Why are people scared of taxes?

[sturle]

A lot of things are legal and still not moral.  

Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need.

No, I did not state that.  You took it out of context and invented your own meaning.  You fail logic as well.

We've now ruled out legality, voting, costumes, and benefits. Is it perhaps simply the names? If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?

No, it would be illegal.  Please read out loud: Breaking the law is immoral.   I have clearly stated that many times now.

Property is not immoral and not illegal.  When you live on a country's land, you have to obey the laws of that country.  Is my opinion so hard to understand for you?  If those laws includes one that says you have to pay tax, then you have to pay tax.  It is not theft, it is not immoral, it is a matter of property rights.  You may think you own a property, but owning a property in the context of the laws in a country will only give you certain rights over that property.  The property is still a part of the country, and it's laws still apply.  New countries show up all the time, and there are still unclaimed areas on Earth.  You are free to start your own country and exercise your exclusive property rights there if you wish.

If you own my house, you may demand rent.  And because you are a commie, you will probably call that theft.  In my opinion it is not.  It is moral and legal.

[1714514660]

1714514660

[1714514660]

1714514660

[1714514660]

1714514660

[sturle]

You can go with the old standard e.g.; it is moral because god is on my side,

Even Jesus told people to pay their taxes to the emperor in Rome.  This was very controversial at the time.  The Romans did not hesitate to use force to make people pay their taxes.  Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.  He had a clear understanding of property rights.

[myrkul]

A lot of things are legal and still not moral.  

Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need.

No, I did not state that.

Yes, you did. If legality conveyed morality, then anything legal would be moral.

We've now ruled out legality, voting, costumes, and benefits. Is it perhaps simply the names? If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?

No, it would be illegal.  Please read out loud: Breaking the law is immoral.   I have clearly stated that many times now.

But we've already established that legality does not convey morality. We're not talking about legality any more. We are (and have been) talking about morality.

Let me ask again: If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?

[sturle]

Maximising profit is an extremely cost effective way to serve the market, because a business only profits from serving it's customers most effectively. Except when the state interferes with force.

In an unregulated health market, if you were about to die and needed immediate treatment, and a doctor saved you, the closest doctor and hospital would own you for the rest of your life.  The power of a natural monopoly.  You are not in a position to haggle over the price.

Lots of assumptions here.

Why do I have to go to the local doctor?

Because you aren't walking or talking or thinking, you are about to die.  The doctor has to decide for you, and only has seconds to do so.

Why is healthcare expensive? we already discussed the fact that the state drives up the costs in the first place.

Yep, it is the hopeless mix of private and public health system with insurance companies and lawyers taking cuts.  It's an industry.  A public health system proves to be much more efficient, as far as you can prove something using statistics from other countries.

Why can't charities/family help out? Without paying tribute to our government overlords, we will have plenty of wealth left over to help the needy.

They will have to help out as well when the bill for keeping that heart and lung machine running for tree days come on the table.  You chose the extra expensive model by moving your left eyelid, or so the doctor tells you.

Why is the doctor a total asshole who will demand life servitude for saving someones life?

Because with no regulations he can.

Before the government stepped in with it's regulation and licences and general market distortions, doctors did pro-bono work all the time. Now it's too much of a liability.

Yeah.  With no regulations and licences and "general market distortions", you have no idea if he is actually educated as a doctor.  He may have been a homeless who just mugged a doctor for his bag and coat, and got lucky because he happened to be around the office doing pro-bono work as a gynecologist.

[sturle]

A lot of things are legal and still not moral.  

Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need.

No, I did not state that.

Yes, you did. If legality conveyed morality, then anything legal would be moral.

You still fail Logic.  Look up modus ponens and modus tollens and read again.

Short summary:  not legal -> not moral
This does not imply anything else.  You can not turn the arrow or remove one or both "not"s without changing the meaning.  By changing the words to legality and morality, you get at least one possible meaning which is different from what I wrote.

Let me ask again: If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?

No, you are not the government, and it doesn't matter what you call yourself or what you do when you steal my property.  Why do you keep asking this silly question?  By stealing you are breaking the law, which is immoral.  I don't know why I keep typing this, because you obviously don't know how to read.

