I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. — T Clark

I guess you consider your assumption that antinatalists are miserable most definitely not projection, and not a sign of a lack of self-awareness.

I consider myself a happy person, yet I find the antinatalist argument quite convincing. It doesn't mean I like the implications, but the nature of things as it is apparent to me is not affected by me liking or disliking it.

@Tzeentchquietism. — Fooloso4

Drop the strawmanning already.

You are using Grime's work to claim that there is an absolute contradiction between the the old and new books in regards to, as you say, their respective moral systems. — Valentinus

No, I am not.

I linked Pierre Grimes's work because it touches on some interesting ideas about the subject of this thread.

The point I made is entirely my own and consists of spotting the contradiction I have already laid out several times now.

It's been a while since I watched those lectures, but as far as I know they never touch on this specific subject.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes clear his strict allegiance o the Law. Valentinus comment about a Jew wrestling with another Jew is central to understanding this allegiance in practice as seen in Talmud and Midrash, interpretation and commentary on the Law. Even the style of Jesus' comment fits the form. It is dialectical. — Fooloso4

The contradiction between 'an eye for an eye' and 'to turn the other cheek' is to me a fundamental one, because the two present entirely different approaches to responding to injustice.

One teaches to respond to an injustice with (at most) an injustice of equal measure, whereas the other teaches that an injustice should never be responded to with an injustice of one's own.

Your position is that, whoever he was, he was not speaking about or from Judaism. — Valentinus

This is not my position. My position is the one I have stated here clearly twice before - that there is a clear contradiction between some of the teachings and that they are, in my opinion, fundamental to their respective moral systems.

I can't figure out why you are so eager to misrepresent my position.

I've pointed out a contradiction between Q and the Torah that I think is a fundamental one to the moral systems they prescribe.

Apparently you find this ill-informed? And also something about me saying Jesus was not a Jew?

Again, it seems like you're attacking me based on a position you think I've taken, but I'm having trouble figuring out what position that is.

Whatever it is, it did not take long until you became personal which is usually not a sign of confidence in one's beliefs.

You seem to be assuming an awful lot. I think this subject just makes you very defensive for whatever reason. Perhaps you fear its the truth?

He did not talk about his being a Jew or not. — Valentinus

And neither did I. Are we just completely talking past each other?

Whether you 'feel' a connection doesn't have any bearing on whether one exists. — Isaac

Maybe not, but as I said, abstractions and miniscule connections are of no significance to me when it comes to dealing with other people. I wouldn't expect my neighbor to compensate me for breathing the same air as I, even he were to breathe a little more than I.

These supposed connections to people on the other side of the globe are only theoretical and do not find any true bearing within the human experience: at least not in mine.

It's a lot easier, for a start. I doubt they have as much moral qualms about doing so as you do. — Isaac

Yes, states have historically proven to lack any semblance of a moral compass that could in some way justify the power attributed to them.

But that's not the argument you're making, the argument you're making is about the rightful ownership of the taxed portion of your pay. — Isaac

What is rightful and what is not was never a part of my argument, so this is simply not true.

The stealing of land by force from those who originally made use of it pre-dates states by several hundred thousand years. — Isaac

Maybe so, but states have perfected this dark art.

Not to mention the fact that our current population density and current place in such a long complex history, makes any return to such a state impossible - again I'm not entertaining childish whinging here. — Isaac

It's good to know you're not entertaining whinging in regards to a point I am not making. A little irrelevant to our discussion, though.

Yes, that is exactly the argument. — Isaac

This would imply you see the problems as I have laid them out, and are simply asking me to stop talking about them. I won't, obviously.

You share the same air, water, food sources, economy, oil reserves, enemies (sometimes), future... If Bob is unemployed the cost of labour is reduced because there's a demand for jobs. that means the manufacturer has to pay less for labour which means you get cheaper products. No state necessary, you benefit from bob's unemployment. — Isaac

I don't share those things any more than I share it with Mr. Liuang on the other side of the world. And even if I did, it is a situation I neither brought about nor asked for.

