4 ms·

Actually, the ethically and morally right thing to do would be to respect people's right to keep everything they earn. Good causes should prove they are good ca

Actually, the ethically and morally right thing to do would be to respect people's right to keep everything they earn. Good causes should prove they are good causes and be funded voluntarily. Forcing people to fund things causes conflict.

rayiner 11y ago
"Rights" are all arbitrary rules in an artificially constructed system. As an organism in the state of nature, the only "right" you have is to use your natural abilities to kill, eat, and steal from other organisms. When you impose a social organization that takes away that right, which is the only truly fundamental one, any rules you layer on top of that are arbitrary. Consequently, society can, consistent with ethics and morality, recognize a right to hold property, and just as consistently recognize exceptions to that right such as for payment of taxes.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  What is your basis for "ethics and morality" that doesn't include recognizing the rights of the individual? Some kind of utilitarianism? Intuitionism? I certainly hope you didn't mean "It is therefore consistent with ethics and morality that society can...", which would mean your first paragraph implies there are no moral or ethical limits on what 'society' can do.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Of course societies are limited in what they can do by ethics and morality--by their own ethical and moral constructs. Or by those of other societies that might use force to impose other ethical and moral constructs on them.
- meric 11y ago
  kill, eat, and steal => kill, eat, steal, build and defend. Even birds build nests, and magpies defend their children in nests agains humans, too.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Is it "morally wrong" when another animal eats those eggs, or is this not a particularly useful example? This thread is pretty weird. Rayiner isn't saying anything shocking; he's recapitulating political philosophy that most of us learn in high school. It's one thing to debate Rousseau vs. Hobbes, another to act like the concepts of the general will and the state of nature are novel.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - meric 11y ago
      Saying we designed society this way with such and such constraints and trade offs is like saying meerkats do the same thing in their societies, which is ridiculous. Nature isn't as cutthroat as the quote suggested. Clearly outside of humanity, love and stable societies exist also. I don't think this argues against rayiners point but adds to it.
- escherize 11y ago
  Actually that's inconsistent. Using coercion to take something (a.k.a. theft) is wrong. Taxes are paid at the threat of violence, therefore to levy taxes is morally wrong.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- Zigurd 11y ago
  That is your view. Now write a constitution based on that. Or, perhaps you find a constitution, or basic law, that has a viewpoint on rights to be superfluous. The US constitution was written with a point of view: that people have rights, and that those rights are unenumerated. You might think that's rather artificial. But so is government, in general.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The U.S. Constitution assumes that people have "rights" but does not articulate a theory of what those rights are. Do they exist in the state of nature, as Locke believed, or do they arise from recognition by society? The Constitution takes no position on that.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      The Declaration of Independence does take a position on that, however - that those rights are given by God, and therefore that no human has the authority to take them away.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    In the context of the thread, this sounds suspiciously like an argument that the US constitution was written without recognition of property rights. But of course nothing could be further from the truth.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      Not at all. Property rights are not listed. Nor is the right to travel. Nor the right to use math to obscure there contents of a document, etc.etc. Yet these are all rights.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Not only were the authors of the Constitution zealous believers in property rights, but many of them believed that property rights extended to the ownership of people. This is a thread questioning the intrinsic merit of property rights, and I read your comment as suggesting that the Constitution might somehow refute property rights. It clearly does not.
VLM 11y ago
Its not possible in general to earn anything without the existing systems in the background, ranging from national defense to roads to police to medical care to education. This is the Robinson Crusoe problem. If you rely on the police to not get robbed on the way home from work with "your" money then you have a moral obligation to pay your share of their salary. Another problem with volunteering is half the population is below median and most of the world's population is pretty stupid and live outside organized society, indicating a voluntary society would only be sustainable if participant IQs were limited to perhaps 120+. People who are proven to have poor time preference or inability to socialized in a civilized manner can't be relied on to volunteer appropriately and need the gun and whip to behave appropriately, including ethical and moral "volunteering". So you end up with a clone of the existing system where smart enough people can cheat the system if they are unethical enough, or if they feel the system is unethical enough. Cheaper and simpler to leave the system alone than to rebuild it ending up in the same place anyway. Given that, it should always be possible to opt out and go full Amish WRT refusal to fund the "real education system" or whatever... however note that even they have more or less non-optional tithing which is an income tax by another name.
- escherize 11y ago
  No. If you volunteered into a contract with a company or group who would protect you, then you would indeed have a moral obligation to pay. It's theft to levy taxes for involuntary services. Explain to me how a mafia boss coming into your store and offering you protection is different than your much-better-equipt government. Your second paragraph is an excellent argument against democracy.
  - Chris2048 11y ago
    The usual implication is that the mafia boss will themselves create the harm that they are protecting you from if you don't pay.
    - chrishynes 11y ago
      Exactly. The government will send men with guns to get you if you don't pay.
jbssm 11y ago
What people earn depend on the society they live in, it's not morally acceptable and as such shouldn't it also be legally acceptable to keep it all to yourself when you rely on what others built and in the education and infrastructure paid by others to achieve that wealth. If you want to keep everything to yourself without giving anything back then go live in the middle of the rainforest. Let's see how rich you get without the wealth that other people created around you in order to be able feed your own wealth.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Even if the things that are funded are the very things that allow you to hold onto your wealth to be begin with?
ThomPete 11y ago
That only make sense if people were 100% responsible for the money they make. This is of course not the case. Instead it's a combination of the opportunties society provide for them, the work of others and ones personal abilities and choices. Mark Zuckerberg didn't create the Internet, Bill Gates didn't create the computer, IBM didn't create electricity, most land owners don't create the rising value of their land (especially true when it comes to urbanization) If you want to keep 100% of what you earn you must find a way to be 100% responsible for what you produce. That will be hard.
- thescribe 11y ago
  It seems to me that Mark Zuckerberg already pays for internet access, IBM already pays for their electricity.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    For access yes, not for the creation of the internet same thing with IBM. I.e. two platforms that made it possible for them to build their businesses on.

rayiner 11y ago

"Rights" are all arbitrary rules in an artificially constructed system. As an organism in the state of nature, the only "right" you have is to use your natural abilities to kill, eat, and steal from other organisms. When you impose a social organization that takes away that right, which is the only truly fundamental one, any rules you layer on top of that are arbitrary. Consequently, society can, consistent with ethics and morality, recognize a right to hold property, and just as consistently recognize exceptions to that right such as for payment of taxes.

twoodfin 11y ago
What is your basis for "ethics and morality" that doesn't include recognizing the rights of the individual? Some kind of utilitarianism? Intuitionism? I certainly hope you didn't mean "It is therefore consistent with ethics and morality that society can...", which would mean your first paragraph implies there are no moral or ethical limits on what 'society' can do.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Of course societies are limited in what they can do by ethics and morality--by their own ethical and moral constructs. Or by those of other societies that might use force to impose other ethical and moral constructs on them.
meric 11y ago
kill, eat, and steal => kill, eat, steal, build and defend. Even birds build nests, and magpies defend their children in nests agains humans, too.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Is it "morally wrong" when another animal eats those eggs, or is this not a particularly useful example? This thread is pretty weird. Rayiner isn't saying anything shocking; he's recapitulating political philosophy that most of us learn in high school. It's one thing to debate Rousseau vs. Hobbes, another to act like the concepts of the general will and the state of nature are novel.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - meric 11y ago
    Saying we designed society this way with such and such constraints and trade offs is like saying meerkats do the same thing in their societies, which is ridiculous. Nature isn't as cutthroat as the quote suggested. Clearly outside of humanity, love and stable societies exist also. I don't think this argues against rayiners point but adds to it.
escherize 11y ago
Actually that's inconsistent. Using coercion to take something (a.k.a. theft) is wrong. Taxes are paid at the threat of violence, therefore to levy taxes is morally wrong.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Zigurd 11y ago
That is your view. Now write a constitution based on that. Or, perhaps you find a constitution, or basic law, that has a viewpoint on rights to be superfluous. The US constitution was written with a point of view: that people have rights, and that those rights are unenumerated. You might think that's rather artificial. But so is government, in general.
- rayiner 11y ago
  The U.S. Constitution assumes that people have "rights" but does not articulate a theory of what those rights are. Do they exist in the state of nature, as Locke believed, or do they arise from recognition by society? The Constitution takes no position on that.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    The Declaration of Independence does take a position on that, however - that those rights are given by God, and therefore that no human has the authority to take them away.
- tptacek 11y ago
  In the context of the thread, this sounds suspiciously like an argument that the US constitution was written without recognition of property rights. But of course nothing could be further from the truth.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Not at all. Property rights are not listed. Nor is the right to travel. Nor the right to use math to obscure there contents of a document, etc.etc. Yet these are all rights.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Not only were the authors of the Constitution zealous believers in property rights, but many of them believed that property rights extended to the ownership of people. This is a thread questioning the intrinsic merit of property rights, and I read your comment as suggesting that the Constitution might somehow refute property rights. It clearly does not.

VLM 11y ago

Its not possible in general to earn anything without the existing systems in the background, ranging from national defense to roads to police to medical care to education. This is the Robinson Crusoe problem. If you rely on the police to not get robbed on the way home from work with "your" money then you have a moral obligation to pay your share of their salary. Another problem with volunteering is half the population is below median and most of the world's population is pretty stupid and live outside organized society, indicating a voluntary society would only be sustainable if participant IQs were limited to perhaps 120+. People who are proven to have poor time preference or inability to socialized in a civilized manner can't be relied on to volunteer appropriately and need the gun and whip to behave appropriately, including ethical and moral "volunteering". So you end up with a clone of the existing system where smart enough people can cheat the system if they are unethical enough, or if they feel the system is unethical enough. Cheaper and simpler to leave the system alone than to rebuild it ending up in the same place anyway. Given that, it should always be possible to opt out and go full Amish WRT refusal to fund the "real education system" or whatever... however note that even they have more or less non-optional tithing which is an income tax by another name.

escherize 11y ago
No. If you volunteered into a contract with a company or group who would protect you, then you would indeed have a moral obligation to pay. It's theft to levy taxes for involuntary services. Explain to me how a mafia boss coming into your store and offering you protection is different than your much-better-equipt government. Your second paragraph is an excellent argument against democracy.
- Chris2048 11y ago
  The usual implication is that the mafia boss will themselves create the harm that they are protecting you from if you don't pay.
  - chrishynes 11y ago
    Exactly. The government will send men with guns to get you if you don't pay.

jbssm 11y ago

What people earn depend on the society they live in, it's not morally acceptable and as such shouldn't it also be legally acceptable to keep it all to yourself when you rely on what others built and in the education and infrastructure paid by others to achieve that wealth. If you want to keep everything to yourself without giving anything back then go live in the middle of the rainforest. Let's see how rich you get without the wealth that other people created around you in order to be able feed your own wealth.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

Even if the things that are funded are the very things that allow you to hold onto your wealth to be begin with?

ThomPete 11y ago

That only make sense if people were 100% responsible for the money they make. This is of course not the case. Instead it's a combination of the opportunties society provide for them, the work of others and ones personal abilities and choices. Mark Zuckerberg didn't create the Internet, Bill Gates didn't create the computer, IBM didn't create electricity, most land owners don't create the rising value of their land (especially true when it comes to urbanization) If you want to keep 100% of what you earn you must find a way to be 100% responsible for what you produce. That will be hard.

thescribe 11y ago
It seems to me that Mark Zuckerberg already pays for internet access, IBM already pays for their electricity.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  For access yes, not for the creation of the internet same thing with IBM. I.e. two platforms that made it possible for them to build their businesses on.