Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think the distinction between theoretical and practical here is either clear-cut or helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was mostly just to help me and tomdemaine have an interesting discussion about the philosophical concept of "rights". I acknowledged right up front that I didn't think it would be a practical problem.

[ QUOTE ]
But you're just assuming a state that (theoretically) solves the problem--or at least it's the type of State that would have the relevant rules--but you're not allowing that a stateless society might have similar (but noncoercive) measures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I did - when I acknowledged to tomdemaine that i didn't actually think it was a practical problem, that's what I was allowing.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're just assuming that governments will be "nice". There's no reason, then, to NOT assume individuals wouldn't be just as nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acknowledged. My point is that, for any political system to exist in a territory, there has to be some critical mass of people in the territory that believe in the underlying system of "rights" of human beings. Some alternatives are:

1. Property rights only, to define rights by sub-territory where the sub-territories are the boundaries off properties
2. Some more extensive Bill of Rights document that applies to all property in the territory

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
It's bad because such a norm would ultimately weaken human productivity.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying that universal norms exist for human behaviour?

On what basis is 'human prodictivity' deemed important?


Also, let's put your ideas to the test:

A] You're walking around town and you see a convicted rapist and murderer sneaking into a highschool party. What do you do and why?

B] You're walking around town with 20 of your buddies. A young lady walks by. The other group members democratically decide to rape the girl. They are approaching the girl and she starts screaming. You have a gun. What do you do and why?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The preference of the people who are strong enough to defend it is really all that constitutes morality anyways. "

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ might makes right


...so when slavery was generally accepted, it was morally acceptable, and now it's not, because the strong choose not to defend it any longer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, societies evolve just like individuals, but in the context of the times slavery was not immoral in US society, just as slavery may not be immoral in other societies today, or cannibalism was or is acceptable in some societies.

There may be logical and/or strong philosophical arguments that demonstrate the superiority of a given society's morality (eg the treatment of women in the Middle East) but intelletually based superiority is not "universal whatevers".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you need to make this concession, and I don't think its true. I agree with you that morality is subjective, in a certain sense, in that it isn't written into the cosmos or passed down from God. However, I think morality is universal from a HUMAN standpoint, in that all human beings have a roughly equivalent moral sense, with the exception of sociopaths and other aberrations. The differences are in the consistency and logical application of that morality. Slavery was not moral simply because it was practiced with a clean conscience. Slavery was immoral because it conflicts with basic human principles. Its just that slave-owners were objectively incorrect in how they applied their own moral codes. Nothing new there. If I were to give you a list of my core axioms (there are probably 3 or 4 of these) you could, with time and data, extrapolate my exact code of behavior in every situation by simply logically and consistently applying these axioms. The axioms themselves are 'relative' or 'arbitrary' in some sense, in that I cannot support them and anyone is capable of disagreeing and coming up with their own. The lucky part is that humans pretty much all share the same ones. I think there are very good reasons for this commonality, but they aren't important. The practical fact that humans everywhere, in every society, solve morality 'quizzes' in the same way is enough.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The preference of the people who are strong enough to defend it is really all that constitutes morality anyways. "

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ might makes right

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys seem to overlook the fact that when society at large believes a certain behavior to be bad, then that alone puts people who share that preference in a position of "strength" when it comes to restricting that behavior.

How else exactly do you think it *just so happens* that the things which seem "moral" are also things that seem to make our lives better and more productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trial and error, natural selection.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The preference of the people who are strong enough to defend it is really all that constitutes morality anyways. "

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ might makes right

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys seem to overlook the fact that when society at large believes a certain behavior to be bad, then that alone puts people who share that preference in a position of "strength" when it comes to restricting that behavior.

How else exactly do you think it *just so happens* that the things which seem "moral" are also things that seem to make our lives better and more productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! Just remind those slaves that slavery not only "seems" moral, it also makes the lives of the slaves better and more productive!

[neverforgetlol]

[ 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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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?

[Nielsio]

Utilitarianism = Might makes right, because:


It relies on individual calculations of utility that affect others so people will do whatever they can get away with, and as such the powerful are justified because they are the powerful.


I suggest that people who think like this start to learn to say "NO!". There are things that are NOT right.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, societies evolve just like individuals, but in the context of the times slavery was not immoral in US society, just as slavery may not be immoral in other societies today, or cannibalism was or is acceptable in some societies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but this just highlights the difference between how individuals or groups might perceive reality, and reality itself. Slavery is immoral, and always has been, in the US (and everywhere else)--but 200 years ago the majority of people thought of slavery as morally acceptable. These people just happened to be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
There may be logical and/or strong philosophical arguments that demonstrate the superiority of a given society's morality (eg the treatment of women in the Middle East) but intelletually based superiority is not "universal whatevers".

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, I think, though I don't really remember what "universal whatevers" refers to...