|
|
#81
05-28-2007, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If I'm not morally obligated then what obligates me? The other guy's bigger guns or something else? [/ QUOTE ] You are living on the territory jointly owned by the people of the US. You are obligated to share the cost of administration of this territory. If you do not want to, then you can leave or try to buy your own sovereign territory and administer it yourself. There is nothing stopping you from making an offer to have the people cede you territory or finding another territory to live on. [/ QUOTE ] If you are appealing to the property rights of the alleged landowners then that is a moral argument. 
|
|
#82
05-28-2007, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
BTW I don't really think you've captured the social contract argument, I thought it gives more importance to the fact that I use government services (roads, schools, etc) to obligate me to pay taxes, not the supposed joint-ownership of the sovereign "We the People"
|
|
#83
05-28-2007, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If I'm not morally obligated then what obligates me? The other guy's bigger guns or something else? [/ QUOTE ] You are living on the territory jointly owned by the people of the US. You are obligated to share the cost of administration of this territory. If you do not want to, then you can leave or try to buy your own sovereign territory and administer it yourself. There is nothing stopping you from making an offer to have the people cede you territory or finding another territory to live on. [/ QUOTE ] If you are appealing to the property rights of the alleged landowners then that is a moral argument. [/ QUOTE ] Good correction. I was using morality in a more specific sense. In the sense you use, my moral argument is not in conflict with that espoused by PVN, and hence no conflict of moralities existed, thus no need for morality to be the thrust of the debate. That was my intended point.
|
|
#84
05-28-2007, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Many statists expect you to pay taxes because they think it's your moral obligation. [/ QUOTE ] I personally don't know any statists, at least on this board, who would advocate that paying taxes to a govt is a question of morality. I don't recall the "Thou shalt pay taxes" argument ever being uttered. [/ QUOTE ] They don't say that paying to the government is a moral issue, but they will say that paying to "the common cause" because of "social contracts" and so forth are moral issues. They may not use the word "moral", but they don't use language like "because the government has the biggest guns" either. [/ QUOTE ] A social contract argument is not a moral argument. [/ QUOTE ] But morality is a social construct.
|
|
#85
05-28-2007, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
For your entertainment and, maybe, education:
My Son, Klan Reformer - A Political Fable... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcdxuxufAKY
|
|
#86
05-28-2007, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I don't really think you've captured the social contract argument, I thought it gives more importance to the fact that I use government services (roads, schools, etc) to obligate me to pay taxes [/ QUOTE ] That's not *my* social contract argument.
|
|
#87
05-29-2007, 05:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
From another board:
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Argh. She was also rather clearly implying that I'm not pleased with the government because I don't participate in it. [/ QUOTE ] This is how I psychologise politicians. They want to do good for society, to make society better, but they need power to make change. So they aim to get into power and then change society to match their vision. They can get power by being voted into office, and they can manipulate the majority's opinion to some degree because those who are educated and well informed tend to be the minority. What they need is for everyone to vote because they can then argue that they are doing whatever they are doing in the name of the people. This allows people to accept the politician enacting his or her vision. So to get people to vote, they obviously talk about how they care and only want to make change for the better, etc, and of course they come down hard on anyone who doesn't vote. The typically argue that you have no right to complain if you don't vote because you had the opportunity to voice your opinion in the election and you shirked that responsibility. You are therefore not someone who cares all that much, obviously. Whatever opinion you happen to hold is therefore not terribly relevant. The problem with that argument is that they can manipulate the outcome of the vote by manipulating the opinion of the majority of uninformed people. If you happen to be well informed, voting really doesn't mean anything in the long run. If you are in the minority, all your vote does is add legitimacy to the democratic process. So when they argue that you shirked your responsibility to vote, what they actually mean is that you shirked your responsibility to make the democratic process seem more respectable than it is. When you abstain, no politician can argue that they are acting in your interest. They can only try to use guilt to get you to vote or to brandish you as bad so that the uninformed will continue to vote. If vast numbers of people stop voting, that seriously undermines the credibility of politicians because it is then very obvious that whatever mandate they think they have doesn't include a vast section of the population. So don't be surprised that your friend lays on the guilt about your nonparticipation. That is the very core of their power base, getting people to participate by making nonparticipation expensive. As I said before, apathy and abstention is their enemy. [/ QUOTE ] -Vertigo, http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/fo...=120558#120558
|
|
#88
05-29-2007, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If I'm not morally obligated then what obligates me? The other guy's bigger guns or something else? [/ QUOTE ] You are living on the territory jointly owned by the people of the US. You are obligated to share the cost of administration of this territory. If you do not want to, then you can leave or try to buy your own sovereign territory and administer it yourself. There is nothing stopping you from making an offer to have the people cede you territory or finding another territory to live on. [/ QUOTE ] If you are appealing to the property rights of the alleged landowners then that is a moral argument. [/ QUOTE ] That would make it ethical, not moral.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
