If I sign a contract for a certain wage in exchange for my labor, I would expect the full amount to be paid. — NOS4A2

Why on earth would you expect that. The other contractee knows full well what tax is and fully expects the appropriate percentage of whatever they agree to go the government. Why would you assume they would want you to have all of it?

Also, I don’t see how taxation couldn’t appropriately be understood as just like the rent that an individual has to pay to a civilized society to live in that civilized society. — TheHedoMinimalist

Rent is theft too, so this doesn’t resolve the problem.

Why on earth would you expect that. The other contractee knows full well what tax is and fully expects the appropriate percentage of whatever they agree to go the government. Why would you assume they would want you to have all of it?

I’m not doubting the fact that taxes exist and that we have to pay them. What I doubt is the underlying ethics of taxes.

I’m not doubting the fact that taxes exist and that we have to pay them. What I doubt is the underlying ethics of taxes. — NOS4A2

That's not what I asked you. I said that a proportion of the money you earn from a contract is not your property. Both contractees knew this when they sign, so tax cannot be theft, the property taken is not yours, never was and everyone knew that when setting the price.

My question is, why do you want to steal money that isn't yours?

Yes, the government confiscates a share of my earnings and does so legally. Yes, I have no recourse within their justice system to argue this is my property, and that they are plundering my earnings for their own benefit. That isn’t in dispute. What I am disputing is the underlying ethics of paying taxes.

What I am disputing is the underlying ethics of paying taxes. — NOS4A2

You haven't said anything about ethics. You've just lied about it being theft, because you know full well it's not your property that's being taken.

the government confiscates a share of my earnings — NOS4A2

No they do not. A part of your wage packet is tax. It's the government's money, always was and everyone involved in the entire price-setting contract knew that. So on what grounds was it ever your property?

Is there still a threat of violence in effect when the punishment is exile instead of imprisonment? I would assume so. If the person refuses to be exiled, what would the state do? They would force them through physical violence. In other words, the threat of violence is still there. — Tzeentch

Well, there are plenty of cases where the government does seem to be justified in using physical violence if someone refuses to comply with something. For example, it seems that the government can be justified in using physical violence to help a landlord evict her tenant that refuses to leave her property. If they are justified in using violence to help some individuals remove other individuals from their property, then why wouldn’t they also be justified in removing unwanted citizens of a country from the society which seems to belong to the public?

From where would a state derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the state's property"? Who gave it to the state?

It is the state's, because the state has the power to enforce that claim. Ergo, it acts on the principle of "might makes right", which, as far as I am concerned, is no right at all. — Tzeentch

Well, the state could be viewed as a tool used by society to ensure that people give a portion of their money back to that society. One could argue that it’s not the state per se is entitled to the taxpayer money but it is the public or society that is entitled to that money. Of course, this sort of defense of taxation would mostly apply to taxation in democratic countries with low levels of corruption. No one is trying to defend taxation for something frivolous like the building of a fancy mansion for the president of the country or something like that.

Wars, corruption, propaganda, government scandals, well-intentioned but ill-advised policies. The evils of government should be self-explanatory. — Tzeentch

How much of the taxpayer money in countries like the US is actually being used to fund these sorts of things though? Based on what I know about the US federal budget, most of the money is going to Social Security, Medicare, and the military. At worst, this would fall under well-intentioned but ill-advised use of money category. But, that use of money can still be defended if that’s what the public actually wants and it seems most of the public is pretty cool with taxpayer money being used for that sort of stuff.

For example, it seems that the government can be justified in using physical violence to help a landlord evict her tenant that refuses to leave her property. — TheHedoMinimalist

Maybe it seems that way to you, but plenty of others would contest that that is removing the tenant from their rightful property at the behest of an unjust claim over it by another, because use justifies ownership.

What I am disputing is the underlying ethics of paying taxes. — NOS4A2

There's no underlying moral right to pre-tax income because that would mean people should be paid based on moral worth of their services and their own moral worth or needs. But that's not what's being established in the market.

because that would mean people should be paid based on moral worth of their services and their own moral worth or needs. But that's not what's being established in the market. — Benkei

It is not established in the market as you perfectly explained because since Spinoza divided education in enlightenment they teach us how to be "practical" not how to be moral.
The market and somehow "everything" do not care at all if the payer is or not a moralist. They just want his money to provide revenue to the State.

