Tax The Rich?

[Darth Executor]

As for the poor, art, and entertainment, I don't even know what to say about that except to ask what do these anti-tax people think is going to happen to "poor" people if they are not supported?

They'd have to get a job and actually work when they do get one?

Man, all I know is that my GROSS pay is a larger number than what actually goes into my bank account and I don't like it. Bush's tax cuts didn't affect my family (I was not out in the workforce in 2003), but the gas prices sure did. The Patriot Act, expensive gas, and Muslims becoming America's proverbial "black people of the 21st century" is all I'll remember from the Bush Jr. administration.

You chose to take a crap job. You don't get tax cuts because you don't really produce anything.

[joel]

Teachers are productive. Firefighters are productive. Police are (arguably) productive.

Fat cat CEOs, not so much.

How so? If CEOs aren't productive, then why do they get paid so much? The shareholders and board of directors would be much better off paying less for the same productivity. It's not due to lack of willing applicants; there are many people who would gladly accept the position of CEO at a lower wage.

Last time I checked, the median household income for the US is around $50k. Mine brings in 23k and there are four people in this house (soon to be five). I don't see a problem with taxing incomes of $200k or more.

Are you taking into account the benefit of those others recieving such incomes has for you? You ought to take into account the effects to you (and others) of their being taxed, such as fewer goods and services being available in the market, less technological advancement, higher prices, lower wages, less demand for labor, etc. And these effects both in the short term and long term.

My point was that the professions I listed are necessities, yet they rank at the bottom when it comes to income.

Also those professions you listed are largely government employees. Their income may very well be greater if the government weren't meddling in these professions.

Amen! Do the rich a favor and tax them. Bring glory to God.

That does not follow from the Scripture you quoted.

And your quoting the parable of the talents is interesting, because it was those managers who were able to maximize profit that were praised, and the one with a 0% return on the investment that was condemned.

I don't talk to non-Christians about spiritual matters.

Doesn't that conflict with the Great Commission?

[joel]

So what's rightful property? Who decides what is rightful?

Whoever has the most power and is willing to use it.

Let's draw this out to its logical conclusions.
There would therefore be no such thing as theft. If someone were to 'steal' your car, it would not really be theft, because they would be wielding the most power over the car at the moment, and thus it would be their rightful property, not yours.

Likewise, there would be no such thing as murder. If someone were to kill you, it would not be murder, because they would be wielding the most power over your body at the moment, and thus your body wiould be their rightful property, not yours.

Furthermore, if you were to defend yourself unsuccessfully against this attacker (trying to kill you or take from you), then that use of force of yours would be immoral, sinful and unjust because you would be using force against what is rightufully theirs.

This can be extended to turn pretty much all of justice on its head. For example, a successful rapist would be fully within his rights, and the victim would be acting unjustly if she resists. Neither would torturing a child to death be unjust.

Thus I have to utterly reject your proposition.

[Darth Executor]

Let's draw this out to its logical conclusions.
There would therefore be no such thing as theft. If someone were to 'steal' your car, it would not really be theft, because they would be wielding the most power over the car at the moment, and thus it would be their rightful property, not yours.

The government, and God, have more power and they could stop you, punish you or both.

Likewise, there would be no such thing as murder. If someone were to kill you, it would not be murder, because they would be wielding the most power over your body at the moment, and thus your body wiould be their rightful property, not yours.

God would like to have a word with you. As would the government.

Furthermore, if you were to defend yourself unsuccessfully against this attacker (trying to kill you or take from you), then that use of force of yours would be immoral, sinful and unjust because you would be using force against what is rightufully theirs.

See above.

This can be extended to turn pretty much all of justice on its head. For example, a successful rapist would be fully within his rights, and the victim would be acting unjustly if she resists. Neither would torturing a child to death be unjust.

Your response is just reactionary. If you think it through you'll find out that the world works exactly by the same principle I proposed: power. Without power, claims to a right to something, anything, is just words in the wind.

[joel]

The government, and God, have more power and they could stop you, punish you or both.

But if they don't, then the 'thief' would be the rightful owner of your car. Or if they only do it at a later event, then the 'theif' would still be the rightful owner of the car in the meantime, while he has power over the car. In stopping him, the government (for example) would simply transfer rightful ownership of the car from him to itself, and perhaps voluntarily transfer ownership back to you if it chooses. But in the meantime the 'thief' did successfully exercise power over the car. Otherwise the thief actually did not excercise power over the car and is guilty of coveteousness at most.

Your response is just reactionary. If you think it through you'll find out that the world works exactly by the same principle I proposed: power. Without power, claims to a right to something, anything, is just words in the wind.

It occurs to me that one possible error in what I said is saying that the unsucessful use of force in defense would be unjust. One could interpret your conception of justice another way. Suppose that you strike out at your would-be killer and bruise him (say, his chin). Then you, in that instance are wielding the power against his chin, and thus you would not be unjust in bruising that chin, regardless of other circumstances. Thus one could say that your conception of justice is no justice at all, because all actual action is the actual wielding of power causing an effect, not being prevented by another's power, and is therefore the greatest power being wielded in that matter, and therefore no action can be unjust, and therefore there would be no such thing as justice.

Also in your conception, God could grant someone else, say Alice, a right to something only by (1) giving Alice power over it, (2) refraining from exercising His own power over it, and (3) preventing anyone else from having power over it. But in such a case it would be, by definition, impossible for anyone else to infringe on Alice's right. Thus it would be impossible for anyone to commit an injustice against Alice. Again, you have defined away any meaning for justice.

For If God did not give Alice power over it, then (in your definition) she does not have the right to it, and therefore no injustice can be done against Alice because she has no right to be violated. If God did not refrain from exercising His own power over it, then God retained the right, and again there is no possible injustice to be committed against Alice. And if God allows a third party to exercise power over it, then that party (in your definition) has the right, not Alice, and therefore the third party has not committed an injustice against Alice. But if God does all three, then no injustice is possible. Therefore your conception of justice strip it of any meaning, because all acts would be just by definition.

Your proposition that "Without power, claims to a right to something, anything, is just words in the wind," seems to deny any reality to such things as Merit, Oath or Obligation. By definition, these are things that would be unjust to wield power contrary to. But under your conception they would be just words in the wind. On the other hand, if such things are actual, then the use of power is qualified by them, rather than the other way around.

[Darth Executor]

Your proposition that "Without power, claims to a right to something, anything, is just words in the wind," seems to deny any reality to such things as Merit, Oath or Obligation.

Not quite. It makes them subservient to (and thus defined by) power, rather than making power subservient to them. They are accurate descriptors of laws set down by the most powerful.

By definition, these are things that would be unjust to wield power contrary to. But under your conception they would be just words in the wind. On the other hand, if such things are actual, then the use of power is qualified by them, rather than the other way around.

Please explain then, why Merit, Oath and Obligation have a real, objective existence from your perspective.

If a man breaks into another man's house, steals his pillow and nobody, not even God, does something about it, now or ever, and the robbed man yells the pillow is his property, and the theft is unjust, how do you determine that the pillow is his property and the theft is unjust? What does unjust mean? Explain the mechanism behind these properties. What gives them meaning? I propose that you, along with other philosophers that share your rights based morality, do not have a logical mechanism behind them. They are creations of empathy (an emotion) and thus a whim, rather than a solid foundation for morality. Rather than describe reality, they seek to create or change it to one that feels right.

[joel]

Not quite. It makes them subservient to (and thus defined by) power, rather than making power subservient to them. They are accurate descriptors of laws set down by the most powerful.

If they are determined by power, then they are meaningless, because no actual action could be contrary to them, because the fact that you were able to actualize the action means you had the power to do so.

Things like Merit, Oath, and Obligation determine how power ought to be used. If they are determined by the use of power, then they can do no such thing. As you say, they would be subservient to power, and thus be stripped of their meaning. Their meaning, by definition, is a law over the use of power. If they are subservient to power, then they are no longer law over power, and thus are meaningless.

Telling someone S that if they do not do X then you will do Y, and then actually doing Y when S fails to do X, does not make X an obligation to S. This would turn morality upside down, and could be used to justify anything. Person S may even evaluate that the cost of Y is less than the benefit of refraining from doing X. Also, the laws of physics do the same thing, but do not create obligations. Refraining from doing X may have some negative consequence due to the laws of nature, but this does not obligate S to do X.

Please explain then, why Merit, Oath and Obligation have a real, objective existence from your perspective.

If a man breaks into another man's house, steals his pillow and nobody, not even God, does something about it, now or ever, and the robbed man yells the pillow is his property, and the theft is unjust, how do you determine that the pillow is his property and the theft is unjust? What does unjust mean? Explain the mechanism behind these properties. What gives them meaning? I propose that you, along with other philosophers that share your rights based morality, do not have a logical mechanism behind them. They are creations of empathy (an emotion) and thus a whim, rather than a solid foundation for morality. Rather than describe reality, they seek to create or change it to one that feels right.

I have shown, in several ways, why your conception would turn morality on its head. That should be sufficient to refute it. My supplying a positive theory in its place would only be an extra bonus.

But if you wish we can discuss how things like Merit, Oath and Obligation could have objective existence. They could have such existence by virtue of them being determined in the Ultimate Mind, regardless whether that being enforces them with power. In your case where one man steals from another, and nobody, not even God were to prevent it or punish it, its justice would still then be determined by the Ultimate Mind. e.g., suppose God unconditionally forgives the action, while still confirming that it was unjust. Thus God's law can be true objectively.

Also, people can voluntarily place themselves under obligations, without them being handed down from above, e.g., by objectively making a voluntary oath.

I also think that some rights and morality can be derived from our condition as men. For example I am intrigued by Ayn Rand's defense of objective morality. If something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective. A rational being cannot deny that its own life as a rational being is a value (otherwise it would cease to be a rational being by undermining its rational capacity for valuation). From this it can be derived that that which harms a rational being's life as a rational being ought to be opposed. From this can be derived the obligation of each rational being to not use force against other rational beings except in defense or retribution. Such obligations then imply rights. One can also derive various virtues such as honesty, and justice, where justice means making correct judgments about reality and giving to each what is due.

[Sheepdog]

I donno. As a consumer, I feel like I "invest in the economy" every time I go buy something.

sort of. you consume goods and services. The portion you "invest" to create new value is a marginal percentage relative to the raw value of the goods you consume.

When you are responsible in some manner in maintaining a payroll, at least indirectly (e.g. investing in a company), please get back to me.

I'm from Alabama where the state still funds its school systems via sales tax. Can you imagine what's happening to schools down there right now?

Couldn't be worse than what happens in, say, Detroit. The funny thing is about the public education system, the amount of money we pay for it each year progressively increase, yet the quality of education for our children regress.

As for the poor, art, and entertainment, I don't even know what to say about that except to ask what do these anti-tax people think is going to happen to "poor" people if they are not supported?

"anti-tax"? is that sort of like "pro-choice"?

the "poor" people would get along the way they did before the welfare state. they'd get jobs, or if they could not (and some cannot for varying reasons), they are supported by the charity and support of private individuals. the fact is, the welfare state as it exists today didn't exist before the 20th century. the poor got along without it, they could today if we learned to say no.

FWIW i don't totally reject the notion of a publicly funded safety net for the poor. i protest the present application in the form of the welfare state

Because we like entertainers and athletes. They somehow give meaning to our lives. I'm watching the NFL playoffs right now, and no, I wouldn't object to Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones getting hit with the tax-bat, especially considering his BILLION dollar stadium. I wouldn't object to Jim Carrey getting taxed with his "mandatory" $20 million per-film quota. I totally agree with you. TAX THEM TOO!!!

except they don't produce anything that is necessary. if an asteroid was going to hit the earth, would you rather it hit Hollywood, or Manhattan? If it hit Hollywood, we'd make due ... heck it'd be a windfall for local entertainers! If it hit Manhattan, you'd probably be out of a job the next day.

Man, all I know is that my GROSS pay is a larger number than what actually goes into my bank account and I don't like it. Bush's tax cuts didn't affect my family (I was not out in the workforce in 2003), but the gas prices sure did. The Patriot Act, expensive gas, and Muslims becoming America's proverbial "black people of the 21st century" is all I'll remember from the Bush Jr. administration.

who cares about you? really. the point of the Bush tax cuts wasn't to help lil old Zero Tolerance out. it was to help the economy balance itself out after the destruction of $2 trillion in wealth overnight and the ensuing chaos. you and I may not have directly benefited from the tax cuts directly (except I did. IIRC i got back $300 or so), but we benefited from the resulting recovery. Do you have a job now? good. I do too. I actually am doing much better than I did just after 2001, even despite the current recession.

Just food for thought, gas prices didn't become really painful until Democrats gained control of Congress. and certain liberals are now proposing a permanent price floor for gas through taxation

[Darth Executor]

If they are determined by power, then they are meaningless, because no actual action could be contrary to them, because the fact that you were able to actualize the action means you had the power to do so.

This is a straw man. The original question was:

"Who decides what is rightful?"

My answer was:

"Whoever has the most power and is willing to use it. "

And in subsequent posts I said:

The government, and God, have more power and they could stop you, punish you or both.


Just because the higher power does not or cannot stop an act doesn't change the fact that they have the authority to set such laws and will still punish the transgressor, and by doing so transmute their will into reality.

Things like Merit, Oath, and Obligation determine how power ought to be used. If they are determined by the use of power, then they can do no such thing.

Sure they can. You're equivocating between power sources and pretending they're the same. They're not. Power source A (God, Government, etc.) sets down laws (Merit, Oath and Obligation) which determines how the weaker Power source B should act.

As you say, they would be subservient to power, and thus be stripped of their meaning. Their meaning, by definition, is a law over the use of power. If they are subservient to power, then they are no longer law over power, and thus are meaningless.

Actually under your definition they're still laws over the use of power and thus not meaningless. If you mean that they're, by definition, law over the use of ANY power, it's not true. They're laws that govern specific uses of power.

Telling someone S that if they do not do X then you will do Y, and then actually doing Y when S fails to do X, does not make X an obligation to S.

Obligations only exist when something is enforced. By power.

This would turn morality upside down, and could be used to justify anything. Person S may even evaluate that the cost of Y is less than the benefit of refraining from doing X. Also, the laws of physics do the same thing, but do not create obligations. Refraining from doing X may have some negative consequence due to the laws of nature, but this does not obligate S to do X.

No, they cannot be used to justify anything. That's absurd (especially within a Christian universe). Furthermore, just because it can be used to justify anything doesn't mean it should or that the concept is wrong. If you try hard enough you can take almost any system and misuse it to justify your own actions..

I have shown, in several ways, why your conception would turn morality on its head. That should be sufficient to refute it. My supplying a positive theory in its place would only be an extra bonus.

You have not. All you've done is complain that it's not right based on the assumption that your own positive theory is correct when in fact you should either attack my own position on its own merits or show your own to be correct.

But if you wish we can discuss how things like Merit, Oath and Obligation could have objective existence. They could have such existence by virtue of them being determined in the Ultimate Mind, regardless whether that being enforces them with power. In your case where one man steals from another, and nobody, not even God were to prevent it or punish it, its justice would still then be determined by the Ultimate Mind. e.g., suppose God unconditionally forgives the action, while still confirming that it was unjust. Thus God's law can be true objectively.

Congratulations, your "positive theory" is the same as mine, you just can't admit it. The only reason why God's in a position to determine such a thing is because of his omnipotence (absolute POWER). If God was some dude walking down the street you'd not say he creates objective obligations anymore than you'd say that about me. Your "Ultimate Mind" would need to have sufficient power to lay down laws like Merit, Oath and Obligation, otherwise what's the difference between what the Ultimate Mind lays down as law and some hobo walking down the street lays down as law?

Also, people can voluntarily place themselves under obligations, without them being handed down from above, e.g., by objectively making a voluntary oath.

These people are merely under their own power. Furthermore, this example is descriptive, it does not actually support or deny your position.

I also think that some rights and morality can be derived from our condition as men. For example I am intrigued by Ayn Rand's defense of objective morality. If something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective. A rational being cannot deny that its own life as a rational being is a value (otherwise it would cease to be a rational being by undermining its rational capacity for valuation).

I deny it. Whoops, there goes that theory.
I didn't have to undermine my rational capacity for valuation. I just have to lie.

Furthermore, "A rational being cannot deny that its own life as a rational being is a value" is nonsense at first sight. What does she mean by "a value"?

From this it can be derived that that which harms a rational being's life as a rational being ought to be opposed.

No it cannot. Please show how it can, do not merely assert it. Just because something has value does not mean it's wrong to destroy it.

From this can be derived the obligation of each rational being to not use force against other rational beings except in defense or retribution.

Not only is this another assertion without justification, it also contradicts the previous argument. Since defense and retribution harm a rational being's life, defense and retribution ought to be opposed.

Such obligations then imply rights. One can also derive various virtues such as honesty, and justice, where justice means making correct judgments about reality and giving to each what is due.

Rand's system is built on sand. In fact, if your description of her system is accurate, I find it difficult to believe any rational human being can take it seriously.

[Zero Tolerance]

sort of. you consume goods and services. The portion you "invest" to create new value is a marginal percentage relative to the raw value of the goods you consume.

When you are responsible in some manner in maintaining a payroll, at least indirectly (e.g. investing in a company), please get back to me.

In that case, I would actually need surplus monies to "invest." Notwithstanding, hundreds of thousands of people just lost millions of dollars in said investments; I personally know some who have lost hundreds of thousands. Nevermind, I'm not interested in losing money. The way you use "invest" sounds more like "gamble."

To say that "people who don't invest don't matter" is ignorant. Not that I'm accusing you of this, but I have heard it. People who don't invest vote, and they care about getting taxed as much as the rich do, and guess what, there are far more "have nots" than there are "haves."

Couldn't be worse than what happens in, say, Detroit. The funny thing is about the public education system, the amount of money we pay for it each year progressively increase, yet the quality of education for our children regress.

The reasons for Detroit's plight are imbricated, but if you want to choose one thing that ruined the schools in Detroit, it isn't the way that the city funds its schools because the resources were there when they put that system in place. It's the white flight that has been persistent since the riots of 1967, where many whites would flee inner-city Detroit towards the suburbs and create "havens" there with vocational and educational opportunity that the (mostly black) population can't access for reasons that far exceed the scope of this topic, but if you're really interested in the history of Detroit, read Sidney Fine's Violence in the Model City then Reynolds Farley, Sheldon Danziger, and Harry J. Holzer's Detroit Divided and you will at least have your own virtual Masters Degree in the history of the city of Detroit (I would suggest more, but reading Fine's virtual encyclopedia is ambitious enough!!!).

"anti-tax"? is that sort of like "pro-choice"?

the "poor" people would get along the way they did before the welfare state. they'd get jobs, or if they could not (and some cannot for varying reasons), they are supported by the charity and support of private individuals. the fact is, the welfare state as it exists today didn't exist before the 20th century. the poor got along without it, they could today if we learned to say no.

I have a problem with your usage of "pro-choice" because "pro-choice" is unparallel to "pro-life" (The subject of abortion is about killing babies, bottom line. Save all that "rights" rhetoric for a Confederate states empathizer). Additionally, I use "anti-tax" to recognize those against the "redistribution of wealth."

Your comments here suggest a longing to return to what, the pre-FDR days when the poor were just S.O.L? No thanks. I would think that in the 21st century, a country like the US would be able to take care of its own regardless of individual citizen ability or ambition. Considering the history of the US, I have very little faith that private sectors would step up to take the place of what you call "the welfare state." Prisons are already overcrowded.

FWIW i don't totally reject the notion of a publicly funded safety net for the poor. i protest the present application in the form of the welfare state

In that case, what adjustments would you make?

except they don't produce anything that is necessary. if an asteroid was going to hit the earth, would you rather it hit Hollywood, or Manhattan? If it hit Hollywood, we'd make due ... heck it'd be a windfall for local entertainers! If it hit Manhattan, you'd probably be out of a job the next day.

Manhattan, because it would make people go deep into their hearts like how I perceived 9/11 did. And I wouldn't be out of a job, because I work in an industry that's necessary for places like Manhattan to even exist. If a meteor hit Hollywood, in the end, it would be like, "so what," as long as all the pollutants do not shroud the earth's atmosphere, resulting in the death of everyone.

who cares about you? really.

