Science and religion are two different things and there's no point in pitching them against each other [...] — Christoffer

Certainly!

My point was more that people are turning science into something else - something that resembles a new kind of religion.

And that kind of ties into my next point:

Science is about facts and the pursuit of facts, [...] — Christoffer

I don't think science discerns facts. I think it creates predictive models.

The idea that science produces Truth with a capital 'T' is what risks science being turned from a useful tool into a religion or ideology.

So how can we behave ethically towards what amounts to a thought? — NOS4A2

All our behavior is aimed at a future state, which in essence is no more than a thought.

It’s just difficult to believe that feeding, educating, clothing, housing, playing, and caring for someone for the better part of their life is a burden or imposition on the child, when it is the parent who is spending the time, resources, and energy to do so. — NOS4A2

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. It can be both a burden on the parent and a burden on the child. It further begs the question why the parent chooses to set this all in motion.

Procreation suggests that a child is created, and not taken against his will and forced into some realm not of his choosing. — NOS4A2

To me the difference between the two is semantical.

The parents choose to have a child. That child has no say in whether it is born. That's an imposition by the parents on the child.

It’s like saying planting an acorn is an imposition on an oak, and we shouldn’t burden it by watering it. — NOS4A2

That's not quite what I'm saying.

It's the ethics of having a child ('planting the acorn') which I am questioning. When that child is conceived, we have passed that stage and we're in a new situation.

I'd actually say the questionable nature of their initial action makes the ethical burden on the parents to ensure the well-being of their child ('watering the plant') even heavier.

People generally enjoy life and wish others to enjoy life too, hence having children is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, ... — I like sushi

It's fine that you think that way, but this is obviously what is up for debate, so simply saying it is reasonable isn't really partaking in the discussion.

The argument presented seems rather slippery.

When I enjoy something and wish for others to enjoy it too, can I just impose it on them?

That doesn't seem to hold up anywhere else in ethics or life in general, biological processes or no.

Isn't that part of the reasoning behind child-having? — schopenhauer1

I don't think reason plays much of a role.

The idea that child-having is good simply goes unchallenged, and is affirmed by a biological desire to procreate, and an ungodly amount of wishful thinking that goes into envisioning the life of one's future child.

It simply doesn't occur to most people that their child may end up a criminal, a drug addict, suicidally depressed, chronically ill, etc. - and that they, the parent, may actively contribute to causing these things!

I want to mentor someone, thus I need a recipient. — schopenhauer1

There are plenty of already-living recipients*, so it's quite easy to assume some ulterior motive if someone were to present this as their reason.

Again, reason is hard to find in the motivations behind child-having.


*whose lives one may positively contribute to without having to impose anything!

So you don’t think people feel they have a mandate to create “opportunities” of struggle for others? — schopenhauer1

I think people saying as much are fooling themselves. Likely their motivations are a lot more selfish, and what they're putting forward is an attempt to rationalize their selfishness, and disguise it as altruism.

As for child-having, I don't believe people genuinely hold the view that the point of having a child is to create opportunities of struggle for them.

Either way, I don't take the argument very seriously.

After all, it could be turned from an unethical imposition into a consensual act by simply asking the person rather than imposing blindly. That is obviously impossible in the case of child-having, which makes that matter more complicated.

I don't believe people genuinely think it is their duty to make other people (their children) struggle.

It sounds more like the mental gymnastics that happens when people's previously unchallenged notions about child-having get called into question.

I find it unconvincing from A to Z (as I'm sure you do too), and honestly can't be bothered to engage with views that I am certain people don't genuinely hold.

It's pretty clear that the answer is no.

Sammy can't simply impose a burden on Johnny just because Sammy "felt like it," or even because they thought Johnny would benefit from it. It's an act of force - a violation of Johnny's autonomy as a human being.

Though, in the context of parenting: the parent has already made the morally questionable decision of throwing a child into this world, and insofar as the further burdens put on the child by the parent are effective at lessening its suffering, I'd say that's not necessarily unethical. The unethical deed was done earlier. What comes after is people trying to cope with the broken pieces.

Have you ever seen an evildoer who seemed genuinely happy? They all seem miserable to me in one way or another, or at the very best parked in some form of joyless limbo.

Evil is a product of delusion (perhaps is in fact synonymous to it), because surely only ignorance would move man to act in ways that make him miserable.

