Joe Frazier famously went on record, long after his rivalry with Muhammad Ali ended, and asked "Who really won that fight?"

Adoption is an incredibly expensive, tedious, and even exclusionary process that can take years to complete. Adopted kids also come with their own issues, and I don’t think every parent is properly prepared to deal with it. — Albero

Sounds like that should prompt exactly the kind of prior thinking required for making such a decision.

If one is unwilling to make such sacrifices for an orphan, what makes them think they would fare any better at raising their biological child?

Perpetuating the human race, I suppose. Though, I would not believe anyone who proclaimed to care enough about the human race as a whole to procreate for this reason.

The obvious question to ask is, why not adopt a child and provide a loving home for an orphan?

It's a well-known phenomenon in psychology that people who are treated like children, start acting like children.

And in the case of citizens and governments, I'd say it's an abusive parental relationship.

message removed, posted it in the wrong thread!

What would curb an initial personal desire? — schopenhauer1

An understanding of that personal desire.

But insight into one's own psyche doesn't seem to come naturally to most.

I wonder if this would cause someone to stop and think more when considering procreation and putting more people into the world. — schopenhauer1

A personal desire for having children seems to be a far greater drive than the well-being of said children. No matter how dire the living conditions, wherever there are people, there are people multiplying. So no, I don't think it would make people stop and think. If only.

It is because force can legitimately be used against those who are violating another's rights and also to make sure people pay restitution. — Bartricks

A case can be made for the use of force being just in the case of self-defense, but other than that I am not so sure.

Violence is truly an unholy tool. It's reason that seperates man from animal, and violence that makes him more like it.

An interesting point of view, though why would the state in this case be justified in dictating in what way parents shall provide for their children?

In addition, you state others are entitled to protect other people's rights. However, if that were the case then someone can use their subjective idea of rights to justify literally any action.

No.

Sure.

Just put your fucking mask on and stay the hell away from everybody else -- 6 feet. And wash your hands, too. Get the vaccine, too, or else. Can you manage all that? — Bitter Crank

No.

Like it's impossible for a government not to do those things? — Isaac

The use of violence, coercion and the process of corruption and wherever those may lead it, yes. Undoubtedly.

The whole raison d'être of centralised government is to prevent a repeat of the very bloody process of centralisation happening all over again. — Isaac

Centralized government has to do with consolidation of power, not with preventing bloodshed. And it has done none of the sort over the course of history. Again, the greatest atrocities in our history have been committed by centralized governments.

You're basically willing to risk mass warfare and global environmental crisis just so that a government can't use your taxes to support gay marriage (or whatever progressive government scheme it is you disapprove of). — Isaac

That's a bit of a hyperbole, but just like in any other system based on unjust means, there's a chance of citizens using those same unjust means against it. Violence is self-perpetuating. Hence, why I fundamentally disagree with its use.

And so far centralized governments have shown quite the opposite of preventing mass warfare and environmental disasters, so pick your poison.

Also, I thought we were past your shameless attempts of trying to frame me.
Now I am some homophobe as well? Puh-lease. Show some class. So far you've been wrong in all your assumptions about me.

"This person said words I don't like, so they must be a despicable person."

Nonsense. Amazon provides appalling working conditions, comes close to breaching human rights in developing world sources and pollutes common resources. None of this is done by appropriating government coercion. It's done because the laws allow it. Worse is not done because governments prevent it. Without centralised government, what is to stop Amazon from removing even further worker's rights, from ignoring sustainable resource limits in their supply chain, from driving developing world workers into slavery? How do you propose to prevent these things without centralised government? — Isaac

Developing countries usually struggle with a myriad of other problems, government corruption undoubtedly one of them. And your answer is to give such corrupt governments a further mandate for violence and coercion.

The problem you sketch is a complex one, and I don't see how centralized government contributes to a solution.

Black, white, man, woman. These are meaningless labels that fill our heads with assumptions about a given individual we may encounter, but in fact tell us next to nothing. The individual largely has no use for them. Such labels that echo same- and otherness are however of great use to those who seek to hold power over others.

The appeal of these labels for the (sadly misguided) individual is that they are given a false, external source of self (ego), because they are yet unable to reach their true, unique identity, which cannot be defined through such generalizations.

Thus, the embrace of external sources of self is ultimately a form of rejection of the self, and only leads to anger, resentment, projection, etc.

In some ways, that's the point I'm trying to draw out. That you criticise government structures simply because you don't like some of the things your current government is doing. — Isaac

I think the things we have discussed are all fundamentally a part of government structures.

All of which are perpetrated by democratically elected governments. The people of your country elected these spineless morons to run things. So what on earth makes you think that putting decisions back into the hands of these very people is going to improve things? — Isaac

Governments hold centralized power, which is something individual citizens of a nation do not. I do not expect anyone to run things well, because power inevitably draws the corrupt and breeds corruption.

Decentralizing power ensures that those in power have a minimal capacity to force their will onto others. I'm not arguing it's a perfect system. As long as man is imperfect, his systems will be imperfect. But I see absolutely no argument for giving governments and individuals within governments the power over millions of citizens. We know where it leads.

You have to also demonstrate that one of the other would handle it better. If you want power returned to provincial governments, you have to show that provincial governments, collectively, make less of a mess than federated governments do, otherwise you're just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You've yet to make such an argument. — Isaac

The argument for decentralizing power, is that ultimately it makes dysfunctional power structures escapable. The question may become, how do we keep decentralized power from centralizing itself? Perhaps it requires a continuous effort.

Yes. And political power is not the only form of power. so you make your small government... whose then to stop Google, Amazon and Facebook from accumulating vast power? — Isaac

The only reason one even needs to worry about these types of companies, is because they try to control people by trying to control powerful governments who have the mandate to violence and coercion. Powerful government is the enabler here, not the remedy.

Even without communism it seems the Chinese Communist Party has plenty of dangerous ideals to export.

Morality being subjective can serve as its own moral guideline.

The harder question would be, why anyone would be moral without believing in a religion that rewards (or punishes) them for it.

During our discussion we have worked from the assumption that governments produce mostly positive outcomes, to counterbalance their usage of unjust means. In reality, we see corruption, propaganda, shameless disregard for individual (and sometimes human) rights. We see governments that with every attempt to solve a problem create a dozen new ones. What we see is governments playing political games with often war as a result. Wars that have only increased in scale since history has been recorded, that have killed hundreds of millions in the last century, and that during the Cold War were literally on the verge of wiping out humanity.

I do not need more proof that governments cannot be trusted with power, and that everything must be done to curb what little power they should be allowed to hold.

In addition, with the idea of government, comes the problem of individuals having to hold large amounts of power. Again, history shows what power does to individuals. It inevitably corrupts. First it attempts to consolidate, then it attempts to grow. Corruption is a process that simply cannot be avoided, and it ultimately secures the fate of a nation, just like is now visibly happening in the United States.

A small government that protects those individual rights that we deem important enough to accept the necessary evil of coercion. Protection from physical violence certainly is one that comes to mind.

We've talked a while about why I believe the fundamental principles underlying government are flawed, but we haven't yet gotten into why the practical implication of those principles are much worse. Shall we?

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.

I think you will find what all these destructive groups share, is exclusive group identity, and that is the more likely culprit, rather than groups themselves.

Exclusivity feeds the ego, the "us vs. them" mentality. Instead of helping an individual to self-actualize, such groups pull individuals away from it and try to replace the self with the group identity.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

If taxation and government intervention in moral conflicts is a necessary method of achieving right goals, then it is the right thing to do. — Isaac

No.

"Might makes right" and "the ends justify the means" are not suitable principles to base one's actions upon.

What use is it saying that it's 'wrong, but necessary', where does that get us? — Isaac

It stops us from regarding it as a just means to an end.

It's really tiresome you keep telling us what is not acceptable and yet refusing to answer questions about what is. — Isaac

Why does it bother you so? A just alternative is not required to acknowledge something as unjust.