[myrkul]

A lot of things are legal and still not moral.  

Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need.

No, I did not state that.

Yes, you did. If legality conveyed morality, then anything legal would be moral.

You still fail Logic.  Look up modus ponens and modus tollens and read again.

Short summary:  not legal -> not moral
This does not imply anything else.  You can not turn the arrow or remove one or both "not"s without changing the meaning.  By changing the words to legality and morality, you get at least one possible meaning which is different from what I wrote.

IF what you had written was "It's not legal, therefore it's not moral" (Which you did later, but that's not the quote we're discussing, here) then you would be correct. But what you actually said (quoted above) was: "There are things which ARE legal and which ARE NOT moral."

Let me ask again: If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?

No, you are not the government, and it doesn't matter what you call yourself or what you do when you steal my property.

Thank you. So now, we've established that it doesn't matter what you call yourself or what you call what you do when you steal property, it's still wrong. Adding that to the list, we've discounted names, costumes, benefits, voting, and legality.

Hmm. Maybe it's those nifty flags. If I create a really cool flag, And fly it wherever I go, can I steal whatever I want?

[Richy_T]

You can go with the old standard e.g.; it is moral because god is on my side,

Even Jesus told people to pay their taxes to the emperor in Rome.  This was very controversial at the time.  The Romans did not hesitate to use force to make people pay their taxes.  Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.  He had a clear understanding of property rights.

They s was more about god than Caesar

[sturle]

A lot of things are legal and still not moral.  

Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need.

No, I did not state that.

Yes, you did. If legality conveyed morality, then anything legal would be moral.

You still fail Logic.  Look up modus ponens and modus tollens and read again.

Short summary:  not legal -> not moral
This does not imply anything else.  You can not turn the arrow or remove one or both "not"s without changing the meaning.  By changing the words to legality and morality, you get at least one possible meaning which is different from what I wrote.

IF what you had written was "It's not legal, therefore it's not moral" (Which you did later, but that's not the quote we're discussing, here)

No, you are very selective about the quotes you want to discuss.  You quickly deleted this part: You took it out of context and invented your own meaning.

then you would be correct. But what you actually said (quoted above) was: "There are things which ARE legal and which ARE NOT moral."

I am correct and you don't make logical sense.  Please look up modus ponens and modus tollens.  By failing the simplest logic, you are making a complete fool of yourself.  No wonder you need the same answers over and over again, and still don't understand them.

Let me ask again: If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?

No, you are not the government, and it doesn't matter what you call yourself or what you do when you steal my property.

Thank you. So now, we've established that it doesn't matter what you call yourself or what you call what you do when you steal property, it's still wrong. Adding that to the list, we've discounted names, costumes, benefits, voting, and legality.

Yes, breaking the law is wrong.  I have never written or implied anything else, and if you think so it is because you fail the simplest logic.  Why did you bother to ask the question when I already answered multiple times in bold?

As tax goes, it's payment to the real government (i.e. not you, whatever you call yourself) is required by law. Therefore it is immoral and wrong to not pay tax to the country who's land you live on.  This follows by the same logic.

Hmm. Maybe it's those nifty flags. If I create a really cool flag, And fly it wherever I go, can I steal whatever I want?

You completely fail to understand the concept of property.  I think that is sad.  How can stealing have meaning to you when property don't?

[Richy_T]

Question: If Germany had developed a nuke, would stealing Hitler's* suitcase which contains the activation code be immoral?




*(Apologies to hoteliers. Damn autocorrect)

[myrkul]

A lot of things are legal and still not moral. 

Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need.

No, I did not state that.

Yes, you did. If legality conveyed morality, then anything legal would be moral.

You still fail Logic.  Look up modus ponens and modus tollens and read again.

Short summary:  not legal -> not moral
This does not imply anything else.  You can not turn the arrow or remove one or both "not"s without changing the meaning.  By changing the words to legality and morality, you get at least one possible meaning which is different from what I wrote.