Obviously *I* do, which is why I vote, and why I favor "taxing the rich." Bush's tax cuts have nothing to do with my employment because it has very little to do with what goes on on Wall Street or Capital Hill.

Just food for thought, gas prices didn't become really painful until Democrats gained control of Congress. and certain liberals are now proposing a permanent price floor for gas through taxation

I repeat, high gas and ect. will be all that I remember from the Bush administration.

[joel]

This is a straw man. The original question was:

"Who decides what is rightful?"

My answer was:

"Whoever has the most power and is willing to use it. "

My point is that if I actualize an action, then the scope of that action was in my power, and I was willing to use that power. No other being with more power in that same scope was willing to use it, thus excluding my action.

And as for 'punishment' after the fact, I already pointed out that that is no more than a "if you do X, then I'll do Y", creating no obligation unless there is some higher principle. The laws of physics, for example, are enforced powerfully, where if you do X, then Y will happen, but that fact per se does not obligate you to do (or not to do X).

Sure they can. You're equivocating between power sources and pretending they're the same. They're not. Power source A (God, Government, etc.) sets down laws (Merit, Oath and Obligation) which determines how the weaker Power source B should act.

So, then, God (or government) would be considered beyond good and evil in your conception. It would be meaningless to say whether God is good or God is just, because there is no higher power to lord it over Him.

You have not. All you've done is complain that it's not right based on the assumption that your own positive theory is correct when in fact you should either attack my own position on its own merits or show your own to be correct.

No, I showed that the logical conclusion of your conception is that there is no such thing as theft, murder, etc.

Congratulations, your "positive theory" is the same as mine, you just can't admit it. The only reason why God's in a position to determine such a thing is because of his omnipotence (absolute POWER).

No, it could be due to being the Ultimate Mind, apart from omnipotence. And, even also having the power to do something about those objective values does not imply that God must be willing to do something about them. (It would take additional attributes, such as God's Justice, to reach that conclusion.)

Your "Ultimate Mind" would need to have sufficient power to lay down laws like Merit, Oath and Obligation, otherwise what's the difference between what the Ultimate Mind lays down as law and some hobo walking down the street lays down as law?

I'm not even necessarily talking about "laying down a law." It is the reality of those values (as known by the Ultimate Mind) that can bind a person, regardless of whether any force is used. It would have to do with the ultimate facts of reality. The point is that some hobo's subjective values (e.g., preferring strawberries to bananas) are a fact about him, not about mind or rational beings or reality in general. A value held by the Ultimate Mind would be a fundamental fact of reality, a fundamental fact of valuation to which all derivative/contingent minds are subject.

I deny it. Whoops, there goes that theory.
I didn't have to undermine my rational capacity for valuation. I just have to lie.

You misunderstand. I'll clarify.
There are two senses in which something can be affirmed or denied. One sense is when the words signifying it are expressed. Another is when the thing itself is understood and believed. The latter excludes lying. I meant the latter. What I said has nothing to do with communicating this denial to other beings. A rational being cannot rationally deny it in this latter sense.

Furthermore, "A rational being cannot deny that its own life as a rational being is a value" is nonsense at first sight. What does she mean by "a value"?

Something that is valued, desired, preferred, or sought--in short, that which is evaluated as being good and right. If rational beings cannot rationally refrain from valuing X, then X is not just a subjective value; it is an objective value; it is objectively good.

No it cannot. Please show how it can, do not merely assert it. Just because something has value does not mean it's wrong to destroy it.

I'm sorry, I gave just a very quick overview before, for brevity and because I didn't have a lot of time at that moment. I'm willing to explain further anything you want. Yes, you are correct that it is not wrong to destroy something good per se. It can be virtuous to destroy a lesser value in order to achieve a greater value. It is wrong to destroy a greater value for a lesser one (or for no value). (For, subjective values, then subjectively wrong. For objective values, then objectively wrong.) But I think it is safe to say that all else being equal it is wrong to destroy something good.

Given that a rational being's rational life is an objectively good, then its harm is objectively wrong all else being equal.

Not only is this another assertion without justification, it also contradicts the previous argument. Since defense and retribution harm a rational being's life, defense and retribution ought to be opposed.

One might try to argue that way. I don't think it's terribly important for our discussion. But it can be argued that the person who has acted against a value that a rational being cannot deny has ceased to be a rational being to that extent, or is acting outside of reason or in ignorance. Thus the use of force against such an action (as long as it is kept within proper scope) would not be a violation of the principle. Defense and retribution are, by definition, actions upholding what is good. And again, in this case, not all else is equal. You are not just acting against another being, but acting against evil.

[joel]

Nevermind, I'm not interested in losing money. The way you use "invest" sounds more like "gamble."

To say that "people who don't invest don't matter" is ignorant. Not that I'm accusing you of this, but I have heard it. People who don't invest vote, and they care about getting taxed as much as the rich do, and guess what, there are far more "have nots" than there are "haves."

If no one invests, then we all die. Other people's investment is keeping you alive.

Considering the history of the US, I have very little faith that private sectors would step up to take the place of what you call "the welfare state." Prisons are already overcrowded.

Historically, free people do give more when there is less forced welfare, because moral hazzard is less.
Also, people have more capacity to give.
And fewer people have need of charity. (Because goods are cheaper and wages are higher, and less moral hazzard.)
It can be argued that the welfare state harms more than helps the very people it intends to help. It is counter-productive and creates moral hazzard.

You would have to demonstrate against these odds that the welfare program will have an expected good that exceeds the bad (at least to the people it intends to help). And even if you succeed in doing so, you would have to demonstrate that this benefit somehow outweighs the immorality of such use of force.

[Darth Executor]

My point is that if I actualize an action, then the scope of that action was in my power, and I was willing to use that power. No other being with more power in that same scope was willing to use it, thus excluding my action.

This is a repetition of a straw man. It is not enough for you to actualize an action, have the action within your power and be willing to use that power. You also have to be the "top dog". So if you steal, odds are the government has enough power to punish or stop you (though not always in which case you had the most power in that particular scenario). In a Christian universe, God has enough power and will certainly punish you due to your breach of His anti-theft law and omnipotence (IE you can't overpower Him).

And as for 'punishment' after the fact, I already pointed out that that is no more than a "if you do X, then I'll do Y", creating no obligation unless there is some higher principle. The laws of physics, for example, are enforced powerfully, where if you do X, then Y will happen, but that fact per se does not obligate you to do (or not to do X).

You are not obligated to obey laws under any theory. Even if you take an oath, there's no invisible force making you obey the terms of your contract. The only way to enforce genuine obligation (which I consider different from laws like oath or merit in that obligation cannot be defied by definition) is through use of force (or threat of use of force, if it's sufficient to deter the culprit). Example scenario: You are obligated to not rape that woman because if you try God shows up and breaks your neck.

So, then, God (or government) would be considered beyond good and evil in your conception. It would be meaningless to say whether God is good or God is just, because there is no higher power to lord it over Him.

Under my theory God would be under His own power (just like everyone else is). Merely claiming that the terms are meaningless doesn't make it so. His power gives them explicit meaning. If God does not lay down a law that says He's good or just, then yes, you could say the terms are meaningless to apply to God, but that doesn't falsify my system.

No, I showed that the logical conclusion of your conception is that there is no such thing as theft, murder, etc.

No, you claimed that there's no such thing as theft or murder because I offered a genuine mechanism behind them. That's a far cry from actually showing how that mechanism renders them meaningless.

No, it could be due to being the Ultimate Mind, apart from omnipotence.

I propose that the above nonsense. What is an "ultimate mind" and why are concepts it proposes meaningful despite its power?

And, even also having the power to do something about those objective values does not imply that God must be willing to do something about them. (It would take additional attributes, such as God's Justice, to reach that conclusion.)

I'm not even necessarily talking about "laying down a law." It is the reality of those values (as known by the Ultimate Mind) that can bind a person, regardless of whether any force is used. It would have to do with the ultimate facts of reality. The point is that some hobo's subjective values (e.g., preferring strawberries to bananas) are a fact about him, not about mind or rational beings or reality in general. A value held by the Ultimate Mind would be a fundamental fact of reality, a fundamental fact of valuation to which all derivative/contingent minds are subject.

