5 ms·

I am not a member of the mafia, nor have I used any of their services. I do not owe them any money, therefore it would be wrong for them to demand any money fro

by phaemon 11y ago

I am not a member of the mafia, nor have I used any of their services. I do not owe them any money, therefore it would be wrong for them to demand any money from me. I am a member of a society which has a representative government which acts on its behalf. I have used their services and therefore I owe them money. Therefore, it is legitimate for them to demand that money from me. And both these entities can do so legally. It would be entirely legal for the mafia to use the legal system to demand money from you in the same way the government would (or that any business or organisation you used services from would). The very fact they choose not to, suggests their claim is illegitimate.

LordKano 11y ago
Can you opt out of receiving the government's "services"? We're only obliged to follow the letter of the law. If there is no law against making profits where they are beyond the reach of local taxation, there's nothing objectively wrong about it. Even using your own reasoning, if the profit is made elsewhere, the only moral obligation is to pay the legal taxes that apply in that locale.
- phaemon 11y ago
  > Can you opt out of receiving the government's "services"? Yes. I don't pay any taxes to the US government, for example, because I don't use any of their services.
  - paulsecwhatt 11y ago
    I laughed out loud at this. In no other developed country (in the sense of a competitive GDP, somewhat large and somewhat well educated population) have I seen the same disdain and mistrust for government. Why is it amoral for a government to take taxes if you are - born in a hospital funded by taxes, given vaccines and medication partly funded by taxes, drive to/from home on roads built by taxes, so on and so forth. The people who thing it's unfair they have to pay taxes - what would you prefer? Living in an "AT&T country" where every single service is "privately" owned and you'd be charged fees for it? Sounds like a dream. Comparatively, in countries such as Sweden and Norway, everyone pays taxes (much moreso than in the good old US of A), and yet the tax agency is rated the most trusted government entity in the government. Strangely enough, this "amorality" also leads to some of the best standards of living and social mobility in the world?
    - LordKano 11y ago
      Why is it amoral for a government to take taxes Is it possible that you're conflating the definitions of immoral and amoral? born in a hospital funded by taxes This is an assumption. There are many private hospitals. given vaccines and medication partly funded by taxes Vaccines are mandated. It's circular reasoning to say that the costs of someone taking vaccines are justification for taking their money when you forced them to take the vaccine. drive to/from home on roads built by taxes We had roads before direct taxation. The fact that we pay for them with tax money doesn't mean that they wouldn't exist without them. Comparatively, in countries such as Sweden and Norway, everyone pays taxes (much moreso than in the good old US of A), and yet the tax agency is rated the most trusted government entity in the government. I don't know anything of the political situation in Sweden or Norway. Does their tax collecting branch of government ever get used as a political weapon, the way the IRS does?
zo1 11y ago
>"And both these entities can do so legally. It would be entirely legal for the mafia to use the legal system to demand money from you in the same way the government would (or that any business or organisation you used services from would). The very fact they choose not to, suggests their claim is illegitimate." Hate to be the guy that uses a contrived example, but how about this: "I'll just come with a bunch of my worker-buddies, and we'll mow your lawn, trim your bushes and clean your pool. Every day, 7 times more than you'd like per week. Come next Monday, we'll be expecting your dues for our services. And if you don't pay up, well we'll just legally get your employer to withhold it from you. I mean, it's not like we're holding a gun to your head to make you pay, or breaking your windows or anything to intimidate you. Right? The whole concept of government, social contract, and "the consent of the public", along with the example you used as an argument all constitute a form of circular reasoning to me. None of it derives from base, irreducible principles, so are completely arbitrary. That's why this whole "not all immoral things are illegal" argument arose, because people can't even agree on that, nor can they accept that the majority has spoken with respect to legality representing overall morals.
- digler999 11y ago
  your analogy collapses by equating the demand for yardwork with the demand for services that ensure our collective survival: clean water, emergency services, safe travel, reasonable freedom from foreign invasion and anarchy, and mostly-safe economic system. You can't "opt-out" of those services, and even if you could, it's predicable you'd immediately opt-in for them the moment your life was in danger (say, in the case of a medical emergency, your survival instinct will inexorably override your passion to be free from the big-bad "gub'ment" ).
- phaemon 11y ago
  If I lived in a housing scheme that had such an arrangement ("we have a gardener that comes around every week"), then Yes, if I'd bought that house with that arrangement, I don't get to dodge the fees, just because I think he should only come around once a fortnight. The base principle is that society is made up of people and those people then choose the rules for that society. If you don't like that, you can often vote to change those rules, or you can choose another society. Most societies have fees to be a member (known as taxes) and frankly, it's a bit late to complain about these fees when you've already used the privileges of that society to make a ton of money. It's like eating at a restaurant and complaining, after you've had 6 courses, that the food is inedible and you don't want to pay.

by phaemon 11y ago

LordKano 11y ago

Can you opt out of receiving the government's "services"? We're only obliged to follow the letter of the law. If there is no law against making profits where they are beyond the reach of local taxation, there's nothing objectively wrong about it. Even using your own reasoning, if the profit is made elsewhere, the only moral obligation is to pay the legal taxes that apply in that locale.

phaemon 11y ago
> Can you opt out of receiving the government's "services"? Yes. I don't pay any taxes to the US government, for example, because I don't use any of their services.
- paulsecwhatt 11y ago
  I laughed out loud at this. In no other developed country (in the sense of a competitive GDP, somewhat large and somewhat well educated population) have I seen the same disdain and mistrust for government. Why is it amoral for a government to take taxes if you are - born in a hospital funded by taxes, given vaccines and medication partly funded by taxes, drive to/from home on roads built by taxes, so on and so forth. The people who thing it's unfair they have to pay taxes - what would you prefer? Living in an "AT&T country" where every single service is "privately" owned and you'd be charged fees for it? Sounds like a dream. Comparatively, in countries such as Sweden and Norway, everyone pays taxes (much moreso than in the good old US of A), and yet the tax agency is rated the most trusted government entity in the government. Strangely enough, this "amorality" also leads to some of the best standards of living and social mobility in the world?
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Why is it amoral for a government to take taxes Is it possible that you're conflating the definitions of immoral and amoral? born in a hospital funded by taxes This is an assumption. There are many private hospitals. given vaccines and medication partly funded by taxes Vaccines are mandated. It's circular reasoning to say that the costs of someone taking vaccines are justification for taking their money when you forced them to take the vaccine. drive to/from home on roads built by taxes We had roads before direct taxation. The fact that we pay for them with tax money doesn't mean that they wouldn't exist without them. Comparatively, in countries such as Sweden and Norway, everyone pays taxes (much moreso than in the good old US of A), and yet the tax agency is rated the most trusted government entity in the government. I don't know anything of the political situation in Sweden or Norway. Does their tax collecting branch of government ever get used as a political weapon, the way the IRS does?

zo1 11y ago

>"And both these entities can do so legally. It would be entirely legal for the mafia to use the legal system to demand money from you in the same way the government would (or that any business or organisation you used services from would). The very fact they choose not to, suggests their claim is illegitimate." Hate to be the guy that uses a contrived example, but how about this: "I'll just come with a bunch of my worker-buddies, and we'll mow your lawn, trim your bushes and clean your pool. Every day, 7 times more than you'd like per week. Come next Monday, we'll be expecting your dues for our services. And if you don't pay up, well we'll just legally get your employer to withhold it from you. I mean, it's not like we're holding a gun to your head to make you pay, or breaking your windows or anything to intimidate you. Right? The whole concept of government, social contract, and "the consent of the public", along with the example you used as an argument all constitute a form of circular reasoning to me. None of it derives from base, irreducible principles, so are completely arbitrary. That's why this whole "not all immoral things are illegal" argument arose, because people can't even agree on that, nor can they accept that the majority has spoken with respect to legality representing overall morals.

digler999 11y ago
your analogy collapses by equating the demand for yardwork with the demand for services that ensure our collective survival: clean water, emergency services, safe travel, reasonable freedom from foreign invasion and anarchy, and mostly-safe economic system. You can't "opt-out" of those services, and even if you could, it's predicable you'd immediately opt-in for them the moment your life was in danger (say, in the case of a medical emergency, your survival instinct will inexorably override your passion to be free from the big-bad "gub'ment" ).
phaemon 11y ago
If I lived in a housing scheme that had such an arrangement ("we have a gardener that comes around every week"), then Yes, if I'd bought that house with that arrangement, I don't get to dodge the fees, just because I think he should only come around once a fortnight. The base principle is that society is made up of people and those people then choose the rules for that society. If you don't like that, you can often vote to change those rules, or you can choose another society. Most societies have fees to be a member (known as taxes) and frankly, it's a bit late to complain about these fees when you've already used the privileges of that society to make a ton of money. It's like eating at a restaurant and complaining, after you've had 6 courses, that the food is inedible and you don't want to pay.