Again, I don't feel that connection in the same way you might. I deal with people in my vicinity - people whose interests I can properly understand and aren't statistical abstractions.

I think if the government wanted to take what it believed to be it's property, it wouldn't have too hard a time doing so without violence — Isaac

Ok, so why do governments historically and temporarily rely on (threats of) violence if they don't have to?

How did they obtain the goods? No violence, so they what? Just found them? — Isaac

Yes, why wouldn't that be possible?

Natural resources used to be up for grabs before states started claiming all of it en masse, with all the consequences that has brought.

That's the situation you're in. state or not, because you live with others. again, if all you want to do is whine about how difficult life is, then we'll just stop here. — Isaac

I'm not whining at all. Our discussion isn't about me.

Your opinion seems to be that there are no alternatives for the problems I have laid out, and that I should just stop whining about them. What is this other than tacit agreement?

I don't know. Maybe you think I am arguing something that I am not. I never said Jesus was not a Jew, for example.

I don't think the Torah can be reduced to one quote, but I think these two dictoms are extremely fundamental to the moral systems the two books lay out, and that they are in direct contradiction to each other.

The state didn't create the problem... — Isaac

Of course it did. The only reason I am connected to unemployed Bob who lives hundreds of kilometers away from me of whom I supposedly benefit, is because at one point a state decided an area of land was theirs.

Then tough luck on the state. — Isaac

In that case there is indeed no threat of violence, but how long would such a system of taxation last when untaxed alternatives are available without a threat of punishment?

Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. — Isaac

That makes no difference to the point I am making.

If this is true, then it's true whether states exist or not. Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. It's just a fact of the world, nothing to do with states. We could prevent it, if we thought it was unethical. But it would require organisations - ie a state. Still has nothing to do with taxes because the state needn't use this method. — Isaac

You asked how threats of violence make any difference when seeking compliance and I explained it to you.

Again - the question of alternatives is not all that relevant when discussing the nature of taxation.

There's no naturally occurring distribution of wealth with which taxation interferes. — Isaac

Of course there is. Are you suggesting people cannot exchange goods and services unless they're being taxed?

Yes you did. You were given the opportunity to vote, campaign, make a party, seek election. You chose not to. That is what constitutes your agreement in a democracy. — Isaac

This is not true. Even if I were to do all those things, every single one of them would be an implicit agreement to the state's impositions, not a disagreement. And even then a situation where I'd be completely reliant on being able to sway others to my cause in order to disagree makes no sense at all.

To state that the "sayings" from the Q document do not bear a relationship to the good as seen through the Torah ... — Valentinus

I think the teachings aren't compatible, even though they have been claimed to be.

For example, the contradiction in the dictom "An eye for an eye" versus "Turn the other cheek" is such a fundamental one I don't see how the two could ever be reconciled.

The latter seems to have a lot more in common with the Platonic teachings, for example those of The Republic.

The problem of evidence is that there is no evidence. We do not know what Jesus taught. We can date the gospels and note significant differences, but we cannot determine how any of them relate to whatever it is that Jesus might have taught. The stories take on a life of their own. In addition, the canonical gospels are only a part of what was written. — Fooloso4

Sure, on all those things.

There are many historical figures of whom we only have written records. It's up to each individual to decide whether they find that convincing or not.

For me it is not necessarily important who wrote it - it's the content of the message.

How can we know what the teaching of Jesus are and what are the teachings attributed to him? — Fooloso4

There is much debate over this, and entire studies devoted to this question. Because we may never know for sure, it is up to each to look at the evidence and arguments and decide what they believe.

If you're interested in this subject, here are a few (non-religious) lectures which I found very interesting:

If one wants to know about Christianity, one first needs to strip off all the things notable Christians have said that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. One is interested in Christianity after all, and not Paulinism or Johnism.

Christ's message to the world was one of mercy and compassion - different, but not all that different, from Buddha's message to the world.

I am not religious, by the way.

You benefit from their unemployment. — Isaac

Even if we take this to be true, I never asked for it. Is there a way for me to opt out of my supposed benefits? I think not.

Again, states creating situations and problems I never asked for and am only a part of as a product of the impositions of the state itself.

What, all four thousand of them? — Isaac

Sure. Obviously no one is going to bother, because these so-called disputes are meaningless.

If my supposed stake in this situation is so miniscule that it isn't even worth finding out who I am, then I think that is reason to assume there isn't any real dispute worth mentioning here.

We've just been through this, the government just take it from their bank account or from their house while they're out. — Isaac

Bank account is empty, and person refuses to leave their house.

If they avoid detection, how does a law help? — Isaac

Because the threat of reprisals often works in a deterring fashion. In fact, many would argue deterrence rather than punishment is the primary function of the justice system.

You are equating taxation with justifying violence and you're wrong to. Taxation is just about reaching an agreement over who owns what. — Isaac

Taxation is to redistribute wealth according to one's perception of what belongs to who under threat of violence (which is what the law is - impositions under threat of violence).

This is what I pointed out. If your position is any flavor of "This is ok, because..." you are justifying violence. If your position is "This is not ok, but..." then maybe you are not.

And taxation is not an agreement. Not one that involves me at any rate. This situation is simply imposed. I've never been presented with any terms, asked for a signature or given an opportunity to opt out. I never agreed to anything.

What constitutes a moral act?

A just intention, the wisdom and ability to make that intention come about, and the intended outcome.

Lets apply this to having children:


Just intention

A just intention seems to apply to many future parents, as they often have the happiness of their child as their intention.

Some parents may have selfish intentions, and see children as a means to a legacy, to be taken care of at old age, or to simply fulfill an irrational instinctual desire.

Others still may claim that they have children because without children the human race would die out. This seems disingenuous to me, and is probably a way to mask a more selfish intention.

Then there are parents whose intentions are unjust and intentionally harmful. For them having children is unquestionably an immoral act.


Wisdom and ability to make the just intention come about

While some parents may be more wise and capable than others, even the most wise, capable and well-intentioned parents cannot guarantee the well-being of their child.

The future life of a child is something we are almost entirely ignorant of. The child could become happy, or it could become miserable. It could succeed on the path laid out for it, or fail completely. Additionally, it is affected by many factors that are not within the parents' control, regardless of their wisdom or intentions.

This is a prerequisite that I believe the act of having children cannot fulfill. It is simply for a large part out of the parents' control whether their intentions, just as they may be, come about in the way they have envisioned.


The intended outcome

Without the intended outcome, it cannot be said an act is moral.

The intended outcome for a just intention concerning child birth is a happy child - or at least a child that believes their life is worth living and the good outweighs the bad.

This seems to be the case often enough. So we can state that despite a lack of wisdom and capabilities of the parents to guarantee a good outcome, their just intention can and does come about in spite of this.


Conclusion

What are we left with then?

As I said, my opinion is that the prerequisite of wisdom and capability to make the just intention come about cannot be fulfilled for the act of having children.

This does not automatically make the act of having children immoral, though. It only makes it one that is ignorant.

How could you possibly know? Any dispute you lacked indication of you wouldn't know about, so there might be thousands. — Isaac

Well, at the moment beneficiaries of your taxes are indeed getting what they believe is theirs, so they're unlikely to have anything to say. I'm asking how they would raise their complaint with you if you were instead to keep that money for yourself. — Isaac

This is a flaw of state government, that seeks to connect people who aren't in any way connected. Such supposed disputes are meaningless to me. If they don't care enough to knock on my door, why should I?

Essentially this is bureaucracy calling itself the solution for problems it causes.

I've just explained how it isn't. The government can take the money owed without exerting any force or violence at all. So this is just false. — Isaac

As I said, quite clearly I thought, so your ignoring it is quite disingenuous, no violence is necessary. I can just come and take all your stuff while you're out. — Isaac

Of course threats of violence are necessary.

What if an individual refuses to part with their wealth? Or what if individuals continue to find ways of circumventing taxation through undeclared labor and bartering? There's a reason laws are in place that threaten violence for exactly that end - people are very crafty when it comes to avoiding things they do not want to do.

Just like how the justice system hides its threats of violence behind a line of lesser punishments, it is no less present. The authoritarian wet dream where every citizen is monitored and controlled in such an absolute way that dissent from the government's will is impossible, this threat of violence is simply shifted to somewhere else. But I suspect in such a state taxation would be the least of one's worries. It would be de facto slavery.

It's a fantasy to believe large amounts of people can be controlled against thier will without the use or threatening of violence.

So what's the alternative to government deciding who owns what? — Isaac

I've explained to you why trying to use opinions to justify violence is bad.

Your alternative is not to try to justify violence with opinions.

Some states take on the role of ensuring the property rights of their citizens and mediating the inevitable property disputes. — Srap Tasmaner

In my view states are a necessary evil, and the nature of states seems to be that they inherently rely on force, but what you describe seems like one of the more agreeable ways to go about it. Do you know an example of such a state?

How would they make you aware? — Isaac

Usually when I have a dispute with someone, there is some indication for it. If there is no indication, indeed not even communication or interaction between me and someone I supposedly have a dispute with, it seems like there isn't a dispute?

Then just reiterate your point for me, if you will. — Isaac

Taxation is to force individuals to part with what they believe to be theirs under threat of violence.

What belongs to who is a matter of perception - it's an opinion.

Using opinions to justify violence is to invite others to do the same. Who gets to impose their opinion on the other is then a matter of who has the greatest capacity for violence leading to a situation of might makes right.

In fact, I view all use of force against individuals as flawed, and I see states as deeply flawed institutions that are a necessary evil at best. That to me is the essential starting point from which to consider what powers we grant to states.

So do you have an alternative? — Isaac

As I said earlier, I contemplate the nature of things, and whether I have an alternative or not does not change that nature.

If a philosopher tells you that killing is bad, you don't ask him "Well how can I cause death if I cannot kill?" or "How will I continue running my assassination enterprise without killing people?"

You consider his arguments and, if you agree, you stop killing people.

The 14 thousand unemployed in your country claim a little of your pay to support them in their unemployment. — Isaac

I don't have a dispute with those people, as far as I am aware.

Theft is the taking of something owned by another, so if you perceive something to be owned by you it follows that you perceive it's removal to be theft, unless you simply don't know what theft means. — Isaac

Theft concerns a subjective dimension about what rightfully belongs to whom, and that is not relevant to the point I have been making.

It changes why you'd be at all surprised about that. — Isaac

My surprise does not change the nature of things.

I don't know why you keep wanting to make this about me: what my solutions are, why I am surprised, etc. Those things aren't relevant at all to the point I am making.

Ridiculous, there are millions of people in your country alone, all of whom have a claim. This idea of managing an entire country by individual agreement is absurd. — Isaac

No, I think managing one's disputes through individual agreements is a good way to go about things.

Maybe it is countries that are absurd if they are unable to act in ways that are good.

Not in so many words perhaps, but the taking of property one is not entitled to is theft, so to disown the claim you'd have to either relinquish the property claim or agree the government is within its rights. — Isaac

We haven't spoken about entitlements. We have spoken about perceptions, and if those perceptions conflict, the way I solve it is by individual agreement. Theft is not a part of this idea.

Why would they ask you, they don't believe it's your property, you've never put any such claim to them, so why on earth would they ask you first? — Isaac

Why would this change the fact that it has been imposed on me without my say?

If your conclusion is, states are incapable of listening to the individual requests of the people it holds power over, I'd simply chalk that up as another flaw of states.

Everyone who is a beneficiary of taxes then is in dispute with you about who owns the taxed portion of you pay, they all think it's them. — Isaac

No, but people can have an opinion about what belongs to the government. — Isaac

These are just abstractions. Show me the individual that wants to dispute what I perceive as my personal belongings and I'll happily have a chat with them.

Then how can you declare taxation to be theft? — Isaac

I never declared that.

You said that the matter of ownership is resolved by agreement, yet you've engaged in no such agreement with the government. So no agreement has been reached as to who owns what. — Isaac

Indeed, it has simply been imposed upon me without my say. A regrettable state of affairs as far as I am concerned.

It'd be even harder for every person to come to an agreement with every other. This is just fantasist nonsense. — Isaac

I don't have to. Only with those people I have a dispute with, which aren't very many at all.

Governments aren't people. — Tzeentch

So? — Isaac

A government isn't a thinking being with an opinion about what it believes to be theirs.

what was the outcome of your talk with the government about your disagreement over who owns the taxed portion of your pay? — Isaac

I didn't have any talks, as they would obviously be fruitless. Ask your questions frankly, and don't play games.

How do you propose the government talks to each and every person to reach individually tailored agreements as to what belongs to whom? — Isaac

They likely can't, it probably comes as no surprise that I view governments as inherently problematic and taxation is only a part of that.

You won't be wanting to take home that portion of your pay that the government believes to be theirs will you? — Isaac

And what was the outcome of your talk with the government about your disagreement over who owns the taxed portion of your pay? — Isaac

Governments aren't people.

But I don't have an intention to forcefully take from individuals what they believe to be theirs, no. I reach an agreement with them.

I asked you how we reach an agreement about what belongs to whom. — Isaac

I don't know about any we, but when I have a dispute with someone over what belongs to whom, I talk with them and come to an agreement.

It's the philosopher's job to contemplate the nature of things, not necessarily to offer alternatives.

When a philosopher explains that killing is immoral, one doesn't ask how one can still cause death without killing.

You ask me how one can forcefully redistribute wealth according to their liking and make people part with what they believe to be theirs without having to resort to violence and my answer is simple: one shouldn't want to.

The result of our agreement, about who owns what, (for which we used the democratic system) is that the government owns 20% of the pay you take home. — Isaac

I never agreed to that.

You seem to think that, rather than by agreement, you get to decide whatever you think is your property. — Isaac

No, I don't think I do.

I haven't shared any opinions about what I believe belongs to who. What I have shared are opinions on the nature of taxation and using opinions to justify violence.

Why do you think I am opposed to agreements?

No, not really, the government could simply spy on people, and if it thinks they've not declared work or income in kind, it just takes what it thinks it's owed. — Isaac

If there is no law against circumventing the system the government puts in place, you do not think people would try their best at doing just that?

The rest of your post, as usual, doesn't contain an argument. — Benkei

It sure does.

And I am also sure that you see it, but don't want to see it.

So in your hypothetical it is not just harder not to comply, but it is made impossible, essentially.

A situation in which states have absolute supervision and control of their citizens' wealth reeks of totalitarianism, and I have plenty of objections to that, but even in such a state there need to be laws against avoiding taxation through things like undeclared work and citizens bartering among themselves.

Does the individual still face reprisal when the government decides the individual has taken more than they should have? If the answer is yes, then it still relies on violence to force compliance - it just made it harder to not comply.

First of all, if you're not interested in argumentation, get the fuck out of here. — Benkei

You are responding to me, not the other way around.

I've not argued might makes right anywhere nor does it logically follow from my arguments. — Benkei

Yes, it does.

You have an opinion about what belongs to who and use it to justify taxation. Taxation relies on threats of violence.

Now lets say someone else disagrees with you. What should stop them from using their opinions to justify violence against you?

I am not interested in your argumentation as to why you believe what you believe. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to live in accordance with them.

The issue arises when one uses that opinion as a justification for violence. Because if one permits themselves to use violence based on their opinion, then one permits others to do the same. Who gets to impose their opinion on others? The person with the largest capacity for violence - might makes right.

As I said, many people are fine with this, but only for as long as they agree with the opinions that are being imposed. That is hypocrisy.

Do you believe you are describing an opinion or a cosmic truth?

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case. — Benkei

Approaching the matter from a legal standpoint holds no moral significance. The state deciding it has rights to things just like a feudal ruler decides it deserves a share of the farmer's grain.


This is followed up by an opinion of what belongs to who - it is a perception. As I said, taxation is to force individuals to part with what they perceive to be theirs under threat of violence.

If you accept that opinions can justify violence, then there is no moral framework, only might makes right.

Of course, some are completely fine with that, but only for as long as they agree with those opinions. That is hypocrisy.

I see you as a disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish, young tough guy ... — James Riley

This is projection, I suspect.

Page-long personal attacks don't impress me, so I would spare myself the effort in the future.

That you were in the Marine Corps doesn't surprise me one bit. I liked the people I met there, but their worldviews were simplistic. Perhaps a simplistic worldview is required to commit acts of violence with the approval of one's own conscience - until that simple worldview comes back to haunt them.


To bring it back to the subject matter, your essential argument seems to be "If you don't like it get out."

My response is twofold:

- My liking or disliking does not change the nature of things. That individuals do not choose to be born or the society they live in, is a fact. That taxation is to force people to part with what they perceive to be theirs by threat of violence is a fact.

I guess by saying "If you don't like that, go away" you are agreeing with those points.


- Your stance is akin to asking a slave that if they don't like their slaveowners, why don't they swim back across the ocean to where they came from.

I think I need not explain to you why this doesn't make the slightest sense from a moral standpoint. If that is your standard, it is your standard, but then you'll have to apply it consistently.

The suicide rate is off the charts. People do it all the time because they don't want to pay the price of life. — James Riley

Ah yes. Suicide - a simple matter of weighing the costs against the benefits and making a rational decision based on that.

Didn't I recall you posting something about caring for others a while back?

When a child reaches majority and doesn't want to contribute, they can get the hell out of the house. We raised you up right, you can work and pay taxes. Get to it, or get out. This is a family here and if you don't want to be a part of it, if you don't want to help your little sister, or help pay for her education, leave. — James Riley

What you describe is failed parenting. Parents who resent their children for not growing up the way they envisioned. They fail to understand that the child never asked to be theirs, and that children shouldn't be had to fulfill the parents hopes and fantasies in the first place. It is their failure.

But if your point was that bad parenting exists, this I already knew.

The idea that a parent can force existence upon their child, and then present them with a list of things they expect of them holds no moral weight. It's nonsense. (And similarly for citizens and governments)

A parent can always reach for the belt, and force compliance - additional confirmation of their failure. (And similarly for citizens and governments)

States DO give individuals an option to opt out. — James Riley

Yes, and this option is no more tenable than telling a child to run away from home if they don't like their parents.

You sound a lot like a failed parent "It is not my fault you don't enjoy the circumstances I imposed on you" - or is it? Of course it is. It is entirely the parent's fault, and their responsibility.


Also, you seem to be getting awfully personal. Let me assure you I enjoy my time within the state's boundaries just fine for now. But that doesn't stop me from considering the immorality of this whole ordeal.

Bull Shit. You can kill yourself or go to Somalia or swim to Cuba or whatever. — James Riley

"If you don't like it here just kill yourself" holds even less merit.

So you are a child and the state is your parent? — James Riley

A citizen, just like a child, is put under an inescapable authority involuntarily.

That flies in the face of your freedom we honor. — James Riley

Indeed it does.

Well, if you're going to use that analogy, then, by the time you can pay taxes, leave. We relinquish authority over you. — James Riley

Except that citizenship isn't simply relinquished, but even then, this would only make sense if states gave individuals an option to opt out - they don't. They spend the entire duration of a citizen's formative years to make it more dependent of the state - like a mother afraid that her child will one day leave her.