On what basis should laws be made?
If laws are based in morality, is it immoral to break the law?
If laws are based in morality, all bound by a universal 'should', should not the enforcers of the law be subject to the same standards as others?
If they should, and one believes that killing another human being is wrong, does the death penalty have moral justification?
If they should, and one believes that stealing another humans property is wrong, do taxes have moral justification?
If they should, and one believes that the enslavement of another human being is wrong, does the military draft have moral justification?
The only consistent basis for laws is the following:
You have a right to do with your property as you see fit, so long as it does not interfere with someone else's right to do the same.
Absolutely incorrect. Government is - AT BEST - the protector of god-given (whatever deity you worship, or, for atheists, a right granted from birth) property rights.
I am going to THOROUGHLY hound you on this point -- it might end up being troll-tastic the way I demand this point -- until you cede this point.
-----------
By your logic, no caveman could ever own anything because they didn't have governments.
By your logic, a somali person could never own anything.
By your logic, Tom Hanks couldn't have owned the fish he caught, nor did he own the fish.
Property is not dished out by government. Your argument is easily proved incorrect by simply saying "what about situations where there are no government? Do people still own things?"
The answer is clearly "yes".
---------------
There was a commercial where some astronauts were chilling on the moon, and while they were out finding moon-rocks (or something) some aliens stole their rover's hubcaps.
Everyone watching the commercial knew that theft had occurred, yet there is no government on the moon, there are not inter-specie / inter-planetary governments in the world.
----------------
Property is a gift of life, and governments are - AT BEST - the stewards of god-given property rights.
Take a dead gazelle from a lion pack and see what their views on property are. Their law-enforcement agencies are a bit more Draconian (Leonian?) than humans' are.
----
You can't win this argument, Pcunix, because if we both washed ashore of a deserted island with our current property, you would still be pissed off if I took your car.
You know - maybe not with your brain, but with your heart - that property is a god given right.
So, so wrong.
And that's why your reasoning is so screwy everywhere else. You misunderstand this, you misunderstand everything.
Ownership is a legal construct. Period. Law determines ownership and is quite complex - it's not the simplistic Libertarian view.
Utter nonsense. You're confusing the enforcement of a right with the right itself. Perhaps this is why you are still a liberal.
If everyone in DC died, then I could steal your car?
Good to know.
If your argument is true, then slavery is a valid practice so long as the law agrees.
If my argument is true, then it is inherently evil.
Which is it, Pcunix?
You have already told me that you would kill me if I were to secede from your government, will you now tell me that slavery is OK if the government allows it?
Obviously it's OK. That doesn't mean that I'd condone it. This country has many laws and practices even today that I don't agree with.
Morality and law are too different things. Again, your simplistic view betrays you.
So, slavery is allowable as long as the law says so.
WOW.
Recent AMAZING revelations from Pcunix:
"Killing someone for wanting to be free from another's tyranny is OK"
"Slavery is OK so long as the law says so"
... WOW. No wonder I can't take liberals seriously.
@Pcunix, are you arguing that it if the government does it, it is not immoral?
Morals should apply to anyone and everyone, am I right? Why is it one rule for us and one role for others who happen to wear different kinds of suits?
If you argue that it is OK for the government to practice slavery, you are arguing that it is OK, period. All government is, is another group of people. Giving some rights to one group above another is severe discrimination. And since I think slavery is immoral, the only thing I can conclude is that you are immoral.
Did you even READ what I said? No, you did not.
I'll repeat it again: morality and law are two different things.
Apparently being able to read and being able to type are also.
What good is a law if it is not based on some kind of moral backbone? An action (slavery) can not be immoral but OK at the same time.
Pcunix's argument is that
"It's totally OK to have slaves if the government allows it!! Yeah, man, let's have slaves. It's ok! No problems! It's all good! Slaves for all! The government made it legal!!!...
... sure, it's evil. But it's ok!"
"Smoking weed is not a problem for anyone ever. The costs of prohibition vastly outweigh the benefits. ...
... but it's Illegal, so you're wrong for smoking"
"Gays can't be married. It is not ok for them to be married. LGBTQ should not be married. If LGBTQ get married privately in private church, then it is not OK....
... But I want them to get married"
(Sarcasm:) God, innersmiff, can't you see that his argument makes sense?!
Homesteading.
If I come across a plot of land, and begin to use it, then I own it.
Therein lies the problem. Morality is interpreted differently by different people. There is no agreed universal definition. I can see the double standards in the examples you've used and therefore, understand why you have used them. However, I think that by using the term morality we are on treading on dangerous ground.
So, do you accept that if you agree with taxes, you are in favour of stealing?
No, because I will have voted, along with many others, for a government that I know would impose taxes. To steal is take without the owners consent. I imagine that you may come back with the argument defending those who did not vote in favour of taxation. And I agree that is a problem, but I believe that argument is pertinent to why we should have a more representative electoral system.
So would you be in favour of some people giving up their vote, and all of their public services, so that they could be without taxes?
I have no idea how you've managed to come up with that scenario based on my response, so I'll explain further. I believe the electoral system is inherently flawed and serves the interests of a few (the largest minority) The point I was making is that even if a majority of people voted against taxation, it would make no difference as the system is geared to serve the interests of a minority.
I have no issue with that, I agree. Apologies for being vague.
I'm saying that, in your ideal system where everything is representational, would you have a problem with a minority giving up their services in order to avoid taxes? Would you have a problem with others opting out?
You can opt out any time you like. You can live off the grid, and you can work for cash only. Your choice. Go for it.
Edited to add: You could work for cash and goods only. I recently read about a woman who has lived without money for over 15 years.
Libertarians crack me up. They say they don't like taxes, but they are unwilling to give up the comforts provided by those taxes. You have free will. You and Evan can live your philosophical ideals any time you want. You just don't really want to, do you?
Some of them try this stupidity, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
I'd really like to, but unfortunately I get put in prison if I don't pay my taxes, so your system sounds cool to me!
Is this the first you've heard of it? I would think as a Libertarian you would be looking into ways to live outside of society so that you don't have to pay taxes. There are tons of websites about living off the grid, and others about how to live without money.
If you are a serious Libertarian, then I am perplexed that you don't already know about these things. Of course, you'd probably have to give up some luxuries like internet service, fire and police protection, schooling for your children (can't use the public library -- that's paid for with stolen money!).
But hey, no taxes! It's worth it, right?
No I've heard of it. It's just a bit difficult when we're being hounded by the police, and when having to navigate the legal battleground to be exempt from the governments fake laws. Many have ended up in prison in the process. So excuse me for not being totally enthused about the idea at the moment. In the meantime, the job is to use the bit of freedom we have to educate ourselves and others about the tyranny we're facing.
And yeah, the government has done a fantastically poor job of providing for all of those things so far, how about we try something new eh? That's all we're suggesting, it's not exactly heresy.
Ah, so it's just too hard.
If you want to try something new, find a way to do it. But let me give you a little hint. As long as Libertarians refer to taxes as "theft" while continuing to benefit from the services provided by taxes, they will not be taken seriously.
Pretty: Pcunix said that he would kill us if we left the union.
well, actually, he said that he was too weak and frail, so he'd let someone else kill us.
See how that works? you guys think you want freedom, but then you give us false choices: "Either leave the union and get killed, or shut up and do what we tell you!"
But you get punished if you don't pay for your petrol, why should you be excused paying for the roads or the Police,or the Ambulance or any of the other services you so happily use?
Stop using them all and the government will be quite happy if you don't pay taxes.
yeah, and Pcunix said he would kill us if we left the union.
Freeman on the Land. I have been living this lifestyle quite happily for the past five years. I do not even need the cash at all. I will work for nothing. All I ask is that if I need something, the person I have worked for to provide it.
I am curious. Does the person you work for provide the internet service you are using?
Yes, my friend has a business. I answer the phones for him and he lets me play on his PC. He also provides food and beverages all day.
I do not own a computer.
I assume that he is reporting and you are paying taxes on the fair market value of your pay?
By the way, your friend could be liable for a $50,000 fine.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art … 94,00.html
Plus, of course, more fines for evading taxes.
Nice guy, your friend. Real "American".
There is no bartering involved. We have no contract either written or oral. I answer the phones for free. If I do not want to use the PC, I do not come around his business. I am not employed by him in any form.
