Burden of proof

[Nielsio]

If anyone here thinks goverment (centralized monopolist of force) is justified, they may state their moral principles. Such as "so and so should do so and so" or "it's good if so and so". This will start in the form of specific actions that can be undertaken by people. IF such things can be shown to be consistent moral principles, something like a govt may be a justified result of it, but it has to start with actions.

Here are the three principles that they at the very minimum have to abide to:

1. Nothing exists except people.

There is no such thing as "the government," or a "country," or "society." All these terms for social aggregations are merely conceptual labels for individuals. "The government" never does anything – only people within the government act. Thus the "government" – since it is a concept – has no reality, ethical rights or moral standing. Moral rules apply to people, not concepts. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual people.


2. What is good for one must be good for all.

Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it.


3. What is bad for one must be bad for all.

Conversely, if it is wrong for me to go and steal money from someone else, then it is wrong for anyone to go and steal money from anyone else. If shooting a man who is not threatening you is evil in Atlanta, then it is also evil in Iraq. If being paid to go and shoot someone is wrong for a hit man, then it is also wrong for a soldier. If breaking into a peaceful citizen’s house, kidnapping him and holding him prisoner is wrong for you and me, than it is also wrong for the agents of the DEA.

Thus far, the argument from morality is very similar to the argument from consistency. The argument from morality comes in by stating that, if it is wrong or evil for me to rob Peter to pay Paul, then it is wrong or evil for anyone – including politicians – to do it. Thus a man who defends state welfare programs, for instance, can only do so on the grounds of personal preference, but he cannot claim that it is moral. In fact, he must admit that, on the basis of any universal principles, the welfare state is immoral, since if it is wrong for anyone to steal, then it is also wrong for everyone to steal – including politicians!

[Borodog]

Your definitions, although simple, straightforward, and obvious to anyone who has thought about these issues rationally with any intellectual honesty, are inconvenient for those who wish to force their plans on others, and will hence be dismissed through handwaving and mental gyrations.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Your definitions, although simple, straightforward, and obvious to anyone who has thought about these issues rationally with any intellectual honesty, are inconvenient for those who wish to force their plans on others, and will hence be dismissed through handwaving and mental gyrations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if this is supposed to be a straw man statement or if you foolishly believe this.

Can we label this the "rubber and glue" defense?

[FredBoots]

Governments aren’t stealing when they levy taxes because they provide services that allow you to make money. Businesses (and you) make money because society allows you to. If all the schools closed, and the roads were allowed to crumble, and healthcare went away, do you really think you could earn the money you do?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Governments aren’t stealing when they levy taxes because they provide services that allow you to make money. Businesses (and you) make money because society allows you to. If all the schools closed, and the roads were allowed to crumble, and healthcare went away, do you really think you could earn the money you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, here we go...

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Governments aren’t stealing when they levy taxes

[/ QUOTE ]

So telling to me hand over 30% of my income or else my house is taken and I go to jail for 30 years is somehow not theft. Amazing thought process you have.

[ QUOTE ]
because they provide services that allow you to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like invading Iraq? Or I take it the end justifies the means? Therefore if I mug someone but then go buy him a bag of candy later that night with his money, I didn't actually mug him? Again, amazing thought process you have.

[ QUOTE ]
Businesses (and you) make money because society allows you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So everyone wants food, and I run a business that provides food in exchange for money (good food for a good price mind you). How is it that society allows or disallows me to make money?

[ QUOTE ]
If all the schools closed, and the roads were allowed to crumble, and healthcare went away, do you really think you could earn the money you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Education is demanded, and clearly it will be supplied. Private education from pre-school to college already exists. Roads would be demanded (highly) and certainly they would be supplied as well in a free market.

And throwing in "if healthcare went away" doesn't make any sense to your argument, since government does not provide health care to most Americans.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate logically how roads and schools would not exist in a free market, a daunting task considering they already do to the extent that the government allows them to.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
So telling to me hand over 30% of my income or else my house is taken and I go to jail for 30 years is somehow not theft. Amazing thought process you have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Virtually noone but a handful of ACers believe this to be theft. The concept of theft and property are social ones, they're defined by what people believe to be just, not somewhere on eternal stone tablets. Most people at bottom will sometimes privilege collective rights over individual ones, regardless of the AC assertion that the former "don't exist."

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Virtually noone but a handful of ACers believe this to be theft. The concept of theft and property are social ones, they're defined by what people believe to be just, not somewhere on eternal stone tablets. Most people at bottom will sometimes privilege collective rights over individual ones, regardless of the AC assertion that the former "don't exist."


[/ QUOTE ]

While it is certainly true that definitions are based on social uses, that doesn't mean that a specific usage of a term might not be consistent with its general use. The fact that we don't generally consider taxation to be theft does not carry much weight, if it can be shown that the way we more generally use the term theft would be an apt term to describe taxation.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Virtually noone but a handful of ACers believe this to be theft. The concept of theft and property are social ones, they're defined by what people believe to be just, not somewhere on eternal stone tablets. Most people at bottom will sometimes privilege collective rights over individual ones, regardless of the AC assertion that the former "don't exist."


[/ QUOTE ]

While it is certainly true that definitions are based on social uses, that doesn't mean that a specific usage of a term might not be consistent with its general use. The fact that we don't generally consider taxation to be theft does not carry much weight, if it can be shown that the way we more generally use the term theft would be an apt term to describe taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but people's concepts change depending on the context of what is being discussed. If you';re talking purely about one individual versus another, then tax would seem to fall under theft. But people's concept of theft changes totally when the govenment or collective organisations are involved for the reason that people make choices and tradeoffs between protecting individual rights and what they think serves a wider good. I realise you think that is wrong and always will be, but you aren;t going to ever convince the vast majorty that it is because their values are simply different from yours.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Virtually noone but a handful of ACers believe this to be theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you accept extortion or perhaps blackmail?

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of theft and property are social ones, they're defined by what people believe to be just, not somewhere on eternal stone tablets. Most people at bottom will sometimes privilege collective rights over individual ones, regardless of the AC assertion that the former "don't exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that rights are a social construct, but if it is true that so many people believe that government is just and necessary, then why not make taxes voluntary? More specifically, why doesn't it follow that people should be able to voluntarily pay for things like roads, protection, legal services, and anything else that people demand of government? If the demand is so high as you assert, then why can these things not be provided in the absence of coercion?