4 ms·

Yeah, but such a statement requires no actual evidence. I can tell you I'm okay with it, because that's a fact about myself. The fact that your view is incompat

by Weltan 13y ago

Yeah, but such a statement requires no actual evidence. I can tell you I'm okay with it, because that's a fact about myself. The fact that your view is incompatible just shows that I don't consider all opinions morally valid, some are wrong. Just as to you it might appear that I am not 'good', it might appear to me that you're not 'good' if you refuse to pay taxes. It's a coincidence that my view is backed-up by society, but such is life. A libertarian might say to a person born blind, deaf and dumb who is unable to work: 'tough luck', I can say to a libertarian born in a society that forces them to support those less fortunate with taxes: 'tough luck.' I personally see nothing immoral about this.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
snitko 13y ago
There's a larger implication, actually. You think it's moral to use force against people who disagree with you. It doesn't matter what the question is, the idea is that you are prepared to initiate the use of force, while libertarians are fundamentally opposed to that. I just think it's important to take our fellow human beings not as objects to be taxed, but as individuals to be convinced. If you think helping some group of people is a good idea - convince me, don't just steal from me. If you steal, this doesn't make you a single bit more moral.
- Weltan 13y ago
  I don't see this 'larger implication'. Where is this objective moral scale I can look at? The one that'll tell me that I'm more moral than you, or you're more moral than me? I don't claim I'm more moral than you, I do claim we have differing morality. My morals tell me that it is okay to 'initiate force' in certain circumstances, the fact that your morals tell you the opposite has no bearings on me nor on any objective scale of morals you could point to. You've taken a principle and put it on some sort of pedestal which allows you to point to it and say: if you violate that, you're immoral. I can do the same with any given principle and neither of us comes out on top morally, nor will we ever. The unfortunate thing about your principle is that it is weak from a force perspective: in order for you to stay true to your morals, you cannot initiate force, in order for me to stay true to my morals, I can do so and I can enable the government to do so as well.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Very good. But you cannot claim the majority of people actually share your morals, because you also initiate force against them. If people weren't afraid of your force, my guess is most of them wouldn't be willing to pay taxes. It's like if you were a crusader occupying a muslim village and converting everyone living in it to christians by force. Does it make them christian? Technically yes. In reality, unlikely.
    - Weltan 13y ago
      On a legal conception (my field), people don't pay taxes because they are forced to do so by force, people pay taxes for a wide variety of reasons: fear of consequences, habit, actual willingness to pay taxes, social cohesion, internalization of process. Paying taxes makes sense for businesses, and various other organisations on an economic level. Paying taxes in Australia (where I am), for example, gets you a wide variety of benefits that most people appreciate, and most of them don't feel forced to do so. Maybe at some baseline level they are 'forced' to do so, but it is done voluntarily. Just as you would say that a person taking a job because otherwise they will starve is a voluntary act, so can paying taxes be voluntary despite the background threat of prison. Same with religion, maybe those initial people will not be Christians, but maybe their grandchildren will be if the occupation continues. The Ottomans, for example, converted people to Islam through tax incentives and education. A test case for you: In Canada (and Australia), for example, 89% of the land is in direct ownership by the Crown, the other 11% is rented by the Crown to individuals in the form of land tenure. Legally, the Queen is not allowed to permanently sell any land, as they are subject to the old rules of English family law, where descendants are to be entitled to inherit the land. The Queen, through the Government of Canada which represents her, is the owner of the entire country. Does she not have the right to charge whatever rent rates (taxes) she would like? And are not people paying these taxes voluntarily as long as they live on this rented land?
      - snitko 13y ago
        > people don't pay taxes because they are forced to do so by force, people pay taxes for a wide variety of reasons Easy to test. Ask people if they would keep paying taxes if they weren't afraid of IRS (or equivalent). My experience: the answer is NO with most. > A test case for you The question is where this legitimacy of owning a land by the Queen comes from. The royal family simply declared certain territories their own, then used government forces (sponsored by taxation) to enforce this. So I'd argue it's the people who paid taxes who own the land, not the Queen. What you have, though, is a perverted situation in which people pay taxes to have their land taken away from them and then leased back. That's insane.

by Weltan 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

snitko 13y ago

There's a larger implication, actually. You think it's moral to use force against people who disagree with you. It doesn't matter what the question is, the idea is that you are prepared to initiate the use of force, while libertarians are fundamentally opposed to that. I just think it's important to take our fellow human beings not as objects to be taxed, but as individuals to be convinced. If you think helping some group of people is a good idea - convince me, don't just steal from me. If you steal, this doesn't make you a single bit more moral.

Weltan 13y ago
I don't see this 'larger implication'. Where is this objective moral scale I can look at? The one that'll tell me that I'm more moral than you, or you're more moral than me? I don't claim I'm more moral than you, I do claim we have differing morality. My morals tell me that it is okay to 'initiate force' in certain circumstances, the fact that your morals tell you the opposite has no bearings on me nor on any objective scale of morals you could point to. You've taken a principle and put it on some sort of pedestal which allows you to point to it and say: if you violate that, you're immoral. I can do the same with any given principle and neither of us comes out on top morally, nor will we ever. The unfortunate thing about your principle is that it is weak from a force perspective: in order for you to stay true to your morals, you cannot initiate force, in order for me to stay true to my morals, I can do so and I can enable the government to do so as well.
- snitko 13y ago
  Very good. But you cannot claim the majority of people actually share your morals, because you also initiate force against them. If people weren't afraid of your force, my guess is most of them wouldn't be willing to pay taxes. It's like if you were a crusader occupying a muslim village and converting everyone living in it to christians by force. Does it make them christian? Technically yes. In reality, unlikely.
  - Weltan 13y ago
    On a legal conception (my field), people don't pay taxes because they are forced to do so by force, people pay taxes for a wide variety of reasons: fear of consequences, habit, actual willingness to pay taxes, social cohesion, internalization of process. Paying taxes makes sense for businesses, and various other organisations on an economic level. Paying taxes in Australia (where I am), for example, gets you a wide variety of benefits that most people appreciate, and most of them don't feel forced to do so. Maybe at some baseline level they are 'forced' to do so, but it is done voluntarily. Just as you would say that a person taking a job because otherwise they will starve is a voluntary act, so can paying taxes be voluntary despite the background threat of prison. Same with religion, maybe those initial people will not be Christians, but maybe their grandchildren will be if the occupation continues. The Ottomans, for example, converted people to Islam through tax incentives and education. A test case for you: In Canada (and Australia), for example, 89% of the land is in direct ownership by the Crown, the other 11% is rented by the Crown to individuals in the form of land tenure. Legally, the Queen is not allowed to permanently sell any land, as they are subject to the old rules of English family law, where descendants are to be entitled to inherit the land. The Queen, through the Government of Canada which represents her, is the owner of the entire country. Does she not have the right to charge whatever rent rates (taxes) she would like? And are not people paying these taxes voluntarily as long as they live on this rented land?
    - snitko 13y ago
      > people don't pay taxes because they are forced to do so by force, people pay taxes for a wide variety of reasons Easy to test. Ask people if they would keep paying taxes if they weren't afraid of IRS (or equivalent). My experience: the answer is NO with most. > A test case for you The question is where this legitimacy of owning a land by the Queen comes from. The royal family simply declared certain territories their own, then used government forces (sponsored by taxation) to enforce this. So I'd argue it's the people who paid taxes who own the land, not the Queen. What you have, though, is a perverted situation in which people pay taxes to have their land taken away from them and then leased back. That's insane.