Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 4. (Read 17785 times)

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax  I hit ctrl F, type in "bruta" and the searchbox turns red   What am i doing wrong   Plz point me to the definition you're using.

Drugs in the water?  Aerosols?  Earnest nuns with big anime eyes persuading lawbreakers to stop?  How do you conceive "nonviolent enforcement"?  
Please define the terms as you introduce them. A sampling of examples would be helpful, too.

i think the reason why you dont believe this is a change of subject is that you were unwilling to accept that i wasnt trying to argue or debate or prove anything before. i was only seeking clarification on what you believe is moral in a specific example that i felt was useful to me for my own purposes in furthering my own understanding of your position in the ways that i felt were most relevant. but either way thats neither here nor there. i like this new subject so lets just stick with this.


Yes this is accurate, I see brutality as part of the definition of the word tax. as soon as there is no longer brutality involved we are necessarily dealing with something other than a tax by virtue of the very definition of the word. further as soon as we take violence out of the equation, what ever it is, i no longer oppose it!

believe it or not i totally agree with your sentiment here. i honestly think we are actually on exactly the same page and quibbling over largely irreverent semantic distinctions. i definitely think the ideal society would have some form(s) of non violent wealth redistribution and non violent social safety nets. allow me to quote myself from a different thread, this is how i think fair wealth redistribution should be handled in a sufficiently advanced society.

Ostracization is just another punishment, and just as brutal. How absurd your little philosophical fantasies are.

There are conceivable non violent enforcement mechanisms for allowing societies to modify the behavior of individual humans. My point is to say that it isnt immediately clear whether behavior modification on the part of societies by way of non violent enforcement falls under the umbrella of the definition of the word law. if it does not than the answer to your question


would be none. If on the other hand behavior modification on the part of societies by way of non violent enforcement does fall under the umbrella of the definition of the word law than the answer to your question


would be social ostiricization. This is why the definition of the word law is relevant to the discussion.

I'm not exactly sure how i've changed the subject my original post that you commented on suggested there might be a middle ground between the current  best practice taxation system and a free for all anarchic method.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2804334

It appears you see no other option but brutality to collect tax, therefore by implication if a person opposes brutality there can be no way to collect tax. I propose within a sufficiently advanced society with sufficiently advanced methods for fair taxation no brutality is required.

I guess, this is where we differ.

Definition of law is irrelevant here, as long as we agree that laws need to be enforceable to be meaningful.
For instance, making "bad thoughts" unlawful is pointless, unless
a) It is possible to read minds
and
b) A punishment is prescribed for breaking this law.

If you disagree with any of the above, explain why, otherwise i'm assuming we're good as far as that goes.  So:

Unless you are suggesting a society without laws, you have to conceive of punishments to enforce your laws.  I suggest that any enforcement is a form of "brutality," simple as that.  (Of course we will have to define "brutality" -- feel free to offer any definition that you're willing to stick to throughout this discussion -- i'm game for anything )
Keep in mind that your definition will be equally applicable to both the statist thugs & your utopia

depends a bit on your definition of law. some would say ostracisation and public shaming are alternative mechanisms for enforcing law. others would say that if those are the punishments than what ever we are talking about isnt a law but rather a custom. to me words should be defined in the way that is most useful for communicating the ideas they are intended to represent. if we had a system where stealing someones property meant that you became so ostracised by society that it was difficult to make ends meat, than i think in a very real sense stealing would be illegal in that society despite the fact that no brutality was involved. but then thats just my opinion! if you dont like the way that i am defining my words feel free to define them in the way that you think is more useful, just be sure to clearly communicate what you mean when you use those words so other people know!

What mechanism, other than "brutality," exists for enforcing *any* law?

if you want to change topic than thats ok we can do that but i would ask that we only do it this one time, once i move over to the topic that you want than lets please stay focused until we resolve that one question before moving on to anything else.

so then im very interested in this idea of a small tax on every transaction that is supposedly in lieu of state brutality. what mechanism other than state brutality do you propose to use to enforce this tax?

No.  Let's start with the hypothesis "If it hurts  me, Crumbs, it's bad."  I find you an abomination, a blight on the hairy butt of mankind.  Therefore, things that hurt you are good, just & morally right to  me.  Discuss.

Further reductio ad absurdum. Whilst I appreciate the nobility in trying to approach this problem from a purely metaphysical stand point, in search of some fundamental truth, the analogy has never and will never exist. Perhaps you should consider real world examples as this is a real world problem.

For the closed system scenario you describe above instead consider three people in a car. Fuel needs to be paid for. Now either the driver can pay for everything or through mutual co-operation the burden of cost can be shared. In this scenario if actor bob refuses to pay his share you advocate tazering him and locking him in the boot until he coughs up, as the only option. The normally prescribed method here is mocking bob for being a tight wad, assuming he can afford to pay and maybe not offer a ride next time, or else letting him off his share this time if he genuinely has money problems. Now you may also call this violence of state albeit mental,  but I would call it social pressure for the greater good of the group.


 In a sufficiently advanced tax system ( we are a long, long way from that) all of the complexity would be examined and the burden of society would be fairly distributed with transparent and proportional assignment. Taxation would then never need to be deducted under state brutality instead it would be as a minuscule % of each transaction. (Tx) to support the environmental and social network we all live in, use and depend upon.

No. You're engaging in willful ignorance most of the time. As mentioned, things are complex, and if you're not willing to factor in those complexities, your analysis is then moot.

its precisely because of the complexity that we must start simple and slowly add variables.

and we arnt having a debate. you cant debate about things that are purely subjective. we are having a discussion.

From whence does complexity come?

Morality seems hardly simple to me.  Attempting to analyze people as if they are subatomic particles seems unlikely to lead to understanding let alone enlightenment or consensus.  If there were truly only three people in the universe then complex social concepts such as morality wouldn't mean much if anything.  Long before morality would come the quest for purpose and meaning.

Again, one might claim they can be swayed by the debate, but claiming it and doing it are light-years apart.  Energizing the rhetoric with drama is distracting.

Stealing is a complex concept that stands near the top of the mountain of various possible human interactions.

Ask yourself these questions, "What have I stolen?  Why did I steal it?"  Then dive back into the debate anew.

But what is the point of the debate?  Concede all to your opponent; what difference did it make?  Inspire your opponent to come into the blinding light of truth of your way of thinking; what difference did it make?

Healthy debate intent on refining action is just great.  Endless debate ... I'd rather eat a bowl of ice cream.

i am very sorry if i made it seem this way. it was not at all my intention to reduce your point to absurdity. i am only seeking clarification on what you believe is moral and isn't. this is very tricky business and often requires a great deal of rigor for us to figure out exactly what it is that each other believes (sometimes we dont even truly know our on beliefs untill we introduce some rigor). i honestly dont know exactly what your morality is. i know that you condone what you consider to be "good democratic taxation" but i really dont know what that means, the purpose of my questions is to ascertain precisely what that means.

i would like to thank you in advance for the extreme amount of patience it must require on your end to have a conversation with me. if you somehow manage to put up with me and see this thing all the way through to the end, and you remain intellectually honest (this is not a tricky way of me saying if you end up agreeing with me, i promise, it only means that you dont engage in logical fallacy, we can both be totally honest and still come to different conclusions because like you said morality is subjective), ill even send you a tip because i really am sympathetic, i dont think at all that im an easy person to deal with.

i totally agree with your sentiment about morality being subjective. thats why im not trying to prove anything about what is immoral and what isnt. im simply attempting to ascertain exactly what your subjective take is on what is moral and what isn't, then use relevant analogies to appeal to your intuition and common sense to see if you really truly support what it is you believe you support.

ok so you accept that the scenario i outlined is impermissible. lets modify it a little bit, lets add some democracy, true democracy. lets say that there are 3 people in the universe (again keeping the variables under control, we can add more later). a b and c take a vote on whether or not a should be granted the authority to *insert previously outlined scenario here* against b and c. a and b vote yes and c votes no. does this democratic process make it permissible for a to *insert previously outlined scenario here* against c?

I personally would've told him that I've already paid taxes, and that buys me a police force which I would then mention that I would be calling any moment to have them haul away the buffoonish clown.

I quite literally live on only about $400 to $500 a month. I have food and shelter, but haven't had a game system since the 90's, and am missing out on a lot of those games my friends talk about. I feel pretty needy. Can I have some of your money?

By the way, asking someone to force someone else to be charitable doesn't make you moral or ethical. All it does is make society not care, because it rightfully believes that someone else will take care of all social problems. Responsibility for your fellow man basically goes out the window.

Sounds like I was pretty right. Public schools still cost a ton, and all you said was that other people will cover the high cost. Why do you believe the rich will not voluntarily donate money to schools, or that schools, constrained by budgets but unconstrained by rules, won't figure out how to teach children more effectively but cheaply?


Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's only in your fantasy world, where apparently all people are evil stingy assholes, and need authority to force them to behave.