4 ms·

"To be ruled is both necessary and inherently discomfiting (as well as dangerous). For our rulers to be accountable to us softens its intrinsic humiliations, pr

"To be ruled is both necessary and inherently discomfiting (as well as dangerous). For our rulers to be accountable to us softens its intrinsic humiliations, probably sets some hazy limits to the harms that they will voluntarily choose to do to us collectively, and thus diminishes some of the dangers to which their rule may expose us. To suggest that we can ever hope to have the power to make them act just as we would wish them to suggests that it is really we, not they, who are ruling. This is an illusion, and probably a somewhat malign illusion: either a self-deception, or an instance of being deceived by others, or very probably both." - John Dunn >Regardless, I don't think a billionaire looking at the elected government of their country and saying "I know better than the people you elected, so I am justified in evading taxes and spending that money how I think it should be spent" is a morally justified position even if it is true. What if the elected government is actually evil? Ever heard the quote, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"? There are a number of dictators, aside from the obvious example, who were democratically elected. There are many countries who use their people's wealth to fund genocidal campaigns against minorities within their borders. Some of those countries are representative democracies. If it is true that an individual knows better than the elected government and is more moral than them, and you still insist that their power (for what is wealth but liquid power?) be squandered or used for evil ends, I just don't know hwat to say to you. It is a baffling and honestly frightening position to take. To abnegate your own will and submit to that of the people, out of blind faith that they will be right. It is the core to the surrender to every lynch mob, every witch hunt, every moral panic that blinds people and initiates their frenzies of hate. "We are not as good and smart as we like to think we are" - so we should just allow the zeitgeist to determine our morality and sink our intellect to the lowest common denominator? Is that really what you believe? And which of us, exactly, is "alleviating responsibility?" I place it on a broken system; you on a fallen people.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> What if the elected government is actually evil? Ever heard the quote, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"? I don't think "taking advantage of all the benefits of a nation's resources and infrastructure while simultaneously contributing nothing, which I can only really get away with because I'm so successful" is a very good form of "resistance". Let's be frank here: there is absolutely no billionaire out there evading taxes because they have a moral problem with how their government uses it. > If it is true that an individual knows better than the elected government and is more moral than them, and you still insist that their power (for what is wealth but liquid power?) be squandered or used for evil ends, I just don't know hwat to say to you. I believe pretty much every individual will claim that they are those things. Which one do believe actually does know better and will be more moral? If only there were some kind of system where we could choose... > To abnegate your own will and submit to that of the people, out of blind faith that they will be right. It is the core to the surrender to every lynch mob, every witch hunt, every moral panic that blinds people and initiates their frenzies of hate. We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake. This isn't about blind faith in rightness, it's about your society electing a government, you being a part of that society and wishing to continue being a part of that society, and therefore you pay your fucking taxes. It isn't about subsuming your will to a mob, it's about not hypocritically enjoying the benefits of society while bemoaning doing your part in keeping it running. > "We are not as good and smart as we like to think we are" - so we should just allow the zeitgeist to determine our morality and sink our intellect to the lowest common denominator? No. We should not pretend that we are justifying not paying taxes for moral reasons when we are still totally ok with benefiting from that same immorality. That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral.
- endominus 5y ago
  >Which one do believe actually does know better and will be more moral? You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism. >We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake. No, we're talking about a society's allocation of resources. If a government cannot or will not allocate them to the benefit of a society, it has no moral right to them. This entire argument started out of the claim that billionaires getting tax breaks for philanthropy is wrong; that they should instead redirect that wealth to governments to do with as they will. If the actions of the government will do less good than whatever ends that philanthropy would have led to, then it is wrong to demand that the money be wasted that way. >That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral. So your argument is that billionaires giving money to philanthropic causes is fundamentally immoral because they are doing it to justify greed and because governments incentivize that behavior by offering tax breaks?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism. He should give up his money because if you are a part of society and benefit from it, that obliges you to contribute to the maintenance of that society. It isn't about authoritarianism and your attempts to equate the two is ridiculous. > No, we're talking about a society's allocation of resources. If a government cannot or will not allocate them to the benefit of a society, it has no moral right to them. Then it should be replaced, or abandoned. The solution is not eating your cake and having it too and pretending that is righteous. > This entire argument started out of the claim that billionaires getting tax breaks for philanthropy is wrong; that they should instead redirect that wealth to governments to do with as they will. If the actions of the government will do less good than whatever ends that philanthropy would have led to, then it is wrong to demand that the money be wasted that way. Getting a tax break, an exemption. Not that all the philanthropy should go away, merely that they don't deserve special exemption for it... Which isn't even something I'm arguing! I jumped in to point out that governments appear to waste money because people have different opinions of where money should go and the government represents people. It will always appear wasteful to somebody. Then this whole thing somehow devolved into trying to justify tax evasion as a valid form of protest, which I find absolutely ridiculous. > So your argument is that billionaires giving money to philanthropic causes I never said that philanthropy was wrong. I said people should pay their taxes. Would you kindly stop trying to strawman me as an authoritarian populist who hates charity or whatever the fuck crazy nonsense you'll think of next?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> What if the elected government is actually evil? Ever heard the quote, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"? I don't think "taking advantage of all the benefits of a nation's resources and infrastructure while simultaneously contributing nothing, which I can only really get away with because I'm so successful" is a very good form of "resistance". Let's be frank here: there is absolutely no billionaire out there evading taxes because they have a moral problem with how their government uses it. > If it is true that an individual knows better than the elected government and is more moral than them, and you still insist that their power (for what is wealth but liquid power?) be squandered or used for evil ends, I just don't know hwat to say to you. I believe pretty much every individual will claim that they are those things. Which one do believe actually does know better and will be more moral? If only there were some kind of system where we could choose... > To abnegate your own will and submit to that of the people, out of blind faith that they will be right. It is the core to the surrender to every lynch mob, every witch hunt, every moral panic that blinds people and initiates their frenzies of hate. We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake. This isn't about blind faith in rightness, it's about your society electing a government, you being a part of that society and wishing to continue being a part of that society, and therefore you pay your fucking taxes. It isn't about subsuming your will to a mob, it's about not hypocritically enjoying the benefits of society while bemoaning doing your part in keeping it running. > "We are not as good and smart as we like to think we are" - so we should just allow the zeitgeist to determine our morality and sink our intellect to the lowest common denominator? No. We should not pretend that we are justifying not paying taxes for moral reasons when we are still totally ok with benefiting from that same immorality. That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral.

