Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Taxes are not theft?

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:52:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does anyone have an argument for taxation not being an act of theft?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:58:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Social contract implies consenting.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:58:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 8:58:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Social contract implies consenting.

^^^^
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:59:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No. There are only justifications for said theft.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:00:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

In this debate, which was probably 5 months ago, I debated that taxes were justifiable, and won.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:01:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:00:15 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

In this debate, which was probably 5 months ago, I debated that taxes were justifiable, and won.

Your arguments are based on practicality. Arguments for whether tax is theft is based on morality.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:03:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
if we accept that all wealth belongs to society (not true IMO) than it is not a violation of rights since no individual has a moral right to wealth
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:08:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

And taxation is justified because a government is inert without it. A government is justified because the people created it in the first place for their own protection in exchange for some liberty...it wasn't some unwelcomed institution that muscled its way into society.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:09:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:08:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

And taxation is justified because a government is inert without it. A government is justified because the people created it in the first place for their own protection in exchange for some liberty...it wasn't some unwelcomed institution that muscled its way into society.

For the first time in the history of the Universe, Ike has said something correct.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:12:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.

But tax payers do forfeit some of their liberty in tacit consent of the social contract between them and the government. Police protection, public education, roads,...they aren't just free services we can suck from a social institution without any kind of contribution.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:13:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

: Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.

Rights? There are no 'rights' beyond what society gives you. Rights are a man-made object to make society function a tad better and alleviate some arbitrary suffering. If a society deems that a person has a 'right' to give taxes, then so be it. Rights are not something that are valid before you disprove them- they are nowhere until you prove them.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:17:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:12:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.

But tax payers do forfeit some of their liberty in tacit consent of the social contract between them and the government. Police protection, public education, roads,...they aren't just free services we can suck from a social institution without any kind of contribution.

I completely agree. I was just pointing out that I think that it's a different kind of justified theft.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:19:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 8:58:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Social contract implies consenting.

No social contract implies that it's not theft so long as the governed are not outraged by it. That is to say, so long as the entire population is represented in the decision than it's not theft. If one segment of the population is taxed heavier than another, than the segment that is taxed more is not represented and the government is stealing from them.

Social contract implies that the governed grants the government authority to violate their life, liberty, and property in order to protect their life, liberty, and property. The extent that the government can violate the rights of governed is limited by what they need to protect the governed. The person who determines the extent the government can go, is the governed not the government.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:19:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:12:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.

But tax payers do forfeit some of their liberty in tacit consent of the social contract between them and the government. Police protection, public education, roads,...they aren't just free services we can suck from a social institution without any kind of contribution.

Except no one actually signed the social contract. I know you said tacit consent, but I dont really see how using the services from the government qualifies as consent...yes, if I am under attack and unable to kill my attackers I will call the police because the state has already forced me into a framework where I have to accept their services. If I got my family or friends to kill/apprehend my attackers I would be arrested. That is not consent to the state, its pragmatism
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:20:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:13:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

: Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.

Rights? There are no 'rights' beyond what society gives you. Rights are a man-made object to make society function a tad better and alleviate some arbitrary suffering. If a society deems that a person has a 'right' to give taxes, then so be it. Rights are not something that are valid before you disprove them- they are nowhere until you prove them.

My point is that confiscating a gun from a criminal who has initiated force is different from confiscating money from a tax payer who has not initiated force. Whether or not rights are a respectable concept is not vital to that point.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:24:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:19:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:12:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.

But tax payers do forfeit some of their liberty in tacit consent of the social contract between them and the government. Police protection, public education, roads,...they aren't just free services we can suck from a social institution without any kind of contribution.

Except no one actually signed the social contract. I know you said tacit consent, but I dont really see how using the services from the government qualifies as consent...yes, if I am under attack and unable to kill my attackers I will call the police because the state has already forced me into a framework where I have to accept their services. If I got my family or friends to kill/apprehend my attackers I would be arrested. That is not consent to the state, its pragmatism

Of course they did. They show tacit consent by not staging a revolution. If the vast majority of "the people" disapprove of the government has no power. The police and military forces are made up of none other than.... "the people"
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:26:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:24:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:19:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:12:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.

But tax payers do forfeit some of their liberty in tacit consent of the social contract between them and the government. Police protection, public education, roads,...they aren't just free services we can suck from a social institution without any kind of contribution.