The solution was to moral conflicts where the parties cannot reach a mutually agreed solution - so voluntary interaction and association doesn't answer the question. — Isaac

Then there shall be no solution that I am willing to be a part of.

My mistake. So are they? — Isaac

The words "rightful" and "property" could each fill a forum thread on their own, and I believe our interactions are starting to exceed what is practical to reply to at once, so therefore I will let this lie.

For now, I don't think this can be answered with a simple yes/no.

I think it's a common feeling we share so no real need to 'derive' it, it's a fundamental precept. — Isaac

How does this relate to your earlier statement that accused me of relying on "mystical" means?

If not the tyranny of the majority, then what? — Isaac

Does a scientist who debunks a certain scientific theory only become valid once he offers an alternative? I think not.

If it's not capable of forcing it's will on others then how does it ensure that it's choice is enacted — Isaac

Likely, it often cannot, which is precisely the point.

What magical ability did those people have to decide such matters that we lack? — Isaac

What I'm saying is, I believe the most important moral conflicts to be solved through threat of violence need to be enshrined in a constitution, precisely because the use of such a tool is so fundamentally wrong and only ever a necessary evil. Writing it down in a constitution should ensure a government is never able to expand its mandate for coercion. Power inevitably consolidates, grows and corrupts. A constitution should provide a boundary a government is unable to cross.

And these boundaries are pretty universal, as far as I am concerned. The thinkers of the 17th and the 18th century were thinking about the same fundamental problems with government as we are today.

I said a course of action cannot be immoral when the end is moral and there's no alternative. — Isaac

I disagree.

Everything in this sentence is susepctible to subjectivity, meaning that it could be used as a justification for literally any course of action.

I'm trying to draw out the implicit reliance on it. — Isaac

There is none. Coercion is an unjust means all by itself.

There are two types of people who promote small government. Those who value autonomy and those who value selfishness. Obviously the latter are people I do not well tolerate and the more ludicrous your counter arguments sound the less tolerant I become of them. These things have real consequences, If we were discussing the merits of Star Wars, I'd hold myself to a level of moderation, but you're suggesting the poor should starve, that children should go un-housed, that medical care be withheld from those too poor to afford it, that the wealthy should be allowed to steal common resources without bar. These are not morally neutral position we can discuss as if it were a game of cricket. — Isaac

That explains the hostility. I'm used to this sort of kneejerk reaction on this forum, sadly. One cannot present a different opinion on this forum without being framed as a Trump-supporting, moneygrubbing, redneck, evil capitalist. If you would like to do the same, then it speaks of your ignorance; not mine.

I think you are making an awful lot of assumptions about what I am suggesting, and our interactions will be much more fruitful if you do not.

Then there shall be no solution that I am willing to be a part of. — Tzeentch

That's "might makes right" by negligence. You don't get to absolve yourself of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions by saying "I didn't agree to this" if you didn't offer an alternative either. If we don't govern such cases using collective action then the strongest will just get their way, those are the only two options and refusing to support the former is tacit support for the latter.

I think it's a common feeling we share so no real need to 'derive' it, it's a fundamental precept. — Isaac


How does this relate to your earlier statement that accused me of relying on "mystical" means? — Tzeentch

It doesn't. Unless you want to claim that the exact recompense for labour, to the penny, is somehow a common feeling we all share?

If not the tyranny of the majority, then what? — Isaac


Does a scientist who debunks a certain scientific theory only become valid once he offers an alternative? I think not. — Tzeentch

No. Because we do not have to have a theory on certain scientific matters. We do have to have a means of dealing with intractable moral conflicts.

If it's not capable of forcing it's will on others then how does it ensure that it's choice is enacted — Isaac


Likely, it often cannot, which is precisely the point. — Tzeentch

So the strongest win instead.

these boundaries are pretty universal, as far as I am concerned. The thinkers of the 17th and the 18th century were thinking about the same fundamental problems with government as we are today. — Tzeentch

Well they're absolutely evidently not are they? Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, and you wouldn't be in a minority.

There is none. Coercion is an unjust means all by itself. — Tzeentch

That's absurd. So it's unjust to use coercion to prevent a shooter from gunning down a dozen children. What bullshit.

I'm used to this sort of kneejerk reaction on this forum, sadly. — Tzeentch

Yeah, so am I. Your "I just have an alternative view, why can't we discuss this calmly" is just as much of a kneejerk reaction to strong criticism as the criticism itself. Your 'alternative view' leads to some horrific consequences and you don't seem to even care. What else am I to make of that?

The market and somehow "everything" do not care at all if the payer is or not a moralist. They just want his money to provide revenue to the State. — javi2541997

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Who is "they"?

My main point is there is neither a moral nor legal right to pre-tax income.

That doesn't answer whether taxes are moral or not, merely establishes that the claim "taxation is theft" is false.

If we look at the function of the State then it should have adequate means to perform that function. To finance those means a State can do the following things:

1. print money
2. issue debt
3. raise taxes

Printing money is arguably just another way to tax people. If the government prints money, everybody's money devalues because the money supply increases (all other things being equal). So through government action, your money buys less. It also introduces increased currency exchange costs because holding this State's currency carries an additional risk that inflation is a consequence of government financing needs. Foreign investors won't be interested in holding this currency for a long time. So printing money isn't a good way forward. And since it more or less does what taxation does, the government is better off raising taxes. That leaves comparing taxation with issuing debt.

The government can issue debt to finance itself but that debt needs to be repaid at some time. This puts the burden on future generations. It's not moral to put the burden of costs now entirely on future generations. At the same time some burden can be applied to future generations because they will benefit from the social goods and prosperity the current and past generations have created.

So to avoid the clearly unjust result that the financial burden of State financing is entirely borne by future generations, taxation is necessary to at least establish inter-generational fairness. Taxation will also be required to pay off future debt (to the extent this cannot be rolled over).

The only meaningful underlying ethical discussion in my view is therefore: what should be the function of the State?

That's "might makes right" by negligence. You don't get to absolve yourself of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions by saying "I didn't agree to this" if you didn't offer an alternative either. — Isaac

They are not my actions, and I am not so sure there exists any moral responsibility to rely on unjust means to attain what one considers desirable results.

It doesn't. Unless you want to claim that the exact recompense for labour, to the penny, is somehow a common feeling we all share? — Isaac

No, I don't. Are your views based on such feelings, you think?

Well they're absolutely evidently not are they? — Isaac

I think they are, to anyone who understands the subjectivity our existence is subject to (on a philosophy forum, I assumed there would be many!).

So it's unjust to use coercion to prevent a shooter from gunning down a dozen children. — Isaac

Yes. But as stated before, some injustice can be accepted as a necessary evil in view of the imperfect nature of man. It doesn't make it just. That would be absurd.

Your 'alternative view' leads to some horrific consequences and you don't seem to even care. What else am I to make of that? — Isaac

Such is the nature of disagreement on these sorts of topics, and I am thinking the exact same thing listening to some of your views.

If you want to hear more about my ideas, then engage with them like an adult. If you do not, then what are you doing here other than trying to extinguish your own doubts?


Now then, lets switch it around.

If we accept that violence and coercion can be just means to what we believe to be a just end, then all that is stopping one from enforcing their views of justice on others is whether they have the power to do so. In other words, might makes right. Morality is meaningless, if one holds a view such as this. Literally any course of action can be justified through it, and history is filled with examples.

They are not my actions, and I am not so sure there exists any moral responsibility to rely on unjust means to attain what one considers desirable results. — Tzeentch

They are your actions. You take actions which affect others and which use common resources. What you think is reasonable in that regard may not be what others think is reasonable and if you recourse to government to solve that then you undermine your own argument. If you don't then you have some other means. You cannot walk away. Even so much as buying a loaf of bread involves the use of common resources with which other might disagree. You don't have the "Not my problem" option.

Unless you want to claim that the exact recompense for labour, to the penny, is somehow a common feeling we all share? — Isaac


No, I don't. Are your views based on such feelings, you think? — Tzeentch

That's not the point. The point is that the money you get in return for your labour includes tax that belongs to the government. Your use of shared resources like air and water includes a social contract with other users to contribute to the shared maintenance costs. You can't opt out and there is no 'default' value. The only options are collective agreement and enforcement, or no agreement and the strongest do whatever they will with those shared resources.