Man is inherently good, because he desires above all things truth and genuine happiness.
However, man is also inherently ignorant, which has a tendency to delude him in regards to the nature of these things, especially when deprived of those things he desires most.

Can you expand on this, especially ignorance of self? — Tom Storm

When one's needs aren't met, it creates suffering and pain.

A failure to acknowledge this will inevitably cause the pain to be suppressed, so as to avoid the pain of having to process these emotions. It ends up in what Jung called the shadow.

From there, the pain will find an outlet in other forms. Anxiety, depression, and of course resentment. anger, projection, etc.

Because the person is psychologically wounded, the well-being of other persons becomes less important to them.

The person ends up in a spiral of desperately attempting to have their needs met, while not truly understanding what their needs are and where their suffering stems from (because this issue was put in the freezer a long time ago). Failed attempts cause further suffering and compound the problem, ending up in a vicious cycle.

The tragedy is that people who undergo this aren't aware of it at all until they find help at a later stage, if they find help at all. They might think, at least on the conscious level, their actions are perfectly normal, and that isn't strange considering how prone we humans are to confirmation bias and wishful thinking. (Though, because subconsciously one might be aware, these abnormal behaviors tend to make the condition worse.)

Their ignorance ensures their fate is sealed, unless they receive help or come to realize their predicament through some form of crisis.

If neither happens, the shadow grows until eventually it starts lashing out in behavior which we might term "evil".

My view is that man's nature is inherently good, and evil behavior is the result of unmet needs coupled with ignorance of the self.

[...] from a military perspective it makes no sense to communicate an imminent attack. — Benkei

It could be part of a deception campaign. Military deception is a big part of Soviet doctrine, which is what the Ukrainian army mostly runs on. I'm sure the Americans advising the Ukrainians will also seek to leverage whatever advantage they can.

Given the circumstances it is not likely, but I'm inclined to give the idea at least some credit. The Russians seem to have taken it seriously enough to dig in across the entire frontline.

The main thing I'm wondering about is if posters like have some interesting information to share.

Considering the fact that scientists are attempting to look 13,800,000,000 years into the past, I'd say they're functionally the same.

My guess is the chance of both being wrong is vastly greater than either being right, so what's the point of believing?

As I said in my post:

There's at least a chance that Ukraine has successfully held back an amount of troops, materiel and ammunition to be able to conduct an offensive.I don't think the chance is particularly high, and the chances of this being a form of propaganda/information warfare seems more likely to me. — Tzeentch

This is of course referring to the rumored 'spring offensive'. How the war develops further in the future we cannot know.

Some thoughts as to why an imminent Ukrainian offensive seems unlikely:
- the attrition rate at Bakhmut
- the closing window of opportunity while the Russians are occupied at Bakhmut
- the state of Ukrainian air power and air defense
- the lack of Ukrainian armor
- the Russians having dug in all across the frontline

I'm kind of curious what positives someone who believes in an imminent offensive would look at to think it is feasible.

Koffman has been one of the figures creating the 'rumors' I mentioned in my post, so his positions are basically what is up for debate.

As of yet, no Ukrainian offensive.

Do you (continue to(?)) subscribe to Koffman's position?

It won't replace religion. It will become a religion. In many ways it already is.

For example, a belief in the big bang isn't much more rational than the belief in a creation myth.

Do you have any links to the piece you're referring to?

Any thoughts on the rumored Ukrainian offensive?

It seems "rumors" of a Ukrainian offensive seem to pop up every once in a while, but is there any substance to this?

There's at least a chance that Ukraine has successfully held back an amount of troops, materiel and ammunition to be able to conduct an offensive. I don't think the chance is particularly high, and the chances of this being a form of propaganda/information warfare seems more likely to me.

But even if it's the latter, it would be interesting to think about what the target and goal is of the information campaign.

- Information warfare aimed at the Russians seems unlikely, however the Russians have dug in across pretty much the entire frontline. That fact alone seems to discredit a real threat of a Ukrainian offensive, however it does show the Russians took the initial possibility seriously.

- Propaganda aimed at the western public, to divert the image of a lost war?

- Propaganda aimed at the Ukrainian forces to keep some semblance of hope for victory?

- All of the above?

I would also be interested to hear if anyone here is convinced the Ukrainian offensive is a likely possibility.

