Can Bob and Tom vote to rape Jane?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Well, I want to be clear that there are different justifications people give for taxing. For example, "I think the 1% should have to give most of their income to the government because they are fatcats who don't need it."

Such an argument would be fallacious on its face.

Quote:

This is equivalent to "Bob and Tom vote to steal Jane's car because THEY have decided that Jane's car is nicer than she needs."

Again, fallacious.

Quote:

The majority cannot vote to do crimes to a minority, such as rape, assault OR theft, just because you think they can afford to spare the time or spare the resources or shouldn't mind being sexually-assaulted, or you don't like the way they looked at you, or other whimsical reasons.

Don't know of anyone making those arguments. Certainly not I.

Quote:

If everyone pays a certain share of taxes, okay. If you think they aren't nice people or they don't need it, not okay.

Fine with me.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Are we still talking about rape?

Bob actually would like to steal her car too. Tom has co-signed this, both of them have decided that she doesn't need the car and that it would serve the public good of the house if it were forcefully taken away and Bob and Tom got to hang out in it instead, and she was given a bicycle which Bob and Tom have decided is what she really requires for the amount of traveling she does. They want to know if they can't do this for the same reason that they can't rape her.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

They tried to propose logic that would justify them being able to rape Jane. they are woefully mistaken, but they need someone to show them how.

Its been shown repeatedly.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob actually would like to steal her car too. Tom has co-signed this, both of them have decided that she doesn't need the car and that it would serve the public good of the house if it were forcefully taken away and Bob and Tom got to hang out in it instead, and she was given a bicycle which Bob and Tom have decided is what she really requires for the amount of traveling she does. They want to know if they can't do this for the same reason that they can't rape her.

What would you tell them?

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob actually would like to steal her car too. Tom has co-signed this, both of them have decided that she doesn't need the car and that it would serve the public good of the house if it were forcefully taken away and Bob and Tom got to hang out in it instead, and she was given a bicycle which Bob and Tom have decided is what she really requires for the amount of traveling she does. They want to know if they can't do this for the same reason that they can't rape her.

So Bob and Tom don't believe in personal liberties, possessions, and in fact, just want to rape, and steal willy-nilly?

Why don't you just tell us what the 'gotcha' moment is against the evil liberals, so we can get past your morally reprehensible 'analogy'?

[rustypouch]

But if Jane doesn't want to be raped after Bob and Tom decide they should, why doesn't she find new roommates who promise not to harm her?

Or maybe she secretly lusts after Bob and Tom, and hopes they do take her by force...

[maxpower1227]

I think we need more information about this apartment. Is Jane's room twice as large as Bob's and Tom's rooms combined? Does she own a highly disproportionate percentage of the items in the apartment? Does she make more money in a day than either of her roommates does in a year? If so, are her contributions to the apartment proportionally higher to the same extent? Does she enjoy disproportionately favorable treatment from the apartment's justice system? Does she frequently get away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist for committing fraud, for instance, while Bob or Tom would be punished much more severely for a much smaller crime?

Help us out, here. What kind of apartment is this, exactly?

[uruk]

I think this equating rape to taxation is a bit over dramatic and over blown and nowhere near any resemblence to the current taxation situation.
Taxation is NOTHING like rape.

A more realistic thought experiment would be:

1. Bob, Tom and Jane live in an apartment.
2. Bob works for Jane.
3. Tom is presently unemployed.
4. Jane makes more money than Bob and Tom.
5. Bob is dependent on Jane for his income.
6. Tom is dependent on both Bob and Jane for his necessities.
7. All three have to pay rent.

Now all three are voting on how the rent will be divided up.

How should the vote go?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The US was arguably the first to recognize individual rights apart from govt and that individuals should be protected against the govt. Since then other nations and the UN have come to accept fundamental human rights.

Bzzt. Try Great Britian

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by uruk

I think this equating rape to taxation is a bit over dramatic and over blown and nowhere near any resemblence to the current taxation situation.
Taxation is NOTHING like rape.

A more realistic thought experiment would be:

1. Bob, Tom and Jane live in an apartment.
2. Bob works for Jane.
3. Tom is presently unemployed.
4. Jane makes more money than Bob and Tom.
5. Bob is dependent on Jane for his income.
6. Tom is dependent on both Bob and Jane for his necessities.
7. All three have to pay rent.

Now all three are voting on how the rent will be divided up.

How should the vote go?

Actual facts to influence the discussion? Shocka.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Shalamar

So Bob and Tom don't believe in personal liberties, possessions, and in fact, just want to rape, and steal willy-nilly?

Why don't you just tell us what the 'gotcha' moment is against the evil liberals, so we can get past your morally reprehensible 'analogy'?

I don't think he thought this through all the way and now he just repeats the opening argument. We have gone from voting for rape, to voting for assault, to voting for theft. I assume arson and shining a laser pointer at a planes cockpit are coming up soon all under the guise that 2 people have "voted" for it. One of these people is hapless twit willing to go along with whatever his sociopathic rapist of friend wants to do.

But don't worry its all an analogy for big government and how liberals hate freedom.

[Howie Felterbush]

I don't know anything about rape, and I know even less about taxes, but I do know that you're going to have a hard time finding a roommate if you keep this up.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by uruk

I think this equating rape to taxation is a bit over dramatic and over blown and nowhere near any resemblence to the current taxation situation.
Taxation is NOTHING like rape.

We discuss here the incentives that incline people to violence against others. How violent, how large an incentive, and how the incentives appear over time (depreciation, etc.) are matters of degree. How the incentive structure evolves over time in response to previous decisions is also a matter of degree.

Every law on the books is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (prison rape) someone, under some specified circumstances. So, yes, taxation is a LOT like rape.

[maxpower1227]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

We discuss here the incentives that incline people to violence against others. How violent, how large an incentive, and how the incentives appear over time (depreciation, etc.) are matters of degree. How the incentive structure evolves over time in response to previous decisions is also a matter of degree.

No. Taxation is not violence.

Quote:

Every law on the books is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (prison rape) someone, under some specified circumstances.

No. A law prohibiting murder is not a threat of government violence.

Quote:

So, yes, taxation is a LOT like rape.

No. FFS, no.

[uruk]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

We discuss here the incentives that incline people to violence against others. How violent, how large an incentive, and how the incentives appear over time (depreciation, etc.) are matters of degree. How the incentive structure evolves over time in response to previous decisions is also a matter of degree.

Every law on the books is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (prison rape) someone, under some specified circumstances. So, yes, taxation is a LOT like rape.

Everything you listed is an action against the body of a person. Taxation is an action against something you have. Taxation is not violence.

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

We discuss here the incentives that incline people to violence against others. How violent, how large an incentive, and how the incentives appear over time (depreciation, etc.) are matters of degree. How the incentive structure evolves over time in response to previous decisions is also a matter of degree.

Every law on the books is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (prison rape) someone, under some specified circumstances. So, yes, taxation is a LOT like rape.

I'm wondering my people who espouse these views don't move somewhere the government doesn't collect taxes.

If it were possible to let people pay no tax, with a way to ensure they gain no benefit from the things taxes pay for, I'd be all for it.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Bzzt. Try Great Britian

Could you do a bit more than just gainsay? The UK has no codified Constitution. The Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta and years of legislation limited the govt and were instrumental to providing for individual liberty but they did not codify it. To this day there is no constitutional guarantee of individual liberty. Right?

[lionking]

There have been countless "taxation is theft" threads here, but this is the first "taxation is rape" one. As others have said, a ridiculous, offensive analogy. Why is it that most nations see tax as the price of living in a civilized society, while so many in the US view it as theft (or worse)?

[uruk]

Originally Posted by lionking

There have been countless "taxation is theft" threads here, but this is the first "taxation is rape" one. As others have said, a ridiculous, offensive analogy. Why is it that most nations see tax as the price of living in a civilized society, while so many in the US view it as theft (or worse)?

Everyone wants the benefits that taxes provides but no one wants to pay the bill.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by lionking

There have been countless "taxation is theft" threads here, but this is the first "taxation is rape" one. As others have said, a ridiculous, offensive analogy. Why is it that most nations see tax as the price of living in a civilized society, while so many in the US view it as theft (or worse)?

I view it as rent.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by lionking

There have been countless "taxation is theft" threads here, but this is the first "taxation is rape" one. As others have said, a ridiculous, offensive analogy. Why is it that most nations see tax as the price of living in a civilized society, while so many in the US view it as theft (or worse)?

Taxation can be oppressive. If one values the arguments of John Locke and Adam Smith then one could see how taxation could be theft. There is great utility in granting someone rights over the fruits of their labor. The problem becomes in thinking that these rights must be absolute when in fact that simply cannot be absolute. Someone has to pay for those fancy jet fighters (and the rest of govt).

We have to balance property rights (property being the fruit of one's labor) and the needs of society. It's not an either or proposition and that is why such thought experiments are doomed to failure. Most people accept that 0% taxation is not an option (those that think otherwise are hopeless). Since 0% is not an option then what we need to do our best to avoid taxing too much and being fiscally responsible with what we do collect from taxation.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Ya don't say?

Bob likes you, because you agree with a lot of what he said in his original argument.

Society also bestows value upon sexual attractiveness. If Bob and Tom didn't find Jane attractive, they wouldn't want to rape her. Because they, Bob and Tom, bestow value upon Jane's figure and face, and their admiration has made her feel good, Bob says that they should have a right to do what they want to her sexually. And yes, in doing so, it will make most of the people in the house happy. It is literally for the greater good, as Bob and Tom see it. They invite you to join in on the rape.

Is your nickname "Stretch"? You're very good at it.

This is the most childish thread I've seen in this subforum in quite awhile. And most of your posts involve setting new conditions for Bob and Tom, and being generally dodgy.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by elbe

I view it as rent.

"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." --- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by uruk

I think this equating rape to taxation is a bit over dramatic and over blown and nowhere near any resemblence to the current taxation situation.
Taxation is NOTHING like rape.

A more realistic thought experiment would be:

1. Bob, Tom and Jane live in an apartment.
2. Bob works for Jane.
3. Tom is presently unemployed.
4. Jane makes more money than Bob and Tom.
5. Bob is dependent on Jane for his income.
6. Tom is dependent on both Bob and Jane for his necessities.
7. All three have to pay rent.

Now all three are voting on how the rent will be divided up.

How should the vote go?

Still doesn’t work as an analogy for taxation. For a reasonable analogy for taxation the existence of Jane’s business would also need to depend on Tom and Bob’s presence.

The worlds successful businesses and richest people all function and live in countries where they get taxed. They have the option to move to countries where they would not have to pay tax, but it turns out it’s almost impossible to conduct business or be rich in these countries. This isn’t coincidence. It’s the material and social infrastructure that allow profitable businesses and wealth creation to exist. Monetarily, the wealthiest people are the biggest recipients of the wealth this infrastructure allows.

Taking this back to your analogy then, how would the vote go if Jane could no longer run her business if she or Bob, or even Tom moved elsewhere? If Jane is materially better off even if she pays ALL the rent than she is if the three can’t come to an agreement on the rent is it unfair for her to pay most of the rent?

The problem with Libertarians is they work from an ideological basis that rejects such interdependence out of hand even though it permeates not just our society and economy but every one that has ever existed.

[tyr_13]

It's threads like these that actually feed my soul. This is the US politics section, yet everyone is happily united against three or four misguided posters making poor arguments that just get curb stomped.

Group hug! Unless you don't want to. I wouldn't want to force anyone...

[shemp]

I'm just hanging around to see the moment when this whole thread gets tossed into AAH.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Could you do a bit more than just gainsay? The UK has no codified Constitution. The Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta and years of legislation limited the govt and were instrumental to providing for individual liberty but they did not codify it. To this day there is no constitutional guarantee of individual liberty. Right?

Most constitutions are little more than a restatement of principles originating in English Common Law. The centuries of precedent that make up common law are not really that different functionally than the hundreds of years of supreme court decisions that give the real meat to the US constitution.

It’s certainly quite possible the government could simply choose to start ignoring that precedent, but it could likewise simply choose to ignore a constitution. In fact I’d argue that ignoring a constitution would be much easier.

[Cain]

This is funny because libertarians have circle-jerks over this kind of non-argument. "Stupid liberals! Your analogy is totally valid!!!"

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Could you do a bit more than just gainsay? The UK has no codified Constitution. The Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta and years of legislation limited the govt and were instrumental to providing for individual liberty but they did not codify it. To this day there is no constitutional guarantee of individual liberty. Right?

I was more thinking of the Glorious Revolution.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Most constitutions are little more than a restatement of principles originating in English Common Law. The centuries of precedent that make up common law are not really that different functionally than the hundreds of years of supreme court decisions that give the real meat to the US constitution.

It’s certainly quite possible the government could simply choose to start ignoring that precedent, but it could likewise simply choose to ignore a constitution.

It comes down to the perceived legitimacy and moral right of government. I don't think they would just ignore it but find some pretext to pass laws counter to the precedent. It's not an easy thing but a bit more complex than just ignoring precedent and common law.

Quote:

In fact I’d argue that ignoring a constitution would be much easier.

I'd be interested in hearing that argument. Otherwise I strongly disagree. Violating a constitution is a direct assault on the consent of the governed.

[Bingowings]

I read the first three pages of this. Has it become any less sickening?

[Laeke]

...and yet, despite the fact that you believe to have demonstrated that civilization is merely a lie we built for ourselves and democracy is the rule of the mob where the majority could maim, kill, rape and tax the upper brackett at will, one only has to look through the window to see that it is not the case, and that sometimes the mob even vote in tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens.
So this seems like a poor (and tasteless) analogy, since it doesn't even remotely fits the real world.

...
Sorry there, I fast-forwarded to the end of the discussion.

Actually shared housing would be a good analysis subject on how a micro-society may decide to manage itself and the problems that may arise in those crude, somewhat democratic systems.

