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

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Welcome to Progressive Conservative Liberal Christianity.......

    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

    You didn't say whether you thought the initiation of force against an innocent person is moral or not.

    Oddly enough, I'm sort of surprised you're not on this side of the fence on this one. Sure, you pro-milk the little guy and bail out the morally defunct corrupt incompetent banking system, but, this???? THIS??? This is pure ethics. It's detached from what's happening right now. It's just a question on morality.

    Do you think the initiation of force against an innocent person is moral?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    If it's necessary for my survival then yes.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    SO, suppose there was a young child and her mother. Her mother is weak, she's tried to give her 9 year old daughter as much of the fresh water she's carried back from the oasis. There's only enough water for one person, and only one person, to survive. The mother's made her peace. She gives her daughter the last of her water. That's when you come stumbling in out of the desert hell.

    Are you going to kill this innocent person and take what's theirs AND try to claim it's moral???

    I don't think so. You may get the water, but leaving an innocent child to die of thirst, that's not moral :shrug:
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They were doing fine until some childish ideologues got corporate backing to take over Congress and cut the rich people's taxes that were necessary to pay those debts.

    No railroad on this planet ever paid its way by private investment only. Not even the Cuban sugar plantation tracks.

    In the US, the railroad startups were almost branches of government, in their cost structure (the profits went to the investors, of course) - and just as corrupt as one would expect from such a sweetheart arrangement.
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Back to the basics Michael since you keep forgetting them.

    Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the Governed.

    And the people of this country, long ago, created a government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    And as part of that Government they decided who would be under the laws and protection of that Government and they agreed to this:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    And the people who made the Government also made it so it could be changed if they later changed their minds about these principles.

    The fact that they haven't changed them is that they still have the support of the majority of the people who live here.

    So YES, just being born here makes you a Citizen of this country, and if the Country is in debt, then you own part of that debt the moment you are born.

    And YES, just being born here makes your income subject to the tax laws of the US government and the State Government that you live in.

    And that's all very moral Michael.

    Because nothing in the Constitution prevents you from leaving, renouncing your citizenship and finding some other place to live that is more in line with your thinking.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Except that's not the same scenario you keep attacking.

    The more apt analogy to our progressive tax system is not the bleak "only one can survive" scenario that you make it.

    Progressive taxes never make the Rich poorer than the tier below them.

    So the real analogy is that you stumble out of the desert hell and there is someone sitting there in front of an Oasis and they won't let you have any water because you lost your wallet when your plane crashed in the desert and can't pay for it.

    Along comes the agent of the Government and says, "We can't let him die. You have more water than you can possibly use, you need to give him a glass of water".
    But if you refuse, the agent gets some of his other agents and they use just enough force to allow them to go get a glass of water for this poor devil.

    So the person who owns the Oasis is, as you say, "innocent", but still it is considered moral to use sufficient force needed to get some of his water to prevent this poor devil from dying of thirst.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Never let Michael get away with coming up with an analogy, it's always designed to prove his point and thus it's never a realistic analogy.

    A realistic analogy would have something like 6 groups of people on the island.

    Water Haulers

    None of them can live nearly as well by themselves as they can with the help of the others.

    The Fisherman have a risky business, but they bring in needed protein.
    But you can't live on fish alone and so they depend on the farmers for produce and the water haulers for fresh water and the builders for their boats and nets.

    The Farmers have to work hard to get consistent crops, but because of the weather sometimes they have bad seasons and some times they have bumper crops. The farmers depend on the Fisherman for protein and the water haulers for fresh water and the builders for their farming tools and housing.

    The Water haulers are essential, without fresh water no one could live, but the fresh water is a good way away and and one can only carry but so much water and if the farmers and fisherman had to get their own water, they couldn't be successful fisherman or farmers, but being a water hauler doesn't leave you much time to farm or fish or build.

    The Builders provide the skill to build the homes that everyone lives in and the tools they need to haul water, farm or catch fish, but they don't provide any actual food or water so rely on the farmers, fisherman and water haulers for those needs.

