Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 9. (Read 17785 times)

Oh now I get it! We're being controlled and kept in place by propaganda convincing us that we can be free! Thanks for explaining this to me.

I understand. You've got a pretty good point.

I'll help you unshackle your mind, ErisDiscordia!
Illusory goals are always handy.  What use is the notion of paradise to anyone on earth?  Yet many claim that organised religion has been used to keep the riffraff from plucking chickens, sharpening pitchforks & tarring torches  Placate the plebes with false hopes & distract them with false goals.  Shangri La!  Heaven!  Freedomz! Nirvana!

Edit:
Xanadu--Xanadu (now we are here)
In Xanadu(Xanadu)
Xanadu--Xanadu (now we are here)
In Xanadu(Xanadu,Xanadu)

Now that I'm here, now that you're near in Xanadu
Now that I'm here, now that you're near in Xanadu
Xanadu

It's Olivia Newton-John!1! -- See the movie!

That's what we are doing, puny human suffering from the aneristic illusion.


What if there's no such thing as government? What if it's just a hallucination in the minds of politicians?

Otherwise an interesting thought. You know how you can use vastly different descriptions to describe the same thing? "Nigger-loving busybody" and "civil rights activist" can refer to the same person as well as "scatter-brained hogwash" and "avant-garde philosophy" can describe the same idea. What on person calls philosophy, another might call propaganda. Note that only people holding incompatible views from yours are subject to propaganda, while you yourself digest information

Anyways I'm intrigued. If "freedom" is in fact propaganda, who is spreading this propaganda? "Communist propaganda", "fascist propaganda" or "christian propaganda" all make sense to me. But "freedom propaganda"? Who stands to profit from something like that? Someone who wants you to think that you can be free so that.....I can't think of anything, please help me.

Not at all.  I haven't mentioned my personal beliefs. 
Curious: is your use of "we" intentional (majestic plural), or a symptom of dissociative identity disorder?  If it's the latter, please allow your dominant personality to reply for all of you.

this is the defintion that google gives and i think its pretty good: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. I mean you are free to define any word you like any way you like but i think this is much closer to what most people mean when they use the word than "the lack of bad stuff, or relatively more good stuff, as claimed by the people talking about it"

did you just state that you trust authority more than your own judgement? We might have found the key to your disagreements with Rassah

crumbs do you have a moral code that you live by? are there things that you think are immoral?

Since you claim to be an atheist, you come off particularly lulzy when you resort to morality in debate.
Religious people have canonical texts -- the Qur'an, the Bible, etc., to offer immutable truths -- irrefutable foundations on which to build their ethical codes. If asked "why is lending for profit immoral," a Muslim will reply: "Because it is abhorrent to God, my holy book tells me so."  You?  You have nothing but gut feelings to base your morality on.  A morality that's subjective, without absolutes, in constant flux -- no more than a word for "stuff i believe is wrong, but can't think of logical reason for such belief."

You say taxation is immoral, i say Christ was explicitly fine with it, though he didn't mince words when it came to commerce, calling the merchants & money changers trading in the temple "a den of thieves."  If you do have something coherent to found your morals, i'm all ears


#1 is false, and since the entire argument is predicated on it, the whole thing's junk.


Again, you think you know the meaning of the word "robbery," but are too lazy to get past the dictionary definition.
Oh well, leech off my generosity, i'll educate.  Ready?

The difference between the muggers & the government is simple:  There are no contracts or predefined agreements between the victim & the muggers, while there is between you and the US government:  It's called the body of law & the combined tax codes.  

You, as an immigrant, should know this.  The citizenship test demands, in plain language, to swear that you will obey all US laws, or GTFO.  You may have not taken the citizenship test, or received derivative citizenship through your parents -- in that case, your beef's with them.
Now you have your answer -- you're in a binding contract with the US government.  


No.  That's absurd and borders on criminal.  I'm sorry if you got that impression.


Would you stop it with grade-school sophistry already?  You're in a contract with your government.  You are an immigrant -- in your case the contract is explicit.  By not paying your taxes, you are stealing from your government.  
The "violence" you talk about is no different from the violence awaiting any pickpocket who sucks at his trade.  You're a thief, ok?  Is this the answer you were fishing for?


Just for shits and giggles, what is it you were accused of that you do not believe you did?  Edit:  I'll see if i can clear things up for you


Fine, make it furlogic.

Taxation is murder in the same way that being robbed on the street at the point of a gun is murder. I.e. it's not. It's just being robbed under the threat of a gun. Obviously the prudent and safe thing to do is to give up your wallet, which we also all do when being taxed. But that doesn't change what's actually happening, or the morality of the situation.

If you disagree, please, feel free to explain where your numbers 1 through 3 are incorrect.
You constantly avoided explaining why a group of thugs with guns on the street asking for your money is robbery, but a group of thugs in suits calling themselves government asking for your money is not robbery. Since you avoided that question 3+ times, I can only surmise that you agree with #1 (otherwise it'd be easy to defend).

You insinuated, twice, that if you don't pay taxes, no one will come after you. As much as I'd love that to be true, we both know that is not the case, so unless you can show me that government thugs will NOT come and threaten you with violence (arrest, imprisonment, or worse), then we'll have to agree that #2 is correct as well.

Finally, I asked you, twice, what would happen if you resisted their violence (refused to give up your money and your freedom). You pretty much ignored this, and veered off into a tangent about how you don't get shot for a crime, you get shot for resisting to be arrested for a crime. Fine, but irrelevant. The end result is the same: You are accused of something you don't believe you did, you resist, you die. Feel free to explain why this isn't true, either.