Except no one actually signed the social contract. I know you said tacit consent, but I dont really see how using the services from the government qualifies as consent...yes, if I am under attack and unable to kill my attackers I will call the police because the state has already forced me into a framework where I have to accept their services. If I got my family or friends to kill/apprehend my attackers I would be arrested. That is not consent to the state, its pragmatism

Of course they did. They show tacit consent by not staging a revolution. If the vast majority of "the people" disapprove of the government has no power. The police and military forces are made up of none other than.... "the people"

If I staged a revolution I would be almost immediately killed. That the majority of people would accept the states sovereignty has no bearing on whether or not I or any other individual should be compelled to do so.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:34:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:26:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:24:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:19:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:12:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.

But tax payers do forfeit some of their liberty in tacit consent of the social contract between them and the government. Police protection, public education, roads,...they aren't just free services we can suck from a social institution without any kind of contribution.

Except no one actually signed the social contract. I know you said tacit consent, but I dont really see how using the services from the government qualifies as consent...yes, if I am under attack and unable to kill my attackers I will call the police because the state has already forced me into a framework where I have to accept their services. If I got my family or friends to kill/apprehend my attackers I would be arrested. That is not consent to the state, its pragmatism

Of course they did. They show tacit consent by not staging a revolution. If the vast majority of "the people" disapprove of the government has no power. The police and military forces are made up of none other than.... "the people"

If I staged a revolution I would be almost immediately killed. That the majority of people would accept the states sovereignty has no bearing on whether or not I or any other individual should be compelled to do so.

But humans derive their justification of anything on a collectivist model. Something isn't wrong because I am the only one that feels that its wrong, but because the vast majority of people agree that it's wrong. This is what makes morality a social institution.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:36:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Concepts are useless when applied only theoretically. They exist for their practical functions. Recognizing certain acts as theft and others as not is something that serves a practical function which society is acting towards.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:37:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:34:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:26:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:24:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:19:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:12:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:10:29 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's theft by definition. But no one said theft was never justified.

Likewise, when a policeman confiscates a criminal's weapon. it's technically "theft".

My understanding is that the criminal would have forfeited his rights when he committed his crime, so in that situation the confiscation would not be on the same moral level as theft.

Tax payers have not forfeited their rights. That said, theft can still be justified, and in the case of taxes I believe it is.

But tax payers do forfeit some of their liberty in tacit consent of the social contract between them and the government. Police protection, public education, roads,...they aren't just free services we can suck from a social institution without any kind of contribution.

Except no one actually signed the social contract. I know you said tacit consent, but I dont really see how using the services from the government qualifies as consent...yes, if I am under attack and unable to kill my attackers I will call the police because the state has already forced me into a framework where I have to accept their services. If I got my family or friends to kill/apprehend my attackers I would be arrested. That is not consent to the state, its pragmatism

Of course they did. They show tacit consent by not staging a revolution. If the vast majority of "the people" disapprove of the government has no power. The police and military forces are made up of none other than.... "the people"

If I staged a revolution I would be almost immediately killed. That the majority of people would accept the states sovereignty has no bearing on whether or not I or any other individual should be compelled to do so.

But humans derive their justification of anything on a collectivist model. Something isn't wrong because I am the only one that feels that its wrong, but because the vast majority of people agree that it's wrong. This is what makes morality a social institution.

You're presuming moral nihilism. Thats a fine philosophical position, but you can't just wave it out around as a statement of fact. I dont believe that the universal principles of justice are decided by the "vast majority of people" so your argument isn't compelling to moral objectivitists (oddly enough, the majority of people as well)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:42:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:37:03 PM, thett3 wrote:

You're presuming moral nihilism. Thats a fine philosophical position, but you can't just wave it out around as a statement of fact. I dont believe that the universal principles of justice are decided by the "vast majority of people" so your argument isn't compelling to moral objectivitists (oddly enough, the majority of people as well)

No I'm presuming moral relativism, as in that society is the origin and sole architect of all ethics...and therefore is logically incapable of establishing or enacting something immoral. The funny thing is, I don't think many people would disagree with the first part of the statement (not even religious people, because they often concede that humanity makes its own rules through their biological impulses), but they would disapprove of the second part, even though it's a forced conclusion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:45:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:42:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:37:03 PM, thett3 wrote:

You're presuming moral nihilism. Thats a fine philosophical position, but you can't just wave it out around as a statement of fact. I dont believe that the universal principles of justice are decided by the "vast majority of people" so your argument isn't compelling to moral objectivitists (oddly enough, the majority of people as well)

No I'm presuming moral relativism, as in that society is the origin and sole architect of all ethics...and therefore is logically incapable of establishing or enacting something immoral. The funny thing is, I don't think many people would disagree with the first part of the statement (not even religious people, because they often concede that humanity makes its own rules through their biological impulses), but they would disapprove of the second part, even though it's a forced conclusion.

So, if it's mass theft or the genocide of a certain group by society that's being perpetrated it's morally permissible? xD haha
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:45:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:42:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:37:03 PM, thett3 wrote:

You're presuming moral nihilism. Thats a fine philosophical position, but you can't just wave it out around as a statement of fact. I dont believe that the universal principles of justice are decided by the "vast majority of people" so your argument isn't compelling to moral objectivitists (oddly enough, the majority of people as well)

No I'm presuming moral relativism, as in that society is the origin and sole architect of all ethics...and therefore is logically incapable of establishing or enacting something immoral.

My bad. Definitely something I would disagree however but I really dont see how people can argue for/against the existence of morality either way 0.0

The funny thing is, I don't think many people would disagree with the first part of the statement (not even religious people, because they often concede that humanity makes its own rules through their biological impulses), but they would disapprove of the second part, even though it's a forced conclusion.

That is very interesting...there should be a class or book on what illogical conclusions are held by the vast majority of people. I wonder what else would come up
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:47:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:36:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Concepts are useless when applied only theoretically. They exist for their practical functions. Recognizing certain acts as theft and others as not is something that serves a practical function which society is acting towards.

I think using threats and applications of violence and intimidation to force people to give you money or property is wrong. What about you?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:48:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:45:44 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:42:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:37:03 PM, thett3 wrote:

You're presuming moral nihilism. Thats a fine philosophical position, but you can't just wave it out around as a statement of fact. I dont believe that the universal principles of justice are decided by the "vast majority of people" so your argument isn't compelling to moral objectivitists (oddly enough, the majority of people as well)

No I'm presuming moral relativism, as in that society is the origin and sole architect of all ethics...and therefore is logically incapable of establishing or enacting something immoral. The funny thing is, I don't think many people would disagree with the first part of the statement (not even religious people, because they often concede that humanity makes its own rules through their biological impulses), but they would disapprove of the second part, even though it's a forced conclusion.

So, if it's mass theft or the genocide of a certain group by society that's being perpetrated it's morally permissible? xD haha

The French certainly thought so in 1994.

BAM
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:50:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:45:44 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:42:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:37:03 PM, thett3 wrote:

You're presuming moral nihilism. Thats a fine philosophical position, but you can't just wave it out around as a statement of fact. I dont believe that the universal principles of justice are decided by the "vast majority of people" so your argument isn't compelling to moral objectivitists (oddly enough, the majority of people as well)

No I'm presuming moral relativism, as in that society is the origin and sole architect of all ethics...and therefore is logically incapable of establishing or enacting something immoral. The funny thing is, I don't think many people would disagree with the first part of the statement (not even religious people, because they often concede that humanity makes its own rules through their biological impulses), but they would disapprove of the second part, even though it's a forced conclusion.

So, if it's mass theft or the genocide of a certain group by society that's being perpetrated it's morally permissible? xD haha

That's the problem. the bolded part is a contradiction, because if it's just a certain group, then it's not society. Now if the entire WORLD was engaging in theft and genocide, to what do you appeal to that its wrong?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 10:13:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:19:04 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2012 8:58:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Social contract implies consenting.

No social contract implies that it's not theft so long as the governed are not outraged by it. That is to say, so long as the entire population is represented in the decision than it's not theft. If one segment of the population is taxed heavier than another, than the segment that is taxed more is not represented and the government is stealing from them.

No no no. Why should a social contract be the same for all citizens? Equality, especially in government measures, is a herculean and redundant task to pursue. Under that logic, nobody should be given any form of assistance because they are getting more money from the government than other people. A social contract does not presume that everybody be treated the same.

Social contract implies that the governed grants the government authority to violate their life, liberty, and property in order to protect their life, liberty, and property. The extent that the government can violate the rights of governed is limited by what they need to protect the governed. The person who determines the extent the government can go, is the governed not the government.

Exactly. By living in a country, you are assuming its social contract to be true, and hence agreeing that the government violates your rights, no matter how much it violates other's rights. Furthermore, if the majority of the governed decide that some people should be taxed at X and others at Y, which is what happens- government decisions are usually reflective of the will of the people- then it is justified.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 10:14:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:47:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:36:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Concepts are useless when applied only theoretically. They exist for their practical functions. Recognizing certain acts as theft and others as not is something that serves a practical function which society is acting towards.

I think using threats and applications of violence and intimidation to force people to give you money or property is wrong. What about you?

I don't have morals. But I do personally distaste that. I was just answering your question logically and without having an agenda.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord