Burden of proof

[Nielsio]

If anyone here thinks goverment (centralized monopolist of force) is justified, they may state their moral principles. Such as "so and so should do so and so" or "it's good if so and so". This will start in the form of specific actions that can be undertaken by people. IF such things can be shown to be consistent moral principles, something like a govt may be a justified result of it, but it has to start with actions.

Here are the three principles that they at the very minimum have to abide to:

1. Nothing exists except people.

There is no such thing as "the government," or a "country," or "society." All these terms for social aggregations are merely conceptual labels for individuals. "The government" never does anything – only people within the government act. Thus the "government" – since it is a concept – has no reality, ethical rights or moral standing. Moral rules apply to people, not concepts. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual people.


2. What is good for one must be good for all.

Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it.


3. What is bad for one must be bad for all.

Conversely, if it is wrong for me to go and steal money from someone else, then it is wrong for anyone to go and steal money from anyone else. If shooting a man who is not threatening you is evil in Atlanta, then it is also evil in Iraq. If being paid to go and shoot someone is wrong for a hit man, then it is also wrong for a soldier. If breaking into a peaceful citizen’s house, kidnapping him and holding him prisoner is wrong for you and me, than it is also wrong for the agents of the DEA.

Thus far, the argument from morality is very similar to the argument from consistency. The argument from morality comes in by stating that, if it is wrong or evil for me to rob Peter to pay Paul, then it is wrong or evil for anyone – including politicians – to do it. Thus a man who defends state welfare programs, for instance, can only do so on the grounds of personal preference, but he cannot claim that it is moral. In fact, he must admit that, on the basis of any universal principles, the welfare state is immoral, since if it is wrong for anyone to steal, then it is also wrong for everyone to steal – including politicians!

[Borodog]

Your definitions, although simple, straightforward, and obvious to anyone who has thought about these issues rationally with any intellectual honesty, are inconvenient for those who wish to force their plans on others, and will hence be dismissed through handwaving and mental gyrations.

[FredBoots]

Governments aren’t stealing when they levy taxes because they provide services that allow you to make money. Businesses (and you) make money because society allows you to. If all the schools closed, and the roads were allowed to crumble, and healthcare went away, do you really think you could earn the money you do?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Governments aren’t stealing when they levy taxes because they provide services that allow you to make money. Businesses (and you) make money because society allows you to. If all the schools closed, and the roads were allowed to crumble, and healthcare went away, do you really think you could earn the money you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, here we go...

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Nothing exists except people.

There is no such thing as "the government," or a "country," or "society." All these terms for social aggregations are merely conceptual labels for individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your definition, private property does not exist either.

[ QUOTE ]
2. What is good for one must be good for all..

[/ QUOTE ]


Wrong - what is good for 'most' may or may not be good for all.

[ QUOTE ]
What is bad for one must be bad for all..

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong - what is bad for 'one' may or may not be bad for all.

None of this has anything to do with the need for having a government.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument from morality comes in by stating that, if it is wrong or evil for me to rob Peter to pay Paul, then it is wrong or evil for anyone – including politicians – to do it. Thus a man who defends state welfare programs, for instance, can only do so on the grounds of personal preference, but he cannot claim that it is moral. In fact, he must admit that, on the basis of any universal principles, the welfare state is immoral, since if it is wrong for anyone to steal, then it is also wrong for everyone to steal – including politicians!

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majorty of people don't see taxation below certain limits as theft. They don't believe people have (or should have) 100% private property rights. You and some other people here do. Never the twain shall meet. Ultimately, it comes down to unarguable values.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
If being paid to go and shoot someone is wrong for a hit man, then it is also wrong for a soldier. If breaking into a peaceful citizen’s house, kidnapping him and holding him prisoner is wrong for you and me, than it is also wrong for the agents of the DEA.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're reaching too far here and twisting words to serve your intended claim.

When you're ready to convene daily councils to vote on which street will get repaired and what book will be used in a classroom and who will collect the money to pay for your neighbor's house that burned down, you're jibbering.

D-I-V-I-S-I-O-N O-F L-A-B-O-R

And if we're making simplistic statements, then I say that government is a collective agreement about sharing responsibility and taking action, however badly it is managed.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Your definitions, although simple, straightforward, and obvious to anyone who has thought about these issues rationally with any intellectual honesty, are inconvenient for those who wish to force their plans on others, and will hence be dismissed through handwaving and mental gyrations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if this is supposed to be a straw man statement or if you foolishly believe this.

Can we label this the "rubber and glue" defense?

[pvn]

"If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual people."

Gold star.

[BluffTHIS!]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed