4 ms·

Taxation is done with consent? I beg to differ.

by pitaj 10y ago

ajkjk 10y ago
Yes, again, it's with the consent of the people as a collective, which is a pretty good system that we have not seen fit to radically change. The phrase "taxation is done with consent" uses consent to mean "the collective's continuous consent", due to the understanding that the collective is capable of changing the system if they deem it important enough. But I think you knew that already and are playing dumb as some kind of rhetorical strategy.
- pitaj 10y ago
  Other people can't consent for me. That's not real consent. You can call it consent, but it's really just an excuse. There's no court that would uphold that in any other context. The state doesn't get a special exemption from definitions just because. > which is a pretty good system that we have not seen fit to radically change Slavery was "a pretty good system". Any action the state takes can be justified using this line of reasoning.
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    You sound like a college kid who read some libertarian propaganda but has never learned anything about political philosophy and thinks (s)he knows everything anyway. You really need to go back and at least get to the point where you could argue (ideally, steelman[0]) for the other side, and then show where they're mistaken. Right now it just sounds like you've never learned anything about any Enlightenment-era principle of government, much less anything past that, and, well, I don't really feel like explaining any more basic concepts to you. Easy retorts: * Slavery was morally wrong (per almost all moral frameworks), but it was just per the government at the time. You should be opposed to immoral things regardless of how just they are under a government. * You're still using the wrong definition of consent. Imagine there are two words - ConsentI and ConsentP. You're arguing against the phrase "taxation is done with ConsentP" by saying "well I didn't ConsentI!!!". No shit, we're talking about ConsentP. Get with the program or you just sound ignorant. * The state does get a special exemption from definitions. That's the point of having the definition of 'just' come from the state. This is basic stuff. (Specifically, defined in the constitution of the state. The behavior of the agents of the state are not exempt from the definitions.) [0] steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning: instead of fighting a fake, weak version of your opponent's argument, you go out of your way to fight the strongest possible version of it - which should be easy if your position is the correct one.
    - aminok 10y ago
      Ironically, I viewed libertarians exactly the way you do many years ago. I would have long grueling debates on the internet with American libertarians. They may as well have been speaking to a wall, because I discounted them and their views the same way you're doing now. >The state does get a special exemption from definitions. That's the point of having the definition of 'just' come from the state. This is basic stuff. No it gets no exemption. The state does not define justice. We categorize many state actions as unjust.
      - ajkjk 10y ago
        As long as you're speaking in absolutes, not relative to a framework of thought, talking to you will continue to be like speaking to a wall. "The state does not define justice." It does for me. It does in America. So you're talking about "in your fantasy system, it doesn't". Who cares? You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. If you can't, won't, or are incapable of it, then talking to you is, indeed, like talking to a wall.
        aminok 10y ago
        'Justice' is not conventionally understood as being synonymous with law. You're employing a highly unconventional definition of 'justice' which would make your statements misleading to most. >You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. Everyone else does not use the same definition of justice as you. This is how justice is usually defined (first definition found through a Google search): >Justice definition, the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. just: >just jəst/ adjective 1. based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. When used in the context of laws, justice refers to a legal remedy that is morally right, equitable, etc. Legal rulings are not automatically considered justice on account of being from the state. State actions everywhere, including in the US, are widely characterized as unjust, a miscarriage of justice, etc., when they are considered immoral. I suggest you stop being stubborn, because you're wrong.
        EdHominem 10y ago
  - xorcist 10y ago
    Every person can not give explicit consent to every law and still form a society. That much should be self evident. How do we reconcile this with the unjust regimes practicing things such as slavery or capital punishment? It's not an obvious question, but one must be able to reason about it without resorting to trivialities such as universal unanimous consent.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- dnautics 10y ago
  That's a pretty loose definition of consent. If the group say votes that we can have sex with someone against their will, can we argue "collective consent"?
  - corford 10y ago
    I would say yes assuming the group (of which the entire collective is made) also has the ability to change its mind later and vote that non consensual sex is in fact not ok. If the majority of a group decide something then that implies collective consent unless and until the minority are so outraged that they either successfully agitate for change or the group splinters and starts fighting e.g. as happened with the abolition of slavery in the US. Basically, collective consent is an implicit concept rather than an explicit one and doesn't require (nor imply) universal acceptance of something.