Well they're absolutely evidently not are they? — Isaac


I think they are, to anyone who understands the subjectivity our existence is subject to (on a philosophy forum, I assumed there would be many!). — Tzeentch

This doesn't seem to follow at all. You seem to be saying that the only people who 'understand' some matter are those who agree with you on it.

So it's unjust to use coercion to prevent a shooter from gunning down a dozen children. — Isaac


Yes. But as stated before, some injustice can be accepted as a necessary evil in view of the imperfect nature of man. It doesn't make it just. That would be absurd. — Tzeentch

Well then the matter of the justness or unjustness of an action has absolutely no consequence, so I don't see the point in discussing it. Let's instead discuss whether we should or should not do some action. We'll call those actions we should do 'just-x' and those actions we should not do 'unjust-x'. So is taxation just-x? That's all that matters here, because all we have to decide is whether to do it or not. What to call it is a pointless and irrelevant discussion. We might as well call it 'bob' for all the name matters.

If you want to hear more about my ideas, then engage with them like an adult. If you do not, then what are you doing here other than trying to extinguish your own doubts? — Tzeentch

Adult behaviour is not circumscribed by polite language.

If we accept that violence and coercion can be just means to what we believe to be a just end, then all that is stopping one from enforcing their views of justice on others is whether they have the power to do so. — Tzeentch

Nonsense. I've bolded the relevant part, see if you can work it out from there.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Who is "they"? — Benkei

I was referring to the State itself and the governors aka all of those who have the power to control the leviathan. I was not disagree with you. I guess it is quite negative saying paying taxes is theft. This action can at least provide us the same opportunities to start with.
But sometimes it looks like literally a theft (the public services are not so good sometimes... but yeah it is better than nothing).
Thank you for your explanation about how worthless the action of printing money could be.
Nevertheless, here is the big problem then. How effective can be the State. As you perfectly asked to me:

what should be the function of the State? — Benkei

Well I don’t want to make a tangent here but it is another kind of debate. Here is the problem itself. The state. It is not the act of paying taxes but how the leviathan administrates the revenue (which it is a lot). It is true that I am not have to be so pessimistic because there are some States that proof how taxes can work positively to the people. For example, the Nordic countries tend to have many taxes but it is completely worthy because they are the representation of social welfare state
But this is not the reality in the most countries of the world. Most of them just give “average” services not good quality ones. Perhaps, in this point depends a lot of how lucky you are in the country you were born in.
Sometimes you can provide all the tools but the State/government/leviathan will not do nothing special at all and only provide inequality.

What you think is reasonable in that regard may not be what others think is reasonable — Isaac

A perfect argument for small government.

Even so much as buying a loaf of bread involves the use of common resources with which other might disagree. — Isaac

Indeed, but individuals do not partake in this system voluntarily, so I don't agree that one shares any responsibility for injustices perpetuated by said system. Perhaps more importantly, I don't see how one could hold a moral responsibility for something one has no power over.

The point is that the money you get in return for your labour includes tax that belongs to the government. — Isaac

Based on what?

Your use of shared resources like air and water includes a social contract with other users to contribute to the shared maintenance costs. — Isaac

A social contract can exist, but only on the basis of mutual voluntariness, not threats of violence. Obviously such a contract would have no moral weight.

The only options are collective agreement and enforcement — Isaac

A contradiction in terms.

Well then the matter of the justness or unjustness of an action has absolutely no consequence — Isaac

You believe the fact that our system is fundamentally based on injustice, namely coercion and violence, has no consequences?

Adult behaviour is not circumscribed by polite language. — Isaac

"What they believe seems so obviously true, that if you are standing in the way of it, either you must be incredibly stupid, utterly uninformed or simply dishonest. People like that find it very hard to believe that someone else could honestly, sincerely and intelligently reach a different conclusion. They talk about how complex the world is, but it never seems to be complex enough that other people could have read the same evidence they've looked at and come up with a different conclusion." - Thomas Sowel

Thanks for letting me share one of my favorite quotes, and I'll let you figure out how it relates to adult behavior.

What you think is reasonable in that regard may not be what others think is reasonable — Isaac


A perfect argument for small government. — Tzeentch

How so?

