we give Jim this treatment, it will cost 4 million dollars or he will certainly die. If we do not not give Jim this treatment, we can settle with the family for under 2 million if they decide to sue us.

I don't like thinking about people as abstractions. It's too easy to be dismissive and philosophical about it all. Like will me sending $20 to a starving kid in Somalia really do any good or will $18 of it go to overhead and bureaucracy? Will the aid be pirated and sold as profit. Will it just produce temporary relief and the child will die anyway. You can go crazy thinking that way.

To shift the focus of this thread a bit, three people agreed that it wasn't right to force Rob to feed Jim. I think Nightrious put it succinctly when he said:

It isn't mine or anyone else's place to force somebody to give something to somebody else. People have a right to their own property.

My question is this: isn't that what taxes do all of the time? For example, consider school taxes. Let's say Rob doesn't have any kids, but Jim does. Aren't school taxes essentially forcing Rob to pay for Jim's kids? Am I thinking about this right?

I'm not okay with everyone pointing at Rob's bread and saying you have to feed Jim; but I certainly wouldn't fault Jim for trying to steal or barter for bread, and I may even conspire with Jim to help steal some of Rob's bread, if I thought Rob was being unfair and Jim wasn't an asshole about it.

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but part of me feels that if we establish a system of laws, with the idea that it would be reasonable for people to break those laws, I think the system of laws needs altering.

I agree completely.