Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft

[nietzreznor]

[ 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 ]

Would you then characterize Einstein as 'arrogant' for disagreeing with everyone in the world about the nature of space and time?

What about the very first people to fight against slavery, even when the rest of society felt it was morally permissible? How arrogant they must have been!

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Would you then characterize Einstein as 'arrogant' for disagreeing with everyone in the world about the nature of space and time?

What about the very first people to fight against slavery, even when the rest of society felt it was morally permissible? How arrogant they must have been!

[/ QUOTE ]

Galileo was certainly arrogant, wasn't he?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe that what I said leads to "war of all against all", how would the presence of a state change that? Do you think like-minded people can only organize in the form of a state?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you then characterize Einstein as 'arrogant' for disagreeing with everyone in the world about the nature of space and time?

What about the very first people to fight against slavery, even when the rest of society felt it was morally permissible? How arrogant they must have been!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not distinguishing between "believing I'm right" and "believing no one else has a right to think differently". Do you see the difference?

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]

If you believe that what I said leads to "war of all against all", how would the presence of a state change that? Do you think like-minded people can only organize in the form of a state?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the treaty these like-minded people would agree upon constitutes what is generally considered a state.

I'm totally with Robert Nozick on that issue who advocates a minimal state.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you believe that what I said leads to "war of all against all", how would the presence of a state change that? Do you think like-minded people can only organize in the form of a state?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the treaty these like-minded people would agree upon constitutes what is generally considered a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't they agree on questions of morality without a "treaty"? This sort of implies that if there weren't state laws, I would be raping and pillaging my neighbors. I'm not making a judgment here on the issue of the state, just that it (or a similar framework) isn't a necessary institution to a generally agreed upon moral framework. (Churches are a good counter example.)

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't they agree on questions of morality without a "treaty"? This sort of implies that if there weren't state laws, I would be raping and pillaging my neighbors. I'm not making a judgment here on the issue of the state, just that it (or a similar framework) isn't a necessary institution to a generally agreed upon moral framework. (Churches are a good counter example.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that it needs a treaty or any form of written contract but some sort of binding agreement that institutes the means to sanction those who break it. And to create such a sanction mechanism people have to agree upon giving up their own powers or basically their right to freely force their own powers upon others.

And I believe eventually this will lead, in equilibrium, to every rational human being entering the same agreement agreement basically constituting a protection agency called "the state."

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why can't they agree on questions of morality without a "treaty"? This sort of implies that if there weren't state laws, I would be raping and pillaging my neighbors. I'm not making a judgment here on the issue of the state, just that it (or a similar framework) isn't a necessary institution to a generally agreed upon moral framework. (Churches are a good counter example.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that it needs a treaty or any form of written contract but some sort of binding agreement that institutes the means to sanction those who break it. And to create such a sanction mechanism people have to agree upon giving up their own powers or basically their right to freely force their own powers upon others.

And I believe eventually this will lead, in equilibrium, to every rational human being entering the same agreement agreement basically constituting a protection agency called "the state."

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need a binding agreement which every rational being must enter (even if against their will) in order to have a society where people generally share similar beliefs and are not at war amongst each other. I believe history provides plenty of such examples, the Inuits come immediately to mind.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not distinguishing between "believing I'm right" and "believing no one else has a right to think differently". Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you think I would oppose others having the right to disagree with me? Like JS Mill argued, part of the way we come to find the truth is through disagreement, open dialogue, and debate. But the fact that people can disagree about stuff doesn't mean there isn't a right answer out there, so while I think people always have the right to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions, some people (myself included) draw incorrect conclusions about ethics, much the same way people draw incorrect conclusions about science, history, etc.