IF what you had written was "It's not legal, therefore it's not moral" (Which you did later, but that's not the quote we're discussing, here)

No, you are very selective about the quotes you want to discuss.  You quickly deleted this part: You took it out of context and invented your own meaning.

It doesn't matter if I deleted the bit about taking it out of context. Even in context, it doesn't change the meaning of the words "A lot of things are legal and still not moral." Since something can be legal, and at the same time not moral, then legality is not sufficient to make something moral, and that's all I was asking. In fact, putting it in context helps my case: "If it was legal to hold slaves, I could still choose not to hold slaves.  I would obey the law and stay on safe moral ground." implying that you consider holding slaves immoral, regardless of it's legal status. The sentence between those two sentences: "Being unfaithful isn't illegal (i.e. legal), but IMHO it is immoral." straight up states that you consider infidelity to be immoral regardless of it's legality. Ergo, legality does not confer morality.

As tax goes, it's payment to the real government (i.e. not you, whatever you call yourself) is required by law. Therefore it is immoral and wrong to not pay tax to the country who's land you live on.  This follows by the same logic.

I see. If it were legally required to own a slave, would you? What if it were legally required to rape your daughter on her 15th birthday?

Hmm. Maybe it's those nifty flags. If I create a really cool flag, And fly it wherever I go, can I steal whatever I want?

You completely fail to understand the concept of property.  I think that is sad.  How can stealing have meaning to you when property don't?

I completely understand the concept of property. We disagree on the ownership of certain property, however. Now, if you would answer the question? Does a flag make theft moral?

[sturle]

"A lot of things are legal and still not moral." Since something can be legal, and at the same time not moral, then legality is not sufficient to make something moral [...] Ergo, legality does not confer morality.

You missed again!  Legailty = the state or quality of being in conformity with the law; lawfulness.  Morailty = conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.  I specifically stated that the negative state of legality confers the negative state of morality.  You imply the opposite.

Is basic logic so hard for you?  No wonder you can't understand property or law.

Hmm. Maybe it's those nifty flags. If I create a really cool flag, And fly it wherever I go, can I steal whatever I want?

You completely fail to understand the concept of property.  I think that is sad.  How can stealing have meaning to you when property don't?

I completely understand the concept of property. We disagree on the ownership of certain property, however. Now, if you would answer the question? Does a flag make theft moral?

Why do you keep asking questions I already answered multiple times in bold?

[myrkul]

"A lot of things are legal and still not moral." Since something can be legal, and at the same time not moral, then legality is not sufficient to make something moral [...] Ergo, legality does not confer morality.

You missed again!  Legailty = the state or quality of being in conformity with the law; lawfulness.  Morailty = conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.  I specifically stated that the negative state of legality confers the negative state of morality.  You imply the opposite.

No, I do not imply the opposite. I state the the positive state of legality does not, in and of itself, confer the positive state of morality. You explicitly agreed with me: "A lot of things are legal and still not moral."

Hmm. Maybe it's those nifty flags. If I create a really cool flag, And fly it wherever I go, can I steal whatever I want?

You completely fail to understand the concept of property.  I think that is sad.  How can stealing have meaning to you when property don't?

I completely understand the concept of property. We disagree on the ownership of certain property, however. Now, if you would answer the question? Does a flag make theft moral?

Why do you keep asking questions I already answered multiple times in bold?

Because you keep answering the wrong question. The question you answer is "Does a flag make theft legal?" I am asking if it makes it moral. However, you also state that if something is illegal, it is also immoral, so we can probably safely assume the answer to the question I am actually asking is also no.

However, You have raised an interesting question. Perhaps it is the fact that it is legally required that makes theft moral? To that end, I'd appreciate if you answered the questions I posed to you earlier:

If it were legally required to own a slave, would you? What if it were legally required to rape your daughter on her 15th birthday?

To those not so thoroughly brainwashed as sturle here, I offer this question: If it's not the costumes, and it's not the law, and it's not the benefits, and it's not the voting, and it's not what you call it, and it's not the flags, what is it, exactly, that turns an action that is immoral if I do it (taking money by force or intimidation), and makes it moral if the government does it? What makes taxation moral?

