Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the 'fact' "there is no divine truth" divine truth or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, fine call it an assertion if you will. But since you can't prove that your axioms are divine truth and I can show that they aren't the only possible axioms, then the point is moot.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, fine call it an assertion if you will. But since you can't prove that your axioms are divine truth and I can show that they aren't the only possible axioms, then the point is moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point was probably moot before since neither of us believe in 'divine truth' [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[John Kilduff]

[ 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.

[neverforgetlol]

[ 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?

[Brainwalter]

[ 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 ]

Who ever said that?

[nietzreznor]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think most libertarians would agree with that.

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
And by blaming the language for your inability to express it you implied that your idea is perfectly clear in your head but no earthly words can do it justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't all ideas (for better or worse) perfectly clear in our head? I think more productive discussion occurs when people make an effort to read between the lines and understand what someone is getting at. I make an effort not to nit other people when I know what they mean, but pvn and another person or two in this thread seemed more concerned with trying to back me into a semantical corner. Rather than attack my idea, he would prefer to attack my ability to express it.

That's perfectly fine if that's your method for "convincing" me that you're right. But it's not a game I like to play and not a game I ever claimed to be good at. He shouldn't act like it's some surprise when I say something "sloppy" when he knows damn well his effort is directed to force me to do exactly that.

[ QUOTE ]
For the record though, (since you missed it or ignored it) I was the first person to tell you that accidental manslaughter is a poor analogy for someone who acts intentionally but doesn't consider their action to be immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ignored it because it was as poor a point then as it is now. People who commit manslaughter also "act intentionally" when they commit it. Their intentions are just something other than "to kill".

[ QUOTE ]
really read the posts responding to you, and seek to better explain your ideas instead of blaming the language or your readers.

[/ QUOTE ]

???

Good God. When did I ever blame "my readers"? Why do you assume that because I disagree with people that I'm not "really reading their posts"?

Do you really disagree that language is an imperfect tool?? You jumped to the conclusion that, by stating that, I was claiming to be using that tool perfectly, when I meant nothing of the sort. I could claim that a hammer is an imperfect tool, but it doesn't mean I think I'm using it as effectively as humanly possible. It just means that if I have a tough task to accomplish with it, you can expect some sloppiness along the way.

Since I don't think the debate is a simple, black and white issue, I don't think "sloppiness" is a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
One question, why would you make an OP if you had an idea which you found yourself unable to convey in English?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee I dunno, I guess you're right. These 12 pages are nothing more than me changing my mind and everyone being confused and there's no productive discussion anywhere.

When I wrote the OP I wrote it because the idea came to me and I thought it might lead to a good discussion. I don't write OPs with the intent to prove something systematically, like you might. I get value out of people who disagree with me. I think the part about morality (particularly vhawk's point) is pretty good stuff. I also responded with the idea that bias, while a burden, will be met with an evolutionary change to eliminate that burden, which no one seemed to want to respond to. (With the implication being that convincing others that they're acting immorally when they are not predisposed to conclude it on their own might actually be a bad thing, since it will prevent or delay nature's ability to get it right, in a way that's more firmly entrenched to our condition.)

A lot of what I'm saying is just an analysis of very core perspective. So it's not surprising that it's hard to communicate. I could point it out every time I thought someone "changed the goalposts" too. But, despite being a competitive person, I don't consider this a contest. I try to just learn from people and express ideas. It's only a couple of you (you and pvn, namely) that seem to be taking great offense to what I'm saying. Most of my discussion with everyone else has been very civil.

Why does everything always have to become personal with some of you guys?

[Copernicus]

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.)

[Brainwalter]

No, not all ideas are perfectly clear in our heads. Some are better formulated that others, with the nuances, logical underpinnings and implications explicitly worked out, others are just our preconcieved notions and we don't know why we believe them. It's easier to express your ideas in writing when they are well-formulated. So when you said (on two different days) that you were having trouble getting your point across, 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.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression of being "greatly offended", I can assure you I am barely interested let alone offended - I can't speak for pvn, he might be greatly offended - but from my end it looks like you're the one taking an offhand comment I made, which I explained to be about your subject matter and your prose, and taking/making it personal. So in the interest of avoiding uncivility I will now butt my head out after I beat a dead horse and once more attempt to dispel the analogy I cannot abide to stand:

The reckless driver does not intentionally kill, i.e. he didn't get what he thought he was getting. This is a legitimate mitigating factor, legally and morally. The tax man knows exactly what he's doing and gets exactly the result he intended - He knows full well the entire chain of events he is starting, and intentionally means to cause all of them. He just doesn't think his actions constitute theft, doesn't believe he is acting immorally. This is the moral equivalent of "ignorance of the law" which is NOT a legitimate mitigating factor in determining the nature and the morality of his actions. And it's certainly not the same as not knowing there's a baby in the road ahead.

Whether you let that the person's intentions be a mitigating factor in how you view them personally is a different issue, and speaking for myself, I would and do.

Sorry if I offended you, Goodnight.