I asked you exactly the same type of question about private property and you didn't answer, so why should anyone provide you with an answer with regards state property?

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

The question of what is "rightful property" was never a part of my argument.

Also, I was enjoying our discussion, but the tone seems to be turning somewhat sour. Can we not?

Notwithstanding that, if you want to oppose 'might makes right' you need to supply an alternative, something which you've manifestly failed to do. — Isaac

Voluntary interaction and association, of course.

You must have an answer because you confidently say that taxes are not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac

That is not something I have said.

Yes. that is generally enshrined in most law. I think it's 'right' that we get to decide what we do with our own bodies insofar as it doesn't interfere with the decision of others what to do with theirs. — Isaac

And where is that right derived from?

If the people agree, they get to enforce it. — Isaac

If some people agree, they get to enforce it onto everyone.

A sad state of affairs. The tyranny of the majority, they call it. And majorities can be wrong both morally and factually.

I thought you were opposed to 'might makes right'? Who do you think is going to get their way in the case of a conflict if you do nothing? The one with the nicest hair? — Isaac

A body of power that is much smaller than government, and therefore much less capable of enforcing its will on others.

As for the constitution... if you're seriously suggesting that the only way this question can be answered is by reference to what a handful of men from the eighteenth century thought, then we really have left the realm of sensible discussion. — Isaac

The United States isn't the only nation with a constitution.

Ok, so would taxation still be theft if the final punishment that you were threatened with involved the government sending you to live in some forest away from civilization unless another country wants to take you as it’s citizen? — TheHedoMinimalist

Note that I have not argued that taxation is theft. What I am arguing is that threatening people with violence is undesirable, in most cases immoral, never a just means to an end and in some cases a necessary evil.

However, keeping in mind what I just stated, I'd like to answer your question.

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.

After all, you might be entitled to not go to prison for refusing to pay your taxes but are you entitled to be able to continue living in the country that you refuse to pay your taxes in? — TheHedoMinimalist

It is a bit backwards to have someone be born into a country involuntarily and then ask them what right they have for living there. 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.

Well, could you provide me with some specific examples of what you have in mind here? — TheHedoMinimalist

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

You could, but I'm not the one implying that some things are 'rightful property' and others aren't by some mystical external means. — Isaac

The money rightly belongs to the government. — Isaac

You wish to make a case for "might makes right", which is fine. But I don't think you would like the implications.

If you want to invoke some other means of establishing rightful property, such that the government might still 'steal' it — Isaac

Do you think your body is your rightful property?

despite having a legal claim to it — Isaac

And where do such legal claims stem from, if not states simply appropriating to themselves "rights" that they enforce through power?

If a moral conflict is not resolveable, within the timescale required, to the satisfaction of both parties, what do you do? — Isaac

Me, personally? Nothing. Mediate, perhaps, if both parties agreed they wished for me to do so. I could see a role for governments as mediators, but not all moral conflicts are solvable, and even less are solvable through use of violence or threats thereof.

Government is most people's answer to that question. If you want to reject government action in these situations you need to supply an alternative. — Isaac

Small government is the alternative. The constitution determines what moral conflicts are severe enough to be arbitrated by a government (and we can have a discussion about what those could be), and the rest is left for people to deal with on their own, like adults, I'd almost add.

agree but I think taxation can also be justified if the state uses this money for the maintenance of civilized society that allows us all to be somewhat wealthy in the first place and just for the general public benefit. — TheHedoMinimalist

I would disagree that it can be justified, but in such a case it can be tolerated.

We are, however, continuing to assume states are benevolent and don't use the wealth they received through threat of violence to commit injustice.

We know that in fact, they do. All the time.

Indeed. Though, I think recognizing it as a necessary evil avoids stepping into the pitfall of regarding it as a just means to an end.

If the adult child wants to move out then the father would have to give the console back. Though, the father can demand the console as rent if the adult child still wants to continue living under his father’s roof. I think this is analogous... — TheHedoMinimalist

Just like a child does not choose to be born in the father's home, so the individual does not choose to be born within a state's borders.

It is analagous insofar as the father's ill parenting can be compared to the state's ill governance.