Generally the tenants have the good sense to agree on some ground rules beforehand, because otherwise it opens the door to many later problems. Also of course there's a total rent to pay, so they must also agree on how they divide this between them.

Those rules often crash in the wall of real life, as a multitude of problems may arose, especially on the question of sharing burdens, chores, costs, bills... Equal share for everyone? Or at the prorata (of the size of the bedroom / Use of water / etc...)? And if so, how do you keep track of used what in what quantities? And no matter the system, what to do if one tenant is guilty of abusing a collectively-paid resource?

Any big change of the rules midway will rock the boat pretty hard.
I briefly witnessed some debate over those issues by 5 or 6 tenants, when the water bill came through at the end of the year. One of the tenant got himself a girlfriend, and she pretty much ended up living there and as such using some more water than what usually expected (case was further complicated by another girlfriend, not so present but often there as well). I do not know how they ended settling up said issue, but they pretty much parted ways after that, a situation not uncommon I have heard, with varying degrees of bitterness.

These arrangements are very crude but probably closer to the truth as an analogy than the curious surreal case of a couple of created ex nihilo psychopathic rapists living in a house apparently isolated from any other form of human society despite apparently paying a rent and needing cars to go to work.

But yeah, i'll admit dispute over the dish washing planning does not have the magic ring of rape...

[Delscottio]

Bob and Tom are obviously damn commies, they won't let poor Jane out of the house to flee such an oppressive regime.

My word, what a thread.

[Megalodon]

How about:

Jane lives in a building with 8 other people. She owns more than half of the building, including most of the business running in it. Those businesses regularly dump their trash in the common areas, but the homeowners association (suspiciously composed mostly of Jane's employees) keeps giving her a slap on the wrist, while paying for the cleanups from the building budget.

Now, Jane wants everyone to pay the same for the building upkeep budget, including the homeless guy camping in the parking lot. A couple of the other tenants decided to protest, but Jane hired some goons to straighten them up.

Nobody thinks about raping Jane because half of them are scared crapless of her, and the home owners association keeps the other half believing that one day they too will own more than half of the building.

The End

[Bill Thompson]

Prooves my point.

Democracy does not work.

At best, it is like the flip of a coin when the USA picks a president.

But, by the way, most men are not excited by rape. Chances are, the proverbial two men in this queston would not want to rape a woman anyway. So this makes me wonder about the mindset of the OP.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I'm not sure I understand why all the people who don't like the thread keep trying to change the rules of the thread. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere.

Yes, the lesson involves which posters you should put on "ignore" ...

[Jomante]

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic. In a representative republic the people grant government the power. The government is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just the best interests of the majority.

Jane is welcome to leave whenever she wants to avoid tyranny of a pure democratic system.

But what really happened was this. After Bob & Tom voted to make rape legal, Jane got with Bob and convinced him to vote to have Toms manhood removed. And then Jane got with a very upset Tom who was more than eager to extract revenge on Bob and voted to have Bobs manhood removed. Thus the problem resolved itself.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Bingowings

I read the first three pages of this. Has it become any less sickening?

You'll get used to it.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Bob proposes a bill that raping the young, attractive Jane should be legalized. Tom, who lives with them, likes this idea. It is opened up to a vote among the three of them and it passes by a 2-to-1 majority.

Jane disputes this result.

Bob and Tom argue the following:

1. Jane can spare it. She's naked everyday and it will only take a few minutes.

2. It will be voluntary. She will be given the option to participate willfully. But if she doesn't, she will be forcefully tied up and locked in the basement. But Bob says that counts as voluntary.

3. It is for the public good. Most of the house will be happy.

4. Sex is necessary for a population to survive. As is sexual-sanity. Jane says that sex happens voluntarily, Bob says that that's not good enough. Men are lonely and frustrated every day, and it causes bad things to happen, on top of having no next generation. Surely Jane does not want their house population to die off.

5. Jane, being the youngest and most attractive, must contribute a bit more. She has her healthy looks and body because of the quality food and shelter and fitness centers that modern society created for her. She has stolen from society in order to be so beautiful and fit, therefore she must give back and be violated.

6. It is democracy in action. Since a majority of people voted for it in a formal procedure, it doesn't count as a crime.

Jane stutters and starts to get very nervous. They roll up their sleeves and move toward her, but then they notice you, an outsider, who heard their discussion. You aren't allowed to vote, being a non-citizen of the house, but they ask your opinion of the issue. As Jane is backed into the corner and starting to hyperventilate.

What do you say to them?

I would say to them "I'm calling the police now."

Since this is in USA politics, I assume that the house is in America and therefore the laws of the USA still apply. There is is no such thing as being a "citizen" of a house. Houses are not democracies. They are subject to the laws of the country in which they live.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Jomante

We do not live in a democracy...

We elect our leaders democratically. Otherwise I agree with your post.