Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
It looks like you just assume that humans have a right to appropriate the earth for their own exclusive use and can't show how this follows from your own starting axioms, yet you don't want to explicitly state it as an axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking for A=>B, when the easiest way to see that that A=>B in this case is to show that ~B=>~A, which is logically equivalent.

Assume that nobody can ever own any land. Assume someone uses a piece of land to produce food. Who owns the food? It was previously part of the land, and was created from the product of someone's labour. Does the labourer own the food? Is he obligated to provide some of it to other because he used "public land"? If he does not own the land, he can't own the food that produced on the land, implying that he doesn't own the product of his own labour, which implies that he doesn't own himself.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What set of subjective axioms is AC based on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mine

1. Things exist

2. Humans (at least) are creatures who own themselves (and therefore the things they produce)

3. Any moral prescription must be universally applied. (good for the goose is good for the gander no separate classes of citizens)

4. Not stealing and not murdering are valid universal moral prescriptions. (from self ownership)

5. There are no positive moral obligations (someone in a coma cannot be considered evil)

6. There is no moral judgement in a state of nature. (we don't judge a lion for killing an antelope train switching scenarios are not valid to judge morality.)

I'll talk further about any of these if anyone wants. What are yours? Though I do'nt think these are subjective to be honest I think if you asked any group of people independently of a poilitcal discussion tyhey would all agree with these axioms. They are jsut scared of the consequences of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere in your list of axioms do you state that humans have a right to appropriate the earth for their own exclusive use. Could you please show me how this belief is derived from your axioms, if indeed you hold that belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Humans (at least) are creatures who own themselves (and therefore the things they produce)"

Animal rights is tricky but lets sort out the giant guns pointed at everyone first and then we'll get down to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again will you please show me how "humans own themselves" leads to "humans have a right to appropriate the earth for their own exclusive use". You haven't done this just by repeating again that humans own themselves or the things they produce (the earth isn't a human, nor did humans produce it). It looks like you just assume that humans have a right to appropriate the earth for their own exclusive use and can't show how this follows from your own starting axioms, yet you don't want to explicitly state it as an axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Covered by 6. Until it's appropriated it's a state of nature (literally) and no moral systems apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

What axiom gives you the right to appropriate the earth for exclusive use? Can you please be specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rights and wrongs only occour when morality is applied to a situaion. Pre-appropriation it makes no sense to talk of right and wrong (as they are human concepts) so the first person to appropriate a resource from "the earth" doesn't need a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for clarifying. So your axiom is that anybody can claim the earth for their own exclusive use if they are there first. Fine. Like I alluded to before, you now admit that your advocacy of this position is based on your arbitrary axiom itself rather than a flowdown from the concept of self ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your problem is that humans can't ever "own" anything on the earth then surely the last thing you would want would be a state. Presumably the most moral system would then be one where all humans currently alive killed themselves as they can't really "own" the food they eat or the air they breathe. If those are really your morals I suggest you start living by them. That may cut this debate a little short however.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, a state is the last thing I'd want.

Second, I never said we don't own products of the earth, just that we don't have a right to own the earth for exclusive use.

Third, we were having a civilized debate regarding your belief in the right to claim the earth for exclusive use, and then you thinly veil a suggestion for me to kill myself. That's pretty lame. Is there anything in my questioning that was rude or offensive? Is there anything in my questioning that suggested I believe we can't eat food? ou stated your axioms, and from there the debate could begin. I stated which axiom I differed with. Why can't you live with that? Maybe because you don't want to really admit that your belief in exclusive use of the earth is based on a fundamental axiom rather than a flowdown from self-ownership? Or you just don't like people pointing that out?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. AC's use "natural rights" as some abstraction to "prove" their system is the only correct one.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this even mean? This is like scoffing at mathematicians because they use "numbers" as some abstraction to "prove" that algebra is the only correct system.

I don't think I'd agree that merely looking at natural rights shows us that AC is the one and only correct system--but to dismiss a line of reasoning because it's "abstract" is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's just say I think the idea of universal morals is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be what you say but it isn't how you live. You live as if the idea of universal moral is an absolute fact. Lets test it. I beleive that it is the ultimate morality thing to do to empty your bank account and give all your money to me over stars. MY moral opinion is just as valid as yours right? so if I find a way to hack your stars account and send the money to me that isn't an immoral thing to do and I have no obligation to give any of your money back right?

