6 ms·

> No, it's moral to provide people with food and shelter Then it must be immoral to take food and shelter from people. How do you then justify taxation? > fun

> No, it's moral to provide people with food and shelter Then it must be immoral to take food and shelter from people. How do you then justify taxation? > funded by surplus wealth generated by a society, in a manner deemed agreeable by societal consensus, so as to create a stable social order. And in order to maintain consensus, and order, anyone who doesn’t agree is subject to violence. No, thats not moral. > But by crowing "taxation is theft", you have clearly virtue-signalled yourself to be a libertarian. > you might as well label yourself an anarchist. Which is fine, plenty of mutualist ideologies exist, but you should at least identify yourself so people will understand the very different ideological framework you're arguing from. So you continue to insist on labeling me, but the point is that the ideas exist independently of labels and must be dealt with on their own merits.

Apocryphon 6y ago
> How do you then justify taxation? Presumably society comes with concepts of fairness, and that it is more fair to take someone's surplus means to share with those who are running a deficit. This need not be coercive either, as there are always incentives such as tax credits and deductions so forth to spur voluntary giving. I'm sure there are moral philosophers better suited to explain it than me. > And in order to maintain consensus, and order, anyone who doesn’t agree is subject to violence. No, thats not moral. We live in a society, as they say. > the ideas exist independently of labels and must be dealt with on their own merits But pattern recognition is a form of optimization, and labels are but filters created from reoccurring ideological patterns.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Presumably society comes with concepts of fairness, and that it is more fair to take someone's surplus means to share with those who are running a deficit. So your concept of fairness involves a person who has the power to assign and remove property from other people according to his judgments. > This need not be coercive either, as there are always incentives such as tax credits and deductions so forth to spur voluntary giving. Taxation is coercive, so offering relief from coercion as an incentive is coercion. > I'm sure there are moral philosophers better suited to explain it than me. There are moral philosophers in favor and opposed. You must take responsibility for your own moral judgments. > We live in a society, as they say. And marriage means that its not possible for a husband to rape his wife. > But pattern recognition is a form of optimization, and labels are but filters created from reoccurring ideological patterns. Its a lossy form of optimization and the labels have connotations that may not be justified.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    > So your concept of fairness involves a person who has the power to assign and remove property from other people according to his judgments. Yes, and that person is Uncle Sam, Marianne, the Goddess of Democracy, it is me and you, because it is be formed from societal consensus and the republican process. > Taxation is coercive, so offering relief from coercion as an incentive is coercion. Coercion schmoercion. > You must take responsibility for your own moral judgments. Certainly, in the same way a fish takes responsibility for the water it lives and breathes in. > And marriage means that its not possible for a husband to rape his wife. Your entire stance is that marriage is unjust because it can be abused. While I'm arguing that abusive marriages do not necessarily form the majority, nor does it invalidate the concept. > Its a lossy form of optimization and the labels have connotations that may not be justified. I'm no audiophile.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Yes, and that person is Uncle Sam, Marianne, the Goddess of Democracy, it is me and you, because it is be formed from societal consensus and the republican process. Good, then you’ll have no objection to me helping myself to your surplus. For “the good of society.” > Coercion schmoercion. Its interesting how people are often quite concerned with someone else’s perceived lack of things, but references to someone being a victim of violence are dismissed. > Certainly, in the same way a fish takes responsibility for the water it lives and breathes in. The fish didn’t try to justify his aquatic lifestyle by reference to moral philosophers. > Your entire stance is that marriage is unjust because it can be abused. While I'm arguing that abusive marriages do not necessarily form the majority, nor does it invalidate the concept. My entire stance is that a moral wrong doesn’t become acceptable on the basis of someone asserting it as an integral component of some other thing. Theft/robbery doesn’t become ok because you believe it to be necessary or good for society, and rape doesn’ become ok because the victim is married to the perpetrator. > I'm no audiophile. Just deal with the arguments as presented rather than trying to link them back to some ideology as a convenient means of dismissal.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago

Apocryphon 6y ago

> How do you then justify taxation? Presumably society comes with concepts of fairness, and that it is more fair to take someone's surplus means to share with those who are running a deficit. This need not be coercive either, as there are always incentives such as tax credits and deductions so forth to spur voluntary giving. I'm sure there are moral philosophers better suited to explain it than me. > And in order to maintain consensus, and order, anyone who doesn’t agree is subject to violence. No, thats not moral. We live in a society, as they say. > the ideas exist independently of labels and must be dealt with on their own merits But pattern recognition is a form of optimization, and labels are but filters created from reoccurring ideological patterns.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Presumably society comes with concepts of fairness, and that it is more fair to take someone's surplus means to share with those who are running a deficit. So your concept of fairness involves a person who has the power to assign and remove property from other people according to his judgments. > This need not be coercive either, as there are always incentives such as tax credits and deductions so forth to spur voluntary giving. Taxation is coercive, so offering relief from coercion as an incentive is coercion. > I'm sure there are moral philosophers better suited to explain it than me. There are moral philosophers in favor and opposed. You must take responsibility for your own moral judgments. > We live in a society, as they say. And marriage means that its not possible for a husband to rape his wife. > But pattern recognition is a form of optimization, and labels are but filters created from reoccurring ideological patterns. Its a lossy form of optimization and the labels have connotations that may not be justified.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  > So your concept of fairness involves a person who has the power to assign and remove property from other people according to his judgments. Yes, and that person is Uncle Sam, Marianne, the Goddess of Democracy, it is me and you, because it is be formed from societal consensus and the republican process. > Taxation is coercive, so offering relief from coercion as an incentive is coercion. Coercion schmoercion. > You must take responsibility for your own moral judgments. Certainly, in the same way a fish takes responsibility for the water it lives and breathes in. > And marriage means that its not possible for a husband to rape his wife. Your entire stance is that marriage is unjust because it can be abused. While I'm arguing that abusive marriages do not necessarily form the majority, nor does it invalidate the concept. > Its a lossy form of optimization and the labels have connotations that may not be justified. I'm no audiophile.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Yes, and that person is Uncle Sam, Marianne, the Goddess of Democracy, it is me and you, because it is be formed from societal consensus and the republican process. Good, then you’ll have no objection to me helping myself to your surplus. For “the good of society.” > Coercion schmoercion. Its interesting how people are often quite concerned with someone else’s perceived lack of things, but references to someone being a victim of violence are dismissed. > Certainly, in the same way a fish takes responsibility for the water it lives and breathes in. The fish didn’t try to justify his aquatic lifestyle by reference to moral philosophers. > Your entire stance is that marriage is unjust because it can be abused. While I'm arguing that abusive marriages do not necessarily form the majority, nor does it invalidate the concept. My entire stance is that a moral wrong doesn’t become acceptable on the basis of someone asserting it as an integral component of some other thing. Theft/robbery doesn’t become ok because you believe it to be necessary or good for society, and rape doesn’ become ok because the victim is married to the perpetrator. > I'm no audiophile. Just deal with the arguments as presented rather than trying to link them back to some ideology as a convenient means of dismissal.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago