I was talking about the government. It's illegal to steal cars. The government makes the overt threat that you will be forcibly imprisoned if to take a car you don't own. It makes the same overt threat if you take money you don't own. I'm not seeing the difference. Are you saying that the government should protect your property but not it's own, or that it shouldn't protect your property either? — Isaac
You mean you don't work for anyone? — Isaac
Except that's not what you're saying is it? Because people did figure it out for themselves. They gathered together, selected candidates, asked others to vote, ceded power to those individuals to make decisions for the benefit of the group and enforce those decisions against those who disagreed. You're now saying they got that wrong. — Isaac
As I said, the difference is between coercion (forcing someone to do something by threatening with violence) and deterrence (stopping someone from doing something through threatening with violence).
Both are undesirable, because ideally we would not threaten with violence at all, but the former is a graver injustice than the latter. — Tzeentch
What you're pointing out is that people got together and decided not to let people figure it out amongst themselves anymore.
And yes, I think that is wrong. — Tzeentch
The state taking money under threat of force from private individuals for its own benefit is clearly theft, unless you want to argue that the state really rightfully owns everyone and everything. — Pfhorrest
The government doesn't coerce with the threat of violence in the case of taxes though. It deters. The money rightly belongs to the government. — Isaac
So you think it's wrong for people to get together and decide for themselves then. Because you're opposing the result of that process. — Isaac
Governments don't have a right to anything, other than what they themselves appropriated through force. — Tzeentch
Even democratically elected governments don't decide for themselves, they decide for others also, and reinforce those decisions through threats of violence. — Tzeentch
the arbitration of moral conflicts. — Tzeentch
I think this example clearly constitutes theft. Just because someone lives under someone else's roof, does not forfeit their right to their property. — Tzeentch
How are you concluding that? What method of establishing who has a right to what are you applying? — Isaac
Are you suggesting that all moral conflicts can be resolved in a timely fashion without imposing a solution on either party. — Isaac
The state taking money under threat of force from private individuals for its own benefit is clearly theft — Pfhorrest
@TzeentchI would still regard it as a necessary evil, at best.
If the adult child wants to move out then the father would have to give the console back. Though, the father can demand the console as rent if the adult child still wants to continue living under his father’s roof. I think this is analogous... — TheHedoMinimalist
I suppose it might seem problematic that the punishment for not paying your taxes might be jail time. Though, that is rarely the punishment. — TheHedoMinimalist
agree but I think taxation can also be justified if the state uses this money for the maintenance of civilized society that allows us all to be somewhat wealthy in the first place and just for the general public benefit. — TheHedoMinimalist
How are you concluding that? What method of establishing who has a right to what are you applying? — Isaac
I could ask the same of you, no? — Tzeentch
I don't think all moral conflicts need a solution. And when they do, I don't think government (aka, threatening violence) is a desirable way to go about solving them. Two wrongs don't make a right. — Tzeentch
You could, but I'm not the one implying that some things are 'rightful property' and others aren't by some mystical external means. — Isaac
The money rightly belongs to the government. — Isaac
If you want to invoke some other means of establishing rightful property, such that the government might still 'steal' it — Isaac
despite having a legal claim to it — Isaac
If a moral conflict is not resolveable, within the timescale required, to the satisfaction of both parties, what do you do? — Isaac
Government is most people's answer to that question. If you want to reject government action in these situations you need to supply an alternative. — Isaac
It is analagous insofar as the father's ill parenting can be compared to the state's ill governance. — Tzeentch
Because most people, wisely, do not let it get that far. However, that does nothing to change the fact that this is what is being threatened with. — Tzeentch
We are, however, continuing to assume states are benevolent and don't use the wealth they received through threat of violence to commit injustice.
We know that in fact, they do. All the time. — Tzeentch
You wish to make a case for "might makes right", which is fine. But I don't think you would like the implications. — Tzeentch
Do you think your body is your rightful property? — Tzeentch
And where do such legal claims stem from, if not states simply appropriating to themselves "rights" that they enforce through power? — Tzeentch
If a moral conflict is not resolveable, within the timescale required, to the satisfaction of both parties, what do you do? — Isaac
Me, personally? Nothing. — Tzeentch
The constitution determines what moral conflicts are severe enough to be arbitrated by a government (and we can have a discussion about what those could be), and the rest is left for people to deal with on their own, like adults, I'd almost add. — Tzeentch
Ok, so would taxation still be theft if the final punishment that you were threatened with involved the government sending you to live in some forest away from civilization unless another country wants to take you as it’s citizen? — TheHedoMinimalist
After all, you might be entitled to not go to prison for refusing to pay your taxes but are you entitled to be able to continue living in the country that you refuse to pay your taxes in? — TheHedoMinimalist
Well, could you provide me with some specific examples of what you have in mind here? — TheHedoMinimalist
What I am arguing is that threatening people with violence is undesirable, in most cases immoral, never a just means to an end and in some cases a necessary evil. — Tzeentch
It is a bit backwards to have someone be born into a country involuntarily and then ask them what right they have for living there. 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? — Tzeentch
Notwithstanding that, if you want to oppose 'might makes right' you need to supply an alternative, something which you've manifestly failed to do. — Isaac
You must have an answer because you confidently say that taxes are not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac
Yes. that is generally enshrined in most law. I think it's 'right' that we get to decide what we do with our own bodies insofar as it doesn't interfere with the decision of others what to do with theirs. — Isaac
If the people agree, they get to enforce it. — Isaac
I thought you were opposed to 'might makes right'? Who do you think is going to get their way in the case of a conflict if you do nothing? The one with the nicest hair? — Isaac
As for the constitution... if you're seriously suggesting that the only way this question can be answered is by reference to what a handful of men from the eighteenth century thought, then we really have left the realm of sensible discussion. — Isaac
If taxation and government intervention in moral conflicts is a necessary method of achieving right goals, then it is the right thing to do. — Isaac
What use is it saying that it's 'wrong, but necessary', where does that get us? — Isaac
It's really tiresome you keep telling us what is not acceptable and yet refusing to answer questions about what is. — Isaac
I asked you exactly the same type of question about private property and you didn't answer, so why should anyone provide you with an answer with regards state property?
From where would a private individual derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the individual's property"? Who gave it to the individual? — Isaac
Notwithstanding that, if you want to oppose 'might makes right' you need to supply an alternative, something which you've manifestly failed to do. — Isaac
Voluntary interaction and association, of course. — Tzeentch
You must have an answer because you confidently say that taxes are not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac
That is not something I have said. — Tzeentch
Yes. that is generally enshrined in most law. I think it's 'right' that we get to decide what we do with our own bodies insofar as it doesn't interfere with the decision of others what to do with theirs. — Isaac
And where is that right derived from? — Tzeentch
If the people agree, they get to enforce it. — Isaac
If some people agree, they get to enforce it onto everyone.
A sad state of affairs. The tyranny of the majority, they call it. And majorities can be wrong both morally and factually. — Tzeentch
I thought you were opposed to 'might makes right'? Who do you think is going to get their way in the case of a conflict if you do nothing? The one with the nicest hair? — Isaac
A body of power that is much smaller than government, and therefore much less capable of enforcing its will on others. — Tzeentch
As for the constitution... if you're seriously suggesting that the only way this question can be answered is by reference to what a handful of men from the eighteenth century thought, then we really have left the realm of sensible discussion. — Isaac
The United States isn't the only nation with a constitution. — Tzeentch
No.
"Might makes right" and "the ends justify the means" are not suitable principles to base one's actions upon. — Tzeentch
What use is it saying that it's 'wrong, but necessary', where does that get us? — Isaac
It stops us from regarding it as a just means to an end. — Tzeentch
It's really tiresome you keep telling us what is not acceptable and yet refusing to answer questions about what is. — Isaac
Why does it bother you so? A just alternative is not required to acknowledge something as unjust. — Tzeentch
The question of what is "rightful property" was never a part of my argument. — Tzeentch
If you truly believe this, then I think further discussion on this subject will be fruitless. Governments don't have a right to anything, other than what they themselves appropriated through force. — Tzeentch
I was enjoying our discussion, but the tone seems to be turning somewhat sour. Can we not? — Tzeentch
Well, I think I started a potentially good dialogue on that. After all, it seems to be the case that most of our taxpayer money goes into servicing the public in some way either through medical care or retirement programs or public infrastructure. I think the public usually wants what is being funded by the government and that seems to be a good consideration. Also, taxation doesn’t really make a particular individual less wealthy than another individual only because of taxes under most circumstances. So, it seems that taxation doesn’t disrupt the natural dominance hierarchy of our society that much at all either. So, I’m not entirely sure why people would use the strong language of calling it theft.
The government can help you to solving problems or... It is them who create those.
I call it theft and use strong language because my property is confiscated without my permission. — NOS4A2
I cringe whenever state proponents pretend taxation is the moral and compassionate thing to do, as if paying a tax was akin to taking care of the ill and feeding the poor. — NOS4A2
If the government is forced into austerity, usually by its own overspending, the services the population has grown to become dependent on could be lost. — NOS4A2
It's not your property. Flat out and simple. It is the property of the government, by law. The same law by which anything is the property of anyone.
You've yet to give an account of why the 'rightful' amount you're owed in return for your labour is exactly your gross wage and not exactly your net wage. Would this mean if you got a pay rise you'd give the extra money back?
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.