Because I think a government is necessary I support taxes to fund its "necessary functions". I am not confident that I can make a moral argument for taxation. I do think that libertarians who don't support any taxes at all have a moral high ground on me that but what I think should be done is not contingent only on what is most moral. Yes, I WILL NOT, always take the route that is most moral.
But then you've admitted that your stance simply isn't morally proper at all
Perhaps but I don't find my position immoral either. The taxation I support I consider more of an inconvenience than a terrible wrong. I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy but when I do so I don't feel like I'm being impressed into servitude. This doesn't mean I support a tax system where the sky's the limit.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
much like the theist admitting that his/her position is irrational by saying "I take it on faith".
Well, the analogy is interesting. Suspending morality in part versus suspending rationality in part.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've admitted that your stance is that of a thug: that initiatory coercion is perfectly acceptable.
There might be some parallels but the are not entirely analogous.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And since immoral actions should not be allowed/performed, it thus follows that what you propose should not be instantiated.
I disagree. I think it is immoral to kill or imprison someone but I often think such actions are necessary and should be allowed and performed. Now you could argue that in these cases the person being imposed upon must first perform an action that is wrong while someone being coerced into paying taxes hasn't done so. Does using coercion for the purpose of punishment that change the morality of the act itself though?
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:43 am
Saitou wrote:
Because I think a government is necessary I support taxes to fund its "necessary functions". I am not confident that I can make a moral argument for taxation. I do think that libertarians who don't support any taxes at all have a moral high ground on me that but what I think should be done is not contingent only on what is most moral. Yes, I WILL NOT, always take the route that is most moral.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But then you've admitted that your stance simply isn't morally proper at all
Saitou wrote:
Perhaps but I don't find my position immoral either.
What do you call it when someone takes your property without your consent and via force? Isn't such action immoral?
There's just no rational way you can keep your position. It's like that of the theist claiming an omniscient creator being and trying to have free will, too.
Saitou wrote:
The taxation I support I consider more of an inconvenience than a terrible wrong. I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy but when I do so I don't feel like I'm being impressed into servitude. This doesn't mean I support a tax system where the sky's the limit.
There's no way to avoid that--not even with laws.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
much like the theist admitting that his/her position is irrational by saying "I take it on faith".
Saitou wrote:
Well, the analogy is interesting. Suspending morality in part versus suspending rationality in part.
To suspend morality is to grant properness to the immoral.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've admitted that your stance is that of a thug: that initiatory coercion is perfectly acceptable.
Saitou wrote:
There might be some parallels but the are not entirely analogous.
They are completely analogous. If you believe that it is fine for some group to take your property without your consent and utilizing force, that simply is the stance of a thug. There is no gray area here.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And since immoral actions should not be allowed/performed, it thus follows that what you propose should not be instantiated.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. I think it is immoral to kill or imprison someone but I often think such actions are necessary and should be allowed and performed.
Ah, but you've made a generalized statement without any context. Generally speaking, it is immoral to kill someone--unless that person is directly attacking you, initiating the force, and is a clear and present danger to your safety/life. Thus, the killing is not immoral, but rather the extension of self-ownership into self-defense.
Saitou wrote:
Now you could argue that in these cases the person being imposed upon must first perform an action that is wrong while someone being coerced into paying taxes hasn't done so. Does using coercion for the purpose of punishment that change the morality of the act itself though?
In what manner?
Stuz719 Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 22, 2005
Posts: 1036
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:48 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
What do you call it when someone takes your property without your consent and via force? Isn't such action immoral?
Only if morality is absolute.
I own a fire extinguisher. The house next door is on fire, and I refuse to use my fire extinguisher despite the fact that such an action would prevent both the destruction of the property and the loss of the lives of the owner's relatives trapped inside.
An onlooker wrenches the fire extinguisher from my hands, puts out the fire, prevents destruction of the property and saves the lives of those trapped inside.
Is his action immoral?
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:07 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
What do you call it when someone takes your property without your consent and via force? Isn't such action immoral?
Well such a statement can be envisioned a number of ways. It can go from such extremes as taking a life to taking a nickle from a billionaire. While all cases are stealing and not moral I consider the harm done in my evaluation of the event.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's just no rational way you can keep your position.
