If I sign a contract for a certain wage in exchange for my labor, I would expect the full amount to be paid. — NOS4A2
Also, I don’t see how taxation couldn’t appropriately be understood as just like the rent that an individual has to pay to a civilized society to live in that civilized society. — TheHedoMinimalist
Why on earth would you expect that. The other contractee knows full well what tax is and fully expects the appropriate percentage of whatever they agree to go the government. Why would you assume they would want you to have all of it?
I’m not doubting the fact that taxes exist and that we have to pay them. What I doubt is the underlying ethics of taxes. — NOS4A2
What I am disputing is the underlying ethics of paying taxes. — NOS4A2
the government confiscates a share of my earnings — NOS4A2
Is there still a threat of violence in effect when the punishment is exile instead of imprisonment? I would assume so. If the person refuses to be exiled, what would the state do? They would force them through physical violence. In other words, the threat of violence is still there. — Tzeentch
From where would a state derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the state's property"? Who gave it to the state?
It is the state's, because the state has the power to enforce that claim. Ergo, it acts on the principle of "might makes right", which, as far as I am concerned, is no right at all. — Tzeentch
Wars, corruption, propaganda, government scandals, well-intentioned but ill-advised policies. The evils of government should be self-explanatory. — Tzeentch
For example, it seems that the government can be justified in using physical violence to help a landlord evict her tenant that refuses to leave her property. — TheHedoMinimalist
What I am disputing is the underlying ethics of paying taxes. — NOS4A2
because that would mean people should be paid based on moral worth of their services and their own moral worth or needs. But that's not what's being established in the market. — Benkei
The solution was to moral conflicts where the parties cannot reach a mutually agreed solution - so voluntary interaction and association doesn't answer the question. — Isaac
My mistake. So are they? — Isaac
I think it's a common feeling we share so no real need to 'derive' it, it's a fundamental precept. — Isaac
If not the tyranny of the majority, then what? — Isaac
If it's not capable of forcing it's will on others then how does it ensure that it's choice is enacted — Isaac
What magical ability did those people have to decide such matters that we lack? — Isaac
I said a course of action cannot be immoral when the end is moral and there's no alternative. — Isaac
I'm trying to draw out the implicit reliance on it. — Isaac
There are two types of people who promote small government. Those who value autonomy and those who value selfishness. Obviously the latter are people I do not well tolerate and the more ludicrous your counter arguments sound the less tolerant I become of them. These things have real consequences, If we were discussing the merits of Star Wars, I'd hold myself to a level of moderation, but you're suggesting the poor should starve, that children should go un-housed, that medical care be withheld from those too poor to afford it, that the wealthy should be allowed to steal common resources without bar. These are not morally neutral position we can discuss as if it were a game of cricket. — Isaac
Then there shall be no solution that I am willing to be a part of. — Tzeentch
I think it's a common feeling we share so no real need to 'derive' it, it's a fundamental precept. — Isaac
How does this relate to your earlier statement that accused me of relying on "mystical" means? — Tzeentch
If not the tyranny of the majority, then what? — Isaac
Does a scientist who debunks a certain scientific theory only become valid once he offers an alternative? I think not. — Tzeentch
If it's not capable of forcing it's will on others then how does it ensure that it's choice is enacted — Isaac
Likely, it often cannot, which is precisely the point. — Tzeentch
these boundaries are pretty universal, as far as I am concerned. The thinkers of the 17th and the 18th century were thinking about the same fundamental problems with government as we are today. — Tzeentch
There is none. Coercion is an unjust means all by itself. — Tzeentch
I'm used to this sort of kneejerk reaction on this forum, sadly. — Tzeentch
The market and somehow "everything" do not care at all if the payer is or not a moralist. They just want his money to provide revenue to the State. — javi2541997
That's "might makes right" by negligence. You don't get to absolve yourself of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions by saying "I didn't agree to this" if you didn't offer an alternative either. — Isaac
It doesn't. Unless you want to claim that the exact recompense for labour, to the penny, is somehow a common feeling we all share? — Isaac
Well they're absolutely evidently not are they? — Isaac
So it's unjust to use coercion to prevent a shooter from gunning down a dozen children. — Isaac
Your 'alternative view' leads to some horrific consequences and you don't seem to even care. What else am I to make of that? — Isaac
They are not my actions, and I am not so sure there exists any moral responsibility to rely on unjust means to attain what one considers desirable results. — Tzeentch
Unless you want to claim that the exact recompense for labour, to the penny, is somehow a common feeling we all share? — Isaac
No, I don't. Are your views based on such feelings, you think? — Tzeentch
Well they're absolutely evidently not are they? — Isaac
I think they are, to anyone who understands the subjectivity our existence is subject to (on a philosophy forum, I assumed there would be many!). — Tzeentch
So it's unjust to use coercion to prevent a shooter from gunning down a dozen children. — Isaac
Yes. But as stated before, some injustice can be accepted as a necessary evil in view of the imperfect nature of man. It doesn't make it just. That would be absurd. — Tzeentch
If you want to hear more about my ideas, then engage with them like an adult. If you do not, then what are you doing here other than trying to extinguish your own doubts? — Tzeentch
If we accept that violence and coercion can be just means to what we believe to be a just end, then all that is stopping one from enforcing their views of justice on others is whether they have the power to do so. — Tzeentch
I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Who is "they"? — Benkei
what should be the function of the State? — Benkei
What you think is reasonable in that regard may not be what others think is reasonable — Isaac
Even so much as buying a loaf of bread involves the use of common resources with which other might disagree. — Isaac
The point is that the money you get in return for your labour includes tax that belongs to the government. — Isaac
Your use of shared resources like air and water includes a social contract with other users to contribute to the shared maintenance costs. — Isaac
The only options are collective agreement and enforcement — Isaac
Well then the matter of the justness or unjustness of an action has absolutely no consequence — Isaac
Adult behaviour is not circumscribed by polite language. — Isaac
What you think is reasonable in that regard may not be what others think is reasonable — Isaac
A perfect argument for small government. — Tzeentch
Indeed, but individuals do not partake in this system voluntarily, so I don't agree that one shares any responsibility for injustices perpetuated by said system. Perhaps more importantly, I don't see how one could hold a moral responsibility for something one has no power over. — Tzeentch
The point is that the money you get in return for your labour includes tax that belongs to the government. — Isaac
Based on what? — Tzeentch
A social contract can exist, but only on the basis of mutual voluntariness, not threats of violence. Obviously such a contract would have no moral weight. — Tzeentch
The only options are collective agreement and enforcement — Isaac
A contradiction in terms. — Tzeentch
Well then the matter of the justness or unjustness of an action has absolutely no consequence — Isaac
You believe the fact that our system is fundamentally based on injustice, namely coercion and violence, has no consequences? — Tzeentch
I'll let you figure out how it relates to adult behavior. — Tzeentch
The only meaningful underlying ethical discussion in my view is therefore: what should be the function of the State? — Benkei
How so? — Isaac
So you've no moral responsibility for anything then, since all of life is something you've been involuntarily thrown into with rules that you've no power over? — Isaac
The law. The contract you signed. The market value. — Isaac
This is why the concept of 'property' which you keep sidestepping is fundamental to your position. — Isaac
So morality is optional? Depends on whether you agree or not? I think you're confusing morality with personal preference. — Isaac
True. I should have said a method of collective decision-making and enforcement. It doesn't alter the point. It's either that or the strongest get their way. — Isaac
Yes. that obviously have no consequences the way you've defined them. — Isaac
That fact that it's possible for people to reach very different conclusion with integrity does not prove that any given person is doing so does it? — Isaac
let us not through coercion force upon others what we believe to be reasonable. — Tzeentch
I am highly sceptical of those who would try to force them upon others. — Tzeentch
attempting to force subjective views onto others through whatever violent means is contrary to that understanding. — Tzeentch
In your hypothetical regulation free society you're screwed.Surely a solution to the problem exists outside of government intervention. — NOS4A2
Perhaps once we relocate we can innovate a cleaner and more cost-effective method and put our former neighbor out of business, without having to give more power and money to some intervening bureaucracy. — NOS4A2
And what's the alternative? Rely on the good will of people? You know the answer to that.Governments are notoriously awful at managing the environment. — NOS4A2
When we believe the government will take care of these issues, we thereby hand over our responsibility, believing they will take care of it. — NOS4A2
If a parent wants to take their own life, it becomes different, because they've made the voluntary choice to have children and that does become a matter of moral responsibility. — Tzeentch
I don't think any of these form a definitive basis for moral conduct. — Tzeentch
I would consider it unjust even if one were to reclaim through violence or threat thereof their "rightful property" (whatever that may mean and to whoever it may belong). — Tzeentch
The remedy is to decentralize power, in other words, small government. This way, whoever counts as "the strongest", is as weak as possible. — Tzeentch
How do you feel, for example, about the fact your government may use the money it takes from you, to wage war, the necessity of which, I hope we can agree, I highly debatable? — Tzeentch
Perhaps your conclusion that I am not, is one you are drawing too swiftly. — Tzeentch
These are all just meaningless platitudes without any alternatives.