[sturle]

"A lot of things are legal and still not moral." Since something can be legal, and at the same time not moral, then legality is not sufficient to make something moral [...] Ergo, legality does not confer morality.

You missed again!  Legailty = the state or quality of being in conformity with the law; lawfulness.  Morailty = conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.  I specifically stated that the negative state of legality confers the negative state of morality.  You imply the opposite.

No, I do not imply the opposite. I state the the positive state of legality does not, in and of itself, confer the positive state of morality. You specifically agreed with me: "A lot of things are legal and still not moral."

You intentionally replaced the words legal and moral with legality and morality.  For the first pair the state is given.  For the second pair the state can be both.

I completely understand the concept of property. We disagree on the ownership of certain property, however. Now, if you would answer the question? Does a flag make theft moral?

Why do you keep asking questions I already answered multiple times in bold?

Because you keep answering the wrong question. The question you answer is "Does a flag make theft legal?" I am asking if it makes it moral. However, you also state that if something is illegal, it is also immoral, so we can probably safely assume the answer to the question I am actually asking is also no.

Congratulations, you finally got it!

However, You have raised an interesting question. Perhaps it is the fact that it is legally required that makes theft moral?

Theft is legally defined.  If it isn't legally theft, it isn't theft.  In my country everyone are free to move on and harvest wild berries from uninhabited non-cultivated land, no matter who owns the land.  It falls under the freedom to roam, which is an ancient right held in high regard.  In many other countries picking blueberries and mushrooms in someone else's forest would be theft.

To that end, I'd appreciate if you answered the questions I posed to you earlier:

If it were legally required to own a slave, would you? What if it were legally required to rape your daughter on her 15th birthday?

I already told you a milder version of your first question is so hypothetical it hurts, and your second question doesn't describe anything sensible.  Your questions don't deserve an answer.  If the moon was made of cheese and it kept bouncing on the Earth, would a yellow striped heffalump eat it?

[TheButterZone]

Theft is legally defined as: the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Funny how every government, chock-full of immoral cunts, exempts itself from every law (of nature, and of its own making) under the sun, in order to violate every human right under the sun, with practical impunity, and people defend these evil, tyrannical, murderous, raping cunts to the death.

[sturle]

Theft is legally defined as: the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Funny how every government, chock-full of immoral cunts, exempts itself from every law (of nature, and of its own making) under the sun, in order to violate every human right under the sun, with practical impunity, and people defend these evil, tyrannical, murderous, raping cunts to the death.

Huh?  The law books are full of laws depriving the government from power.  It is basically what laws do.  Without them you wouldn't have any rights, including human rights, as the government owns everything on it's land by definition.  The laws hand a lot of rights over from the government to the citicens, including limited private property rights, but keep others.  Like the right to deprive thieves from some liberties granted by law.  The right for a government to tax it's land and people is older than any human rights, and is mainly the reason why countries exist in the first place.  If kings/emperors/pharaos/tsars/presidents couldn't demand anything from their people, they wouldn't have a reason to gather all this land and defend it.

Due to free market competition, countries with good laws and low level of exploitation of their people tend to be more successful than other countries.  They will attract smart people.  If they give up their right to be a country, they will be conquered by someone who won't.

[myrkul]

If you have a better idea, don't hold back. I'd like to hear it! So many whining complainers, yet none are capable of doing it better.

You still haven't really answered me, but since the "better idea" is not just for you, I thought I'd share it. Anarcho-capitalism. The radical idea that those securing our rights need not violate them.

However, You have raised an interesting question. Perhaps it is the fact that it is legally required that makes theft moral?

Theft is legally defined.  If it isn't legally theft, it isn't theft.

Which is sort of the point of those two questions you refused to answer. In some US states, forcing your wife to have sex is legally not rape. Does that fact change the nature of the act, somehow? In those states, is forcible sex not rape simply because the law doesn't say it is?

To that end, I'd appreciate if you answered the questions I posed to you earlier:

If it were legally required to own a slave, would you? What if it were legally required to rape your daughter on her 15th birthday?

I already told you a milder version of your first question is so hypothetical it hurts, and your second question doesn't describe anything sensible.  Your questions don't deserve an answer.