endominus 5y ago
>Which one do believe actually does know better and will be more moral? You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism. >We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake. No, we're talking about a society's allocation of resources. If a government cannot or will not allocate them to the benefit of a society, it has no moral right to them. This entire argument started out of the claim that billionaires getting tax breaks for philanthropy is wrong; that they should instead redirect that wealth to governments to do with as they will. If the actions of the government will do less good than whatever ends that philanthropy would have led to, then it is wrong to demand that the money be wasted that way. >That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral. So your argument is that billionaires giving money to philanthropic causes is fundamentally immoral because they are doing it to justify greed and because governments incentivize that behavior by offering tax breaks?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism. He should give up his money because if you are a part of society and benefit from it, that obliges you to contribute to the maintenance of that society. It isn't about authoritarianism and your attempts to equate the two is ridiculous. > No, we're talking about a society's allocation of resources. If a government cannot or will not allocate them to the benefit of a society, it has no moral right to them. Then it should be replaced, or abandoned. The solution is not eating your cake and having it too and pretending that is righteous. > This entire argument started out of the claim that billionaires getting tax breaks for philanthropy is wrong; that they should instead redirect that wealth to governments to do with as they will. If the actions of the government will do less good than whatever ends that philanthropy would have led to, then it is wrong to demand that the money be wasted that way. Getting a tax break, an exemption. Not that all the philanthropy should go away, merely that they don't deserve special exemption for it... Which isn't even something I'm arguing! I jumped in to point out that governments appear to waste money because people have different opinions of where money should go and the government represents people. It will always appear wasteful to somebody. Then this whole thing somehow devolved into trying to justify tax evasion as a valid form of protest, which I find absolutely ridiculous. > So your argument is that billionaires giving money to philanthropic causes I never said that philanthropy was wrong. I said people should pay their taxes. Would you kindly stop trying to strawman me as an authoritarian populist who hates charity or whatever the fuck crazy nonsense you'll think of next?