Indeed, but individuals do not partake in this system voluntarily, so I don't agree that one shares any responsibility for injustices perpetuated by said system. Perhaps more importantly, I don't see how one could hold a moral responsibility for something one has no power over. — Tzeentch

Really? So you've no moral responsibility for anything then, since all of life is something you've been involuntarily thrown into with rules that you've no power over?

The point is that the money you get in return for your labour includes tax that belongs to the government. — Isaac


Based on what? — Tzeentch

The law. The contract you signed. The market value. Take your pick, all of them knowingly include the fact that some of the transactional amount is the property of the government. This is why the concept of 'property' which you keep sidestepping is fundamental to your position. If you want 'rightful property' to be based on something other than these factors you need to spell out what that something is.

A social contract can exist, but only on the basis of mutual voluntariness, not threats of violence. Obviously such a contract would have no moral weight. — Tzeentch

So morality is optional? Depends on whether you agree or not? I think you're confusing morality with personal preference.

The only options are collective agreement and enforcement — Isaac


A contradiction in terms. — Tzeentch

True. I should have said a method of collective decision-making and enforcement. It doesn't alter the point. It's either that or the strongest get their way.

Well then the matter of the justness or unjustness of an action has absolutely no consequence — Isaac

You believe the fact that our system is fundamentally based on injustice, namely coercion and violence, has no consequences? — Tzeentch

Yes. that obviously have no consequences the way you've defined them. You've described them a necessary evils. Are you having trouble with the definition of necessary?

What do you think the consequences are?

I'll let you figure out how it relates to adult behavior. — Tzeentch

That fact that it's possible for people to reach very different conclusion with integrity does not prove that any given person is doing so does it? So I don't see how it's relevant. Unless you're arguing that it's somehow impossible for someone to hold a position that's dishonest, insincere or unintelligent.

The only meaningful underlying ethical discussion in my view is therefore: what should be the function of the State? — Benkei

Just to underline this with regards to the misunderstandings above. I think most people agree with the principle that we should allow people the maximum freedom which does not in turn impose on the freedom of others to a greater degree. That last necessitates that we restrict some freedoms. So long as there exist people who would exercise those freedoms even at the expense of the freedom of others then restricting them will require coercive force of some definition.

We end up with no coherent position other than an acceptance of coercive force, or a claim that no such people exist (we're all saints).

So, just as with the specific case of tax, government intervention in general is not a question which is resolvable using binary notions. The only relevant question is exactly what freedoms must be restrained to protect the freedoms of others, and what form that coercion takes. The mere need for it is not even in question.

As such some metric is needed to accompany any claim of excessive (or even insufficient) coercive force. It's an incomplete argument to simply say that coercive force is bad or, unjust or whatever. The use of such force is not in question. The matter to which it is applied is what's in question.

So to say a government should not do X is only reasonable when accompanied by evidence that the freedoms X is intended to constrain do not, in fact, constrain the freedoms of others to a greater degree. (or, of course, some other moral framework entirely).

What's interesting is, given the obvious dissolution of such claims to this metric (for most secular ethics), why there's such a move to avoid talking about it in favour of polemics like "coercion is bad", as if they addressed anything at all relevant to the issue.

How so? — Isaac

We may disagree on what is reasonable, so let us not through coercion force upon others what we believe to be reasonable.

So you've no moral responsibility for anything then, since all of life is something you've been involuntarily thrown into with rules that you've no power over? — Isaac

Not all of life is involuntary, but what a person is to do with the life they have been given, as far as it relates to themselves, is not a matter of moral responsibility. Ergo, if a person wants to end their life, I don't see that as immoral, considering they were not born voluntarily.

If a parent wants to take their own life, it becomes different, because they've made the voluntary choice to have children and that does become a matter of moral responsibility.

The law. The contract you signed. The market value. — Isaac

I don't think any of these form a definitive basis for moral conduct. In some cases laws may prescribe moral behavior. In other cases they may not. This is a subjective matter, and therefore I am highly sceptical of those who would try to force them upon others.

This is why the concept of 'property' which you keep sidestepping is fundamental to your position. — Isaac

It is not. I would consider it unjust even if one were to reclaim through violence or threat thereof their "rightful property" (whatever that may mean and to whoever it may belong).

So morality is optional? Depends on whether you agree or not? I think you're confusing morality with personal preference. — Isaac

I have my thoughts about what is moral, and for me personally moral conduct is not optional.