My position isn't that taxation is moral. Is it immoral? It might be but there are degrees and cases where I think immoral actions might need to be carried out.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
It's like that of the theist claiming an omniscient creator being and trying to have free will, too.
Such analogies aren't necessary. We can argue the topic at hand without such things. I can only view such statements as an attempt to humiliate or otherwise influence me because I am also an atheist. It won't work and it wastes time in my view. I won't even acknowledge any further religion based analogies.
Saitou wrote:
The taxation I support I consider more of an inconvenience than a terrible wrong. I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy but when I do so I don't feel like I'm being impressed into servitude. This doesn't mean I support a tax system where the sky's the limit.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's no way to avoid that--not even with laws.
Sure there is. I support only taxation required to support the necessary functions of government. Are you suggesting the only limit of things are all or nothing based on morality (politically speaking not economically)?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
To suspend morality is to grant properness to the immoral.
You're right. I am doing that. I will continue to do so. But there is immoral, stealing someone's water to put out a fire, and immoral, killing an innocent man. If I support something that is immoral it does not mean I support all things immoral.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've admitted that your stance is that of a thug: that initiatory coercion is perfectly acceptable.
Saitou wrote:
There might be some parallels but the are not entirely analogous.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
They are completely analogous. If you believe that it is fine for some group to take your property without your consent and utilizing force, that simply is the stance of a thug. There is no gray area here.
I disagree. An action, law, or policy isn't just about morals but also motive, purpose, results, costs, etc.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And since immoral actions should not be allowed/performed, it thus follows that what you propose should not be instantiated.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. I think it is immoral to kill or imprison someone but I often think such actions are necessary and should be allowed and performed.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ah, but you've made a generalized statement without any context. Generally speaking, it is immoral to kill someone--unless that person is directly attacking you, initiating the force, and is a clear and present danger to your safety/life. Thus, the killing is not immoral, but rather the extension of self-ownership into self-defense.
You're a smart guy so it's no surprise you can come up with a good example. How about in a scenario without immediate danger? In other words, can you think of scenarios where you would agree with me? Don't just beat me in a debate but rather think this through with me. If you beat me in a debate I won't change my mind. If you make me see things your way you will [edit to add] change my mind.
Saitou wrote:
Now you could argue that in these cases the person being imposed upon must first perform an action that is wrong while someone being coerced into paying taxes hasn't done so. Does using coercion for the purpose of punishment that change the morality of the act itself though?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
In what manner?
I think imprisonment of a criminal would be an example.
Last edited by Saitou on Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:08 am
Stuz719 wrote:
Is his action immoral?
His theft was immoral but his action was right.
edited to add: I was composing my reply to knight before I saw your post. We both used putting out a fire as an example. I hope the example isn't rejected as a cliche as it is a bit obvious.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:31 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
What do you call it when someone takes your property without your consent and via force? Isn't such action immoral?
Saitou wrote:
Well such a statement can be envisioned a number of ways. It can go from such extremes as taking a life to taking a nickle from a billionaire. While all cases are stealing and not moral I consider the harm done in my evaluation of the event.
Theft is theft, is it not?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's just no rational way you can keep your position.
Saitou wrote:
My position isn't that taxation is moral. Is it immoral? It might be but there are degrees and cases where I think immoral actions might need to be carried out.
I do not recognize that as valid.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
It's like that of the theist claiming an omniscient creator being and trying to have free will, too.
Saitou wrote:
Such analogies aren't necessary.
They demonstrate the muddled-thinking of your position.
Saitou wrote:
The taxation I support I consider more of an inconvenience than a terrible wrong. I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy but when I do so I don't feel like I'm being impressed into servitude. This doesn't mean I support a tax system where the sky's the limit.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's no way to avoid that--not even with laws.
Saitou wrote:
Sure there is.
No, since government officials tend to grow their positions.
Saitou wrote:
I support only taxation required to support the necessary functions of government.
There are no such functions. There is no such thing as a necessary thug.
Saitou wrote:
Are you suggesting the only limit of things are all or nothing based on morality (politically speaking not economically)?
