Topic: Why are people scared of taxes? - page 38. (Read 31542 times)

It's humanity's ego.  The cause of greed and coercion will always relate back to the ego.  As more people become self-aware of their ego and how their actions directly affect their lives and people around them, more people will chose to act out of love rather than ego.

People only act malicious or greedy because they think it'll help them get somewhere in life.  It's a big misconception that the best way to help yourself is to help yourself, when in reality, the best way to help yourself is to help others.  More people are catching on and we will soon reach a point when humanity disbands ego, entirely.

By such a definition of 'crime', it would indeed be hard to disagree with you. As in:


To challenge your view of human nature and your consequent acceptance of the legitimacy of the state's definition of what constitutes a 'crime', you might wish to familiarize yourself with Steven Pinker's rather seminal book The Blank Slate.

It turns out that humans do have a nature, and that therefore human universals do exist. Such universals include understanding, at all times and all places, what constitute actual crimes: murder, rape, theft, etc. Any other 'crimes' are merely decrees of some state or another.

Further, reading up on some of the many stateless societies of the past (good examples would be ancient Ireland, ancient Iceland, and the not-so-wild Wild West) will vividly demonstrate that civil society is an emergent phenomenon that does not require a coercive government to 'run' it. From such a biological and historical perspective, it is then not a large leap to arrive at viewing the state as a cancer rather than a necessary evil.

I agree with you. No one deserves trust unless they've earned it. My default mode is neutral until someone proves themselves to be trustworthy or a crook. But I can trust that the majority of people I've run across in this life aren't out to commit force or fraud upon my, or anyone else's, person.

The small minority that are criminals will always show themselves if one knows what to look for. That takes time and experience to learn, mostly by getting burned by one or two.

My experience of 1.8 decades leaves me in your shadow, but I see less trustworthy people than I see people who look malicious.

My experience of almost six decades on Planet Earth teach me otherwise. I've met some of the most moral people, as well as some of the kindest, in places where "authority" doesn't really reach. On the other hand, some of the most brutal criminals on Earth act with impunity in structures that have been blessed by "authority".

The experience of others may vary. I'm just relaying mine.

They all have consequences. Some are trivial and contrived, but the biggest one is that things you don't expect often come back to haunt you. That's a powerful weight.

Social conditioning is exactly the same as coercion, the same has been said as much earlier when multiple people mentioned how the government has staying power because it's been there for a while and is a status quo to the people that grew up there.

And yes, it is all moot in the end, you won't change your mind and I won't change mine. I have nothing better to do than discuss though, so it was either this or start a thread on how pretty the sky is in the fall.

1)It happens even in situations which could not possibly have consequences down the line.

2)Social conditioning, built-in reflex and calculated response are *not* the same as coercion. If I fail to make fresh coffee, they will not send a sheriff to my house to take me to a big building with bars on the windows and razor wire at the perimeter.

3)If you do not believe in free will, the whole argument is moot anyway.

You guys made me delete three paragraphs so I could stay topical. You post too fast.

I see the coercion in those examples. Being that I don't believe in consciousness, I just see different stimuli and their response. I acknowledge the endorphin that is released when you perform an action that you have been conditioned to see as good, and I see the invisible web of threats and concessions that surround us all. We all take the path of least resistance, except for some notable exceptions.

Imagine this, with an open mind.
What would happen if you did not hold the door for someone? They would remember you, and not like you, whereas they would if you held the door. This is a good response, constructive and useful. Try to imagine these little ques your brain is running off of to determine morality and the proper response. The problem is when the benefit of having something someone else possesses outweighs the negative stimulus of theft, or any immoral action.


Government, religion and other forms of authority exist to weight your reactions to the positive side, to make a weight that is more difficult to overcome. If you have enough weight to remain 'moral' without authority, that's wonderful. Many do not.


Severian, he was arguing the opposite.

I'm saying that EVERYONE is a potential criminal. What s crime but a list of definitions provided by authority?
 

asdfjdlbg; You guys posted 5 posts while I was typing. Whatever, not deleting again.

That's how I read it as well. Heinlein's "an armed society is a polite society" made manifest.

Ah. I see now. Sorry, dank.

I think he's suggesting that if things were loosened up a bit, the criminal element would find themselves a rapidly diminishing proportion of the population.

If you're arguing that the majority of people that have ever lived are potential criminals, I'd have to disagree.

You walk around with your eyes closed then. I probably see at least half a dozen at least trivial examples every day. Every time I go to get coffee and there's a full fresh pot, every time someone waves me out into traffic when I leave work. Every time I hold the door or elevator for someone or they hold it for me. There is something deeply humanly fulfilling about assisting others and the government not only takes that away but also damages it when they make it coercive.

I would note that "acts of vandalism" is something that government has taken on itself as its responsibility to resolve. How's that going?

Not always, Severian, naturally, we would reach a point where nobody acts in such a way.

With or without government, there will always be a small percentage of people that engage in antisocial acts of various sorts: rape, robbery, murder, fraud, running for office, etc. The larger percentage of people aren't criminals.

That's the better answer to those of us that know the power of cooperation over the power to coerce. Others might need some coaxing.

Where? I don't see people stepping up to do anything that's necessary if they find it distasteful. I frequently see people perform acts of vandalism or simple negligence that destroys any faith I have that people would be able to cooperate successfully without coercion. 

I think the better answer might be "Because they do".

The US government is a prime example of the coercive principle that many appear to advocate.

I would disagree with that. The US government has considerable sway over many countries, and has influenced many decisions in other countries. Any country that believes that its own government is the only one affecting the populace will shortly be replaced.