However, I do recognize that morality is also a highly subjective matter, and that attempting to force subjective views onto others through whatever violent means is contrary to that understanding.

True. I should have said a method of collective decision-making and enforcement. It doesn't alter the point. It's either that or the strongest get their way. — Isaac

The choices you present are one and the same. The remedy is to decentralize power, in other words, small government. This way, whoever counts as "the strongest", is as weak as possible.

Yes. that obviously have no consequences the way you've defined them. — Isaac

How do you feel, for example, about the fact your government may use the money it takes from you, to wage war, the necessity of which, I hope we can agree, I highly debatable?

That fact that it's possible for people to reach very different conclusion with integrity does not prove that any given person is doing so does it? — Isaac

Perhaps your conclusion that I am not, is one you are drawing too swiftly.

let us not through coercion force upon others what we believe to be reasonable. — Tzeentch

I am highly sceptical of those who would try to force them upon others. — Tzeentch

attempting to force subjective views onto others through whatever violent means is contrary to that understanding. — Tzeentch

These are all just meaningless platitudes without any alternatives.

Let's take a simple case. I believe that excessive carbon emission is immoral (excessive to the point the most scientists in the field think it will negatively impact future generations). Others may think it moral. what do you suggest we do about that?

We can't just each do what we think - that way those who see it as moral will simply get their way, the atmosphere we both share will be polluted to the degree they're comfortable with.

I can't move - we've only one atmosphere.

We could negotiate, but all the while we're negotiating they're polluting the atmosphere to whatever extent they see fit ie they're getting their way. It's a de facto win for them.

We can't make different decisions for each small community - again, we all share the same atmosphere.

So how do we resolve this without democracy and government coercion?

Surely a solution to the problem exists outside of government intervention. — NOS4A2

In your hypothetical regulation free society you're screwed.

Perhaps once we relocate we can innovate a cleaner and more cost-effective method and put our former neighbor out of business, without having to give more power and money to some intervening bureaucracy. — NOS4A2

We are all responsible for the reasonably predictable consequences of our actions. History has shown us over and over that - in the absence of laws regulating economic activity - economic power becomes
hyper concentrated in the hands of a few power hungry individuals - and power hungry people do not willingly give up their power. This is why most democracies have anti-monopoly laws.

In your hypothetical regulation free society, your attempts to put the mega-corporation polluting your town out of business will fail. Mega-corporation will deny you the access to the raw materials needed to create your cleaner & cost effective solution. Mega-corporation will make it impossible for you to get access to the marketplace to sell your solution. We know this as well as we know anything.

Governments are notoriously awful at managing the environment. — NOS4A2

And what's the alternative? Rely on the good will of people? You know the answer to that.

When we believe the government will take care of these issues, we thereby hand over our responsibility, believing they will take care of it. — NOS4A2

That's why we have democracies. If your government is doing a lousy job of managing the environment, then get together with your fellow citizens and elect a different government. Is this easy? Of course not. Is this a perfect solution? Of course not - duh. . .

The reasonably predictable outcome of your hypothetical regulation free society is that you would have less freedom than you do now.

- - - - - -

To a certain extent I understand & empathize with your position. No one wants to be forced how to live their life, we all want to maximize our freedom and options. But on this small planet with 7.5 or so billion people, every action we take - no matter how small - affects everyone else.

If I turn up the thermostat in my house from 68 to 70 because we have company, I am affecting your life in a small but measurable way.

If I am feeling tired and drive to the store to get milk instead of walking - even in my nice environmentally & politically correct Prius - I am affecting your life in some small but measurable way.

Every time I flush the toilet, I am affecting your life in a small but measurable way.

Multiply this by 7.5 billion.

If a parent wants to take their own life, it becomes different, because they've made the voluntary choice to have children and that does become a matter of moral responsibility. — Tzeentch

Right. So unless you're a hermit, you will have undertaken hundreds of such decisions which then entail moral responsibilities, so I don't see how you can get out of social responsibility that way.

I don't think any of these form a definitive basis for moral conduct. — Tzeentch

I didn't say anything about moral conduct, we were talking about how you establish what is our property. an again, you've just told me what isn't and not what is. How do you establish that your gross wage is your property?

I would consider it unjust even if one were to reclaim through violence or threat thereof their "rightful property" (whatever that may mean and to whoever it may belong). — Tzeentch

Then the strong get whatever they want, which you expressly said you were opposed to.

The remedy is to decentralize power, in other words, small government. This way, whoever counts as "the strongest", is as weak as possible. — Tzeentch

So how do they defend themselves against the neighbouring 'small government' who are just that little bit stronger. They'd just be defeated gradually until the strongest took over more land than they could administer, at which point they'd retreat to a scale of governance just below that... Oh wait, all that actually happened, it's called history.

How do you feel, for example, about the fact your government may use the money it takes from you, to wage war, the necessity of which, I hope we can agree, I highly debatable? — Tzeentch

It's not about the problem, it's about the solution. Just because you can identify a problem, doesn't mean your chosen solution suddenly become viable. If I disliked junk mail then taping my letterbox shut would solve the problem, but that doesn't make it any less stupid a solution.

Perhaps your conclusion that I am not, is one you are drawing too swiftly. — Tzeentch

You're consistent dodging, and changing the subject when your position is shown to be untenable is strongly suggesting otherwise.

These are all just meaningless platitudes without any alternatives.

Let's take a simple case. I believe that excessive carbon emission is immoral (excessive to the point the most scientists in the field think it will negatively impact future generations). Others may think it moral. what do you suggest we do about that?

We can't just each do what we think - that way those who see it as moral will simply get their way, the atmosphere we both share will be polluted to the degree they're comfortable with.

I can't move - we've only one atmosphere.

We could negotiate, but all the while we're negotiating they're polluting the atmosphere to whatever extent they see fit ie they're getting their way. It's a de facto win for them.

We can't make different decisions for each small community - again, we all share the same atmosphere.

So how do we resolve this without democracy and government coercion? — Isaac

You truly concern yourself with "winning" in such great games?

I personally don't walk around with the weight of the world on my shoulders. Being a moral person happens in everyday life; not in opinions floating around in one's head.

To answer your question; if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win". If the only alternative is violence or coercion, I am in this case more than content with non-action, and I consider moral conduct a victory in itself.

So unless you're a hermit, you will have undertaken hundreds of such decisions which then entail moral responsibilities — Isaac

Name a few. Lets see if we agree.

I didn't say anything about moral conduct, we were talking about how you establish what is our property. an again, you've just told me what isn't and not what is. How do you establish that your gross wage is your property? — Isaac

I don't have an answer for that. I think the idea of property is too complicated for a simple answer. Regardless of what the law says, I don't think the state holds any moral right to take through violence what it believes to be hers. Nor do I think the state holds any stronger claim to property than the individual does.

Then the strong get whatever they want, which you expressly said you were opposed to. — Isaac

So how do they defend themselves against the neighbouring 'small government' who are just that little bit stronger. They'd just be defeated gradually until the strongest took over more land than they could administer, at which point they'd retreat to a scale of governance just below that... Oh wait, all that actually happened, it's called history. — Isaac

Yes, it is. One big mess of self-perpetuating violence fought with more violence. Bravo.

It's not about the problem, it's about the solution. — Isaac

And the solution was never, more violence.

You're consistent dodging, and changing the subject when your position is shown to be untenable is strongly suggesting otherwise. — Isaac

If you believe you have won and I am simply dodging your superior points, then what are you still doing here?

Why waste your time with such a simpleton as I?

if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win". If the only alternative is violence or coercion, I am in this case more than content with non-action, and I consider moral conduct a victory in itself. — Tzeentch

So if someone were attacking you, you wouldn't fight back, you'd just let them kill you because if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win"? I'm guessing you'd answer no, and I'm guessing you'd justify that answer with some mumbled caveat about violent force being an exception without ever giving any account of why, as if that were the only force that mattered for some unexplained reason.

Name a few. Lets see if we agree. — Tzeentch

Take a look at 's post, there's no need for me to repeat what he's written.

I don't have an answer for that. — Tzeentch

Evidently you do, otherwise you could not conclude that the taxed portion of any transaction was not the rightful property of the government.

I don't think the state holds any moral right to take through violence what it believes to be hers. — Tzeentch

It doesn't. Generally it takes it through the tax code. You've had a seriously unlucky experience with some very overzealous tax collectors if that's your impression. The overwhelming majority of tax is collected peacefully.

Nor do I think the state holds any stronger claim to property than the individual does. — Tzeentch

We agree there. I think the state has exactly the same claim to property as individuals have.

Yes, it is. One big mess of self-perpetuating violence fought with more violence. Bravo. — Tzeentch

Well no. State-on-state violence is decreasing and has been for many years, mainly because of the diplomatic efforts of democratic governments. My complaint was with regard to you wanting to send us back to warring city-states.

And the solution was never, more violence. — Tzeentch

Agreed. The solution is less violence. Peace enforced by threat of violence is less violent than a lack of such enforcement. Your solution is more violent because the most violent elements in society are unrestrained.

If you believe you have won and I am simply dodging your superior points, then what are you still doing here?

Why waste your time with such a simpleton as I? — Tzeentch

So that your charade of moral concern is never seen as viable by those who seek to use it as a mask for basic greed and bigotry.

I've yet to encounter a single 'small government' enthusiast who isn't also a big industry supporter, opposed to progressive action toward minorities... It's always the same. They bleat about 'small government' but basically they just want some way, any way, of pushing their neoliberal agenda.

So if someone were attacking you, you wouldn't fight back, you'd just let them kill you because if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win"? I'm guessing you'd answer no, and I'm guessing you'd justify that answer with some mumbled caveat about violent force being an exception without ever giving any account of why, as if that were the only force that mattered for some unexplained reason. — Isaac

You guessed wrong, because it cannot be justified. Obviously I cannot sit here and claim I would let myself get killed. I do not know what I would do if someone were to try and kill me.

Evidently you do, otherwise you could not conclude that the taxed portion of any transaction was not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac

We have been over this. Whatever one's opinions may be about property, having it taken does not justify violence or threats thereof.

It doesn't. Generally it takes it through the tax code. You've had a seriously unlucky experience with some very overzealous tax collectors if that's your impression. The overwhelming majority of tax is collected peacefully. — Isaac

Because the threat of violence underpins it all.

We agree there. I think the state has exactly the same claim to property as individuals have. — Isaac

And the reason the state can take whatever it wants, is because it acts on the principle might makes right.

State-on-state violence is decreasing and has been for many years, mainly because of the diplomatic efforts of democratic governments. — Isaac

That is a very rose-coloured interpretation of the most violent century in human history. Virtually all of which committed by governments, I might add!

Your solution is more violent because the most violent elements in society are unrestrained. — Isaac

Incorrect. I am not an anarchist.

So that your charade of moral concern is never seen as viable by those who seek to use it as a mask for basic greed and bigotry. — Isaac

Quit lying to me, Pinocchio.

I've yet to encounter a single 'small government' enthusiast who isn't also a big industry supporter, opposed to progressive action toward minorities... It's always the same. They bleat about 'small government' but basically they just want some way, any way, of pushing their neoliberal agenda. — Isaac

All these assumptions about me are wrong. So there's that.

In your hypothetical regulation free society you're screwed.

I’m not so sure of that.

When I compare power-hungry individuals occupying a corporation vs a government, I prefer the mercantilist to the dictator. At least I can refuse to work with or purchase the services of the mercantilist, while I have no such choice under state power. On top of that, there is no comparison between corporate power at its worse and state power at its worse.

As for environmental concerns, we should note that governments have also contributed to our current situation, and that we have arrived to it under the yoke of state power. Anything else is counterfactual, so at best we can speculate at what might have happened otherwise. The desire for change, however, has always occurred from the bottom up. That we have to beg our governments to address these concerns instead of taking on the task ourselves is just another hurdle to seeing it through.

Your solution is more violent because the most violent elements in society are unrestrained. — Isaac


Incorrect. I am not an anarchist. — Tzeentch

Then by what means do you restrain them?

At least I can refuse to work with or purchase the services of the mercantilist, while I have no such choice under state power. — NOS4A2

You can not vote for them.

we have to beg our governments to address these concerns instead of taking on the task ourselves — NOS4A2

Begging government is taking on the task. If you want a hammer do you attempt to make one yourself, or do you ask the blacksmith?

There's no underlying moral right to pre-tax income because that would mean people should be paid based on moral worth of their services and their own moral worth or needs. But that's not what's being established in the market.

The underlying moral principle is that it is wrong to confiscate and plunder the earnings of someone else.