Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft

[ALawPoker]

Well, if someone acts with bias, he is creating some burden, right? If something is a burden, it must have some tangible effect, right? The example I gave dealt with statism. If statism is a burden (which I agree it probably is), then it must be a burden for some tangible reason.

I think a species will always evolve to either eliminate the burden or to no longer interpret the burden. Neither scenario is more or less desirable to me. The ability to build fire is not better to me than the ability to not be cold.

So I guess that highlights why (even though I agree the state is inherently inefficient) I don't really have a problem with the state's existence. It's a problem in the sense that I have to pay taxes for things I don't use. But since whatever I might be able to do about that hardly seems worth the effort, it isn't a burden to me. If I had a butter knife and thought the world would be better if Mt. Rushmore didn't exist because there was a pot of gold in the middle of it, I might decide to just enjoy the scenery instead of doing my little part.

But anyways, what I said (which you won't completely agree with because you don't agree the state is bad) was that when people act with the bias that the state is good, if we just let them, nature will probably weed their condition out in some way if it's truly bad. Maybe people who are more likely to believe in the state will be more likely to see their genes die in wars.

Of course, the alternative, is the state evolves us to "not mind the cold." And again, I personally don't see that as undesirable. But whenever a burden exists, something has to give, right? If ultimately the human condition would not change on account of some action, then based on what would that action actually be bad?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing "suspicious" about it, rape and murder are absolutely wrong no matter what some psychopath like Son of Sam might happen to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Stauffenberg acting immorally when he attempted, at great personal cost (including his life), to assassinate Hitler?

[/ QUOTE ]

And how about defense of other? If I see someone hurting someone else, libertarians can't justify me stopping them, because that person has not used force against myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acting in legitimate self-defense or in legitimate defense of others is not the same as murder. The attempted assassination of Hitler was action in defense of others and hence not attempted murder. If an onlooking policeman or bystander sees a few hoodlums knifing a young woman to death, and that onlooker pulls out a gun and shoots to stop them, that might be killing but it is not murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand. What it is, is "initiation of aggression," something supposedly forbidden by libertarians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I see the rapist as the initial aggressor, so someone stopping him in the act isn't initiating the aggression.

I think if libertarians consider the stopper to be the aggressor, they're just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you can only retaliate against someone who has initiated force against YOU, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that would be somewhere in the definition of "retaliate", yes. I didn't know we were talking about retaliation, though, but I might be a bit lost in the thread.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, a moral code can be adduced as incorrect because it is theoretically unworkable and unsustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I think at the point of "workability" and "sustainability" we're no longer talking about right vs. wrong. Considerations of the consequences that one particular person's moral code would have on others falls under the realm of "acknowledging and coping with the reality that different moral codes exist", it says nothing of the relative merits of those moral codes. Conflict does not imply one side is right and one side is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to say a moral code could be seen as wrong if its adoption by the entire species would cause extinction of the species. Unrestrained murdering would fall into this category.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to believe that "unrestrained murdering" would cause extinction of the species, in fact it might improve the species from an evolutionary aspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe "unrestrained" isn't the right word, but if murdering were highly prevalent, that would cause extinction of the species, since it takes far longer to grow an adult than it does to murder an adult. If over half the population (well-mixed) were frequent murderers, the human spcies would die out. And probably it wouldn't take nearly 50% to achieve that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't provided any further support, just equivication on your original premise. There are numerous mechanisms that could stop "frequent murderers" from causing extinction of the species. In fact the only scenarios that would result in total extinction would be access to a weapon that indirectly caused extinction in the aftermath of its use, or some sort of heritable mass hysteria/insanity overwhelming the "rational" population, in which case it is really the genetics that caused the extinction, not "murder" in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean if murder was a common and accepted moral code, and practiced frequently by much or most of the populace, the humnan species would die out. It wouldn't take a doomsday weapon, just perhaps half of all your neighbors frequently going on murderous rampages with, say, knives or guns or bats.

Therefore I think a moral code which approves of murder is objectively wrong, because it couldn't work as a moral code.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning is circular if by "moral code" you mean something that is "universal". Your premise that a "majority" adhering to that code is a tacit admission that it isn't universal. If it isn't universal then you have no basis for the claim that it would result in extinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd guess that if 25% of the world's population (well-mixed, not in clearly segregated groups) followed a moral code of frequent murdering, it would pretty much wipe out the species.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have moral principles, I just don't consider them "universal" or "ultimate" or whatever the hell you guys are talking about. Anyway, anarchism is more justifiable on a practical basis, we are better off without the state (eventually) then we are with it (in my opinion..i.e. not universal anything).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was getting at--concepts such as "better off" are normative concepts. So it seems to me that either you do actually believe in some fundamental, quasi-universal ethical principles, or if you truly don't then the endeavor of arguing with people about anarchism seems kinda pointless since there aren't any 'right' answers and there is no reason for others to accept your views on what makes us 'better off'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this. I present my case for why X is better than Y, in my opinion, and hope that they agree. Even if I got everyone on my side, that's still just an opinion.