    The Artisans don't produce anything that anyone has to have to live but their skill and artistry make the place nice to live in. They bring color and arts to peoples dwellings and make music, perform songs and plays at night and on weekends that entertain and enrich the villager's lives.

    The Elderly are too old to farm, fish, build or haul water but some of them are teachers and some of them are entrusted by the others to make the rules and to resolve disputes and run the day to day activities and so the fisherman, farmers, builders and water haulers all give some of their output to support the Elders.

    One of the first things the Elders do is to come up with a currency to represent fish, water, produce etc as it was far more practical and easier to deal with than a pure barter system. They call this money and thus various commodities and efforts are equated to different amounts based on their value, scarcity etc.

    The next thing they did was decide that everyone had to help those who could not help themselves.
    In doing so they explicitly REJECTED the FREE MARKET system and said just because a water hauler slips and breaks his leg is no reason to let him starve because he can't haul water, just like there is no reason to let the elderly starve when they can no longer be productive in the fields or on the boats.

    Since most everyone works hard there is a surplus of fish, water and produce, and so they institute a tax on everyone who works in the community, to be put in a central bank that will disburse the excess to those in need: The sick, the elderly, the infirm etc. and thus all are cared for.

    Of course the amount you get if you can't work is not that much as if you work, but you don't starve or miss out on the necessities, but if you work hard and are good at what you do, you tend to have more money and so you can use the services of the builders/artisans to have a nicer house with finer things.
    Over time, families which are hard workers and good at what they do tend to accumulate what is referred to as wealth.

    Those who don't and spend much of their time smoking loco weed or drinking fermented fruit drinks tend to live in smaller houses and not have so much.

    Then of course the elders notice that both the farmers and the fisherman occasionally have HUGE catches/harvests, far in excess of what is normal, while the builders and the water haulers pretty much can only work steadily.
    So they change the tax system such that WHEN the farmers and the fisherman have a HUGE haul, they give a larger percent of it as tax to the central bank and that excess is used to support doing general things to help everyone, such as building roads to the water source, building winter storage facilities for the food, building better docks for the fisherman, paying people to teach and keep the peace etc etc

    And all is well with this little world.

    No violence.

    And a much better analogy don't you think?
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2012
  12. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Moral yes, ethical no. Morality is subjective, both to the worldview of the person in question and to the circumstance. If I need(and I do mean need) to eat or drink and a person, regardless of how innocent they may be, is preventing me from doing so then they are, according to my worldview, threatening my life and I'll not even experience a glimmer of remorse in ending that threat.

    If I need to eat and the only thing around that's edible is another human, then it's long pig for dinner tonight.

    Honestly I never expect to be put in such a situation so it's all a rather moot point, but I don't consider doing what's necessary for survival immoral. Perhaps unethical but those are two different things.

    Who said anything about leaving the child to die a slow and horrible death? All I said was that violence against the "innocent"(innocent being another rather subjective term) was, in my worldview, moral when necessary for survival. That is literally all I said.

    In the scenario you suggest I would either kill the child to prevent him from suffering what is among the worst of deaths, or I might take the child with me if it won't endanger my survival.
  13. Psyche Registered Senior Member

    The state cages millions inside of its prison industrial complex rape rooms and it is the threat of landing there that is one of the methods that is used to obtain "co-operation" from the masses. Though the effect is far from the average persons consciousness there are methods with which you can use to come to sensible conclusions about what you are actually experiencing when you are living in a statist society. Those who believe in the virtue and necessity of the police for example can do this mindfulness experiment...

    The next time you are on the road and a police officer signals to pull you over take very careful notice of the effect his presence has on your body. It is a sure bet that in such instances your heart rate will increase, your breathing will become more shallow, and that when talking with him you will be acutely attuned to the fact that you are a second class citizen who is conversing with someone who has the authority to murder you if you disobey him. A person who you are forced to pay for and forced to obey. In this example what is happening is that your body telling you that you are in the presence of a dangerous animal. We rationalize this by saying that they are keeping the roads safe from overzealous drivers. But when there are men riding around with guns extorting money from people in plain sight a few too many overly fast cars is hardly the thing to focus on if you want to keep the roads safe. And this is the dissociative split that occurs in all of us.

    Between our stories and reality.

    Our cultural programming tunes out the felt presence of of immediate reality so that we can just get on with our lives, but if we start with an honest exploration of our observations we can then extrapolate the principles we need to come to sensible conclusions about what is going on.

    On this point I have noticed that you have expended much energy conflating society with the state as if there could be no possible distinction between the two. But this is like saying rape is lovemaking. It is obvious, and anyone would be a fool to refute you... But there clearly is a difference between a community of people coming together voluntarily to improve the conditions of their lives versus the centralized planning of a coercive institution which requires obedience, regardless if you are intrepid enough to reject the doctrine that violence is virtue or not. I certainly can refuse to buy starbucks coffee without starbucks officers showing up at my house and dragging me before starbucks tribunals and then sending me off to rot in starbucks jail. But no such recourse is available to me with regards to the the State.

    The fact that I exist and I produce does not entitle you or your cult to possession over my body and the products of it's labor. You do not get to decide which institutions my money supports. I have no reason to trust that your judgment is better than mine. However if I am not enlightened enough to make my own decisions than I certainly am not enlightened enough to chose leaders who will make them for me, and hence the myth of democracy is detonated. If a government "representative" is at most as equally moral as the rest of us than we could save millions for social programs by eliminating the overhead and making direct cash donations to those institutions we consider to be most virtuous, allowing for the ones that work well to survive and the ones that do not to fall. But if it is true that "representatives" are more moral than we are and therefore justified in using and disposing of us at their leisure, than democracy is a sham and it makes no sense to give anybody any choice when it comes to rulers. They know better than we do, and that's why they are Archons.

    You see, the free market permits you to help that fisherman who falls and breaks his leg just as it permits you to contribute to this or that social program of your choosing. I certainly have no interest in stopping you, and I may even assist you if I find solidarity with your goals and the means with which you plan to implement them. The difference between a free market and a violent one is that you simply will not be be able to rely on a centralized gang of religious fanatics to threaten me. And that is fundamentally what you are doing here, using the red-heiring of guilt and social obligation to justify the activities of religious fanatics. The fact that you have a noble vision for the direction of society does not give you a blank check on exploiting the sovereign human soul of which biology has charged me with caring for, my self. If it did, then please don't try to tell me that I have not been born and bred to service the agenda of oligarchs. Do not tell me that it is my free choice to associate with those lunatics, It's not.

    I guess the time is now ripe to tackle head on this claim that government is by consent. Well, first off I can tell you plainly that this position is meaningless if you do not grant anybody the ability to hold any position other than consent. If you tell me that it is government by consent and I tell you that I do not consent, which of us is lying? Just follow the logic. if it were true that people need a government to be good, than it would also be true of the people IN government and you have the problem of infinite regression on your hands. A two tier system of morality, where it is okay for some people to lay and collect taxes, and enforce their blood-thirty doctrines (War on Drugs, War on Terror) on others is a fundamentally mystical delusion. People cannot consent to being ruled by the government any more than children raised and educated in catholic school can reasonably be said to be Christians by free choice. Belief in the state is distributed at exactly at the ratio you would expect given that the vast majority of people are educated directly by the state or indirectly through regulations on private schools. We have the mental habits of servility to masters and denial of reality bred into our minds from an early age, and this indoctrination is damn near impossible to shake, which is why so very few do. But the truth is that the state is not great and it poisons everything.

