Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft

[tomdemaine]

[ 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?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I believe it's in "There are no positive moral obligations" (tomdemaine to correct me if I'm wrong). If you breath, you are not morally responsible for the fact that you've denied someone else the ability to use that air.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't lead to the belief that you can claim a territory/forest/mine/etc for your own exclusive use.

i.e.,

"I believe I don't owe you anything" does not directly lead to "I can claim this land for me and me alone by right"

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't lead to the belief that you can claim a territory/forest/mine/etc for your own exclusive use.

i.e.,

"I believe I don't owe you anything" does not directly lead to "I can claim this land for me and me alone by right"

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? If I don't owe you anything, and I claim a piece of land as mine because I have worked to develop it for my use, how can you argue that it's not actually mine unless you argue that I owe part of it to someone else?

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't lead to the belief that you can claim a territory/forest/mine/etc for your own exclusive use.

i.e.,

"I believe I don't owe you anything" does not directly lead to "I can claim this land for me and me alone by right"

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? If I don't owe you anything, and I claim a piece of land as mine because I have worked to develop it for my use, how can you argue that it's not actually mine unless you argue that I owe part of it to someone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I argue that you can't "own" a piece of land in the sense you're using. Show me how "I own myself and the things I produce" implies that you can own a piece of the earth for exclusive use -- it isn't yourself, and you didn't produce it, so that argument doesn't hold. Nobody is saying you owe the earth to anybody else since you never provided a legitimate basis to claim it for exclusive use in the first place. If you want to state that as an axiom, be my guest, but it doesn't flow from the axioms we are discussing.

[Kaj]

[ 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.

Or is your #6 saying that anybody can grab up the earth if they're first and claim it for themselves because "no moral systems apply"? Because if that's the case, fine. It might be easier and more clear to people if you just state "6. Anybody can grab up the earth if they're first and claim it for themselves" as your axiom. And since I disagree with this as my own axiom (and others might as well), we'd clearly see why we disagree on our conclusions.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.