4 ms·

>> 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.

>> 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.

javert 13y ago
I mean, I think you're just asking me to restate my original argument. That's fine---I probably went too fast, anyway. Let's say the US retaliates against Iran's threat of force (let's just assume it makes a legitimate threat of force) and kills uninvolved Iranian citizens as a side-effect. Assume the US made reasonable attempts to minimize civilian casualties. Was the US's force against those civilians retaliatory, or initiatory? I would say the former. Iran initiated the force and is morally culpable for those deaths. If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory. The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights. So when an ideal US forcibly taxes me, it is retaliating, for the same reason it is retaliating when there is a civilian casualty in Iran. Anyway, we run the risk here of being rationalistic (i.e. talking all about concepts that ultimately are not connected to reality). There is another way to look at the point that I am making, which is to say: In a state of nature (i.e. if the government suddenly disappeared), force rules. The only way to get out of a state of nature is to use force to elimiate it. That is perfectly moral, and perfeclty practical. It is the use of force that makes the protection of rights possibile. (That would even still be true if government were 100% funded via donations, since it properly uses force against criminals anyway.) > You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral You said it is immoral "plan and simple" because it's "extortion." Unless I missed your argument. That does not justify the claim of "immoral" because it does not link it to a philosophical theory of morality that itself is, ultimately, logically derived from and necessitated by perceptual reality. For instance, many libertarians support the "nonaggression axiom." That is just a floating axiom that they arbitrarily assume. Some of them have deeper philosophical arguments for it, presumably, but many do not believe that such are necessary. The good news it that we actually can rigorously defend liberty using a chain of reasoning that starts from perceptual reality. And we should. Don't be satisfied to believe a good thing when you can also prove a good thing, which is so much better. :) However, that reasoning will lead to the conclusion that a minimum necessary amount of taxation is, well, necessary, and thus justified. A proper theory of morality does not contradict that. I am willing to sacrifice the ideal of having zero taxes in exchange for being right.
- goshakkk 13y ago
  > Let's say the US retaliates against Iran's threat of force (let's just assume it makes a legitimate threat of force) and kills uninvolved Iranian citizens as a side-effect. Assume the US made reasonable attempts to minimize civilian casualties. > Was the US's force against those civilians retaliatory, or initiatory? I would say the former. Iran initiated the force and is morally culpable for those deaths. Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified? > If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory. Why should some group of people decide what personally I need and impose payments for that "service" upon me? Did I have a say? > The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights. So, basically, to protect the people from robbery, we need to institute a larger theft body? Sounds like a good plan. Now, what if I don't like the way government does its job protecting my rights? What if I find the govt performs this task in an inefficient and quite costly manner? What is I'm a pacifist and I don't want anybody to protect me? I can't opt out of the government "protection"; I can't switch the provider either.
  - javert 13y ago
    > Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Because that was how I phrased the hypothetical. > Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified? Because in the hypothetical retaliatory force was being used to defend US citizens---something I believe is moral and which the guy I was talking to seems to agree with. I don't think you are in agreement so I don't think we can progress at this point in the discussion. We would have to backtrack first to talking about retaliatory vs. initiatory force. That is too much to bite of in an HN comment discussion. As a side note, you could switch the names of the countries, it doesn't matter.

javert 13y ago

I mean, I think you're just asking me to restate my original argument. That's fine---I probably went too fast, anyway. Let's say the US retaliates against Iran's threat of force (let's just assume it makes a legitimate threat of force) and kills uninvolved Iranian citizens as a side-effect. Assume the US made reasonable attempts to minimize civilian casualties. Was the US's force against those civilians retaliatory, or initiatory? I would say the former. Iran initiated the force and is morally culpable for those deaths. If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory. The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights. So when an ideal US forcibly taxes me, it is retaliating, for the same reason it is retaliating when there is a civilian casualty in Iran. Anyway, we run the risk here of being rationalistic (i.e. talking all about concepts that ultimately are not connected to reality). There is another way to look at the point that I am making, which is to say: In a state of nature (i.e. if the government suddenly disappeared), force rules. The only way to get out of a state of nature is to use force to elimiate it. That is perfectly moral, and perfeclty practical. It is the use of force that makes the protection of rights possibile. (That would even still be true if government were 100% funded via donations, since it properly uses force against criminals anyway.) > You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral You said it is immoral "plan and simple" because it's "extortion." Unless I missed your argument. That does not justify the claim of "immoral" because it does not link it to a philosophical theory of morality that itself is, ultimately, logically derived from and necessitated by perceptual reality. For instance, many libertarians support the "nonaggression axiom." That is just a floating axiom that they arbitrarily assume. Some of them have deeper philosophical arguments for it, presumably, but many do not believe that such are necessary. The good news it that we actually can rigorously defend liberty using a chain of reasoning that starts from perceptual reality. And we should. Don't be satisfied to believe a good thing when you can also prove a good thing, which is so much better. :) However, that reasoning will lead to the conclusion that a minimum necessary amount of taxation is, well, necessary, and thus justified. A proper theory of morality does not contradict that. I am willing to sacrifice the ideal of having zero taxes in exchange for being right.

goshakkk 13y ago
> Let's say the US retaliates against Iran's threat of force (let's just assume it makes a legitimate threat of force) and kills uninvolved Iranian citizens as a side-effect. Assume the US made reasonable attempts to minimize civilian casualties. > Was the US's force against those civilians retaliatory, or initiatory? I would say the former. Iran initiated the force and is morally culpable for those deaths. Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified? > If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory. Why should some group of people decide what personally I need and impose payments for that "service" upon me? Did I have a say? > The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights. So, basically, to protect the people from robbery, we need to institute a larger theft body? Sounds like a good plan. Now, what if I don't like the way government does its job protecting my rights? What if I find the govt performs this task in an inefficient and quite costly manner? What is I'm a pacifist and I don't want anybody to protect me? I can't opt out of the government "protection"; I can't switch the provider either.
- javert 13y ago
  > Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Because that was how I phrased the hypothetical. > Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified? Because in the hypothetical retaliatory force was being used to defend US citizens---something I believe is moral and which the guy I was talking to seems to agree with. I don't think you are in agreement so I don't think we can progress at this point in the discussion. We would have to backtrack first to talking about retaliatory vs. initiatory force. That is too much to bite of in an HN comment discussion. As a side note, you could switch the names of the countries, it doesn't matter.