carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/07/85)
--- > BTW, Tim, how big does your majority have to be before it stops being > "theft" and starts being "taxation"? Everybody will agree that a majority > of two taking money from a single person on a street is theft. The > statists seem to think that two million taking money from one million > in an organized manner isn't theft. Where's the line of decision? Please refer to your favorite dictionary. Therein you will find that theft is by definition "felonious," i.e., unlawful. Taxation is by definition enforced by law. Whether "taxation is theft" is merely a matter of *definition* and is not in itself a question of political philosophy. As to the philosophical question: When such ordinary mortals as Kant and J.S. Mill justified taxation, they found it necessary and advisable to provide arguments in support of their assertions. Libertarians, however, are above such requirements. All that they have to do is to proclaim that "no one ever has the right, under any circumstances, to transfer wealth by forcible means or by threat of force," and the rest of us will have to bow down to this proposition as a self-evident axiom. Great is their indignation and wrath if they are asked to provide philosophical arguments in support of this assertion. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/10/85)
In article <327@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >> BTW, Tim I *PROTEST*. I asked Tim Sevener for an answer, and got Richard Carnes. No fair - now I have to deal with someone who can think :-). >Please refer to your favorite dictionary. Therein you will find that theft >is by definition "felonious," i.e., unlawful. Taxation is by definition >enforced by law. Whether "taxation is theft" is merely a matter of >*definition* and is not in itself a question of political philosophy. Sorry, but "lawful" vs. "unlawful" doesn't hold water. My dictionary is still packed (courtesy of UCB, blast them!), but I suspect that "lawful" will eventually wind down to "decreed by government." Hence, all cases where the government takes property from people - whether or not they call it taxation - are "lawful." Do I really need to list the obviously unethical times that the government has taken property from people - and in some of them later even admitted to doing something illegal? Then again, "lawful" and "ethical/good/moral" never have had much to do with each other. >As to the philosophical question: When such ordinary mortals as Kant and >J.S. Mill justified taxation, they found it necessary and advisable to >provide arguments in support of their assertions. Libertarians, however, >are above such requirements. All that they have to do is to proclaim that >"no one ever has the right, under any circumstances, to transfer wealth by >forcible means or by threat of force," and the rest of us will have to bow >down to this proposition as a self-evident axiom. Great is their >indignation and wrath if they are asked to provide philosophical arguments >in support of this assertion. Contrary to what you seem to think, this has been gone over countless times. I'll risk the wrath of McKirkian (sp?) and explain why *I* consider such to be unethical. Let us examine the alternatives. Either you think that using force to make others behave "correctly" is ethical, or you think that such use of force is never ethical. If you consider such use of force to be ethical, then you have conceeded the right to others to use force to make people behave what they call "correctly." If they should disagree with you about what "correctly" is, then the person with the most force is going to control people. Need I comment on "might makes right" as a political philosophy? On the other hand, if you don't accept such use of force as ethical, then it's a short step to realizing that forcing people to make donations to charities - even highly deserving charities (as opposed to those run by the US Government) - is unethical. Happy now? Note: tempting as it may be to move this discussion to net.philosophy, *don't do it*! It's been gone over many times there over the last six months, and those who use the group for fields of philosophy other than political philosphy will get mad (again). <mike
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (02/10/85)
> Let us examine the alternatives. Either you think that using force to make > others behave "correctly" is ethical, or you think that such use of force > is never ethical. If you consider such use of force to be ethical, then you > have conceeded the right to others to use force to make people behave what > they call "correctly." If they should disagree with you about what > "correctly" is, then the person with the most force is going to control > people. Need I comment on "might makes right" as a political philosophy? > <mike The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that coercion is either *always* or *never* justified. A system in which coercion is *sometimes* ethical does *not* imply that "might makes right", only that coercion is *ethically subordinate* to other principles in the ethical system, which is not at all the same thing. You seem to believe that coercion *cannot* be subordinated to other moral principles. I think that what Richard Carnes (and I) would like to know is whether you have any rational basis for such a belief. Baba