    Bleeding Heart (This video is an examination of the delusions which are at the root of statism. That we are bad children, we need to be ruled, and that there are higher powers above us that care only for our collective interest and obedience to them is how we achieve redemption)
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    And yet I've never been in prison, and I never expect to be in prison, so I never give it a second thought. To say it is used to obtain my "co-operation" is total BS.
    Again, this never happens, so why should I care what happens when some asshole has been driving recklessly or drinking and driving and gets pulled over?

    Like they say, if you can't stand the time, don't do the crime.

    What are you blithering about?
    What men are riding around with guns extorting money from people in plain sight?

    You could start by being sensible any time now.....

    More BS.

    Maybe a refresher course is in order for you as well:

    Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the Governed.

    And the people of this country, long ago, created a government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    So yes, the govt we have is the one we made.
    We can also change it.

    Again, What are you talking about?
    We don't have debtor's prisons in the US.
    No one is dragging you off to rot in jail for trivialities.

    Not your body and not the product of your labor, but if people pay you for them, the state does get it's share. We call it income tax.
    But you don't have to take money for anything, so you aren't actually forced to pay the government anything.

    If you don't like it we have ways for you to work within the system to get it changed.

    I don't, but your representatives in the Government which was instituted by the people certainly does.

    Now if you don't like your representative you can challenge him directly come the next election, or you can campaign and stump for a different candidate, more in line with your thinking, or you can just vote for someone else.

    Your pick.

    Not at all.
    Choosing someone to represent you on the issues doesn't require the same level of knowledge of the issues, of course if you don't like the system you don't have to stay.
    You become a citizen by being born here, but once you are an adult, you are not forced to stay here.

    It's not a question about them being more moral, it's about them being more informed about the issues.
    It is, after all, their job to be so informed.
    While if, for instance, you are a car mechanic it's your job to be informed about how to fix cars.

    Still come election, you get to decide who you think you would support in the role of taking care of the governing.

    (more of the same BS was ignored for sake of brevity)

    Nah, you can leave.
    If you stay, you are in fact consenting.

    Again, no one is making you stay.
    Go find somewhere to live where people agree with these ideas.

    I presume your obvious anger stems from the fact that no such large group of people exist.

    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    This was obviously purely a thought experiment. I suppose we could have a debate around what would be the most virtuous action, if there even is one.

    I suppose there's probably a sticky, but, how do you define moral versus ethical? I thought ethics was the investigations of morals. How can an action be ethical? Wouldn't the action be moral or immoral and talking about the action by ethics? I was under the impression we raise children and we ourselves strive to live virtuous lives (that is, the utmost moralistic actions) and when we teach these principals we're referring to the system of ethics.

    Maybe I forgot or didn't fully comprehend what these terms really mean?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    I'll have to get back to this thread when I have a bit more time.
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Please don't.

    Just let it die.
  18. Psyche Registered Senior Member

    There is a way to empirically test this idea. The next time a cop flashes to pull you over, don't co-operate. See what happens. The truth is that you don't come into contact with the violence of the state because you have trained yourself to avoid it. To not give it a second thought.

    The vast majority of arrests are for nonviolent "crimes" between consenting adults. The fact that you like the violence perpetrated by the state does not mean that it is not violence.

    The men in blue costumes. They call themselves the force. And they believe that they are justified in forcing their beliefs about morality on peaceful strangers.

    If I put on a costume and started kidnapping people left and right would that meet your definition of sensible?

    Is it?

    The act of being born on a geographical land mass does not bind anyone into a contract they can't get out of in perpetuity to strangers, be it a cell phone company or a government.

    If a relationship is not voluntary it could not possibly be said to be by consent.

    I've already told you that I don't consent. And if the word consent is supposed to mean anything, it means that people have the option of not consenting.

    There is nothing of any reality in this. There are something like half a million laws on the books. And I have absolutely nothing to do with any of them being there. I certainly have never created any governments. I'm just some guy. And if I did create the government ought I not to have the power to uncreate it? This is all so very strange. How can you possibly think that I have anything even remotely to do with the activities of the government? They have total dominion over me, not the other way around.

    Here are two good videos if you are so inclined:

    I'm Allowed to Rob You
    The Magic of Pronouns

    What if I deliberately disobey a police officer?

    What if I started selling LSD or pot?

    What if I truly started living as though I were a free person living in a free society and did what I really wanted?

    Is that allowed?

    The state doesn't exist. Only people exist. These people who call themselves the state are just random strangers who I have never met and don't trust as they are outside of my Dunbar unit, which means that it is completely rational for me not to trust them in the slightest.

    Essentially what you are saying is that random strangers I've never met get to take a cut out of any voluntary interaction I have with people I do know and trust?


    You still aren't addressing what makes the activities of the state any different form those of any other person. The "consent of the governed" is not a valid justification. If six out of ten people agree that my neighbor Bob should be allowed to rob me, does that make it okay?

    I don't want to be governed. I want to voluntarily associate or not associate with people.

    There is nothing of any reality in this position. The state owns all of the guns, all of the prisons, all of the nuclear weapons. It controls (mutilates) the psychological development of every child that is filtered through it's education camps. I just want to live my life and be happy. I have no interest in wasting it trying take on a leviathan that is nothing more than a cold monster. Sure, maybe if I invested my soul into it, I might get a little change in one particular area. But I don't want to use the state to force my beliefs on others.

    If people are too stupid to be trusted with running their own lives, than it must also be true that they are too stupid to be trusted with running other peoples lives. Political candidates are people. They are not mythical beasts who tranced any of the faults or problems you can find with any one else. Therefore it makes no sense to say that I can just vote for someone else. I already understand myself better than political candidates do. And I don't wish to use the leverage of the state to force my ideas on others.

    Sure as hell can't leave on my salary.

    But when I take my car to the mechanic I understand there is a direct relationship between his expertise and what I require. All an election win tells us is that one candidate is better at convincing people to vote for him than the other guy (ie: he is better at selling fantasy).

    This is abuser apologetics 101. How about I say that if you stay you are consenting to obey my rules? I'm just a person. The state is just people too. It doesn't make any sense to say that If you stay here you have to obey some people and not others. There is nothing magical or special about the people in government. If I had the power to force you to obey my rules would it make any difference? Would it be okay if I gave you the choice between myself and my buddy down the street, and held a new election every couple of years?

    The same could be said when slavery was normal. The fact that you have no rebuttal but to just tell me to get lost is an admission that your position is running on fumes here. You say it's by consent, but you define any other position out of existence. If the children next door are being regularly beaten the proper response isn't to run for the hills and abandon them to their torment. It's to try to point out to people that beating children is wrong. And this is exactly what is happening to children in public schools. Their minds are being beaten into an amorphous paste in order to serve the interests of the state. To turn them into the types of people fit to be managed.

    This is wrong.

    You have revealed everything I need to know based on what you haven't responded too here. Hell, you aren't even trying to refute any of my points. Obviously, if people "consent" to the government it means they must have the option of not consenting. Not consenting in a meaningful way. Like not having to fund wars. Wars are evil. I don't consent to funding them. If the right to disagree with government means anything it means the right to act on those beliefs.

    This is no different than theists saying that you have the free choice to obey god, but if you don't like it you can just go to hell. As if there were any sanity, empathy, or justice whatsoever in this position. It is just bigotry.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2012
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    No, I don't break the laws so I don't have to worry being pulled over.
    You obviously do, so you worry about them.

    Oh BS, the vast majority of arrests are not for non-violent crimes.

