Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Michael, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Ooo, now this is interesting. What you're suggesting is that some forms of morality is not universal. Do you really believe that? They change with the majority? One day it's immoral to rape, the next it is.... Morality is a function of 51%? Just stop and think about this. Imagine an island, 15 ex-convicts (men) are stranded after a shipwreck. They're there for years. One day a woman washes ashore. The men decide to take a vote on whether they rape is moral or not.

    Do you believe Moral universalism?
    What's Sciforums stance? Morals' are universal or not?

    mad monk....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Bankruptcy is moral.

    Think about this. A man builds a bridge to nowhere. We'll say it's in Alaska

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    He leaves the bill to the next generation. They refuse to pay for it. The US government sends some monkey's in blue clown suites to beat the shit out of those "deadbeats"?

    Suppose a bank lends money to a person to build a bridge to no where. The bridge is built. Not many use it. The bank wants it's money. The man goes bankrupt. Then what? You send in the goons?

    Managing risk is a part of life. Unless we want to live like in the Soprano's maybe we might want to think twice about using force.

    Taxation is a necessary part of THIS society.
    It's needed to keep things in THIS society functioning.

    Yes, if everyone agrees to pay, then they should keep their word. However, if someone says NO, I don't want to pay for a bridge to nowhere. Well, that person, she shouldn't be forced to pay for it. Even if everyone else thinks it should be built. Maybe they don't let her use it? Who knows.

    If we don't want to break our law: Initiation of force is immoral. Then we have to create a society that functions in such a way so that this law is not violated?

    I'm sure there's a way to do that. If we think outside the box.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The refusal to pay first happened in the event of "leave the bill to the next generation". Taxes were too low, obviously.

    But sure - everyone making money from a given societal setup takes on its debts. So?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    It's immoral to pass on your debt to your children. This is a unethical behavior particularly characteristic to the "baby-boomer" generation. Talk about selfish arse-faces.

    Taxes are not the only way to build something. Many railways (the only successful ones) were paid for by investors. You can raise capital by asking the society to pay for the project with direct tax, or, you can also ask them to invest in the project. Do you think: Gee we really need smart phones, lets tax the hell out of the next generation and make it for us now.... I don't think so???
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Maybe this part of the Declaration of Independence would help Michael understand why Taxation isn't theft?

    Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the Governed.
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Except taking out, making, repackaging and creating MBS of SubPrime loans was NOT Fraud.

    As it turned out, eventually (after years of being a good investment and returning higher than average returns) these SubPrime loans became a bad investment, but bad investment decisions, even if made by banks or millions of people is NOT fraud.

    Yes I see the difference.

    Because unlike you, I'm willing to wait to find out what actually happened at Global before deciding on the punishment.
    You, like in this and other threads, simply leap to conclusions not supported by the known facts.

    There is a HUGE difference between what happened with Madoff and why he is in jail for it, and what happened at Global. Corzine did not pocket that money, so the actual facts about how customer money got used has to be understood to find out who is responsible.

    Now if it turns out that he ordered and thus knowing allowed customers money to be improperly used, he will likely go to jail for it, but if it turns out to be an accounting error of some sort, or a mistake made by a computer trading program, then there is no reason to throw him in jail for an error made by the accounting/computer dept.

    As I've been reading, the problem seems to be centered around the fact that the Global computer systems DID allow customer money to be used intra-day for normal funding processes, with the expectation that it would be returned by the end of the day. It would appear that the system did not take into account that the money would not be returned if the company went Bankrupt. It would appear from the regulations that this intra-day funding using customer money was legal, but in any case, the exact transactions and who made them and approved them is still not clear because some of the lower level accounting/computer people aren't willing to testify until they get immunity from prosecution.

    Still, some of the most recent things appearing in the press don't seem to support the idea that there is any evidence of any criminal activity on Corzine's part.

    On the other hand, a Chicago Grand Jury is looking into it as well, so something may come out of that:

    Sure they have:

    Others have been charged and will go to jail if convicted:

    And the Justice department has been at it for some time and is still looking at various fraudulent activities and when they find actual evidence of fraud or criminal activity then they charge people with it.

    Total BS Michael, I've never made any such assertion.

    These people knew what they were buying Michael.
    They were called SUB PRIME loans for a reason.
    They had this name because they carried more risk.
    But that's why they paid higher interest rates.
    Which is why institutions WILLINGLY bought them.

    No Michael, CNN is not updating that site.

    Here's CNN's more recent take on the Bailout costs:

    And if you are at all interested in the actual TARP numbers so far, the CBO publishes periodic reports on the state of the TARP program

    This it their report from last Dec. (the numbers in the next report are likely to be much better because both AIG and GM are doing so well in the last few months and they were the biggest drags on repayment)

    But according to the CBO on TARP:

    $428 billion of the initially authorized $700 billion will be disbursed through the TARP, and the cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, will amount to $34 billion.

    As to the banks though that's turned out quite well and all the big banks have repaid their loans:

    Capital Purchases and Other Support for Financial Institutions
    To provide support for financial institutions, the federal government disbursed $313 billion, most of which has already been repaid (see Table 2). CBO estimates a net cost to the government of $1 billion from those transactions (see Table 3).

    Capital Purchase Program.
    Through the TARP’s Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the Treasury purchased $205 billion in shares of preferred stock from 707 financial institutions.
    As of November 15, 2011, $185 billion (or 90 percent) of that preferred stock had been repurchased by issuing institutions.

    CBO estimates a net gain to the government of $17 billion from the CPP.
    Last edited: Feb 29, 2012
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Not paying taxes is immoral, and it's theft, since everyone else will have to pay more to make up for your stealing from the US treasury.
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Interesting idea. Lets follow it to its logical conclusion.

    So, according to your logic: Morality is derived from the majority. There is no universal morality. If, tomorrow, the majority of the population votes rape is moral, and so someone's mother is raped, that's perfectly ethical behavior.

    That's the argument your making Arthur?

    Because, for me, some morality is universal. No murdering the innocent. No initiation of force on the innocent. No harming the innocent. No stealing private property.

    Yes, you ca defend yourself, and this may cause a person to die in the act of defense. But, you can't initiate force against them.

    Seems reasonable enough, golden rule and all that :shrug:
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    But, Michael, you already took the property, the tax is just the payment for services rendered.
  13. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    No, that's not my argument at all.

    Try again.
  14. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    You know, I wrote a post, I can see it's just one big circle jerk and that's not what this thread is about. $1.2 Billion doesn't just "disappear" out of personal accounts. Corzine is only the dumbest of the lot, the top of the iceberg. But, there will be NO JUSTICE.

    Let's wait and see.
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Rephrase your argument. You said: Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the Governed

    So, if the CONSENT of the governed is RAPE IS MORAL and the Government upholds this, then what?

    Tyranny of the Majority
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    What part of "JUST POWERS" did you not understand?

    Maybe the line of the Declaration right before this missed your attention.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    So no tyranny of the Majority Michael.
  17. Psyche Registered Senior Member

    The US treasury is composed of human beings and is therefore subject to the same moral prescriptions as any individual person. If it is immoral for me to refuse to pay them taxes than it is equally immoral for them to refuse to pay me taxes. I simply can't print my own currency and threaten anyone who does the same with imprisonment. Yet were being led to believe in this instance that force is synonymous with consent, and the activities we are being forced into just happen to be moral, even though this isn't a universal rule, but the subjective whim of the most powerful based on the fact that they are the most powerful. Everyone understands that there is nothing you can do to fundamentally oppose the violence of the state, that is why we are so inclined to turn obedience to it into a virtue. Reality though, is not so kind to our prejudices. See, the issue here is that Micheal and I have no problem if you believe in the US treasury, like using the money it prints and pay them taxes in kind. We're just interested in whether or not you support the use of violence against us for wanting to associate with peaceful institutions instead.
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    You haven't made the case NOT paying tax is immoral.

    If I live in my house that I paid for, pay my bills, pay for my food, pay for my schooling, run a business, sell to my customers, and purchase goods through free exchange. How am I "already" taking property? By being born?

    I don't have a choice as to where I'm born. It's immoral to stick the unborn with the sins of the father. IOWs, just because your father thought it was a great idea to build a bridge to nowhere, doesn't mean YOU have to pay for it. Agreed?

    The question is straight forward: Is it immoral to initiate force against an innocent person?

    When you say Initiation of Force to take a person's private property is NOT Stealing, it really sounds like this

    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.
    Theft is charity.

    I mean, my Gods, you're suggesting taking private property by force is moral. Imagine the State decided to take other things of yours that had value. OK, for now they tax money, but, this is only one placeholder of value and private property. What if they take your food? What if they take your home? What if they take your freedom? AND they take this because they've promised your stuff to someone else. We'll say a Banker on Wallstreet who lost his stuff in a big bet on the Euro. DOES that make it right?

    How are we to know what is moral or not moral? Shouldn't there be universal morality? Like: Stealing is immoral.

    I'm pretty sure, even if the humans who took your stuff had official sounding names like General Monkey-butt the III and wore a double-plus official pink leotard uniforms with big crayon drawn badges.... you'd still think: Hmmmmm, this is stealing. This is theft. This is wrong.

    It really comes down to what is and what is not moral behavior. You guys are so "worried" this "rich and powerful" 0.1% will "take over" you let them take over. News flash guys: You're owned. They won. They have taken over. The wealthiest 0.1% own 80%+ of the everything. They treat you like Cattle. They prance a pony named Obama or a donkey named Bush Jr and you buy into it. You can keep raising tax higher and higher and all you'll have is higher tax. So long as they have control over your money, they'll continue to print it for themselves and stick you with less and less and less.

    You're letting them take it all. You're practically giving it to them.

    Start from the first principles, theft is immoral. Build a society from there. Well, the first thing is, you can't have a central bank. Every time it prints money to help out the government's friends on Wallstreet, YOU are hit with about 3-6% tax per year. So, not only do you loose most of your money in direct tax and hidden tax, but then you're hit with inflation. By the end of the year you have nearly nothing. Maybe $10K if you saved most everything you made. Which is inflated away to 7K by the next year and is nearly nothing after a few more years.

    You're being Farmed. Once they convinced you stealing is charity, theft is moral, they've been stealing from YOU ever since.

    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.
    Theft is charity.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Then you're agreeing with me that there ARE Universal Morals? That stealing private property is immoral.
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The Fifth Lie

    Quoth Frater Perdurabo:

    That is not which is.
    The only Word is Silence.
    The only Meaning of that Word is not.
    Thoughts are false.
    Fatherhood is unity disguised as duality.
    Peace implies war.
    Power implies war.
    Harmony implies war.
    Victory implies war.
    Glory implies war.
    Foundation implies war.
    Alas! for the Kingdom wherein all these are at war.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Battle of the Ants

    Welcome to mysticism.
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member


    You haven't made the case that self imposed taxes are the equiv of stealing.

    I know you think so, but you'd be wrong.
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    "self imposed" by whom? If I volunteer to pay, then it's a fee. Such as in the gasoline "tax" I pay when I want to drive a car on a road (or otherwise). I choose to buy the gasoline. I don't have to. If I can make my own, well, I don't have to buy it. Or I can bike. Etc...

    I don't remember ticking: Do you want to pay Income Tax this year tick here for [YES] box and then a list of services I will be provided with and how much it'll cost me. If so, yeah, I'm more than happy with that arrangement. It's voluntary.
    Help Children with dead-beat dad's [TICK]
    Pay for Oil War [blank]
    Support University [TICK]
    Bail out TOO Big TOO Fail WallStreet [blank]

    Unless you're saying that the majority voted for income tax and therefor it's somehow "self" imposed. Oh, it's "imposed" all right - it's not voluntarily being paid. That'd be like arguing *TV Commercial Guy Voice*: "Well madam, your RAPE was "self-imposed" the day you were born into this society - suck it up or leave and live somewhere else".
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012

Share This Page