3 ms·

"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.
      - lionhearted 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. No. The point is that the ends do not justify the means. I support the vast majority of the current law's agenda - but I believe the means of how it is carried out is wrong. Most people have never thought about this - I'm asking you to think about 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. I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Above I wrote: 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." But ends do not, in my opinion, justify means. Others can disagree - that's why we're discussing. But most people can't even admit that the means that are being used are pretty horrific. If someone says, "Yes, I think it is horrible that someone who refuses to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area is imprisoned, but it's necessary anyways so I support it", then I respect that person. I disagree, but I respect it. But the man that refuses that is refusing to see the way things currently are. This truth is a bit ugly, I think. I don't particularly like it. > If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not. Again, I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Yes, breaking the law is always illegal, by definition. This is not the discussion. But this really isn't academic. The broadband internet in rural areas is very illustrative, but let's take another example, this time from the United States. Social Security Tax - it's to help support older and disabled people. This is a good end goal - supporting older and disabled people. But if someone doesn't give their income up to pay this tax to support this cause, they go to jail. Yes, not paying this tax is against the law, therefore it is illegal, therefore you can be punished under the law for breaking this law. That's obvious. But is it right? I'm going to say, categorically - no. You could disagree. You could say, "The ends justify the means. We need to lock people in jail who refuse to help the elderly and disabled." But you can't say, "That's dishonest, that's not what's happening." Because that's precisely what's happening. I'm aware it's the law. That does not change whether the law is right or wrong. I'm in favor of supporting the elderly and disabled. I personally have done so in my life. I'm not in favor of jailing or otherwise hurting someone who refuses to. Does it make sense that way? We're not talking about legality, we're talking about ends and means. You need to ask yourself what you're willing to incarcerate or hurt other human beings for not complying with, and that needs to be factored into the law. There are situations that would warrant arresting, incarcerating, hurting, or killing another human being. The question, "Are you willing to incarcerate, harm, or kill someone for refusing to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area?" is a fair question, because a law mandating that you subsidize broadband internet or suffer a penalty of incarceration or harm does precisely that.
  - anamax 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. That's what people always say when you point out that they'll injure/kill you if you don't do what they want. They say that you're just being punished for breaking the law because they don't want to be held responsible for what the law requires. The person in question isn't being punished for breaking "the law", she's being punished for breaking a specific law. By enacting a law, you're saying that whatever that said law mandates is justifies punishing people who break it. Not some abstract law, that law. Which reminds me, the whole "authority" thing doesn't actually make sense. We did away with authority is the divine right of kings not because kings weren't special, but because authority in that sense, no matter who exercises it, doesn't make sense. See The Empty Idea of Authority (University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2009, No. 5, 2009) by Laurence Claus http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1484980 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1484980

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.
    - lionhearted 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. No. The point is that the ends do not justify the means. I support the vast majority of the current law's agenda - but I believe the means of how it is carried out is wrong. Most people have never thought about this - I'm asking you to think about 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. I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Above I wrote: 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." But ends do not, in my opinion, justify means. Others can disagree - that's why we're discussing. But most people can't even admit that the means that are being used are pretty horrific. If someone says, "Yes, I think it is horrible that someone who refuses to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area is imprisoned, but it's necessary anyways so I support it", then I respect that person. I disagree, but I respect it. But the man that refuses that is refusing to see the way things currently are. This truth is a bit ugly, I think. I don't particularly like it. > If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not. Again, I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Yes, breaking the law is always illegal, by definition. This is not the discussion. But this really isn't academic. The broadband internet in rural areas is very illustrative, but let's take another example, this time from the United States. Social Security Tax - it's to help support older and disabled people. This is a good end goal - supporting older and disabled people. But if someone doesn't give their income up to pay this tax to support this cause, they go to jail. Yes, not paying this tax is against the law, therefore it is illegal, therefore you can be punished under the law for breaking this law. That's obvious. But is it right? I'm going to say, categorically - no. You could disagree. You could say, "The ends justify the means. We need to lock people in jail who refuse to help the elderly and disabled." But you can't say, "That's dishonest, that's not what's happening." Because that's precisely what's happening. I'm aware it's the law. That does not change whether the law is right or wrong. I'm in favor of supporting the elderly and disabled. I personally have done so in my life. I'm not in favor of jailing or otherwise hurting someone who refuses to. Does it make sense that way? We're not talking about legality, we're talking about ends and means. You need to ask yourself what you're willing to incarcerate or hurt other human beings for not complying with, and that needs to be factored into the law. There are situations that would warrant arresting, incarcerating, hurting, or killing another human being. The question, "Are you willing to incarcerate, harm, or kill someone for refusing to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area?" is a fair question, because a law mandating that you subsidize broadband internet or suffer a penalty of incarceration or harm does precisely that.
- anamax 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. That's what people always say when you point out that they'll injure/kill you if you don't do what they want. They say that you're just being punished for breaking the law because they don't want to be held responsible for what the law requires. The person in question isn't being punished for breaking "the law", she's being punished for breaking a specific law. By enacting a law, you're saying that whatever that said law mandates is justifies punishing people who break it. Not some abstract law, that law. Which reminds me, the whole "authority" thing doesn't actually make sense. We did away with authority is the divine right of kings not because kings weren't special, but because authority in that sense, no matter who exercises it, doesn't make sense. See The Empty Idea of Authority (University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2009, No. 5, 2009) by Laurence Claus http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1484980 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1484980