Taxation is done with consent? I beg to differ.

by pitaj 10y ago

Taxation is done with consent? I beg to differ.

ajkjk 10y ago

Yes, again, it's with the consent of the people as a collective, which is a pretty good system that we have not seen fit to radically change. The phrase "taxation is done with consent" uses consent to mean "the collective's continuous consent", due to the understanding that the collective is capable of changing the system if they deem it important enough. But I think you knew that already and are playing dumb as some kind of rhetorical strategy.

pitaj 10y ago
Other people can't consent for me. That's not real consent. You can call it consent, but it's really just an excuse. There's no court that would uphold that in any other context. The state doesn't get a special exemption from definitions just because. > which is a pretty good system that we have not seen fit to radically change Slavery was "a pretty good system". Any action the state takes can be justified using this line of reasoning.
- ajkjk 10y ago
  You sound like a college kid who read some libertarian propaganda but has never learned anything about political philosophy and thinks (s)he knows everything anyway. You really need to go back and at least get to the point where you could argue (ideally, steelman[0]) for the other side, and then show where they're mistaken. Right now it just sounds like you've never learned anything about any Enlightenment-era principle of government, much less anything past that, and, well, I don't really feel like explaining any more basic concepts to you. Easy retorts: * Slavery was morally wrong (per almost all moral frameworks), but it was just per the government at the time. You should be opposed to immoral things regardless of how just they are under a government. * You're still using the wrong definition of consent. Imagine there are two words - ConsentI and ConsentP. You're arguing against the phrase "taxation is done with ConsentP" by saying "well I didn't ConsentI!!!". No shit, we're talking about ConsentP. Get with the program or you just sound ignorant. * The state does get a special exemption from definitions. That's the point of having the definition of 'just' come from the state. This is basic stuff. (Specifically, defined in the constitution of the state. The behavior of the agents of the state are not exempt from the definitions.) [0] steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning: instead of fighting a fake, weak version of your opponent's argument, you go out of your way to fight the strongest possible version of it - which should be easy if your position is the correct one.
  - aminok 10y ago
    Ironically, I viewed libertarians exactly the way you do many years ago. I would have long grueling debates on the internet with American libertarians. They may as well have been speaking to a wall, because I discounted them and their views the same way you're doing now. >The state does get a special exemption from definitions. That's the point of having the definition of 'just' come from the state. This is basic stuff. No it gets no exemption. The state does not define justice. We categorize many state actions as unjust.
    - ajkjk 10y ago
      As long as you're speaking in absolutes, not relative to a framework of thought, talking to you will continue to be like speaking to a wall. "The state does not define justice." It does for me. It does in America. So you're talking about "in your fantasy system, it doesn't". Who cares? You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. If you can't, won't, or are incapable of it, then talking to you is, indeed, like talking to a wall.
      - aminok 10y ago
        'Justice' is not conventionally understood as being synonymous with law. You're employing a highly unconventional definition of 'justice' which would make your statements misleading to most. >You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. Everyone else does not use the same definition of justice as you. This is how justice is usually defined (first definition found through a Google search): >Justice definition, the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. just: >just jəst/ adjective 1. based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. When used in the context of laws, justice refers to a legal remedy that is morally right, equitable, etc. Legal rulings are not automatically considered justice on account of being from the state. State actions everywhere, including in the US, are widely characterized as unjust, a miscarriage of justice, etc., when they are considered immoral. I suggest you stop being stubborn, because you're wrong.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
- xorcist 10y ago
  Every person can not give explicit consent to every law and still form a society. That much should be self evident. How do we reconcile this with the unjust regimes practicing things such as slavery or capital punishment? It's not an obvious question, but one must be able to reason about it without resorting to trivialities such as universal unanimous consent.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dnautics 10y ago
That's a pretty loose definition of consent. If the group say votes that we can have sex with someone against their will, can we argue "collective consent"?
- corford 10y ago
  I would say yes assuming the group (of which the entire collective is made) also has the ability to change its mind later and vote that non consensual sex is in fact not ok. If the majority of a group decide something then that implies collective consent unless and until the minority are so outraged that they either successfully agitate for change or the group splinters and starts fighting e.g. as happened with the abolition of slavery in the US. Basically, collective consent is an implicit concept rather than an explicit one and doesn't require (nor imply) universal acceptance of something.