Governments and moral issues

[Perfection]

Cuz it aint moral to threaten people for their money

It's not "thier money". It's the money rightfully owed to the government that tax evaders have taken off with.

The justice system using threats to keep people from driving off without paying gas isn't immoral, neither is the justice systems use of threats to keep people from going off without paying taxes.

 

[Perfection]

Talk (or dream) about it all you want, legislating morality is an oxy moron.

"Legislating morality" is somewhat an ambigious term, and we should realize in one sense it is true and another it is not.

Government cannot legislate morality in the sense of determining what is right and wrong. What is right and wrong is obviously different from what is law.

However, government very often legislates morality in the sense of taking what is known (or at least believed) to be right or wrong and putting that into law. And in that sense, I say government here not only can happen, but should happen.

 

[Berzerker]

It's not "thier money". It's the money rightfully owed to the government that tax evaders have taken off with.

Its our money, it represents our labor. Would it be "their money" if some bureaucrat came along and took everything you had?

The justice system using threats to keep people from driving off without paying gas isn't immoral, neither is the justice systems use of threats to keep people from going off without paying taxes.

My labor does not equal stealing Exxon's gas. BC already equated us with a bomber and now you've equated us with thieves. Are we thieves if we want lower tax rates than you?

 

[Bill3000]

Its our money, it represents our labor. Would it be "their money" if some bureaucrat came along and took everything you had?

Even Hayek didn't believe that you had a right to your pretax income.

 

[Berzerker]

"Legislating morality" is somewhat an ambigious term, and we should realize in one sense it is true and another it is not.

Government cannot legislate morality in the sense of determining what is right and wrong. What is right and wrong is obviously different from what is law.

However, government very often legislates morality in the sense of taking what is known (or at least believed) to be right or wrong and putting that into law. And in that sense, I say government here not only can happen, but should happen.

When I say government cannot legislate morality, it aint based on getting it right some of the time. That would mean government can or might be able to legislate morality. The system exists because of coercion, you hand over your labor or we will shoot yer ass. That aint moral... I dont care if you call it government, the Mafia, or democracy - it aint moral to take what does not belong to you, and your labor doesn't belong to me. If its immoral for me to take your labor, it doesn't become moral because I hired a politician to do it for me.

Thats why Thomas Paine (?) said government was at best a necessary evil, it exists by confiscating labor so any argument about government and morality needs to recognize it aint an argument about morality, but the lesser of two evils...at best.

 

[Berzerker]

Even Hayek didn't believe that you had a right to your pretax income.

Gee, my neighbor doesn't either. But that aint what I said, if you can generate your income using your own infrastructure then you have a right to the money, but if you use infrastructure others paid for then you gotta pay them a user fee.

 

[Perfection]

Its our money, it represents our labor.

And market forces, and education, and the reaping of previously sowed governmental money, investments, inheritances, stupid luck etc. Besides money itself is regulated government system. Governments can issue money to banks, set policy etc. To say that taking away money constitutes the stealing of labor is a highly warped view of how the government actually operates.

Would it be "their money" if some bureaucrat came along and took everything you had?

Depends on the circumstances (and assuming the bureaucrat was acting in accordance to the wishes of a democratically acting). Certainly it wouldn't be right for a government to sieze my property for an ignoble purpose, but there are conceivable reasons why it might be neccessary.

My labor does not equal stealing Exxon's gas. BC already equated us with a bomber and now you've equated us with thieves. Are we thieves if we want lower tax rates than you?

Of course not, wanting lower taxes is a perfectly acceptable stance, so long as you still pay taxes (unless you live in some corrupt hell hole, then I think it's acceptable).

But this is getting off track. Let me sum up with the following and you tell me what you think about it:
1. Personal property is not a completely sacred right (stealing medicine from one who hoards more then they could ever need to save a family from dying a horrible painful disease is not always morally wrong)
2. We need a better system then random appropriation of goods and services from people, because random stealing is chaotic
3. The government can fill this role in a way that while it may not please everyone, can make most much better off.