    2009 Total 11,062,554 Arrests
    Violent crime 467,925
    ..Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 10,010
    ..Forcible rape 17,473
    ..Robbery 102,071
    ..Aggravated assault 338,371
    Property crime 1,396,365
    ..Burglary 240,919
    ..Larceny-theft 1,080,053
    ..Motor vehicle theft 65,593
    ..Arson 9,800

    Other assaults 1,061,342
    Forgery and counterfeiting 68,894
    Fraud 173,685
    Embezzlement 14,562
    Stolen property 84,287
    Vandalism 217,395
    Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc. 132,910
    Prostitution and commercialized vice 56,869
    Sex offenses 61,467
    Drug abuse violations 1,332,981
    Gambling 8,170
    Offenses against the family and children 92,366
    Driving under the influence 1,158,468
    Liquor laws 48,182
    Drunkenness 488,110
    Disorderly conduct 529,455
    Vagrancy 26,563
    All other offenses (except traffic) 306,133
    Suspicion 1,597
    Curfew and loitering law violations 91,005
    Runaways 75,823

    Nope, they don't make the laws.
    Nor do they determine guilt.
    You really don't know how our government works do you?

    And no one is being kidnapped.
    The Police turn them over to the Justice System which indeed has bail and Habeus Corpus rules.
    You REALLY don't know how our govenment actually works, do you?

    And I explained that it doesn't.
    You can leave any time you want.

    If you stay, you are giving your consent.
    You don't have to stay.
    It's a BIG world.
    There are lots of other choices.

    And I've told you that you can leave if you don't consent.
    What part of staying implies consent don't you understand?

    This country is not just about you.

    You do.
    It's how our government works.
    You just have to find enough other people who agree with you first.

    Nah, they have sensible laws that allow you freedom to pretty much do what you please.

    Sorry, not into You-tubes as a form of argument.
    State your case if you can.

    Well if it's not a trivial issue you could get in trouble.
    But you know what, there really aren't that many police officers running around telling you what to do.

    Well you could get arrested.
    Is that what this is all about?
    You don't like it that drugs are illegal.
    Again, you can move to places where they are.

    Sure, works for me.

    So? again it's not all about you.

    Nope, only if you exchange the money the people allowed the government to create. Use of their money is indeed a form of consent.

    When you want to deal with the real world let me know.

    Again, move to where you won't be.

    As far as I know you can do that here.

    So move.

    So move.

    Too bad.

    No it's not.
    There are 310 million other people here.
    They, for the most part, don't agree with you.

    But they were here first and made the rules.
    Don't like em, then you can either stay and work to change them or find another place that suits you better.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2012
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Here's something we could think about: Tibet

    Tibetans live in China. Not by any choosing of their own. If you are born in Tibet today, you are Chinese. It's that simple. Just like if I'm born in MI today, I'm American. Tibetans are forced, by the majority Han, to live a certain way, to pay certain taxes to the State and to effectively loose their liberty to the majority (along with their culture).

    The Han majority see things a slightly different way - the way any Statist Technocrat naturally would: The "Greater Good". Mother Knows Best.

    For the Greater Good of China, these people must conform. If they do not, they should go to prison. PRISON. Dawg would argue this isn't an act of violence. I disagree. Still, I think we both agree that the initiation of force against a Tibetan-Chinese is not virtuous and therefor immoral.

    According to Asguard's logic, if a Tibetan has his own farm (property) it's not really his. He may have farmed it his entire life (for generations of his family) but, the food/property he produces through his labor actually belongs to the State to re-distribute as it sees fit. Asguard went so far as to suggest (if we extend his logic to this analogy) that IF they didn't give their property (food) to the State (for the greater good) then they, the Tibetam, were the social "parasites" ("paracyte?"). Can you believe that? That THEY, the farmers, were somehow "stealing" from the State.

    Is that back-arse backwards or what?!?!?

    That's freaken crazy. Asguard seems to suggest labor, production and money itself isn't owned by a person doing it?!?! What the hell does THAT mean? Have we crawled up into our own anuses so far we've lost sight of what "money" actually is?!?!?

    Arthur I just don't know. It's not like he doesn't understand what he supports is immoral, it's as if he just doesn't want to admit it is.