Feel free to point out how wrong my "Libertarian" logic is (and ps, I'm not a libertarian)

Not exactly. Businesses deduct paid VAT from their taxes, so, when you buy something, you pay VAT, when you sell it, you deduct it, essentially getting it back. So the actual VAT amount gets passed down the line to the last person to buy the item (typically consumer). This system incentivizes everyone in the line to report the transaction, since everyone who paid the VAT wants to get the money back as a tax deduction, and thus makes tax evasion by businesses much more difficult.

It's much worse than that, as Rassah has so eloquently shown.  Tax is murder.  The derivation is simple, true, and goes something like this:

1. Taxation is theft. (given)
2. If you refuse to be victimized, the government thugs will come & threaten you with violence. (that's why we call them government thugs, duh!  Dood, do you even Ayn Rand?)
3. If you do not submit, a thing no freedom-loving man would ever stoop to, you will be shot. (why do you think we call them thugs, brah?  That's what they *do,* they prey on the innocents!)
4. Taxation is murder, Q.E.D.

If you enjoyed today's lesson, tune in next time for more Libertarian Logics

When you buy something you have to pay VAT

When you resell it to someone he has to pay VAT

When he resells it he has to pay VAT


So the item in question is bringing triple profits to the BIG guy. Also in my country there were some laws against manufacturers selling directly to end users. There has to be a middleman, owned by manufacturer or not, does not matter. So that item sells at least twice.

I see what you did there

Why else?  The government.
*promise kept

Am I now? How does my freedom depend on some poor schmucks on the other side of the planet being bombed by $100,000 bombs, flown by $100,000,000 drones? Oh, it doesn't? Then why the fuck am I paying for that shit?!



No I'm not. You can't magically wish value into existence. That barrel of oil is worth the same around the world. In Italy, they pay the full price for that barrel of oil. Here, I pay a much smaller price for a part of that barrel at the pump, and then secretly pay the other part through my taxes which go to oil subsidies and security to keep oil pipes from being blown up. In the end we all pay the same price. It's just that here much of it is hidden from us.


Then don't order stuff online, and pick it up at a store. Or order online, but tell them not to pack it, and that you'll accept all damages and liabilities. It's really not that hard. I mean, it's not as if there are laws against that. Unlike the laws that force you to pay for government stuff.


Since when does The Invisible Hand refer to government?



Sorry irrelevant. You are not restricted to just that one store. You are not restricted to just that one product. You can even negotiate with the store owner to only get a part if needed. And even if you are forced to buy the whole thing, you still have parts that you own and can resell to recoup your money. ALL of which fails to explain to me why one group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return is theft, while another group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return in taxation.
And, again, when you are forced to buy the whole monitor because no other options are available, you still get the whole monitor and all it's worth. Something of yours of value for something o someone else's of value. With taxation, you get a lot of nothing for something of yours of value.

Keep trying.


I am only a reflection of the people I talk to. I.e. you're an ass, so I'll talk to you like an ass. Considering just how much of an ass you are, meanness of mind and disposition are apparently very much your preferences. Want to change how I talk to you? Be more polite. Otherwise I don't really care for you either.


When you are ethical and just, it's not murder. Go to the NAP discussions to figure out what ethics and justice (morals and such) are about. It's not that difficult of a concept that doesn't need laws or government decrees for you to figure out.


the difference, as always, is who makes the rules, and who gave them the right to make those rules. That's what this whole godamn discussion is about. Who gave the majority the right to tell me what I should do with myself and my own stuff? It sure as hell wasn't be. Not willingly, anyway, since, as pointed out, if I don't follow their rules that they gave themselves, I get shot.


That's a tad difficult when there are secret laws, or unjust laws. And aren't you glad those people in the south didn't break laws by reporting runaway slaves, and those germans didn't break laws by reporting jews hiding in attics? I bet you're even more glad that people in US didn't break laws against drinking alcohol, and that we still have laws making alcohol illegal 



I don't get shot because I'm not stupid enough to test it. I've seen plenty of other people get shot, and use them as examples. And, ok, let's walk this through. A cop comes to me and says I did something illegal, which I don't believe is wrong. I tell him to go away, because I didn't do anything wrong. The cop tries to put handcuffs on me, I resist and defend myself, by, say, wrestling him off of me. He escalates his attempts at arresting me, and I escalate my attempts are defending myself. At what point does he stop, and walk away? And if he doesn't, then where does this escalation end?




My whole issue is that I don't want to deal with it specifically for the reasons I've stated. It's not just, it's not ethical, it's without basis beyond the old rule that you can own land by sticking a flag on it. People organized, decided to call themselves government, and started to throw their weight around using guns and force. For someone looking for ways to better the system, you sure seem to like this one.



How will that solve the problem of corrupt politicians, being bought out by banks and corporations, who then get extra perks paid for by our tax dollars? I mean, that's in essence what we're talking about here - the power to enforce arbitrary rules, and force you to pay (steal from you) to support those rules.

Rassah,

You are woefully uneducated when it comes to the environment, ecology, the experts in the field, its purpose, or the far reaching consequences of failing to acknowledge its importance.

Sadly, you get your information from libertarian sources, which is a politically motivated movement about rights and taxes, not ecology or science.

I get my information about the environment and ecology from scientists.

Here's some advice: let science motivate your political ideals, as opposed to letting your political ideals motivate your views on science.

Get back on a soapbox you're familiar with?


Who are those "people who write regulations?" Whom do they work for? I claim they work for the companies being regulated, based on the various news of such "scandals" throughout the years. The other option is, at the least, they would be experts in the field. Experts in a field typically do not go to work for government.