dineen@apollo.uucp (Terence H Dineen) (02/12/85)
> ... If we accept Carnes' ideas, that taxation > isn't theft because it is legal, then the government cannot steal: > whatever it does is legal by definition (or can be easily enough made so). In principle, a government can make anything legal; as a matter of practical fact, it is not always easy. And the more contrary to the sentiments of the governed the harder it will be to enact a law or, at least, to enforce it. I know that this fact provides no ironclad guarantee that nothing bad will be done by governments but nothing can provide such a guarantee because a) such a guarantee is not well defined and b) you can't redesign human nature and what we've got is (tragically) what we've got. > ... > I claim this is a useless distinction: we want to concern ourselves > with whether the government is *doing wrong* when it performs these > actions, whether or not it bothered to pass a law making them "legal" > ahead of time. If I may express an opionion, the question of whether governments (or any one else) is "doing wrong" is not obviously meaningful and not of much practical import; at least, whether something is "legal" has some (though often horribly imperfect) correlation with common sentiment. > ... > Is taxation theft? If "might makes right", then no. Otherwise, > one defending taxation as *morally* right must give better support > for the legitimacy of a government. Might does not make right because there is no "right"; governments are natural phenonena - they arise quite independenty of moral philosophy. > --JoSH Terry Dineen
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/14/85)
> Might does not make right because there is no "right"; governments are > natural phenonena - they arise quite independenty of moral philosophy. > Terry Dineen I believe I've got you "dead to rights" here... :^) If you don't believe in right and wrong, I don't see why you bother to object to my moral condemnation of governments. I agree with you that *they* don't take much account of right and wrong. I believe that most people believe in right and wrong, and (wrongly) associate government with right. That's why I spend my time talking about it. --JoSH
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/14/85)
We did this one in net.religion about a year and a half ago. The attempt was to prove that religion X was a ``correct'' religion because it was a natural phenonma. We ended up concluding that either TV sets were natural, or religions were not. By some people's definition everything that is, is natural (including religions and TV sets). Whether govbernments are, or are not natural does not mean that they do not reflect a moral philosophy. The theocracies of Egypt reflected a remarkably different philosophy than contemporary Swedish society, or contemporary American society. Whehter the moral philosophy is expicit or not, and whether the government is consistent with its expressed (or inexpressed) moral philosophy is another matter. All governments share a desire to protect the ``protected ones''. However, they have differing approaches as to whom should be protected -- all mankind? all citizens? all citizens of a certain race? all citizens in the nobility? all citizens with so much cash? About the only thing constant is that ``the government'' is an automatic member of the ``protected ones''. But even this varies -- does this mean that the supremem ruler is above the law? or that the mechanism of government is subordinate to the ruler? or that rulers can change but the mechanism must not? or that the ruler can change the mechanism but cannot do without one? It depends (among other things) uponwhere it is commonly believed the authority of the governmetn comes from. For instnace, it is now commonly believed that the US governemnt reflects ``the will of the people''. Therefore, anything that it does is commonly believed to be ``the will of the people''. However, one only has to go to an anti-nuclear demonstration, or read articles contesting the right of the government to tax to see that reevaluation of the authority of the government is going on. Can a government claim to be doing the will of the people when a visibly large segemnt of its citizens are opposed to its activities. If it derives its mandate from being the will of the people, can it justify taking action on controversial issues at all? (Note, people, I am not a fool -- I understnad that governments *do* take actions and I furthermore understand that elections are much talked about as a good way of ensuring that a government reflects the will of the people. This is not teh justification I am looking for unless you can prove that elections do reflect the will of the people. And I am not interested in what *anybody's* dictionary says about the matter!) Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/15/85)
>> Might does not make right because there is no "right"; governments are >> natural phenonena - they arise quite independenty of moral philosophy. > >> Terry Dineen > >I believe I've got you "dead to rights" here... :^) > >If you don't believe in right and wrong, I don't see why you bother to >object to my moral condemnation of governments. I agree with you that >*they* don't take much account of right and wrong. > >I believe that most people believe in right and wrong, and (wrongly) >associate government with right. That's why I spend my time talking about >it. > >--JoSH I like your smiley-face with the nose out of joint. It really fits! Terry Dineen never said HE didn't believe in right and wrong. He said, to paraphrase, that governments arise naturally. In other words, their existence is as right (or wrong) as an apple falling off a tree. As for associating governments with right: they are like people, some good most of the time (but occasionally bad), some bad most of the time (but occasionally good). I doubt you will find purity in this world, even among governments -- whether purity of good or of evil. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt