Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 25. (Read 17785 times)

In other words, you're saying that Americans "didn't know" that slavery was wrong, but found out during the Civil War?  The Confederate States, after having textbooks & sound reasoning hurled at them by the Union Army, completed their learnings, realizing how wrong slavery & their "screw you guys, I'm going home" attitude were, freed the slaves & embraced the Union?  And, just like with slavery, we simply need to educate the great unwashed on the evols of taxation, and taxes will disappear?

There always were, and always will be, people pointing out the immorality of just about everything -- from atheism to unwed sex to lending for profit to homosexuality to taxation.  None of that implies anything, certainly not that those opinions are valid, or that they will someday become cannon.  

Many people choose the third option - not give anything to anyone.

Might be. But I don't think the society is bright enough to accept voluntary payments to the government. Whenever I step out in the street, I see what kind of people are walking. Definitely not the charitable ones.

No it's not.  There's what's right and what's wrong.   When slavery was around there was a small amount of people around who knew it was wrong.  The rest of society either didn't know because they hadn't thought about it or used the excuse that ii had been around a long time, or that the majority approved or that it was necessary or some combination of those.  Unfortunately, that's all it was, an excuse.  Same is true for today for taxation.  Either people haven't thought about it or they're making some excuse for it because they either benefit or they don't have the imagination to think of life without it.   But it's just an excuse, because there are people around pointing out the immorality of it just like there was back in the heyday of slavery.

And the same is true of human sacrifice or any number of accepted immoral traditions throughout history.  

Man started in this world not knowing much and built all these traditions upon bad information.  We now live in a more enlightened age.  It's time that we were brave enough to recognise what is immoral rather than kowtowing to something just because the majority is currently going along with it.  But history shows that only a minority stand up for what's right whereas the majority just go along with whatever they are told.

It is not idealist, there are plenty of studies to show that people who give charitably are happier and happier people give, creating a happiness loop.

If given the choice of being robbed or giving to something that you care about, which would you choose? Which do you believe would bring you more happiness?

Here's the follow up.
Forced Taxation is Slavery - StormCloudsGathering

Taxation and Morality - StormCloudsGathering

I like what he has to say about taxation.

You still didn't answer my last question. Also don't think that everyone thinks that giving brings happiness, my idealist friend.

Exactly...people in the US donate more. Who has the lowest tax burden?

Taxes and the government providing everything stifles charity and giving. There is an actual human need to give and it has been found that the happiest people are those that give.

Government stealing from people and giving flies flat in the face of real happiness.

Depends on your ethics & if your property was stolen from me.

Does anyone else think that "voluntarily hiring someone to protect your property" is morally equivalent to "others hiring someone to take your property against your will?"

Why not? That's how Cosa Nostra in southern Italy works. They're not technically "government," but they do function in place of it.

3.7 billion total people in '72, 7.1 billion people today. What's your point?

This is a problematic question in a whole bunch of ways.  
Is it morally wrong for people to hire cops to catch thieves?  If you answered "yes," then the answer to your tenth question should also be "yes."  Consistent.
If you answered "no," the answer to your last question is also "no."  Not paying your share of the taxes to the community (in this case, a statist one in which you live) is simply stealing from that community.  

The community is poorer for you not having paid your taxes.  You've done nothing different from not paying your bill -- steal.  The government will not say "Elwar hasn't paid his taxes, we'll just have to tighten our belts & learn to be more frugal."  It will simply raise the taxes, making the law-abiding people pay for your share.  See where these folks might get the notion to send those pesky revenuers after you?

If i should rob you because i feel it's wrong for you to hoard money when others have none, is it morally right for you to call the cops on me?  Expand

Ya like a legitimately benevolent and wise dictator. Too bad that will never happen  .

Off shore companies. Some softer examples: Microsoft, Google, etc. paying their taxes through Ireland due to it's small percentage required. Also the chart mention later shows the people that donate in US. US. If the ide of taxes payed voluntariraly might cherish in the US, but what about the rest of the world?

A government could use its monopoly on violence to reduce the occurrence of force and fraud.

I assume he's referring to the opposite of what this data shows.

hm so its hard to imagine what a government might use its monopoly on violence for other than taxation but it is possible.

so like imagine you had a sadistic ruler who just liked to kidnap people for fun, but he never took any of the property of the people he kidnapped and never forced them to work for his benefit. his kidnapping adventures were funded voluntarily by the community and people generally accepted his kidnapping because they thought it was necessary.

would he still be a government? yea i suppose he would.

If you define government as 'The monopoly on force in a given geographic area, which is funded through involuntary taxation', then you are absolutely correct.  More correct would be what you said, or 'The administration of society need not be funded through involuntary taxation.'

Source?