Once you start down the road of infringing upon the rights of others, you have no real way to stop it.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
To suspend morality is to grant properness to the immoral.
Saitou wrote:
You're right. I am doing that. I will continue to do so. But there is immoral, stealing someone's water to put out a fire, and immoral, killing an innocent man. If I support something that is immoral it does not mean I support all things immoral.
Then you're simply a hypocrite, trying to evade that which is.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've admitted that your stance is that of a thug: that initiatory coercion is perfectly acceptable.
Saitou wrote:
There might be some parallels but the are not entirely analogous.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
They are completely analogous. If you believe that it is fine for some group to take your property without your consent and utilizing force, that simply is the stance of a thug. There is no gray area here.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. An action, law, or policy isn't just about morals but also motive, purpose, results, costs, etc.
The ends do not justify the means.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And since immoral actions should not be allowed/performed, it thus follows that what you propose should not be instantiated.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. I think it is immoral to kill or imprison someone but I often think such actions are necessary and should be allowed and performed.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ah, but you've made a generalized statement without any context. Generally speaking, it is immoral to kill someone--unless that person is directly attacking you, initiating the force, and is a clear and present danger to your safety/life. Thus, the killing is not immoral, but rather the extension of self-ownership into self-defense.
Saitou wrote:
You're a smart guy so it's no surprise you can come up with a good example. How about in a scenario without immediate danger? In other words, can you think of scenarios where you would agree with me?
No. There are no such scenarios.
Saitou wrote:
Now you could argue that in these cases the person being imposed upon must first perform an action that is wrong while someone being coerced into paying taxes hasn't done so. Does using coercion for the purpose of punishment that change the morality of the act itself though?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
In what manner?
Saitou wrote:
I think imprisonment of a criminal would be an example.
Restitution should be the goal, not revenge/retribution as qua punishment (but not recompense). Imprisonment is revenge/retribution.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:50 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Theft is theft, is it not?
Sure. But even if you describe what I support as theft and I see the merit in it that doesn't change my position. Obviously I would have already considered that one.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's just no rational way you can keep your position.
Saitou wrote:
My position isn't that taxation is moral. Is it immoral? It might be but there are degrees and cases where I think immoral actions might need to be carried out.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
I do not recognize that as valid.
I'm not surprised. We are at the foundation of probably the primary reason we sometimes aren't on the same page. Is everything you support moral? I'm surprised if that's even possible.
Saitou wrote:
The taxation I support I consider more of an inconvenience than a terrible wrong. I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy but when I do so I don't feel like I'm being impressed into servitude. This doesn't mean I support a tax system where the sky's the limit.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's no way to avoid that--not even with laws.
Saitou wrote:
Sure there is.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, since government officials tend to grow their positions.
Will we ever have a government that chooses to give power back to the people? I think eventually it has to or it will fail.
Saitou wrote:
I support only taxation required to support the necessary functions of government.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There are no such functions. There is no such thing as a necessary thug.
I predicted you'd say that. I've seen you make the case before but I remained unconvinced.
Saitou wrote:
Are you suggesting the only limit of things are all or nothing based on morality (politically speaking not economically)?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Once you start down the road of infringing upon the rights of others, you have no real way to stop it.
That doesn't make sense to me unless you think only morality can stop it.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
To suspend morality is to grant properness to the immoral.
Saitou wrote:
You're right. I am doing that. I will continue to do so. But there is immoral, stealing someone's water to put out a fire, and immoral, killing an innocent man. If I support something that is immoral it does not mean I support all things immoral.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then you're simply a hypocrite, trying to evade that which is.
I would be if I based my decisions solely on the morality of them.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've admitted that your stance is that of a thug: that initiatory coercion is perfectly acceptable.
Saitou wrote:
There might be some parallels but the are not entirely analogous.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
They are completely analogous. If you believe that it is fine for some group to take your property without your consent and utilizing force, that simply is the stance of a thug. There is no gray area here.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. An action, law, or policy isn't just about morals but also motive, purpose, results, costs, etc.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The ends do not justify the means.
If that expression means that in order to reach an end anything as a means is acceptable I do not agree with this. However the ends can justify the use of certain (not any) means. To use a controversial real word example that came up often--I would support the torture of an enemy if the information would save many lives. (lets not turn this thread into discussion of that though. I just wanted an extreme example.)
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And since immoral actions should not be allowed/performed, it thus follows that what you propose should not be instantiated.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. I think it is immoral to kill or imprison someone but I often think such actions are necessary and should be allowed and performed.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ah, but you've made a generalized statement without any context. Generally speaking, it is immoral to kill someone--unless that person is directly attacking you, initiating the force, and is a clear and present danger to your safety/life. Thus, the killing is not immoral, but rather the extension of self-ownership into self-defense.
Saitou wrote:
You're a smart guy so it's no surprise you can come up with a good example. How about in a scenario without immediate danger? In other words, can you think of scenarios where you would agree with me?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No. There are no such scenarios.
What if the person you kill is threatening a third party?
Saitou wrote:
Now you could argue that in these cases the person being imposed upon must first perform an action that is wrong while someone being coerced into paying taxes hasn't done so. Does using coercion for the purpose of punishment that change the morality of the act itself though?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
In what manner?
Saitou wrote:
I think imprisonment of a criminal would be an example.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Restitution should be the goal, not revenge/retribution as qua punishment (but not recompense). Imprisonment is revenge/retribution.
Who gets to decide that restitution is appropriate and in what amount?
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:15 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Theft is theft, is it not?
Saitou wrote:
Sure. But even if you describe what I support as theft and I see the merit in it that doesn't change my position. Obviously I would have already considered that one.
Then you have given up rationality.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's just no rational way you can keep your position.
Saitou wrote:
My position isn't that taxation is moral. Is it immoral? It might be but there are degrees and cases where I think immoral actions might need to be carried out.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
I do not recognize that as valid.
Saitou wrote:
I'm not surprised. We are at the foundation of probably the primary reason we sometimes aren't on the same page. Is everything you support moral?
Yes.
Saitou wrote:
The taxation I support I consider more of an inconvenience than a terrible wrong. I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy but when I do so I don't feel like I'm being impressed into servitude. This doesn't mean I support a tax system where the sky's the limit.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's no way to avoid that--not even with laws.
Saitou wrote:
Sure there is.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, since government officials tend to grow their positions.
Saitou wrote:
Will we ever have a government that chooses to give power back to the people?
No. Read Robert Higgs'
Crisis And Leviathan
.
Saitou wrote:
I support only taxation required to support the necessary functions of government.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There are no such functions. There is no such thing as a necessary thug.
Saitou wrote:
I predicted you'd say that. I've seen you make the case before but I remained unconvinced.
Then you've abandoned your faculty of reason. You've decided that you will ignore the consequences of your beliefs.
Saitou wrote:
Are you suggesting the only limit of things are all or nothing based on morality (politically speaking not economically)?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Once you start down the road of infringing upon the rights of others, you have no real way to stop it.
Saitou wrote:
That doesn't make sense to me unless you think only morality can stop it.
Not when there's a government involved. Then it's who can make the most noise or bring the biggest check.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
To suspend morality is to grant properness to the immoral.
Saitou wrote:
You're right. I am doing that. I will continue to do so. But there is immoral, stealing someone's water to put out a fire, and immoral, killing an innocent man. If I support something that is immoral it does not mean I support all things immoral.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then you're simply a hypocrite, trying to evade that which is.
Saitou wrote:
I would be if I based my decisions solely on the morality of them.
Then you're simply going by faith. You're deliberately choosing to ignore the consequences of the instantiation of your beliefs.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've admitted that your stance is that of a thug: that initiatory coercion is perfectly acceptable.
Saitou wrote:
There might be some parallels but the are not entirely analogous.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
They are completely analogous. If you believe that it is fine for some group to take your property without your consent and utilizing force, that simply is the stance of a thug. There is no gray area here.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. An action, law, or policy isn't just about morals but also motive, purpose, results, costs, etc.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The ends do not justify the means.
Saitou wrote:
If that expression means that in order to reach an end anything as a means is acceptable I do not agree with this.
Then why do you agree that theft is acceptable? Why do you agree that initiating force is acceptable? Do you think that it is at all acceptable to stick a gun in someone's face and say "gimme"?
Saitou wrote:
However the ends can justify the use of certain (not any) means. To use a controversial real word example that came up often--I would support the torture of an enemy if the information would save many lives. (lets not turn this thread into discussion of that though. I just wanted an extreme example.)
I'm reminded of a movie and a TV show. The movie is Reservoir Dogs, and the show is Star Trek: TNG. With the movie, Mr. White is talking to Mr. Orange, and says about breaking someone's fingers to make the person talk--he'll even tell you if he wear's women's underwear. And in the TNG 2-parter "Chain of Command", Picard is tortured by a Cardassian.
Jean-Luc Picard wrote:
Picard: Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced.
Doesn't matter to me if you don't want to turn this into a discussion regarding torture. It simply isn't reliable, and thus you place yourself in the position of desiring revenge for the sake of it.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And since immoral actions should not be allowed/performed, it thus follows that what you propose should not be instantiated.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. I think it is immoral to kill or imprison someone but I often think such actions are necessary and should be allowed and performed.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ah, but you've made a generalized statement without any context. Generally speaking, it is immoral to kill someone--unless that person is directly attacking you, initiating the force, and is a clear and present danger to your safety/life. Thus, the killing is not immoral, but rather the extension of self-ownership into self-defense.
Saitou wrote:
You're a smart guy so it's no surprise you can come up with a good example. How about in a scenario without immediate danger? In other words, can you think of scenarios where you would agree with me?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No. There are no such scenarios.
Saitou wrote:
What if the person you kill is threatening a third party?
That falls under my scenario.
Saitou wrote:
Now you could argue that in these cases the person being imposed upon must first perform an action that is wrong while someone being coerced into paying taxes hasn't done so. Does using coercion for the purpose of punishment that change the morality of the act itself though?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
In what manner?
Saitou wrote:
I think imprisonment of a criminal would be an example.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Restitution should be the goal, not revenge/retribution as qua punishment (but not recompense). Imprisonment is revenge/retribution.
Saitou wrote:
Who gets to decide that restitution is appropriate and in what amount?
Arbiters. Judges. Lawyers.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:42 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then you have given up rationality.
Not at all. Supporting something that is less moral than an alternative is not by definition irrational. I don't think morality trumps all.
Quote:
Is everything you support moral?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes.
If I find a case in the future where you demonstrate this is not so I'll point it out. Not to be a jerk or accuse you of being a hypocrite only that I wonder if your claim is possible for anyone.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've decided that you will ignore the consequences of your beliefs.
What are the consequences of my beliefs that I ignore?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
I would be if I based my decisions solely on the morality of them.
Then you're simply going by faith. You're deliberately choosing to ignore the consequences of the instantiation of your beliefs.[/quote]You made this claim again. Can you provide some possible examples?
You appear to be saying without morality there is only faith. I don't agree.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then why do you agree that theft is acceptable? Why do you agree that initiating force is acceptable?
Sometimes it could be although it is always wrong or immoral on a level.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Do you think that it is at all acceptable to stick a gun in someone's face and say "gimme"?
This reminds me of when you debate people on your government-less system and they invoke images of mobs fighting to dominate each other violently constantly like in movies. Literally "sticking a gun in someone's face" should not be necessary. If the burdens placed upon members of society are reasonable rarely would a person escalate to the need of force to be used. (I consider the burden placed upon many to be less than reasonable as I think our government is too large and many people overtaxed)
Jean-Luc Picard wrote:
Picard: Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced.
While torture is less than reliable it is also often effective in getting information. If it was true that it NEVER worked then I wouldn't bother to even suggest using it however since this isn't the case we are in nonsense land.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Doesn't matter to me if you don't want to turn this into a discussion regarding torture. It simply isn't reliable, and thus you place yourself in the position of desiring revenge for the sake of it.
Actually no. Torture as revenge has no appeal to me unless it is entirely personal.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And since immoral actions should not be allowed/performed, it thus follows that what you propose should not be instantiated.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. I think it is immoral to kill or imprison someone but I often think such actions are necessary and should be allowed and performed.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ah, but you've made a generalized statement without any context. Generally speaking, it is immoral to kill someone--unless that person is directly attacking you, initiating the force, and is a clear and present danger to your safety/life. Thus, the killing is not immoral, but rather the extension of self-ownership into self-defense.
