4 ms·

>"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 gover

by 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.
- LordKano 11y ago
  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. Or you can use the rules for your own benefit. If the rules of the aforementioned society make it possible to reduce your tax burden, it's not a moral issue if you choose to avail yourself of them. If your tax burden can be X or Y depending on your choices and Y < X, it's not a moral shortcoming if you choose to pay Y instead of X. Our society uses tax policy to shape behavior. We all know this. That's why student loan and mortgage interest are deductible. It's disingenuous for people to complain when they discover that tax policy is shaping behavior. We see this from the middle-class family who donates old clothes to Goodwill or the Salvation Army instead of throwing them away all the way up through the billionaire who makes sure that he spends at least 182 days per year outside of New York.
  - phaemon 11y ago
    Actually, they're fundamentally different. But that has nothing to do with the original post I replied to. You've changed the topic. Are you conceding that your argument that taxes are equivalent to a protection racket is wrong?
    - LordKano 11y ago
      My point is the same. Neither circumstance is more moral than the other. They are both inherently amoral. Of course, taxation is legal. Using the tax code to minimize one's tax liability is legal and also amoral.
      - phaemon 11y ago
        Let's be clear here: you're saying that forcing someone to pay you money they don't owe you (e.g. mafia protection racket) is amoral and just the same as forcing someone to pay money they do owe you (e.g. taxes)? Are you sure about this?

by zo1 11y ago

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.

LordKano 11y ago
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. Or you can use the rules for your own benefit. If the rules of the aforementioned society make it possible to reduce your tax burden, it's not a moral issue if you choose to avail yourself of them. If your tax burden can be X or Y depending on your choices and Y < X, it's not a moral shortcoming if you choose to pay Y instead of X. Our society uses tax policy to shape behavior. We all know this. That's why student loan and mortgage interest are deductible. It's disingenuous for people to complain when they discover that tax policy is shaping behavior. We see this from the middle-class family who donates old clothes to Goodwill or the Salvation Army instead of throwing them away all the way up through the billionaire who makes sure that he spends at least 182 days per year outside of New York.
- phaemon 11y ago
  Actually, they're fundamentally different. But that has nothing to do with the original post I replied to. You've changed the topic. Are you conceding that your argument that taxes are equivalent to a protection racket is wrong?
  - LordKano 11y ago
    My point is the same. Neither circumstance is more moral than the other. They are both inherently amoral. Of course, taxation is legal. Using the tax code to minimize one's tax liability is legal and also amoral.
    - phaemon 11y ago
      Let's be clear here: you're saying that forcing someone to pay you money they don't owe you (e.g. mafia protection racket) is amoral and just the same as forcing someone to pay money they do owe you (e.g. taxes)? Are you sure about this?