I suppose it might seem problematic that the punishment for not paying your taxes might be jail time. Though, that is rarely the punishment. — TheHedoMinimalist

Because most people, wisely, do not let it get that far. However, that does nothing to change the fact that this is what is being threatened with.

How are you concluding that? What method of establishing who has a right to what are you applying? — Isaac

I could ask the same of you, no?

All I know is that "might makes right" is no basis.

Are you suggesting that all moral conflicts can be resolved in a timely fashion without imposing a solution on either party. — Isaac

I am not.

I don't think all moral conflicts need a solution. And when they do, I don't think government (aka, threatening violence) is a desirable way to go about solving them. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But as stated before, I am not oppossed to government as a whole. I can see a clear case for governments threatening with violence to protect others physical safety. I would still regard it as a necessary evil, at best.

The government doesn't coerce with the threat of violence in the case of taxes though. It deters. The money rightly belongs to the government. — Isaac

If you truly believe this, then I think further discussion on this subject will be fruitless. Governments don't have a right to anything, other than what they themselves appropriated through force.

So you think it's wrong for people to get together and decide for themselves then. Because you're opposing the result of that process. — Isaac

The key word is "themselves". Even democratically elected governments don't decide for themselves, they decide for others also, and reinforce those decisions through threats of violence.

This is undesirable. I'm willing to accept it as a necessary evil, but only under the condition that governments' power is kept as small as possible.

I was talking about the government. It's illegal to steal cars. The government makes the overt threat that you will be forcibly imprisoned if to take a car you don't own. It makes the same overt threat if you take money you don't own. I'm not seeing the difference. Are you saying that the government should protect your property but not it's own, or that it shouldn't protect your property either? — Isaac

As I said, the difference is between coercion (forcing someone to do something by threatening with violence) and deterrence (stopping someone from doing something through threatening with violence).

Both are undesirable, because ideally we would not threaten with violence at all, but the former is a graver injustice than the latter.

You mean you don't work for anyone? — Isaac

I do, but I do not threaten them and I never asked for a government to threaten them either.

Except that's not what you're saying is it? Because people did figure it out for themselves. They gathered together, selected candidates, asked others to vote, ceded power to those individuals to make decisions for the benefit of the group and enforce those decisions against those who disagreed. You're now saying they got that wrong. — Isaac

It is exactly what I am saying.

What you're pointing out is that people got together and decided not to let people figure it out amongst themselves anymore.

And yes, I think that is wrong.

They did, a long time ago. They came up with government. What alternative do you offer? — tim wood

As I said.

Even if the child was a legal adult and bought the console himself with the money that he earned, I think most people would not think that it would be theft if the father took the console as long as the child continues living under his roof. This is because the console can only provide utility for the child if that child also has access to electricity and the console would be worthless without the assistance that he is receiving from his father. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think this example clearly constitutes theft. Just because someone lives under someone else's roof, does not forfeit their right to their property.

I thought people pondering over the skin color of their baby were suggesting Meghan was having an affair. :lol:

I don't see what difference that makes. — Isaac

An assumption takes place in the head of the assumer. If an individual wants to make assumptions about my reaction to them taking my property, then I am the subject and not the actor.

In the case of taxation, the government is clearly the actor and overtly threatens with violence.

That's a different matter altogether. Not liking what a government is doing and not liking governments are two very different positions. — Isaac

Sure. But I think it is relevant.

Again, this just assumes the threat of violence is required. when you work for someone, they're required to pay you by threat of violence. So how do you avoid that? — Isaac

This is not an action I am undertaking or even voluntarily a part of. It is not my responsibility to avoid it, though I can voice my displeasure at this state of affairs as I am doing now.

What do you suggest we do (in cases of moral conflict) to resolve those conflicts other than use democratically elected governments to decide which course of action to take and enforce it if necessary? — Isaac

Beyond protecting people from physical violence and overt threats thereof (in a more general sense: protection citizens' constitutional rights), I don't see much a role for government in the arbitration of moral conflicts. Let people figure it out for themselves.