Saitou wrote:
You're a smart guy so it's no surprise you can come up with a good example. How about in a scenario without immediate danger? In other words, can you think of scenarios where you would agree with me?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No. There are no such scenarios.
Saitou wrote:
What if the person you kill is threatening a third party?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That falls under my scenario.
Not directly. How is it an extension of self-ownership and self-defense if you kill someone threatening a third party? What if the third party wasn't threatened by death but only injury and therefore not symmetrical in penalty vs threat? You might be suspending morality here yourself.
Saitou wrote:
Now you could argue that in these cases the person being imposed upon must first perform an action that is wrong while someone being coerced into paying taxes hasn't done so. Does using coercion for the purpose of punishment that change the morality of the act itself though?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
In what manner?
Saitou wrote:
I think imprisonment of a criminal would be an example.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Restitution should be the goal, not revenge/retribution as qua punishment (but not recompense). Imprisonment is revenge/retribution.
Saitou wrote:
Who gets to decide that restitution is appropriate and in what amount?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Arbiters. Judges. Lawyers.
Who decides who they are? Are laws opt-in?
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:37 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then you have given up rationality.
Saitou wrote:
Not at all. Supporting something that is less moral than an alternative is not by definition irrational. I don't think morality trumps all.
You support something that is not moral in spite of that fact. That means that you have given up rationality.
Saitou wrote:
Is everything you support moral?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes.
Saitou wrote:
If I find a case in the future where you demonstrate this is not so I'll point it out. Not to be a jerk or accuse you of being a hypocrite only that I wonder if your claim is possible for anyone.
It is if you're consistent.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've decided that you will ignore the consequences of your beliefs.
Saitou wrote:
What are the consequences of my beliefs that I ignore?
That what you propose is nothing more than thuggery with legal backing.
Saitou wrote:
I would be if I based my decisions solely on the morality of them.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then you're simply going by faith. You're deliberately choosing to ignore the consequences of the instantiation of your beliefs.
Saitou wrote:
You made this claim again. Can you provide some possible examples?
That you know that taxation involves the initiation of force against individuals, yet somehow that is not immoral.
Saitou wrote:
You appear to be saying without morality there is only faith. I don't agree.
I'm saying that you're ignoring the facts and going with what you want to believe. That is faith.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then why do you agree that theft is acceptable? Why do you agree that initiating force is acceptable?
Saitou wrote:
Sometimes it could be although it is always wrong or immoral on a level.
Then it cannot be acceptable.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Do you think that it is at all acceptable to stick a gun in someone's face and say "gimme"?
Saitou wrote:
This reminds me of when you debate people on your government-less system and they invoke images of mobs fighting to dominate each other violently constantly like in movies.
The government is the one with the legal monopoly on initiatory force, is it not?
Saitou wrote:
Literally "sticking a gun in someone's face" should not be necessary.
But somehow it's different when it's merely the threat of prison or that your property will be seized.
Saitou wrote:
If the burdens placed upon members of society are reasonable
Are the burdens freely chosen? If not, you're advocating for an unchosen burden--an obligation for which there was no consent. How proper is that?
Saitou wrote:
rarely would a person escalate to the need of force to be used.
What do you think tax collectors are?
Saitou wrote:
(I consider the burden placed upon many to be less than reasonable as I think our government is too large and many people overtaxed)
All who are net tax-givers are overtaxed.
Jean-Luc Picard wrote:
Picard: Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced.
Saitou wrote:
While torture is less than reliable it is also often effective in getting information.
But what sort of information? People will say anything to get the pain to stop--even sign forced confessions ala the 'Nam POWs or those facing the Checkas or KGB.
Saitou wrote:
If it was true that it NEVER worked then I wouldn't bother to even suggest using it however since this isn't the case we are in nonsense land.
You could consult a Magic 8-Ball for things, and sometimes the answer would be correct. I wouldn't suggest following it, though.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Doesn't matter to me if you don't want to turn this into a discussion regarding torture. It simply isn't reliable, and thus you place yourself in the position of desiring revenge for the sake of it.
