[Lobowolf]

luke warm, on Sep 26 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 26 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

To the extent that PassedOut is saying what I perceive him to be saying, I agree with him entirely.  I think it's a gross misuse of the word "enslavement" to apply it to "all of us," particularly those of us living in the United States and occasionally idle enough to discuss bridge, philosophy, and politics via internet servers.  It's right up there with "Nazi" on the ridiculous analogy chart.  Whatever's in third is quite distant.

can agents of the federal gov't come to your home at 2 am, bust your door down and take you away for an indefinite period of time with no charges being filed and no notification of your whereabouts? if they can, the fact that you and i can discuss philosophy online doesn't lessen our enslavement, imo

Can agents of the federal government come to the home of another agent of the federal government at 2 am, similarly? If no one is immune from such a possibility, then who is the "master," and if no one is the master, then how are there slaves?

If you want to maximize your chances of living with the possibility of being dragged out of your home in the middle of the night, try anarchy.

[PassedOut]

DrTodd13, on Sep 26 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

How is that different than the current state of affairs where even in the US estimates for the effective tax rate go as high as 50%.  Half your productive efforts go to someone else and you dismiss enslavement as a gross misuse?

I don't consider my obligation to pay taxes (and I've paid a lot of taxes over the years) to be slavery, or anything of the kind.

I believe in a strong defense (which most assuredly does not include attacking countries like Iraq), for example, and I don't consider the cost of that to be giving my productive efforts "to someone else."

I share the benefits (dubious benefits, sometimes, I agree) paid for by my tax dollars. I like to drive on good roads over sound bridges. I like to know that the CDC has experts available to analyze threats to the general health. And, in fact, I feel that my country as a whole benefits from many of the government services I help pay for, even when I don't benefit directly.

Of course there are government expenditures I don't like and don't approve of. I share the responsiblity for those expenditures because I, and others who share my view, haven't convinced enough people to force congress to put a stop to it.

On the flip side, there are expenditures that I think should be made that aren't. But that is what political debate is all about. I'm not going to stop participating just because I disagree with the actions politicians take. And I feel fortunate to live in a country where I can earn enough money to pay substantial taxes.

The bottom line for me, though, is that the cost of what we do now - foolish or wise - should not passed down to our children and grandchildren. They'll have even tougher problems to deal with in the future.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Sep 26 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

I don't consider my obligation to pay taxes (and I've paid a lot of taxes over the years) to be slavery, or anything of the kind.

Ditto your whole post, but particularly, this part. I just love the thought of some orthopedic surgeon going back in time and sitting on a stump next to an honest-to-goodness mid-19th century slave and saying something like, "Man, we've got it rough, don't we? They took 40% out of my check this week? I tell ya, we're two of a kind."

That visual is right up there with the thought of Michael Moore suggesting to a Holocaust survivor that (insert your favorite Republican) is "just like a Nazi."

[Wackojack]

God told me a secret. It was that all humans were his slaves. Then He decided to give humans free will, with the option to rescind this concession at any time He chooses. God has recently been noticing trouble makers who have been inventing hypothetical worlds. God has no power over hypothetical worlds as hypothetically, you can invent universal happiness, you can disinvent God and you can disinvent the God's Law of Unintended Consequences. God is displeased and might at any time break into your house and drag you away

[helene_t]

DrTodd13, on Sep 26 2008, 11:13 PM, said:

Certainly there are degrees of enslavement but the degree doesn't matter when it comes to the fundamental question of what your state is.

I disagree.

Like most other things, enslavement is on a grey scale. Black/white categories like slave/free generally are either illusions or depend on thresholds that are arbitrary.

OK I generalize to the extreme, but it certainly applies to the topic of this thread.

I value freedom a lot and think Western governments generally interfere more in citizens life than they should. But the 100% laissez-faire government is at best impractical (to put it mildly) or at worst a meaningless concept (because if we abolish the government someone will fill the power vacuum).

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on Sep 26 2008, 05:30 PM, said:

Can agents of the federal government come to the home of another agent of the federal government at 2 am, similarly? If no one is immune from such a possibility, then who is the "master," and if no one is the master, then how are there slaves?

If you want to maximize your chances of living with the possibility of being dragged out of your home in the middle of the night, try anarchy.

is that a yes?

[smiffy]

DrTodd13, on Sep 24 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

In a hypothetical universe, if the murder, total enslavement, or economic enslavement of one innocent individual could guarantee universal happiness and lack of need, which of these actions would you consider right or wrong to achieve the aforementioned guarantee.  Total enslavement here means that every facet of the one individual's life is controlled by the remainder of the population.  Economic enslavement here means that non-productive personal matters such as religion and family are still under control of the individual but economically productive actions are under the control of the rest of the population...including dictating what jobs he can and can't do, how he does them, and up to 100% taxation.

I think this hypothetical question suffers a little from a lack of data.
One can here construct a setting where this one innocent individual, when economically enslaved, just does not have to suffer the consequences. So assuming he'll be taxed with 100%, the rest of the world just has to provide all the natural goods he wishes for. And while everybody is theoretically able to tell him which jobs he has to take and how he does them, in practice everybody just agrees to take no advantage of that. And why shouldn't they? Everybody's happy and without any needs...It might even go so far that the people, being happy and without any needs, regard any such agreement as redundant.
The same can easily be applied to this individuals total enslavement.
Additionally, albeit there might not be any need for this, to garantuee his state of immunity, the penalty for meddling with this individuals affairs would be severe.

[Al_U_Card]

Sounds something like Bill Gates' instant karma action plan.....

do you think that it might save him from having to pay for foisting Windows on us?