3 ms·

> Tax you. The philosophical question is, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" "Tax

> Tax you. The philosophical question is, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" "Tax you" does not answer that question. If you request or demand someone contribute (in this case, broadband internet in rural areas), and they refuse to do so, are you willing to arrest or harm them?

LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago
"Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work. You've simply stated that there is a currently enforced law. The same argument could be any law throughout history: Mandatory religious worship. Conscription. Even slavery. Take ancient Sparta or Rome - "Slavery is not optional and there are penalties for refusing to work. That's how governments work" - that would have been a true statement, but doesn't get at whether that's right or wrong. It just states that there is a law that is enforced. But this question is important - "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" I'm not speaking universally about all law here, I'm wondering if you or anyone is willing to imprison or harm another human being for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Yes? No?
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    You're conflating refusal to pay taxes with not supporting how those taxes are spent. Those are two very different ways of interacting with the law.
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      > The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" > You're conflating refusal to pay taxes with not supporting how those taxes are spent. Those are two very different ways of interacting with the law. It's not conflating - if you pass a law to further an agenda (say, broadband internet in rural areas) you need a penalty or it's just a request. The reason I'm not talking about all taxes is because I can answer this question: "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" My answer to that is no. No, I am not willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do that. Therefore, I believe the law has a problem with it. However, if my country was invaded by malicious hostile forces and I was asked, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to defend the country against the malicious hostile invading force?" - Then I would say yes, in that particular emergency, I would imprison or shoot someone who refused to defend against the invaders. I would not enjoy doing it, but I would do it if I could not find another way to keep our people from getting killed and pillaged. When you pass a tax on something, you need to back it credibly. Now, it's easy to wash your hands of it by saying, "It's the law, and if you break the law, there are penalties." Yes, but this a generic non-statement. So far, no one is willing to say whether they are willing to imprison or harm someone for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Are you? "The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?"
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        You certainly are conflating. Opposing the existence of a law and breaking a law are two different things, and your supposedly simple question is combining then in order to make the misleading argument that a person who breaks a law is actually punished for opposing the existence of a law. It's conflating thoughts with deeds, and it's dishonest. I will not answer it. A person in a democratic society has a right to determine the laws they are legally subject to, but their mechanism for doing that is not their choice of whether to comply with it or not. If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not. You can't simply say "Oh, well, I don't agree with that law, so it's ok if I break it." and expect that to constitute a valid defense. Relying on civil disobedience to communicate your opposition instead of (say) voting and lobbying the legislature is naïve and not likely to be effective in most cases. Your opposition is much more likely to be recognized by the arm of government responsible for the formulation of the law than that which enforces it. This is what I mean by two ways of interacting with the law.

LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago

"Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.

lionhearted 17y ago
> "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work. You've simply stated that there is a currently enforced law. The same argument could be any law throughout history: Mandatory religious worship. Conscription. Even slavery. Take ancient Sparta or Rome - "Slavery is not optional and there are penalties for refusing to work. That's how governments work" - that would have been a true statement, but doesn't get at whether that's right or wrong. It just states that there is a law that is enforced. But this question is important - "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" I'm not speaking universally about all law here, I'm wondering if you or anyone is willing to imprison or harm another human being for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Yes? No?
- GHFigs 17y ago
  You're conflating refusal to pay taxes with not supporting how those taxes are spent. Those are two very different ways of interacting with the law.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" > You're conflating refusal to pay taxes with not supporting how those taxes are spent. Those are two very different ways of interacting with the law. It's not conflating - if you pass a law to further an agenda (say, broadband internet in rural areas) you need a penalty or it's just a request. The reason I'm not talking about all taxes is because I can answer this question: "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" My answer to that is no. No, I am not willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do that. Therefore, I believe the law has a problem with it. However, if my country was invaded by malicious hostile forces and I was asked, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to defend the country against the malicious hostile invading force?" - Then I would say yes, in that particular emergency, I would imprison or shoot someone who refused to defend against the invaders. I would not enjoy doing it, but I would do it if I could not find another way to keep our people from getting killed and pillaged. When you pass a tax on something, you need to back it credibly. Now, it's easy to wash your hands of it by saying, "It's the law, and if you break the law, there are penalties." Yes, but this a generic non-statement. So far, no one is willing to say whether they are willing to imprison or harm someone for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Are you? "The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?"
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      You certainly are conflating. Opposing the existence of a law and breaking a law are two different things, and your supposedly simple question is combining then in order to make the misleading argument that a person who breaks a law is actually punished for opposing the existence of a law. It's conflating thoughts with deeds, and it's dishonest. I will not answer it. A person in a democratic society has a right to determine the laws they are legally subject to, but their mechanism for doing that is not their choice of whether to comply with it or not. If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not. You can't simply say "Oh, well, I don't agree with that law, so it's ok if I break it." and expect that to constitute a valid defense. Relying on civil disobedience to communicate your opposition instead of (say) voting and lobbying the legislature is naïve and not likely to be effective in most cases. Your opposition is much more likely to be recognized by the arm of government responsible for the formulation of the law than that which enforces it. This is what I mean by two ways of interacting with the law.