|
View Poll Results: Should people without kids be exempted from paying taxes that are going towards schools/education? | |||
yes | 29 | 18.95% | |
no | 122 | 79.74% | |
results | 2 | 1.31% | |
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The difference between being coerced and coercing
From another thread:
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is the difference between your child tripping outside and being impaled on a knife and dying... and me charging at your child with a knife and stabbing her to death? [/ QUOTE ] I see none. [/ QUOTE ] The reason this person sees none is that he is only looking at one narrow aspect: [ QUOTE ] In both instances my child would be dead, I would be sad, and I would remove the hazard after the fact (too late for my child, but hopefully in time to save others from the same fate). [/ QUOTE ] In other words, he is only observing that someone died. He is totally ignoring that in one case someone *acted* and the other one didn't. There is a difference between looking at cases where one is forced to do something and looking at cases where one forces others to do something. There is not a one-to-on mapping. People are forced to "work or die" every day. People are "forced" to eat to survive. But there is no moral agent at the other end making a *decision* to force people into these situations. There is nobody to blame. Yet those who only see someone being coerced think that *someone* must be "made responsible". Yet there is nobody who can justly be saddled with the obligation to remedy these conditions. This is the critical fallacy that has struck a long line of distinguished politics posters, including moorobot, propertarian, and most recently jogger. |
|
|