[/ QUOTE ]

you are confusing moral relativism with moral nihilism. I am the first, meaning I believe morals are not universal, however I still can make judgments about which ones I think are the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

But your judgements are no more valid than anyone elses right? So whats the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain what is meant by valid. They are certainly valid to me. As I said, I do make judgments.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not universally valid so you have no right to impose those judgements on others. You have to judge from afar without acting to stop theft rape and murder because from anothers viewpoint they may be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put plainly, that is bullcrap. Those things might be seen as OK from another viewpoint, all right, but that other viewpoint would be WRONG and invalid.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But not universally valid so you have no right to impose those judgements on others. You have to judge from afar without acting to stop theft rape and murder because from anothers viewpoint they may be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put plainly, that is bullcrap. Those things might be seen as OK from another viewpoint, all right, but that other viewpoint would be WRONG and invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the whole point - there is no underlying moral code that is right, with all alternative codes being relatively right or wrong (valid or invalid). To say that there is a correct moral code is to say that your moral code is the correct moral code, which is to fail to acknowledge that every other person on earth feels the exact same way OR to say that you are right and billions of other people are wrong, which is the height of arrogance.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. AC's use "natural rights" as some abstraction to "prove" their system is the only correct one.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this even mean? This is like scoffing at mathematicians because they use "numbers" as some abstraction to "prove" that algebra is the only correct system.

I don't think I'd agree that merely looking at natural rights shows us that AC is the one and only correct system--but to dismiss a line of reasoning because it's "abstract" is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's just say I think the idea of universal morals is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be what you say but it isn't how you live. You live as if the idea of universal moral is an absolute fact. Lets test it. I beleive that it is the ultimate morality thing to do to empty your bank account and give all your money to me over stars. MY moral opinion is just as valid as yours right? so if I find a way to hack your stars account and send the money to me that isn't an immoral thing to do and I have no obligation to give any of your money back right?

[/ QUOTE ]

you are confusing moral relativism with moral nihilism. I am the first, meaning I believe morals are not universal, however I still can make judgments about which ones I think are the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

But your judgements are no more valid than anyone elses right? So whats the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain what is meant by valid. They are certainly valid to me. As I said, I do make judgments.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not universally valid so you have no right to impose those judgements on others. You have to judge from afar without acting to stop theft rape and murder because from anothers viewpoint they may be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]


Because you have no "right" to impose your beliefs on others doesn't mean you can't act on those beliefs. You are arguing against a straw man to imply that 'no universal morality --> you can't judge others actions --> you can't act'

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you can act but so can any murderer or rapist safe in the knowledge that morality is merely an opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

And?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't give you pause for thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, why should it? Morality *is* merely an opinion -- you said yourself that rights and wrongs are just human concepts. But that doesn't mean I can't act against murderers. In fact, if my morality is that I should act against murderers, then it is entirely consistent to act against them even though I acknowledge they may believe they are in the right. You are committing a logical fallacy to argue that "morality is subjective" implies that one cannot act against anybody with a differing moral viewpoint. You really don't see that?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, a state is the last thing I'd want.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good news.

[ QUOTE ]

Second, I never said we don't own products of the earth, just that we don't have a right to own the earth for exclusive use.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok but until someone else comes along to claim their fair use what difference does it make?

[ QUOTE ]

Third, we were having a civilized debate regarding your belief in the right to claim the earth for exclusive use, and then you thinly veil a suggestion for me to kill myself. That's pretty lame. Is there anything in my questioning that was rude or offensive? Is there anything in my questioning that suggested I believe we can't eat food? ou stated your axioms, and from there the debate could begin. I stated which axiom I differed with. Why can't you live with that? Maybe because you don't want to really admit that your belief in exclusive use of the earth is based on a fundamental axiom rather than a flowdown from self-ownership? Or you just don't like people pointing that out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just suggest you should live by the values you espouse, it sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. How is eating food different from owning the earth (or at least that part of the earth which is the food) for exclusive use. Once you've eaten that bit of the earth noone else can eat it. I'd have no real problem saying that exclusive use of the earth by humans is an axiom I don't particularly see what difference it makes like I say until aliens or super smart monkeys come and claim their portion I think it's a fair assumption to work with.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
No, why should it? Morality *is* merely an opinion -- you said yourself that rights and wrongs are just human concepts. But that doesn't mean I can't act against murderers. In fact, if my morality is that I should act against murderers, then it is entirely consistent to act against them even though I acknowledge they may believe they are in the right. You are committing a logical fallacy to argue that "morality is subjective" implies that one cannot act against anybody with a differing moral viewpoint. You really don't see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

