3 ms·

It isn't hypocritical because I find myself in a system that accepts coercion. If I disagree with communism should I refuse work and perish from starvation? No!

It isn't hypocritical because I find myself in a system that accepts coercion. If I disagree with communism should I refuse work and perish from starvation? No! I'm already within the system that make unethical demands. It isn't a choice between living free and working within an unethical system, it is a choice between working within an unethical system or working within an unethical system in a different manner. With your logic, if one sees the state as an actor of evil should he not cease all action? The state can only function with revenue, so would it not be better to live in the wilderness away from the state? This is false. The state has it's own violence that one can constantly object to, but it does not stop one from selling labor on the market. Put another way: The state uses violence to coerce resources from individuals and to coerce other individuals not to compete in certain industries (like mass transit). That is where the sin is. To be an engineer at a public transit system or to be a income earner that pays taxes, both prop up the state in their own ways, but neither of them necessarily willingly works for a state run enterprise, but they both do. It is not inconsistent with my beliefs because my beliefs do not hold those that work for or contribute towards the state through taxes as liable for the ethical misconduct of the state procuring taxation through force. It sounds like a tautology, but it is not.

bane 13y ago
> It isn't hypocritical Wrong, full stop. It's actually the literal dictionary definition of hypocrisy. The problem I have is not being a hypocrite, it's not being cognitively able to acknowledge it. > If I disagree with communism should I refuse work and perish from starvation? No, of course not. But you can recognize that you are helping perpetuate the system you disagree with. You may be empowered to resolve that conflict or not, but not the conflict exists at all? Now that's a problem. It fundamentally delegitimizes all of your arguments. > That is where the sin is. Definitely not interested in arguing where the sin is. Or how lamentable and pathetic a coerced situation you've found yourself in that you have no choice but to hypocrize yourself while insisting you aren't. You can also be coerced into hypocrisy. Redefining words or insisting that you really truly dearly hold the set of beliefs you hold, yet are working against, doesn't modify the nature of the universe. The truth is, it doesn't matter if you are a hypocrite. Everybody commits a little hypocrisy all the time. I don't like sweat shops, but man if cheap shirts made in unregulated developing countries don't fill my closet. I don't have a particular problem with your beliefs, you've selected your chosen set of ideological axioms and have chosen to work off of those. I'm not even remotely interested in debating those. What I'm interested in what happens when you violate your beliefs, do you acknowledge that violation, or do you try to fold space-time around your beliefs and act as if nothing at all ever happened.
- comex 13y ago
  Hypocrisy is behaving in a manner inconsistent with one's principles. One can have a principle that people shouldn't do anything that could assist something they consider evil, but if they have a less strict standard, doing so is not "the literal dictionary definition of hypocrisy".
- 3pt14159 13y ago
  No, the definition of hypocrisy (from Wikipdeia) is: > Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. I'm claiming a set of beliefs, you may judge those beliefs to be inconsistent, but you don't define what those beliefs are, by definition I do. It is not hypocritical because I argue that despite the fact that society should be in a libertarian state a realistic assessment of the situation shows that my impact in supporting the governmental apparatus is inconsequential to its continued existence. The difference I make changing people's opinion on HN during the day is what will lead to the reduction of the state, not the acceptance of grants or employment.

bane 13y ago

> It isn't hypocritical Wrong, full stop. It's actually the literal dictionary definition of hypocrisy. The problem I have is not being a hypocrite, it's not being cognitively able to acknowledge it. > If I disagree with communism should I refuse work and perish from starvation? No, of course not. But you can recognize that you are helping perpetuate the system you disagree with. You may be empowered to resolve that conflict or not, but not the conflict exists at all? Now that's a problem. It fundamentally delegitimizes all of your arguments. > That is where the sin is. Definitely not interested in arguing where the sin is. Or how lamentable and pathetic a coerced situation you've found yourself in that you have no choice but to hypocrize yourself while insisting you aren't. You can also be coerced into hypocrisy. Redefining words or insisting that you really truly dearly hold the set of beliefs you hold, yet are working against, doesn't modify the nature of the universe. The truth is, it doesn't matter if you are a hypocrite. Everybody commits a little hypocrisy all the time. I don't like sweat shops, but man if cheap shirts made in unregulated developing countries don't fill my closet. I don't have a particular problem with your beliefs, you've selected your chosen set of ideological axioms and have chosen to work off of those. I'm not even remotely interested in debating those. What I'm interested in what happens when you violate your beliefs, do you acknowledge that violation, or do you try to fold space-time around your beliefs and act as if nothing at all ever happened.

comex 13y ago
Hypocrisy is behaving in a manner inconsistent with one's principles. One can have a principle that people shouldn't do anything that could assist something they consider evil, but if they have a less strict standard, doing so is not "the literal dictionary definition of hypocrisy".
3pt14159 13y ago
No, the definition of hypocrisy (from Wikipdeia) is: > Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. I'm claiming a set of beliefs, you may judge those beliefs to be inconsistent, but you don't define what those beliefs are, by definition I do. It is not hypocritical because I argue that despite the fact that society should be in a libertarian state a realistic assessment of the situation shows that my impact in supporting the governmental apparatus is inconsequential to its continued existence. The difference I make changing people's opinion on HN during the day is what will lead to the reduction of the state, not the acceptance of grants or employment.