Again, I must repeat myself. WHY is it that a value held by the ultimate mind would be a fundamental fact of reality? How does the ultimate mind differ from the hobo?

You misunderstand. I'll clarify.
There are two senses in which something can be affirmed or denied. One sense is when the words signifying it are expressed. Another is when the thing itself is understood and believed. The latter excludes lying. I meant the latter. What I said has nothing to do with communicating this denial to other beings. A rational being cannot rationally deny it in this latter sense.

Sure it can. Why must a rational being value itself? Oh I see:

Something that is valued, desired, preferred, or sought--in short, that which is evaluated as being good and right.

In short, because it is a slave to emotions. That's what desire or preference is. A whim. It is not rooted in logic, it's rooted in subjective emotions poorly disguised as logic. Chemicals running through your brain. "Something that is desired is something that is good and right."
Charles Manson desires murder, therefore murder is good and right.
Ghandi desires peace, therefore peace is good and right.

Or, if you want to get technical:
If something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective.
A rational being cannot deny that murder is a value (see Charles Manson as an example)
A rational being cannot deny that pacifism is a value (see Ghandi as an example)

The obvious problem with using emotions like preference or desire as a barometer for objective morality is that they contradict each other (in fact, I'd say using them goes against the alleged spirit of objectivism which claims the use of logic as its functioning mechanism). In turn, if they contradict each other, the philosophy that leads to both conclusions is objectively false. Therefore, Ayn Rand's objectivism is objectively false.

I'm sorry, I gave just a very quick overview before, for brevity and because I didn't have a lot of time at that moment. I'm willing to explain further anything you want. Yes, you are correct that it is not wrong to destroy something good per se. It can be virtuous to destroy a lesser value in order to achieve a greater value. It is wrong to destroy a greater value for a lesser one (or for no value). (For, subjective values, then subjectively wrong. For objective values, then objectively wrong.) But I think it is safe to say that all else being equal it is wrong to destroy something good.

I did not mean to imply that I think within the system, destroying something good per se is not wrong. I think the whole system is irrational. The point was that the theory as you explained it contradicts itself. And your further expansion doesn't help. "Destroying something good is wrong except" means "destroying something good is wrong" itself is not true since there are exceptions. To further go back, it means that it's not wrong to destroy something that cannot be denied by a rational being. This destroys the branch of objectivism that leads to objective morality.

Given that a rational being's rational life is an objectively good, then its harm is objectively wrong all else being equal.

That may be so but you'll need to either rebranch from the original statement "something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective", and you cannot say that destroying something objective is wrong for reasons I outlined above.

One might try to argue that way. I don't think it's terribly important for our discussion. But it can be argued that the person who has acted against a value that a rational being cannot deny has ceased to be a rational being to that extent, or is acting outside of reason or in ignorance.

But that would render anybody an irrational being, since value itself is a subjective whim, rendering Objectivist morality an absurdity.

[Zero Tolerance]

If no one invests, then we all die. Other people's investment is keeping you alive.

Historically, free people do give more when there is less forced welfare, because moral hazzard is less.
Also, people have more capacity to give.
And fewer people have need of charity. (Because goods are cheaper and wages are higher, and less moral hazzard.)
It can be argued that the welfare state harms more than helps the very people it intends to help. It is counter-productive and creates moral hazzard.

You would have to demonstrate against these odds that the welfare program will have an expected good that exceeds the bad (at least to the people it intends to help). And even if you succeed in doing so, you would have to demonstrate that this benefit somehow outweighs the immorality of such use of force.

In my daily life, I don't see how someone else's investments are affecting me at all.

And I don't have a problem with the way that welfare is now. You're coming from the perspective that there is something wrong with it, so it is you who has to present solutions, not me.

[Zero Tolerance]

LOL & Amen! - They actually talked about a flat tax rate in this country but it never gained traction (they were talking about 30% accross the board).

Possibly the flat-tax has some merit, I haven't thought the implications through well enough. I think, in the end, the lower incomes would end up suffering for a flat rate but I don't know for sure. It's an interesting proposition. Our Income Tax Act is over 2,500 pages long. It's a spider's web of confusion!

The idea of a flat tax sounds interesting too. Why didn't it gain steam?