This + absence of a state = Bellum omnium contra omnes?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But not universally valid so you have no right to impose those judgements on others. You have to judge from afar without acting to stop theft rape and murder because from anothers viewpoint they may be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put plainly, that is bullcrap. Those things might be seen as OK from another viewpoint, all right, but that other viewpoint would be WRONG and invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the whole point - there is no underlying moral code that is right, with all alternative codes being relatively right or wrong (valid or invalid). To say that there is a correct moral code is to say that your moral code is the correct moral code, which is to fail to acknowledge that every other person on earth feels the exact same way OR to say that you are right and billions of other people are wrong, which is the height of arrogance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, a moral code can be adduced as incorrect because it is theoretically unworkable and unsustainable. If everyone went around murdering all the time, the human species would end. A moral code can be seen as invalid if it cannot work universally, because exceptionalism is not a code but rather merely a self-preference. The Golden Rule actually has very practical applications, in addition to moral implications.

It also happens to be in the Ten Commandments that murder is wrong, and coming from God that carries great weight, but that's a different discussion.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
There are no natural rights. Get over this myth. AC is based on a set of subjective axioms and then proceeds with a logical flowdown of principles based on these axioms -- in this regard, it does a very good job. If I disagree with its basic axioms, however, that doesn't mean I find it illogical, it means I don't believe in the same "abstract" (i.e., made up) set of natural rights that you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are mathematical abstractions "made up" merely because they're abstract? Why would the fact that something's abstract automatically make it subjective?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Second, I never said we don't own products of the earth, just that we don't have a right to own the earth for exclusive use.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok but until someone else comes along to claim their fair use what difference does it make?

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes a world of difference. Because it is the basis for cooperative use of the earth's resources. And just because I don't believe in the natural right to exclusive use of the earth doesn't imply that I wouldn't defend my use of it. See, this is the hard reality for you and others who espouse similar views. You want to pretend that self-ownership logically implies exclusive use of the earth -- I already demonstrated how you couldn't make that connection and finally had to resort to "well if I'm there first I can take it" as a separate axiom. I'll at least admit that my defense of the use of the earth is subjective, whereas you won't admit that your claims to the right of private property as it concerns the earth is subjective (although by making it a separate axiom, you've demonstrated that it is indeed arbitrarily defined -- true only because you stated it as a given).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Third, we were having a civilized debate regarding your belief in the right to claim the earth for exclusive use, and then you thinly veil a suggestion for me to kill myself. That's pretty lame. Is there anything in my questioning that was rude or offensive? Is there anything in my questioning that suggested I believe we can't eat food? ou stated your axioms, and from there the debate could begin. I stated which axiom I differed with. Why can't you live with that? Maybe because you don't want to really admit that your belief in exclusive use of the earth is based on a fundamental axiom rather than a flowdown from self-ownership? Or you just don't like people pointing that out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just suggest you should live by the values you espouse, it sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. How is eating food different from owning the earth (or at least that part of the earth which is the food) for exclusive use. Once you've eaten that bit of the earth noone else can eat it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, there's a difference between stating I have a right to exclusive use of the earth and agreeing that I'd use the earth or it's resources exclusively. You want to attack the straw man argument that if I think you can't claim 10000 acres of land as your own private property that I am against the concept of food. I just am open enough to admit that because I desire food doesn't imply that I can claim territory for myself as a natural right.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have no real problem saying that exclusive use of the earth by humans is an axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would. There's 25 million other species here and generations upon generations who've lived on this planet before you and will come after you. But that's fine that we disagree on our axioms -- it demonstrates why our conclusions differ. The point is that you can't logically state that my axiom is necessarily wrong just because you assumed (rather than showed) yours to be true. And as an aside, it seems you did have a real problem saying that the right to claim the earth for your own exclusive use was an axiom -- first you tried to hide this axiom behind the concept of self-ownership, but that didn't work, then you used a vaguely stated axiom about when morality "starts", which eventually boiled down to "I was here first, so it's mine".