I understand how it would be difficult to answer these questions from your perspective. I've placed you in the uncomfortable position of stating either that you would break the law, an action which would violate the principles that you've been arguing from this whole time, or that you would rape your 15 year old daughter (an action which I hope you view as immoral) for no better reason than somebody told you you had to.

Let me ask you an easier question to answer: If an immoral action is legally required, does that confer morality?

[Kontakt]

If you have a better idea, don't hold back. I'd like to hear it! So many whining complainers, yet none are capable of doing it better.

You still haven't really answered me, but since the "better idea" is not just for you, I thought I'd share it. Anarcho-capitalism. The radical idea that those securing our rights need not violate them.

However, You have raised an interesting question. Perhaps it is the fact that it is legally required that makes theft moral?

Theft is legally defined.  If it isn't legally theft, it isn't theft.

Which is sort of the point of those two questions you refused to answer. In some US states, forcing your wife to have sex is legally not rape. Does that fact change the nature of the act, somehow? In those states, is forcible sex not rape simply because the law doesn't say it is?

To that end, I'd appreciate if you answered the questions I posed to you earlier:

If it were legally required to own a slave, would you? What if it were legally required to rape your daughter on her 15th birthday?

I already told you a milder version of your first question is so hypothetical it hurts, and your second question doesn't describe anything sensible.  Your questions don't deserve an answer.

I understand how it would be difficult to answer these questions from your perspective. I've placed you in the uncomfortable position of stating either that you would break the law, an action which would violate the principles that you've been arguing from this whole time, or that you would rape your 15 year old daughter (an action which I hope you view as immoral) for no better reason than somebody told you you had to.

Let me ask you an easier question to answer: If an immoral action is legally required, does that confer morality?

1. We have established that laws are not always moral.
2. Laws are created by people, and cannot violate the constitution. All of your examples have.
3. Breaking the law is immoral. Sometimes immoral things must be done for a greater morality.
4. If a law is immoral, it can be challenged and changed through moral practices.

Morality is not black and white.
Would you shoot a man in the face to avoid spending life in prison?

[myrkul]

1. We have established that laws are not always moral.

Well, I'm glad at least one person gets it.

2. Laws are created by people, and cannot violate the constitution. All of your examples have.

On the contrary, unconstitutional laws are created all the time, and there are still states with laws on the books stating it's not rape if she's your wife.

3. Breaking the law is immoral. Sometimes immoral things must be done for a greater morality.

No. Breaking the law is illegal. Breaking an immoral law is a moral action.

4. If a law is immoral, it can be challenged and changed through moral practices.

Most certainly. It can also be challenged and changed through legal actions. The two are not necessarily the same.

Morality is not black and white.
Would you shoot a man in the face to avoid spending life in prison?

Attempting (and possibly accomplishing) murder does not seem like a good way to avoid imprisonment. So the answer to that would be no. It would do me no good. Now, would I shoot someone in the face to prevent him from killing me? In a heartbeat.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion of AnCap.

[Kontakt]

Morality is not black and white.
Would you shoot a man in the face to avoid spending life in prison?

Attempting (and possibly accomplishing) murder does not seem like a good way to avoid imprisonment. So the answer to that would be no. It would do me no good. Now, would I shoot someone in the face to prevent him from killing me? In a heartbeat.

So you would not fight the draft?

[myrkul]

Morality is not black and white.
Would you shoot a man in the face to avoid spending life in prison?

Attempting (and possibly accomplishing) murder does not seem like a good way to avoid imprisonment. So the answer to that would be no. It would do me no good. Now, would I shoot someone in the face to prevent him from killing me? In a heartbeat.

So you would not fight the draft?

Imprisonment ≠ conscription. But no, I would not "fight" the draft. I would avoid it. I'm lucky enough to have aged my way out of consideration, but even if I weren't too old (to say nothing of medically unfit), I would do my utmost to avoid the draft, including straight-up desertion, but I would not commit murder to avoid conscription. Seems like a good way to get murdered in return. I've become rather habituated to breathing, I'd like to continue that.

So, about AnCap? Any thoughts?