There is plenty of reason for people to accept one thing over another without "universal morality." They just decide on which one they prefer! Why is that so difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's difficult because he's been conditioned to believe the basis of his beliefs rests on absolute truth. Waking up to this fallacy has apparently not been easy for him.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to suggest that maybe you should go back to the drawing board, figure out exactly what it is you want to say, and figure out a better way to convey it to those in your audience who weren't getting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't press the issue since you say you're willing to let it go, but I think it's pretty clear that your intention was to get a snide word and not to politely offer constructive criticism.

If this was really your intention, my humble advice is that you work on your approach.

I think a lot of the "confusion" might come from people assuming that when I don't hold one of your exact beliefs that I think that belief is wrong, or that I hold the opposite belief, when really I might think it is neutral or just not be particularly interested in it.

In any event, no you did not offend me. You believe strongly in your ideas, and I knew what I was getting into when I made a post about AC. Pvn's disagreements were basically par for what I anticipated, and the fact that some people will chalk disagreement up to me being confused doesn't bother me. With pvn's posting style, it is impossible to engage him and not appear "confused" if you are not also an ACer. Since I know I am not exactly an ACer, I know eventually I will say something that he perceives as me changing the goal posts. This does not bother me. It's just that when you attack my overall ability to communicate rather than my ideas, it becomes tough to respond in a way that isn't on personal terms. I guess I could have just ignored you; but there were no other replies to me, so I chose to respond to yours. No offense taken. Apology accepted and reciprocated nonetheless.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if someone acts with bias, he is creating some burden, right? If something is a burden, it must have some tangible effect, right? The example I gave dealt with statism. If statism is a burden (which I agree it probably is), then it must be a burden for some tangible reason.

I think a species will always evolve to either eliminate the burden or to no longer interpret the burden. Neither scenario is more or less desirable to me. The ability to build fire is not better to me than the ability to not be cold.

So I guess that highlights why (even though I agree the state is inherently inefficient) I don't really have a problem with the state's existence. It's a problem in the sense that I have to pay taxes for things I don't use. But since whatever I might be able to do about that hardly seems worth the effort, it isn't a burden to me. If I had a butter knife and thought the world would be better if Mt. Rushmore didn't exist because there was a pot of gold in the middle of it, I might decide to just enjoy the scenery instead of doing my little part.

But anyways, what I said (which you won't completely agree with because you don't agree the state is bad) was that when people act with the bias that the state is good, if we just let them, nature will probably weed their condition out in some way if it's truly bad. Maybe people who are more likely to believe in the state will be more likely to see their genes die in wars.

Of course, the alternative, is the state evolves us to "not mind the cold." And again, I personally don't see that as undesirable. But whenever a burden exists, something has to give, right? If ultimately the human condition would not change on account of some action, then based on what would that action actually be bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I was just trying to figure out whether you actually thought there was an evolutionary mechanism that would have that effect or it was just a vague notion that it would, which is the case.

If anything the pervasiveness of "government" throughout history says to me that it is a beneficial evolutionary trait or it would have been selected against more effectively.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
It's difficult because he's been conditioned to believe the basis of his beliefs rests on absolute truth. Waking up to this fallacy has apparently not been easy for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, what? Since I still do believe in objective morality, I haven't 'woken up' to anything. What 'fallacy' I have I committed? Even if I were wrong about ethics being objective (which is not the same thing as believing in 'absolute truth'), I wouldn't have committed a fallacy anymore than a scientist who was mistaken about the nature of, say, gravity.

Honestly, what's the point of responding? Why would you bother responding since things we derive from reason are apparently just 'assertions' and 'opinions' (though for some reason we're not surprised when lots of other people arrive at the same totally arbitrary opinions!).

Well, that's enough of that rant--I guess I'll return to living in my horribly misguided world of fallacious ethics and truths handed down to me straight from the mouth of God.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If anything the pervasiveness of "government" throughout history says to me that it is a beneficial evolutionary trait or it would have been selected against more effectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recorded history is a pretty small sample size.

The instinct to form coalitions was probably a very beneficial trait (when our survival was less secure) which is still hard wired into us. So, in an environment where communication and transportation with other parts of the world is relatively easy, we end up concluding that a strong centralized state is the solution. But I think it's reasonable to conclude that this is a misapplication, and that a few thousand years just isn't anywhere close to enough time for the misapplication to have corrected itself.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I missed the prior post where you asked about "bias" being eliminated through evolution?

What would the mechanism of selection be to eliminate bias? If anything I would think that "bias" would be self-reinforcing genetically, rather than the opposite. (I personally think that human evolution has essentially reached its maximum, but still dont see a mechanism for selecting against bias, even if we havent reached an evoloutionary plateau.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The mechanism to eliminate bias is simple. voluntary interactions benefit both parties, bias is effectively rejecting these interactions without cause. Therefore those who don't reject those interactions out of hand will have more opportunities to participate in beneficial transactions.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


#2 is false. You cannot own yourself, as you can't really do things with yourself that would imply ownership, like for example selling your body and mind. In the end you can't really sell yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who does own me if I don't own myself?

[/ QUOTE ]


This assumes that all persons must be owned. Im not sure this is self evidently true.

[/ QUOTE ]

ownership in this sense can be defined as having the highest claim over.

[/ QUOTE ]

thankyou that's the sentence what I wanted