Let's take a simple case. I believe that excessive carbon emission is immoral (excessive to the point the most scientists in the field think it will negatively impact future generations). Others may think it moral. what do you suggest we do about that?
We can't just each do what we think - that way those who see it as moral will simply get their way, the atmosphere we both share will be polluted to the degree they're comfortable with.
I can't move - we've only one atmosphere.
We could negotiate, but all the while we're negotiating they're polluting the atmosphere to whatever extent they see fit ie they're getting their way. It's a de facto win for them.
We can't make different decisions for each small community - again, we all share the same atmosphere.
So how do we resolve this without democracy and government coercion? — Isaac
So unless you're a hermit, you will have undertaken hundreds of such decisions which then entail moral responsibilities — Isaac
I didn't say anything about moral conduct, we were talking about how you establish what is our property. an again, you've just told me what isn't and not what is. How do you establish that your gross wage is your property? — Isaac
Then the strong get whatever they want, which you expressly said you were opposed to. — Isaac
So how do they defend themselves against the neighbouring 'small government' who are just that little bit stronger. They'd just be defeated gradually until the strongest took over more land than they could administer, at which point they'd retreat to a scale of governance just below that... Oh wait, all that actually happened, it's called history. — Isaac
It's not about the problem, it's about the solution. — Isaac
You're consistent dodging, and changing the subject when your position is shown to be untenable is strongly suggesting otherwise. — Isaac
if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win". If the only alternative is violence or coercion, I am in this case more than content with non-action, and I consider moral conduct a victory in itself. — Tzeentch
Name a few. Lets see if we agree. — Tzeentch
I don't have an answer for that. — Tzeentch
I don't think the state holds any moral right to take through violence what it believes to be hers. — Tzeentch
Nor do I think the state holds any stronger claim to property than the individual does. — Tzeentch
Yes, it is. One big mess of self-perpetuating violence fought with more violence. Bravo. — Tzeentch
And the solution was never, more violence. — Tzeentch
If you believe you have won and I am simply dodging your superior points, then what are you still doing here?
Why waste your time with such a simpleton as I? — Tzeentch
So if someone were attacking you, you wouldn't fight back, you'd just let them kill you because if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win"? I'm guessing you'd answer no, and I'm guessing you'd justify that answer with some mumbled caveat about violent force being an exception without ever giving any account of why, as if that were the only force that mattered for some unexplained reason. — Isaac
Evidently you do, otherwise you could not conclude that the taxed portion of any transaction was not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac
It doesn't. Generally it takes it through the tax code. You've had a seriously unlucky experience with some very overzealous tax collectors if that's your impression. The overwhelming majority of tax is collected peacefully. — Isaac
We agree there. I think the state has exactly the same claim to property as individuals have. — Isaac
State-on-state violence is decreasing and has been for many years, mainly because of the diplomatic efforts of democratic governments. — Isaac
Your solution is more violent because the most violent elements in society are unrestrained. — Isaac
So that your charade of moral concern is never seen as viable by those who seek to use it as a mask for basic greed and bigotry. — Isaac
I've yet to encounter a single 'small government' enthusiast who isn't also a big industry supporter, opposed to progressive action toward minorities... It's always the same. They bleat about 'small government' but basically they just want some way, any way, of pushing their neoliberal agenda. — Isaac
In your hypothetical regulation free society you're screwed.
At least I can refuse to work with or purchase the services of the mercantilist, while I have no such choice under state power. — NOS4A2
we have to beg our governments to address these concerns instead of taking on the task ourselves — NOS4A2
There's no underlying moral right to pre-tax income because that would mean people should be paid based on moral worth of their services and their own moral worth or needs. But that's not what's being established in the market.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.