5 ms·

> Your profile looks like you're an objectivist I have my own philosophy, induced from reality, which (conveniently enough) corresponds to Objectivism (since t

by javert 13y ago

> Your profile looks like you're an objectivist I have my own philosophy, induced from reality, which (conveniently enough) corresponds to Objectivism (since they both use a logical methodology). > But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. Correct, and I can make a number of arguments against anarchy. That is just the simplest and most clever I have run up against other than "It's contradictory." > As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea? That is a good question that people often have. I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force. Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force. The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate. Moreover, consider the case of a just war against a country that threatens the US; there may be civilian casualties among non-participants in the country of the enemy. The proximate cause of such casualties would be the US military, but the fundamental cause is the enemy government; they died to retaliatory force. A similar case is occuring when an ideal government uses force to collect minimal taxes to establish police, courts, and military. The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights. It would be ideal if all funding for government could be levied voluntarily, via donations, but if not, my argument here provides a solution. This is not an Objectivist view, because it was not part of anything Ayn Rand wrote. I think many Objectivists would consider it to be compatible with Objectivism, while some no doubt wouldn't.

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force Therein lies the problem. Governments are based on initiatory force - extortion, to be accurate. We all pay taxes because we know we'll be forcibly hauled to jail if we don't, and our property will be seized from us. Taxation itself is immoral, and since all governments are based on taxation, all governments are immoral. >> The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights So I guess I'm allowed to initiate erm.. retaliatory force against you, because you might want to violate my rights, or.. how does this work? :P There is no threat before someone threatens you. Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it? You're aware that taxation is based on (initiatory) force, and thus immoral. But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.
- javert 13y ago
  You're not actually giving an intellectual argument, for the most part. You're just... "erm"... asserting the opposite of what I said in a hand-wavy manner. What is profoundly immoral is condemning everyone to barbarism via a system that will lead to massive rights violations, which is what you are proposing. I don't actually need my neat little trick. Even before I realized the truth in that, I advocated for the minimal necessary taxation, in order to otherwise establish a rights-protecting society. That is the practical thing to do, and therefore it is the moral thing to do. You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral. It is a floating conception (i.e. it cannot be induced from or reduced to reality). > Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it? Yes, it is a rational idea. In a state of nature, everyone is a threat to everyone. > But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection. Come on man, I'm not a moron. The idea doesn't fall on its face. That is just an assertion you are making.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> You're not actually giving an intellectual argument, for the most part. You're just... "erm"... asserting the opposite of what I said in a hand-wavy manner. OK, here's what you said earlier: >>> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force. But government is based on the initiation of force in taxation. Without taxes, there is no government, and without the threat of violence inflicted on you for attempting to keep your property, there is no taxation. That is immoral, plain and simple. It's extortion. >>> Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force. Who are they "retaliating" against? If A initiates against B, is B then allowed to "retaliate" against C? >>> The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate. We agree on the first part, but who exactly is government retaliating against when taxing people? Remember, an individual is free to live all his life without aggressing against anyone, but if he doesn't give up his money to the government, then the government will aggress against him. Where's the retaliation in that? -Nowhere, that's where. It's simply clearly the initiation of force against an individual, even if he's never hurt anyone ever. >> You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral I already did, see above. >> Yes, it is a rational idea. In a state of nature, everyone is a threat to everyone. My point was that you can't both be sane, and "retaliate" against people who have not initiated against you. The possibility that someone, somewhere might want to violate your rights, does not make your force a retaliation if you're just aggressing against somone who's never done anything to you. If A never actually initiates against anyone (regardless of any perceived/imagined willingness to do so), can B then "retaliate" against C? -That's roughly the idea you presented before.

by javert 13y ago

anoncowherd 13y ago

>> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force Therein lies the problem. Governments are based on initiatory force - extortion, to be accurate. We all pay taxes because we know we'll be forcibly hauled to jail if we don't, and our property will be seized from us. Taxation itself is immoral, and since all governments are based on taxation, all governments are immoral. >> The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights So I guess I'm allowed to initiate erm.. retaliatory force against you, because you might want to violate my rights, or.. how does this work? :P There is no threat before someone threatens you. Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it? You're aware that taxation is based on (initiatory) force, and thus immoral. But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.

javert 13y ago
You're not actually giving an intellectual argument, for the most part. You're just... "erm"... asserting the opposite of what I said in a hand-wavy manner. What is profoundly immoral is condemning everyone to barbarism via a system that will lead to massive rights violations, which is what you are proposing. I don't actually need my neat little trick. Even before I realized the truth in that, I advocated for the minimal necessary taxation, in order to otherwise establish a rights-protecting society. That is the practical thing to do, and therefore it is the moral thing to do. You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral. It is a floating conception (i.e. it cannot be induced from or reduced to reality). > Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it? Yes, it is a rational idea. In a state of nature, everyone is a threat to everyone. > But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection. Come on man, I'm not a moron. The idea doesn't fall on its face. That is just an assertion you are making.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> You're not actually giving an intellectual argument, for the most part. You're just... "erm"... asserting the opposite of what I said in a hand-wavy manner. OK, here's what you said earlier: >>> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force. But government is based on the initiation of force in taxation. Without taxes, there is no government, and without the threat of violence inflicted on you for attempting to keep your property, there is no taxation. That is immoral, plain and simple. It's extortion. >>> Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force. Who are they "retaliating" against? If A initiates against B, is B then allowed to "retaliate" against C? >>> The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate. We agree on the first part, but who exactly is government retaliating against when taxing people? Remember, an individual is free to live all his life without aggressing against anyone, but if he doesn't give up his money to the government, then the government will aggress against him. Where's the retaliation in that? -Nowhere, that's where. It's simply clearly the initiation of force against an individual, even if he's never hurt anyone ever. >> You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral I already did, see above. >> Yes, it is a rational idea. In a state of nature, everyone is a threat to everyone. My point was that you can't both be sane, and "retaliate" against people who have not initiated against you. The possibility that someone, somewhere might want to violate your rights, does not make your force a retaliation if you're just aggressing against somone who's never done anything to you. If A never actually initiates against anyone (regardless of any perceived/imagined willingness to do so), can B then "retaliate" against C? -That's roughly the idea you presented before.