Bull. You don't need a contract.
You are cheating, both of you. How many other "employees" does he have? How many under the table transactions?
Do you forward the applicable taxes when you receive a gift?
Bartering is not gifting.
There are laws that apply to gifts: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art … ,00.html#3
I report EVERYTHING, even my poker winnings. I report cash, I report every single dime I get and I double check it against bank deposits and PayPal receipts to make triple sure that I missed nothing.
I've had employees. I never paid them in sandwiches. I paid them with checks and I paid all the taxes that I owed on those checks also.
You are cheating us.
How do you calculate the fair market value of a couple of sandwiches and a few cups of coffee? What would I pay in taxes, crust?
Report what to who?
You'd pay in dollars. So would your employer.
You are both cheating local and federal government, you know. You are cheating me, too, because of your joint tax avoidance.
I'm not joking at all.
I have the unpleasant feeling that you would actually, seriously consider reporting this guy to the tax people.
Please tell me I'm wrong.
I absolutely would if I could, yes.
That's no different than working "under the table". It's illegal, it's immoral and it affects all of us. It's cheating and there is no other way to describe it.
It is described as living "my life". No income = no taxes.
How does it affect you?
Wow, I'm glad I don't live anywhere near you - you'd have been a sure recruit to the ranks of Stasi informers in East Germany before the wall came down.
I say good luck to them both - if they've found a modus vivendi that benefits both of them and doesn't harm anyone else, what business is it of yours?
And for the record, I don't think that depriving the government of the minimal amount of tax revenue that it could get out of this scenario counts as "harm".
PC, I agree with you on many things, but not this one.
Why?
What's a fair wage for answering telephones? $7 and hour? Maybe something around $15,000 a year?
15.3% of it is absolutely owed - and that's money that is cheating me out of my retirement.
What else does he do to live off the grid? Does he use our public roads, breathe the clean air and drink clean water that other people's tax dollars pay for?
What if he gets sick or has an accident while living "free"? I assume he'll head straigh for the nearest emergency room and drive up our health care costs.
No, this is wrong. It's cheating and fraud.
LOL, how many people receive handouts from the government including health care?
Do you tell them they cannot use roads, drink freaking water???? Breathe air?
Who owns air?
Whose taxes pay to keep air clean?
Mine do.
If the government is handing out so much money, why don't you get in line for it?
No, you'd rather barter to escape paying your fair share.
What is a fair share? I have asked this in these forums before with no response?
How do your taxes help keep the air clean?
I have no desire to accept handouts, nor do I need them.
Do you rat out the homeless when you see someone flip a quarter in to their hat?
How many hours a year do you work?
You and your employer owe at least 15.3% of the fair market value of your wages. He owes half, you owe the rest. He probably owes other taxes to your State, too.
You don't "need handouts" because you are WORKING.
So, obviously it's enough that you are afraid to say.. I wonder why that would be.. oh, I know: because you and he are cheating on taxes, perhaps?
I did wonder if the Dad's Army reference would get lost in translation, but I'm pleased it didn't
Dad's Army - Don't Tell Him Pike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V3SqxUomwk
I had to Google it
Yeah - I guess those people should try to find a tax cheat who will feed them in exchange for work, right?
So, hypothetical situation: say I have a neighbour who asks me to use my computer to write a letter for him, and he gives me half a dozen eggs and some home-grown vegetables as a thank you. Should we both report our "transaction" to the tax man?
That's not the same as working regularly, is it? Go read the links I gave - they explain where the limits are.
You can pretend all you want, but this is fraud.
OK, so I've read the link - your tax laws say that anything over 100 barter exchanges per year should be declared to the tax man.
You know what? Even if I thought he were doing more than 100 such exchanges every year, I wouldn't dream of reporting him.
Why? Because I don't want my actions to reinforce the kind of society that we seem to be headed towards, i.e. a network of unpaid Stasi-esque informers.
EDIT: Such a spy network is something that laws like this one seem to be designed to produce. You also have to wonder whether the cost of policing and enforcing such laws outweighs any revenue the government might gain.
Have you ever seen a dollar? I know of Federal Reserve Notes but dollars? Never saw one.