    What's weird, to me anyway, is how people are so enamored with what is, that they can't seem to imagine what could be. It's as if it's impossible to for them to see a world where peaceful interactions on an individual level are accepted as the norm and not the State regulated bullshit that's coughed up as "Liberty" now a days. You may not know it, but you are loosing your liberty. It is happening. Slowly we're accepting our pen. I think its' sad. Even shocking. When the Cattle clamor to be in the pen, wow, that's something. Your own labor isn't your own. Shocking. Property rights is one of the central pillars of Western civilization. Another is Individual responsibility. As these go, so does our civilization.

    Income tax is the same as a Han forcing a Tibetan farmer to give away their produce for the greater good. It's stealing. You may take the food and use it to pay for police - something society needs, it's still stealing. Initiation of force against the farmer is immoral. Putting the farmer in prison for not letting your take his produce - is immoral. Grow your own god damn food - or trade for his. But, don't think just because you want his labor/food/produce for "the greater good", that taking it is somehow moral. It's not, it's stealing. Wrap it up in all the "Good of the Nation" you want, it's still stealing. Stealing is, as we all know, immoral.

    Income tax, is, immoral.

    I suppose having a peace of paper in your hand (dollar), somehow removes the reality of what your supporting - violence (or here, the initiation of force). At least you can rest easy knowing you're in good company. Most people do support stealing, and they're paying for it in prosperity a little each day and wondering why society seems to suck more and more.....
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2012
  21. Xotica Everyday I’m Shufflin Registered Senior Member

    There are vast swaths of ungoverned land in the African Sahel. If you prefer a more scenic topography, the mountainous interior of Yemen should do nicely.
  22. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Im sorry, didnt realise you lived in a dictatorship, didnt realise you lived in Tibet. Thought you lived in the DEMOCRACY of the USA. Your whole argument is invalid
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Tibet is an example. Also, we live in a Republic. Though, more democratic non-governmental institutions would be ideal.

    Anyway, as I was saying, Tibet was an example. I only offered it as an example because it illustrates nicely what Statism is and how States initiate force against the Citizens in the State. Which, if you stop and think about it, really makes you wonder why any sane individual would want the State to have more power over their lives. While Steve Jobs may be rich, he's not above the Law, he can not initiate force against you. Only the State has that privilege.

    Secondly, this is about logic (which is why I put it in Philosophy). It's about whether initiation of force is moral. We're having an ethical debate. Income tax is one form of State initiated force against the individual. You completely skip over the moral conundrum (if one exists) and right over to you pragmatic ideals of an equitable society. To do this you stepped on both Individual Liberty and Private Property - pretty much the two reasons why we have modern civilization with democratic institutions!

    Once you address the issue of whether or not income tax is moral, then you can address the issue of who to fund all the things YOU seem to think the general public at large would like to have (yet for some reason don't think private individuals can supply with). You haven't even thought about State run Central Banks. They steal from you too. Usually giving your money to their friends!

    Lastly, surely you agree the produce of the Tibetan farmer belongs to the Tibetan farmer and not the Chinese State? Oh, sure, the Farmer uses the State run roads (maybe that's about it). But, that Farmer didn't have a say in where he was born. He didn't have a choice in the making of that road. You can't say "Well, you use the road, we're taking 35% of your produce". Can you? Does that sound right? What if he doesn't even use this "service"? Maybe someone else comes and picks up his produce and take it away. Maybe he doesn't want to sell his produce. To just up and take his food, his money, is not moral.

    I've noticed more and more, that when I was growing up, when someone said something you didn't like the reply was: Well, he's entitled to his opinion. You just don't hear that much any more. It's now that people don't speak their mind. While this may have to do with PC. I think in many cases people are worried. Worried they'll be in trouble - even go to jail. A sign of the times ahead - that much I'm sure of. Soon, it'll be doubleplus ungood to have this conversation on the internet. Wouldn't want ungood unthunk thinks thought

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I like that phase, I think I'll patent it and then use the State against anyone who dares utter it in the Commons!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Mar 6, 2012

Share This Page