And honestly, is getting the full value of what someone else is willing to pay for your labor that terrible in comparison to having basic needs met?

 

[Perfection]

Gee, my neighbor doesn't either. But that aint what I said, if you can generate your income using your own infrastructure then you have a right to the money, but if you use infrastructure others paid for then you gotta pay them a user fee.

Noone in modern countries makes income without government infrastructre, not even the Amish.

 

[Berzerker]

Noone in modern countries makes income without government infrastructre, not even the Amish.

thats true, thats why I was correcting Bill who seemed to think I was saying I have a right to my income even though I use other people's infrastructure.

 

[Perfection]

So really, you don't seem to find income tax immoral?

 

[Berzerker]

And market forces, and education, and the reaping of previously sowed governmental money, investments, inheritances, stupid luck etc.

And? The money I leave my kids when I die still represents my labor, just like the house I acquired with my labor. Robbing my grave dont change that reality...

Besides money itself is regulated government system.

Therefore the government has the "right" so to speak to charge a tax to pay for the system of regulation. But if my local bank wants to print money and sell it off it should be legal. Have y'all conceded my point yet or are we just changing the subject for some other reason?

To say that taking away money constitutes the stealing of labor is a highly warped view of how the government actually operates.

Why? Well, I know how gov't operates but why is it warped to see the money I earned today as representative of my labor? Thats why money exists, to represent something of value. So if I come along and take your money I've just taken your labor. How is that warped? Its reality! You just think its moral or at least okay when politicians are the ones taking the money. If they took you for everything you'd change yer tune real fast.

Depends on the circumstances (and assuming the bureaucrat was acting in accordance to the wishes of a democratically acting). Certainly it wouldn't be right for a government to sieze my property for an ignoble purpose, but there are conceivable reasons why it might be neccessary.

So stealing is no longer stealing when the thieves outnumber the victims?

Of course not, wanting lower taxes is a perfectly acceptable stance, so long as you still pay taxes (unless you live in some corrupt hell hole, then I think it's acceptable).

Well, you seem to think avoiding taxes is akin to stealing so at what lower level of taxation do I become an advocate of theft?

But this is getting off track. Let me sum up with the following and you tell me what you think about it:
1. Personal property is not a completely sacred right (stealing medicine from one who hoards more then they could ever need to save a family from dying a horrible painful disease is not always morally wrong)

Its morally wrong if I take medicine and dont compensate the owner. If I take it anyway, I still owe the owner. Maybe he'll understand when I explain my circumstances, but I still owe him an apology and an explanation at the very least and he may then choose to forgive me, or not. I wouldn't even owe him an apology if you were right...

2. We need a better system then random appropriation of goods and services from people, because random stealing is chaotic

3. The government can fill this role in a way that while it may not please everyone, can make most much better off.

And thats where government enters the picture, organized stealing. And thats why government cannot legislate morality, it aint moral to begin with.

And honestly, is getting the full value of what someone else is willing to pay for your labor that terrible in comparison to having basic needs met?

Of course not, what a weird question.

 

[illram]

Government cannot legislate morality in the sense of determining what is right and wrong. What is right and wrong is obviously different from what is law.

However, government very often legislates morality in the sense of taking what is known (or at least believed) to be right or wrong and putting that into law. And in that sense, I say government here not only can happen, but should happen.

How are those things different? If it has been previously been decided to be morally right and wrong, and the government decides to put this collective consensus into law, the government is still enforcing morality. Are you saying that long standing societal norms, when formalized into law, are more legitimate? Can't you say that about a lot of the morals of society today? Especially ones that are still controversial? I don't see how that helps one decide the issue of whether the government should be enforcing morality, because to me it just brings us back to square one, where the government can enforce morals. Unless that is what you are saying?

In my opinion, if you can separate a law today from its moral foundation and still provide a perfectly reasonable basis for its existence, it is valid. If you can't, it should be invalid.

 

[Perfection]

How are those things different? If it has been previously been decided to be morally right and wrong, and the government decides to put this collective consensus into law, the government is still enforcing morality. Are you saying that long standing societal norms, when formalized into law, are more legitimate? Can't you say that about a lot of the morals of society today? Especially ones that are still controversial? I don't see how that helps one decide the issue of whether the government should be enforcing morality, because to me it just brings us back to square one, where the government can enforce morals. Unless that is what you are saying?

I'm saying that there are certain moral truths out there, and government uses them, but does not create them.

In my opinion, if you can separate a law today from its moral foundation and still provide a perfectly reasonable basis for its existence, it is valid. If you can't, it should be invalid.

How can you provide a perfectly reasonable basis without resorting to morality?

 

[Berzerker]

So really, you don't seem to find income tax immoral?

Sure I do, and the redistribution of wealth it enables...

 

[Perfection]

Do you only object to the way income tax is currently figured out or the principle of it?

 

[illram]

I'm saying that there are certain moral truths out there, and government uses them, but does not create them.

How can you provide a perfectly reasonable basis without resorting to morality?

Depends on which law. E.g., basic common law crimes could all be removed from their moral foundation, and the government would still be within its authority to enforce them. You can't have a functional society if people can steal, kill, or beat one another at their whim. The fact that these things may all be "morally" wrong is--or should be--irrelevant from the perspective of government enforcement.

I am not saying we should become an amoral society, just that if a law could also have a firm amoral basis, that law is far more legitimate than a law which lacks any basis other than certain people's perceptions of right and wrong. I think the Gay marriage debate is the perfect example of this.

 

[Berzerker]

Do you only object to the way income tax is currently figured out or the principle of it?

In theory it could be argued that a graduated income tax based on income level would reflect the taxpayer's use of infrastructure, more money means more stuff and stuff to take care of, etc. But a user fee system would be much more targeted and basically I believe we get the government we're willing to pay for. Any system is gonna be lacking but if evil is necessary, I'd still like to limit it to only necessity.

 

[Perfection]

Depends on which law. E.g., basic common law crimes could all be removed from their moral foundation, and the government would still be within its authority to enforce them. You can't have a functional society if people can steal, kill, or beat one another at their whim. The fact that these things may all be "morally" wrong is--or should be--irrelevant from the perspective of government enforcement.

But is not the idea that there sould be a functional society rooted in morality? I don't think you can go to "should be" without some moral noton of what is "good".

I am not saying we should become an amoral society, just that if a law could also have a firm amoral basis, that law is far more legitimate than a law which lacks any basis other than certain people's perceptions of right and wrong. I think the Gay marriage debate is the perfect example of this.

Well, I think that the idea of moral law has gotten corrupted to mean laws based on the morality of a controversial subset of the population, generally the Christian-right. I don't think this is truely the case that proposed and existing legislation based on these controversial notions are the only laws rooted in morality.

It seems to me that all laws are based on morals. It's only when what we view as moral is not agreed upon by almost all members of society do we actually start to look at our moral views. These laws with controversial moral basises are not the only moral laws, just the only ones we end up arguing morality about.

 

[aelf]

This is such a huge topic, and I fear any discussion here would not be very fruitful without first getting familiar with the existing material on this theme. And it seems that the term "small-government" is thrown about without much regard to what it might actually mean. Also, while things might not be illegal, it might not legally be allowed where it can be helped. A person who attempted scuicide, for example, will not be punished in most democratic countries, but as long as it is known that someone is attempting scuicide the person would be dissuaded from doing so through various measures.

 

[scy12]

Laws should be made in ways to create better societies. Now which laws create the better societies is the question. Lack of any laws does not. Laws that protect the freedom and health of the majority of the citizens are needed. I think there is something close to an absolute morality on what is the better for most that although hard we can draw some reasonable conclusions on. As an extend to that worldview on morality i claim moralities that distance in an extreme fashion for what i call the "Near what is considered to be the best " to be utterly insane. Others also agree. For example i consider a person that believes that it would be better for society to kill every baby to be an insane psychopath while i consider a person that believes not paying taxes for himself to be dangerous against the morality agreed but not insane.