An interesting difference between science and philosophy is that Plato sought the Monad in the undivided, ever expanding outwards into something that encompassed all.

Science on the other hand looks for it in the indivisible, zooming in ever further.

They are quite literally opposites.

Perhaps an expedient question to ask would be, when was the last time US party politics had a significant influence on matters that also greatly impacted the 'powers that be', ergo the BlackRocks and Vanguards, the large banks, the US military-industrial complex, etc. — Tzeentch

No one?

If there are no examples of this, then the cynic in me is inclined to say US politics is little more than an inflammatory clownshow for the peasantry to squabble over, while the fat cats strike up the big bucks.

Perhaps an expedient question to ask would be, when was the last time US party politics had a significant influence on matters that also greatly impacted the 'powers that be', ergo the BlackRocks and Vanguards, the large banks, the US military-industrial complex, etc.

The net flow of tax money is from the government to me (my schemes), not the other way round. — Isaac

Knowing where the state's money comes from, is that a good thing, though?

I get the idea. I can hardly blame someone for seeking to profit from a system that is imposed on them.

However, this is not a cost we're imposing on the state, but on the people who finance the state - ordinary people caught in the same trap as you.

If there is but one party, why such polarization along such meaningless labels? — Hanover

How better to extend tyranny than to provide the illusion of freedom?

Related to the geopolitical conflict the Ukraine war is a part of;

As the US is increasingly tied down by the war in Ukraine on one hand, and the geopolitical rivalry with China on the other, the chance of dormant conflicts starting to re-emerge elsewhere in the world is going to significantly increase.

It seems Sudan could possibly be the first instance of this happening - a country rich in natural resources like crude oil, gold and uranium, and one that has been plagued by ethnic conflict for many decades.

So my version of what I think is my property (shared property) involves massively more 'theft' by private corporations than by governments, hence my different priorities. — Isaac

That's fair enough.

The current status quo involves a massive amount of coercion too. I suppose we just value the two differently.

I need an entity big and tough enough to fight the corporations. — Isaac

It's all hypothetical of course, but assuming violence is completely off the table as we've discussed, and that means you are not being deprived of your basic needs, why even care about big corporations at that point?

Let them build their sand castles.

The difference to me is, I would not be forcibly made complicit in what the big corporations get up to, in the way I am now being made complicit in what my government gets up to.

This is a real problem for me. Because the state makes me a part of its wicked scheme, I am forced to care, and protest.

Why? Bearing in mind we're talking about the threat of violence here. — Isaac

Billions of people are being threatened with violence by governments, but millions are being violently assaulted by governments - wars, the prison system, etc.

While coercion is more wide-spread, actual violence is definitely a part of my argument, and it is the capacity for actual violence that underlies the state's power.

So we have threat of violence vs theft. You either have your stuff taken because someone bigger than you demands it (and you're sensible enough not to fight), or you have your stuff taken by someone more deceptive than you when you're not looking.

In each case you can do something about it (get stronger or get cleverer), but those options are limited (there'll always be someone stronger than you and always be someone cleverer than you). So you get your stuff taken in either case, and there's little you can do about it. I just can't really see the big difference. — Isaac

A difference would be, in one case resistance is met with possible bodily harm and your loss of freedom. In the other, resistance seems perfectly acceptable, and the price, at most, seems material possessions(?).

That's a big difference, because to me resistance to being made complicit is an ethical duty.

it's under consideration; exit strategies are in place. — Vera Mont

Sounds more like an exit fantasy if you're still here. Why are you wasting your time complaining on an internet forum?

Tough; you're here now. The exit is over there. — Vera Mont

Have you ever considered taking your own advice in response to your criticism of modern society?

So, we can draw a line at someone literally extracting your possessions from you by force. that's clearly not voluntary. But what about them taking your possessions when you're out? Is that voluntary (you left them insufficiently guarded)? If not, then we have any possession taken without consent being 'involuntary'. So If I think I own the river from which some company is extracting water, they're taking that possession of mine without my consent, yes? — Isaac

Basically, yes.

I don't see any justification for calling the fact that the government tops the 'violence' list a 'monopoly', but saying that the fact that a small cabal of corporations top the 'manipulation' list as not a monopoly. — Isaac

Depending on the circumstances, it could be called a monopoly. I think for something like "manipulation" that would get rather complicated, but in theory it's certainly possible. Monopolies are generally going to be problematic and another source of unethical behavior. If a monopoly on manipulation, as you call it, comes to a point of "mind control", perhaps that can even be considered a form of violence.

I will argue though that the fact that the individual can try to resist, so therefore the state does not hold a monopoly on violence is misleading. There is obviously some threshold at which point the entry barrier becomes too high to overcome, at which point we start viewing things as monopolies. That goes for companies and states alike.

I therefore also don't see how removing one form of power has any relation to property. It will simply be distributed according the the remaining forms of power. — Isaac

Possibly so. In a theoretical case where violence is taken out of the picture completely, I would argue distribution by those remaining forms of power is preferable, albeit not perfect either.

Tax comes under 'the rest' since it can be extracted by means other than violence (theft, deception, market manipulation, psychological manipulation...) — Isaac

Yes, so discussion about what belongs to who is of course possible, and to a certain extent probably inevitable. However, the means of arbitration that states use - unilateral imposition under threat of violence - is arguably the absolute worst way to do it, hence my protests.

That's a good foundation for agreement. Can we agree, further, on what constitutes "basic life needs?" — Isaac

Let's leave this for another time, as to not derail the thread too much. :up:

The point I'm making here is that what we can rightfully possess (what it would be 'theft' for the government to take) is a separate issue from the means by which government takes it.

Using violence (or threat of it) might be wrong in all cases, but it doesn't in any way preclude the current distribution of property - including your tax burden - it just changes the means by which it can be collected. — Isaac

Assuming I understand your point correctly, I would argue that the way people should distribute property is through voluntary means.

As above, I'm not unsympathetic to this view but I'm struggling to see an argument as to why violence (as opposed to cunning) creates a somehow less tolerable inequality. — Isaac

The state might make someone take a product by threat of violence, the physically weak would comply.

The company might do so by clever advertising and psychological manipulation, the mentally weak comply.

What's the difference? — Isaac

Simply put, the state maintains a monopoly on violence, which means any act of resistance will be further cause for violence. Resistance is forbidden.

The thief holds no monopoly on cunning, and I can (fairly easily, I would argue) use my own wits to protect myself against it. Without a monopoly on violence the thief can't stop me from resisting their efforts.

The company holds no monopoly on manipulation, and I can use my mental capacity however I wish to resist the company's influence.


Further, I distinguish between actions against one's body and action's against one's belongings. The body is the one belonging that irrevocably belongs to the individual, while there can be a debate about the rest.


That isn't to say that companies cannot also perform actions that are or are akin to physical violence. Depriving people of their basic life needs, for instance, is in my view on par with actual physical violence, and I would judge it just as harshly.

What about your money? Any land you think you own? Possessions like boats, cars, buildings...? — Isaac

I'm not a particularly materialistic person.

...that describes most of the world's larger corporations. In Indonesia, for example, it is impossible to get insurance without using a company majority owned by Black Rock. They've simply bought out (quite legally) all competition.

Google, Black Rock, Vanguard, Microsoft...
All for exactly that to an extent that is larger than most governments. The US government might still come out as public enemy number one, but we'd come to Black Rock way before the majority of the rest if the world in terms of "tak[ing] things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist" — Isaac

I consider all of that to be unethical as well. But I view physical violence a degree worse than the coercive power of powerful corporations (if only by a little), which is why the physical violence of states is, in my view, not an actual alternative.

Consider for example that I wouldn't even have insurance if I wasn't directly obligated by the state to be insured. An example of how the state's violence gives coercive power to the corporation.

Likewise, big pharma is problematic, but it becomes inescapable when states start mandating their product.

Not at all. Many individuals are capable of the sort of hacking, or deception needed to extract money from a bank account. It happens all the time, it doesn't require extraordinary state power, an ordinary thief could do it. — Isaac

I just said the state could take your money non-violently. You could try and take it back non-violently too. We could oppose violence entirely. It wouldn't stop people taking the property they thought was theirs. The best hacker/thief/con-man would have all the money. No violence needed. — Isaac

If physical violence was off the table completely, protecting one's belongings would be easy enough. I could chain myself to my belongings so that any attempt to seperate me from them would result in an act of physical violence and voilá.

Physical violence is something particularly insidious.

I can protect myself from a hacker or a thief easily enough. I cannot protect myself from the violence of the state, which is of course exactly the reason why states use and protect their monopoly on violence, why conflicts have a tendency to devolve into violence, etc. The last argument of kings, as Louis XIV famously enscribed on his cannons.

We have way bigger fish to fry than the state. — Isaac

I disagree with this.

While I agree that ever more powerful corporations are a problem on the same line as states, I view states as being equally responsible for that problem, and not as a viable alternative. They're two sides of the same rotten coin.

Then there's the added dimension that states are actively trying to make me complicit in their misdeeds by forcing me to contribute to their purse.

I have little power and moral ground (or desire, for that matter) to decide for others what they should do. I do however have a moral ground not to be made complicit in the misdeeds of others.

What you are describing is the state using its extraordinary power to put the individual in a position where they are unable to resist.

That in itself could be seen as an act of violence (or at the very least belonging in the same category), however it's probably useful to understand that the state's violence is a direct reaction to this act of resistance.

An individual that resists the state's will, will eventually (usually quite swiftly) be met with violence.

That the state has means to put the individual in a position where resistance is impossible, is not a redeeming factor to the way states operate.

I would not judge a person who takes things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist any more favorably than a person who takes things by force.

Or, it could do so whilst you're in (since the same proscription applies to you - you can't use violence against them to make the stop). — Isaac

There are ways other than physical violence against persons with which one could resist, and they would be met swiftly with actual violence against your person by the state.

Such like suggests (to me at least) that anti-taxers go by (dogmatic) ideology, but I could surely be wrong. — jorndoe

My gripe with states goes further than taxes, but you are right - it's ideological in nature.

I'm against violence of any kind (with the possible exception of self-defense), whether it's committed by a common thug or organized and condoned by millions of people.

States operate on unethical principles and make me complicit by force.

The true anarchist/individualist is always outnumbered. Will it be by organized thugs or a democratic majority? Or will they be alone? Choosing the "least bad" is rational. — jorndoe

I think there is a point in discussing the principles that underlie our societies, regardless of whether there is a feasible alternative.

The understanding that states operate on a principle of violence is an important one, especially on a thread about communism, since communism first requires feeding the beast (in the hopes it will eventually abolish itself).

You can opt out of the social contract in several ways: — Vera Mont

I don't believe in the legitimacy of a "contract" that has been unilaterally imposed.

I also don't believe I should bear a cost for avoiding something that was unjustly imposed on me in the first place.

Apparently the basic function of states wasn't clear to some, and you asked for it so there you go.

So I guess the state has a literal gun to my head there too. — Mikie

Yep. That's how the state operates.

1. Someone who doesn't pay tax once, and then (understandably) is coerced by the state to start paying taxes, might avoid a prison sentence. Someone who refuses to pay taxes gets thrown in prison.

2. Being thrown in prison happens, literally, under threat of violence, and that generally involves armed policemen. The gun is literal.

Violence and subsequent imprisonment underlies the entire justice system. Perhaps that is somehow justifiable, but there's no point in trying to sugarcoat it.

You think we're not funding our national defense? — Christoffer

Sweden doesn't have a credible military at all. That goes for all European nations, with the possible exception of Poland.

So yes, Sweden is certainly piggybacking off the US military budget. Yet you confess a certain disdain for the United States, while simultaneously seeing no issue with being dependent on it for your security, and even profiting from it? Quite hypocritical.

You just come off as fundamentally confused as to what this discussion is about. — Christoffer

It's not very complicated. States use tax money to fund immoral practices. So taxation enables states' immoral practices.

And all states conduct immoral practices, including Sweden, which is what I've just explained to you.

No, it doesn't, find that definition please, that includes "violence". — Christoffer

No one is actually forcing you. — Christoffer

If a person doesn't pay tax, they are thrown in prison. If being physically thrown into prison isn't a method of forcing, a method of violent coercion, then I don't know what is.

I'm not sure how more obvious I can make it to you.

What the hell does that have to do with taxation as an economic system? — Christoffer

It's a pretty good analogy, actually.

See if you can wrap your head around it.

No, you are avoiding providing a description of an alternative system. — Christoffer

Yes, of course. Because I don't see the point in providing one to you. I'm not making a secret of that fact, so I don't think I'm being dishonest.

Ok, do so with Sweden. — Christoffer

Sweden, like every European nation, enables the United States' misbehavior by outsourcing its national defense to the United States. That makes every European nation complicit in the United States' misbehavior, and also makes it complicit in, for example, poverty in the United States. European nations have a social system because the United States pays for their defense.

Also, didn't I recall you calling Sweden a capitalist "slave system"?

And then there's the fact that I don't give a shit about the US, it is pretty much a failed state system with a lot of corruption. — Christoffer

And yet you see no problem in piggybacking off it to avoid having to pay for national defense?

How odd.


Anyway,


When a government conducts immoral behavior, like waging war on other countries, destroying the lives of its citizens, etc. am I justified in refusing to pay taxes?

This is of course a key question.

Taxation is a system, failed usage of that system is not equal to the system itself. — Christoffer

Taxation by its very definition is taking part of the value of a person's labour under threat of violence.

I view coercion as something that is inherently immoral, and thus a system that is predicated on it as inherently flawed, regardless of how it's used.

The fact that taxation is exclusively used by imperfect entities known as states further compounds my problems with it.


Essentially your line of reasoning reminds me of someone who tries to justify a war while refusing to concede that killing people is immoral.

So you refuse to provide any kind of description of the society that you argue for? — Christoffer

Of course. There's no point in wasting time describing an alternative if you're completely sold on the idea of taxation. Pearls before swine, as they say.

The same as just summarizing tax as "theft at gunpoint", which is just a loaded statement and a naive idea disregarding the very function of tax, ... — Christoffer

It's not really a loaded statement. It's simply a true statement that taxation is predicated on threats of violence, and I would argue therefore little more than an elaborate method of theft.

So how would you rate your own arguments in this regard? — Christoffer

Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory to deal with for anyone who wishes to coherently make an argument for why taxation is ok.

I seem to explain taxes as a cash flow that keeps society healthy by creating equality and providing services to the people. — Christoffer

That sounds fantastic. It would almost make one wonder why anyone would have to be threatened with violence in order to pay up? Or perhaps it's not as rosy as you sketch it.

You cannot use corruption and mishandling of tax money as an argument against taxes because that has to do with the quality of the state, not taxes as a system. — Christoffer

I disagree. Since taxation enables all kinds of misbehavior by states, which pretty much all states are guilty of one way or another, I think they go hand in hand, and it's essentially impossible to view them seperately.

In a perfect world where a state uses taxation only to do good things, again, why would anyone need to be convinced by threats of violence to pay up?

So, you can't use your experience of a nation with a corrupt and shitty economy and state as an argument against taxation as a form of economic system. — Christoffer

This sums up pretty much every nation, so I certainly can.

Another loaded question that focuses on a failed state and not the actual system. — Christoffer

I could ask you the same question about the United States, or any of its European dependencies, or any state in the world.

Is an American tax payer justified to refuse to pay taxes when that tax money is directly being used to bomb people in third world countries?

Am I justified to refuse to pay taxes when the Dutch government is utterly incompetent and demonstrably responsible for destroying innocent citizens' lives?

Or are these all "failed states" too?

Now we're getting to the meaty bits.

So no, I don't agree that it is "taking people's things at gunpoint"... — Christoffer

So asking me to describe my alternative was pointless at best (and dishonest at worst). :up:

Your entire life you have reaped the rewards of this type of society, — Christoffer

You can absolutely leave the place that collectively agreed upon a system that generates a cash flow to help stabilize society and generate equality. — Christoffer

These are non-arguments.

If you don't like capitalism, why don't you just leave? You've lived your whole life reaping the benefits of a capitalist society, etc. etc.

If you don't like America's gun laws, why not just leave? Etc.

Not worth responding to.


The rest of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the state owns the individual and their labor, and that only by the extraordinary grace bestowed by the state the individual is allowed to have property. A rather archaic image of what the relation between citizens and states should look like.

It's a bit ironic to think how much this view of the state resembles the idea of the worst kinds of capitalism, with 'trickle-down' and all, only this time it also holds a monopoly on violence.


Let's also not forget what taxation makes us complicit in - wars, corruption, failed government projects (the lists of which are truly endless), etc.

Would a Russian be within their moral right to refuse to pay taxes, because they don't wish to support the war in Ukraine?

I would say so. And you would say no.