Saitou wrote:
Actually no. Torture as revenge has no appeal to me unless it is entirely personal.
Torture is all about revenge. It has no other purpose.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And since immoral actions should not be allowed/performed, it thus follows that what you propose should not be instantiated.
Saitou wrote:
I disagree. I think it is immoral to kill or imprison someone but I often think such actions are necessary and should be allowed and performed.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ah, but you've made a generalized statement without any context. Generally speaking, it is immoral to kill someone--unless that person is directly attacking you, initiating the force, and is a clear and present danger to your safety/life. Thus, the killing is not immoral, but rather the extension of self-ownership into self-defense.
Saitou wrote:
You're a smart guy so it's no surprise you can come up with a good example. How about in a scenario without immediate danger? In other words, can you think of scenarios where you would agree with me?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No. There are no such scenarios.
Saitou wrote:
What if the person you kill is threatening a third party?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That falls under my scenario.
Saitou wrote:
Not directly.
Actually, yes.
Saitou wrote:
How is it an extension of self-ownership and self-defense if you kill someone threatening a third party?
Assisting with that person's self-ownership and self-defense.
Saitou wrote:
What if the third party wasn't threatened by death but only injury and therefore not symmetrical in penalty vs threat?
Then there might be an issue unless appropriate steps were taken to mitigate the death.
Saitou wrote:
Now you could argue that in these cases the person being imposed upon must first perform an action that is wrong while someone being coerced into paying taxes hasn't done so. Does using coercion for the purpose of punishment that change the morality of the act itself though?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
In what manner?
Saitou wrote:
I think imprisonment of a criminal would be an example.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Restitution should be the goal, not revenge/retribution as qua punishment (but not recompense). Imprisonment is revenge/retribution.
Saitou wrote:
Who gets to decide that restitution is appropriate and in what amount?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Arbiters. Judges. Lawyers.
Saitou wrote:
Who decides who they are?
Who decides who the carpet-cleaners are?
cheapsuprise Master of Logic
Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 5325
Location: Next door.
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:07 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
cheapsuprise wrote:
I'm on fucking vacation. Deal with it yourself.
You're not on vacation until you remove yourself as a moderator, and you're still listed as one.
I donno where you got that idea. Those aren't the terms I signed on under. The mod guide doesn't mention anything about removing yourself from the listing when you take a break.
In fact such an action would require a lot of useless hassle on the part of an administrator.
Quote:
Hint: this is as much a lesson for you as it is for him. Wonderful how I can deftly combine the two.
Are you sure?
I'm responsible for
my own actions
. I am not OBLIGATED to take action, nor am I responsible for
your
actions. My participation is VULANTARY. At a later date I hope to return to active duty.
For the time being,
I have withdrawn my consent
so to speak.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
As frustrating dealing with sjc is, there is no rule against beeing an ignorant asshole on these boards.In fact, as far as I can tell, there hardly is any rule at all, so everything is left to the moderators' judgement, so I hardly see how you can have any reason to tell them how to do their job.
I can when I'm reminding them of their wishes. And since cheap has a desire to see civil, intellectual discourse, I'm merely reminding him of his wish and that he has the power to make his wish come to fruition.
I have already acted to the extent of the powers GRANTED to me. This seams to be something people have difficulty figuring out. I'm not an all powerful dictator, nor do I have time or justification to delete every post SJC makes because YOU want me to,
NOR would you
enjoy it
if I was the kind of moderator who considered that kind of moderation to be a common acceptable practice.
Try to imagine
what it would be like if I took a decided dislike of YOUR posts as well.
cheapsuprise Master of Logic
Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 5325
Location: Next door.
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:13 am
sjc wrote:
Its a conflict of interest for you to take an official stance in any way in this discussion
You don't know what a conflict of interest is.
Quote:
Which he had made a demand of you to do AGAINST me to do thus violating his beliefs. I had said that it would be a conflict of interest if you took any official part in this discussion. I had also said that to be fair you would have to do the same to him otherwise. You had at least some small bit of honor and told he to stuff it. And I see that he has now turned on you, as I said he would.
You still don't know what a conflict of interest is.