Actually, no we can't: Pcunix said he'd kill me if I left the union.
You keep saying that. Do you have a link?
No, he doesn't.
If he takes up arms against this country, I am absolutely in favor of him being shot by the Army, the FBI, Homeland Security or whoever else would be responsible.
So if the U.S. has a domestic enemy they should be shot but a foreign enemy should be left alone? You have many times said we should forgo our wars with Iraq/Afghanistan, you seem only too happy to kill fellow Americans.
Have I said that?
In fact, I have not. I have said, many, many times that I would like to hope that there are better solutions than war, but that I certainly don't pretend to know enough about the specific circumstances to judge whether or not these wars are necessary or justified.
Don't make stuff up.
Yes, you have said that. Why is shooting a domestic threat ok? Why do you have such hatred for your fellow citizen?
Someone participating in an armed insurrection is NOT my fellow citizen.
And again, no, I have not said what you claim. You can, however, easily find multiple instances of me saying what I said above.
I understand that you have to lie - how else could you defend your ideology?
Yes they are your fellow citizen, I am not lying.
No, I wouldn't have a problem with that, providing that completely accepted that they could not take advantage of any public services, or any services that would subsidised by the government. That would be fine by me and a much more equitable system.
You really don't need to apologise for being vague. I often read my own posts back to myself and realise I have not expressed myself properly. I guess that's what happens when we feel passionate about something.
Ideally they should be made to produce the greatest cohesiveness for the all. However in corrupt society they are made for the benefit of the few as being more deserving.
Friction free. Most law is unwritten convention. I walk to the right. Most people walk to the left of me.
But there is always those few who insist on walking or running on my side creating friction. With driving it is mandated law for obvious reasons.
Here is Bastiat's "The Law"
http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf
There is a whole field of legal study called "Jurisprudence" which discusses what the state can properly legislate for.
Did you know that in response to the Tibet problem the Chinese have passed a law that it is forbidden to reincarnate without a licence? Presumably one applies for a licence during the current lifetime. But what happens if one finds one has reincarnated without a licence? Does one apply for a licence retrospectively, and what happens if it is refused? What is the penalty? And if one believes in reincarnation how frightening is the death sentence?
If you reincarnate without a license then your life is forfeit to the state and you will be killed. Then you will reincarnate again, and as before, without a licences, your life is forfeit to the state and you will be killed. Then you will reincarnate again ... It's obvious when you think about it.
Common Law:
Do no harm to others.
Do no harm to others property.
Do not commit fraud in a contract.
The problem with the Law is when those that make the laws do not follow their own creations. IMO this nullifies the law itself. For if it is not being enforced at the highest levels then what is the point.
Insider trading for example....
Well, if you're Pcunix, it's an easy problem to solve:
Just declare a new law that allows you to rape people... then it's OK.
... Wow.
I'm done responding to Evan. I think it should be rather obvious why.
Because your arguments are clearly atrocious?
Tell me about it..
I'm in no mood for this level of ridiculous incomprehension today.
Who's being dense here?
I asked Pcunix, "If your argument is true, then slavery is a valid practice so long as the law agrees."
He responded: "Obviously it's OK."
I don't see how I'm being dense by applying his statements to real life situations.
Then, to go EVEN FURTHER: Pcunix openly rails against Romney for "hating poor people", when Romney clearly said "I'm concerned about Americans. I'm not concerned about 'the poor'; there's a safety net there. If it needs repair I'll fix it"
I must admit, that the dense heads are not on my end of the discussion.
@Pcunix
You said it would be OK, which for me, registers in the positive range in the spectrum.
All you're doing is laying down the party line and implying that the traditional view on this is correct because it is self-evident, when we are trying to challenge that same traditional view. So is the answer to actually tackle the points raised, including the original questions, or refuse to talk to us? If we are wrong, you need to explain why we are otherwise your actions are admission of defeat.
Thanks for helping the fight against tyranny.
I've learned a lot about my fellow hubbers these past few weeks.
Ralph Deeds openly declared that might makes right when he said that "the civil war settled the argument of secession"
Pcunix said he WOULD kill me for trying to secede. And then said that slavery would be OK if it were still legal.
I've learned a lot.
I think it's called 'cognitive dissonace'!
It's not worth getting banned for the pleasure it would give me to accurately describe what I think of both of you, but believe me, I am sorely tempted.
Hate?
No. Bewilderment, astonishment, outbursts of "WTF!" and the sensation that I must be in some alternate reality where people can say anything at all no matter how senseless it is..
Are you working on your trust fund filings yet?
The feeling's mutual, buddy.
Please don't kill me for fighting against Federal Tyranny. You already said you would.
Evan, why do you continue to lie? Is this a common trait of Libertarians?
What lie? I can dig up your quote easily...
Here, give me 3 minutes....
Quote #1:
"And you seriously think we'd just let them secede. ...Evan, that Reality phone is still ringing.."
Quote #2:
I asked Pcunix: "Pcunix: Show me your will to actually kill someone who does not want to be a member to this Constitution, and I'll take your argument seriously."
Then he responded: "As to taking up arms, I'm a bit too old, but if the United States had to engage the army to put down insurrection in Ohio or anywhere else, yes, I woud support that action."
I still would like to see a link, for the context.
"Opting out" as an individual, which is what we were talking about in this thread, is not the same as organizing an insurrection, though, is it?
Go check out the quote in the "nullification states rights" forum. It's 3 clicks away
That's exactly what he said.
Deal with it.
I'm not "dense", I'm "quoting him".
My "intentionally dense" comment was in reference to this statement by you:
"Well, if you're Pcunix, it's an easy problem to solve:
Just declare a new law that allows you to rape people... then it's OK.
... Wow."
I think you knew what PC meant, but were intentionally ignoring his real meaning in favor of making your point. If you didn't know what PC meant, then you were not intentionally dense, just dense.
Do you not agree with this interpretation that I offered earlier in this thread?
Here is how I interpret PC's position; he can correct me if I'm wrong.
We have laws. Laws may or may not be moral. Some laws are viewed as moral by some and as immoral by others. Right now, in some states in the US, it is "okay" to kill a man or woman. Why? Because the law says it is appropriate punishment for certain crimes. Does that make it moral? Not necessarily, but it is still "okay."
Get it?
As for his comment about insurrection, again, I find it hard to believe that you have not already considered that attempting to secede from the union could result in violence, given the history of this country. To ascribe this sentiment to PC as though he is personally responsible for it is disingenuous. He stated he would agree with a violent response from the government. I don't see anything especially evil or unusual about it.
He said that by making something legal, it is OK, but it might be morally evil.
Laws are not to be based on the whims of the rulers, everyone knows that a bad law is one that should be abolished immediately. The founding fathers did so.
But then, if I say something like "I will fight against evil laws", Pcunix said he would kill me.
His argument is - literally - this:
"Evil laws make an action OK, but evil. But if we overthrow the laws, then we should be killed."
I stand by ALL of my statements. If he wishes to not hear my arguments then his arguments either need to be corrected, restated, or erased.
He advocates that governments make laws (they don't, they just enforce them), and that government should violently suppress those who want to get away from them.
What Pcunix is saying (I believe) is that he believes in a democratic process, I for example consider the law banning marriage rights to gay people bad/evil BUT if someone grabbed a gun and started shooting people to change it I would have no problem with the Police doing their job and arresting/killing them because those laws are set by elected officials, the right way to change laws is through the democratic process, violence is the wrong way those who take arms against my country and it's democratic process should be fought. EASY.
Oops. Now Evan will be saying that you and I are conspiring to kill him.
Or abortion laws.
I can have some sympathy for those who object to abortion under any circumstances. I don't agree with them, but I can feel sympathy and understanding.
When they start shooting at doctors performing legal abortions, they become criminals.
The South seceded peacefully. The North (the people who Pcunix thinks should be allowed to kill secessionists) refused to remove their army from the South's land.
The South was wrong to attack Fort Sumter, but the act of secession was 100% peaceful until then.
Evan should work for Fox News. He's even better than they are at lying by pulling things out of context.
Here is how I interpret PC's position; he can correct me if I'm wrong.
We have laws. Laws may or may not be moral. Some laws are viewed as moral by some and as immoral by others. Right now, in some states in the US, it is "okay" to kill a man or woman. Why? Because the law says it is appropriate punishment for certain crimes. Does that make it moral? Not necessarily, but it is still "okay."
Get it?
We're not debating whether it is legal or not, of course it is legal, is it moral? Is it moral for the government to deign to offer us property? Is the death penalty moral?
Didn't I answer that?
"Laws may or may not be moral. Some laws are viewed as moral by some and as immoral by others."
Specifically, is the death penalty moral, if killing people is immoral?
Are taxes moral, if stealing is immoral?
Is the military draft moral, if slavery is immoral?
Just the nature of these questions reveals the simplicity of your thinking.
"Specifically, is the death penalty moral, if killing people is immoral?" Killing can be moral, depending upon the circumstances. If I kill you in self-defense, that is moral, TO ME. There are people who believe killing, even in self-defense is immoral, so I imagine they would believe the death penalty is immoral.
"Are taxes moral, if stealing is immoral?" I do not believe taxes are stealing. We, as a society, have agreed that we will collect taxes to provide for certain services. Evan believes taxes are theft, so I imagine he believes taxes to be immoral.
Okay, so we are clear, you believe killing to be moral? I believe that in certain circumstances one HAS to kill. It still doesn't make it moral.
Is the death penalty moral or immoral, and on what basis, if killing is moral?
And as far as taxes are concerned, would you mind me opting out of the services so I don't pay the taxes?
Yes, please do. Go join the sovereign citizens movement. You'd be a perfect fit.
Didn't I answer your question about opting out?
"You can opt out any time you like. You can live off the grid, and you can work for cash only. Your choice. Go for it."
Why haven't you done it?
As for the rest, I'm not sure why you care what I personally think is moral or immoral but here goes. Killing can be moral under certain circumstances, such as assisted suicide. I am opposed to the death penalty because there is another option, life without parole, that solves the problem equally as well and allows for a reversal of sentence. The morality of it doesn't interest me, but I do care about whether it makes sense. I don't think it does.
I answered above: "I'd really like to, but unfortunately I get put in prison if I don't pay my taxes, so your system sounds cool to me!"
'Killing can be moral' Okay, got you. I'm asking just so we are on the same page. You wouldn't be opposed to killing if it 'made sense'. That sounds vaugley dangerous to me
LOL, really? It makes sense for us to have a military, doesn't it? I'm still morally opposed to wars, but I understand the necessity to engage in them once in awhile.
That's not a particularly steadfast way to come to a conclusion about whether a law is just or not. It basically means whatever you want it to mean.
Morals are universal and absolute, so that is why I use them to judge whether I think a law is just or not.
I never agreed to the income tax.
... so... yeah, they're theft.
@PrettyPanther
So man has no right to complain about his exploitation as long as he is benefitting from his bad wage? He can find a way to get a better job, right? And to ascribe 'benefitting' to this system is taking a rather large step.
@Pcunix
Do your morals not apply to everyone and at all times? If not, they're not really morals, but fair enough.
Oh, so my morals don't count? Only yours?
So typical of the Right.
It's just my opinion that if you have one set of morals for some people and another set for another group of people, they are not very good ones. It kind of reflects the point of this thread - if we are not allowed to steal, why is the state allowed? If we are not allowed to kill, why is the state allowed? etc.
And the sooner you get out of this 'right/left' rubbish the better you'll be.
Of course you have a right to complain. Keep on complaining. You also have a right to opt out, but you don't because you think it's too hard.
If you don't think you're benefiting from the services and infrastructure provided by taxes, then it should make your decision to opt out quite easy.
Morality is relative to upbringing, context, culture, religion, etc. It is NOT set in stone, as they say... ironic, considering the Ten Commandments, right? My personal morality does NOT apply to everyone ALL the time. I cannot in good faith, apply my beliefs and judgements on others, who have the same right to their own beliefs. However, laws are (in theory) made to protect people from themselves and others. They're meant to discourage bad behavior, anarchy, and chaos. Lawmakers are subject to the same laws they write into being. The exceptions that you are mentioning are just that - and you are over-simplifying. Taxes are not based on morality, but on economics. The draft and death penalty are supposed to be extreme measures taken in times of extreme need. We have only used the military draft 3 times in over 200 years. And if you compare the statistics of the death penalty with incarceration... it's a small percentage. There are many factors and subtleties involved that broaden this particular argument's scope far beyond a black and white answer. Laws are based on morals and politics... both are subject to change, therefore so are the laws. Also, an individuals morals can change, depending on their circumstances. A person can live their life believing that stealing is wrong-immoral, but that same person, having lost their job, home, and income, can decide that stealing food from a grocery store is okay because they need to feed their children. Hunger and need trumps morality. Or... is it still even immoral in that case? ( I personally don't agree with the death penalty or the draft. I also don't agree with all laws, or all of the 'majority morality')
They are not very good morals if they only apply to yourself. Do you willingly associate and support people who you find morally repugnant? Do you not draw a line, and on what scientific basis do you draw that line? Would a law legalising infanticide be just because 'they have the right to their own beliefs'?
Sometimes people have to steal to feed themselves - sometimes you have to be immoral for survival. However, I'd much rather trust that person who admits that is wrong but does it anyway than someone who says that morality isn't an issue.
The big question is: do you have morals at all? You must have some idea about the laws that are put in place at the moment and they must come from something. If you believe in taxes you do believe that it is RIGHT and MORAL to steal from others to pay others.
"I personally don't agree with the death penalty or the draft. I also don't agree with all laws, or all of the 'majority morality'"
^ This is what I'm getting at. I want more of this, more personal morals, than generalised "well, some people have different ideas about what morality is". Well OBVIOUSLY. I want to find out on what justification they support things like taxes IF they believe stealing is immoral.
If you don't want to pay taxes just cease to use anything that taxes pay for.
Don't get the bus to college because although they are privatised they are still subsidised by the tax payer, as are the roads they travel on. Don't buy any food, the transport to get it to the shops uses tax payer paid for roads and many farmers get subsides off the tax payer. Don't ever go to an NHS hospital, ever!
I'm getting bored but thing of something you can do that is not supported in some way by taxes.
Well yeah, isn't that ridiculous? Are we not being forced to participate in something we find morally repugnant? Isn't that in itself morally repugnant?
This is the point I am trying to make. I can participate in things I find immoral, but still call them out as immoral. There is the freeman on the land option. However, a completely legal camp in London that was putting this into place was ransacked and destroyed by police. It's not easy being free!
A completely legal camp!
Whilst my sympathies are with the protesters, how can you say completely legal?
Did they own the land?
Yes they did, and they weren't protesting, they were living there.
They 9owned the land and had exclusive rights to it! Wow, I never knew.
So, no, I'm not going to turn you in. If I knew for sure who your employer is, I'd turn him in.
But I won't forget this. Every time I see you make a Right Wing comment about Federal waste and so on, I'll have to remind you that you and your pal cheat on payroll taxes.
To no avail.
No payroll, no taxes, no cheating.
Your inability to read the law doesn't change reality.
Your friend isn't "special" because he's your friend. He's cheating. Period.
by Sooner28 10 years ago
Libertarians either claim we have an "absolute" right to private property (if they are of the anarchist variety), or that we nearly have one (those who believe the government should only fund military, police, and courts to protect private property). Thus, coercive taxes are a...
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
Recently, with regard to illegal immigration, Califronia and other states and cites have decided to refuse to enforce federal laws. They have chosen to disobey federal laws and not help ICE in enforcing our immigration laws.Is this legal? Are there any precedence on this?Where is the Supreme court...
by Thinkaboutit77 15 years ago
What gives us humans worth and value? Is It Ever Right To Take The Life Of An Innocent Human Life?Is the unborn baby a human life? If it is, why is it right to take it's life?What say ye?
by tobey100 13 years ago
I support the Arizona Immigration Law and I'll gladly tell you why....I've read it. All of it. I've been slammed from every corner for supporting profiling. I always ask my critic, "Have you read the law?" the answer is usually a resounding yes yet, when I ask them...
by ptosis 7 years ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos … 2#commentsTrump said genially, “Who’s the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career.” (laughter ensued) they laughed. Doesn't mean they thought it was a joke. Eavenson was more likely referencing State Senator Konni...
by Don W 13 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |