PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:04 pm
edit- because type doesn't convey tone very well, I just want to clarify that this is meant in a civil debate way, though it may come off as a bit harsh.
Let’s clear this up immediately; I’m a pragmatist, not an ideologue. I care about real-world consequences, not strict ideolgical appeals.
As a hard-core utilitarian who’s admitted that grossly violating the rights of 1 person to save 100 people would be a justifiable action, I’ve been frequently accused of being “psychotic” and "evil" (it's almost always meaningless conjecture). Don't worry about hurting my feelings.
If you haven’t noticed by the ongoing debate between mkm and me in
this very thread, I’m a moral consequentialist. No, I don’t subscribe to the idea that moral actions like theft are good or bad in themselves. While some actions typically lead to harm, it isn't useful to reject them when they can bring about greater overall pleasure. And it is this distinction that renders NAP incompatable with my ethics. To me, NAP is no different from intersectionality, deontology or religion; it’s just another dogma that creates and enforces rules arbitrarily (although oftentimes with good intentions). Hence, the title of this thread.
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:04 pm
However, you attempt to justify this obvious theft by citing examples of good uses of the theft money.
You clearly didn’t read the remainder of my post;
Lay Vegan wrote:There are certainly cases where excessive taxation fails to deliver optimal economic outcomes, as in the case with communism or even socialism, but there’s no doubt that taxation pays for vital and essential common goods (law enforcement, the court system, the fire department, public roads/transportation etc.), that keep society prosperous. Both economists and historians doubt that the private model is practical for larger-scale government management. Taxation is not only an efficient means to pay for the things that benefit all of us, it can also be useful tool to regulate corporations who may engage in practices that infringe on our well-being/rights. This would be the benefit of levying carbon or methane taxes.
No larger prosperous society has been able to function without some form of compulsory taxation. This isn’t to say that smaller communal groups can’t care for each other, but that larger communities require taxation to help the government common goods (public roads, law enforcement). I’m sure this where the ideologues come and in and assert that private organizations can fund these programs just as efficiently as the government (despite the fact that no impactful society has been able to function like this) but this system often proves to be inferior, resulting in numerous free riders who choose not to (or are incapable) of paying their fair share for their service, leading to diminished supply and eventually market failure. Common goods like public libraries, law enforcement, court systems, clean water infrastructure etc. are
not exempt.
Here I briefly explained why private roads (while sometimes useful) are usually just lawsuits waiting to happen, due to the nature of the free-rider problem, and inability to equally distribute the cost of maintenance and upkeep. Scale this up to the national level and you’ve got a pretty dyfunctional society.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3984&start=20
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:04 pm
From my perspective, it seems you are willing to justify an immoral action because it has benefits to society. Thus the problem we have.
Did you miss this statement?
Lay Vegan wrote: I would like to clarify that it is NAP's incompatibility with consequentialist ethics, concerned with harm and well-being, that makes it so difficult for me to subscribe to such a principle.
I’m justifying taxation "theft" because it leads to comparatively better society than a tax-less society than cannot provide public education, clean water, public transpiration, and court systems.
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:04 pm
You seem to be willing to justify an obvious injustice against an individual for the "greater good".
Okay so you ARE reading my posts
Are you familiar with ethical theories? You’re somewhere close to the mark, but there’s much better way to understand consequencialist ethics. We hold that normative properties rely on the consequences of actions, not actions in themselves. ie,morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences. I’m an ends-justify-the-means kind of guy. Although compulsory taxation may be theft (and may not be considered
ideal for many individuals), it is shown empirically to be the most efficient means for the management of larger economic societies. Taxation facilities a cohesive society, and provides us with services that benefit all of us. Yes, the overall economic and social consequences of a functioning society justify the theft of individual citizens to pay for public services that benefit everyone.
Consequentialism:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cons ... 4348059e23
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:04 pm
I think I addressed the matter of taxation as best I could, but this (above) is a matter that is not as agreed upon in Libertarian circles.
Then the inclusion of property violation within NAP is useless.
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:04 pm
To use your example of walking in on someone stealing your belongings, then running for the door- Would you be in the right to kill them? (According to the NAP)
I would have to say yes....but...
You would be in your rights to kill the intruder, but you don't have to. And for me, if he (or she) is fleeing from me, I don't think that it would be moral to kill them.
Then your personal opinion contradicts NAP. Remember, ANY forcible act of interference completely voids it, making ANY retaliation (through any means) ethically justifiable.
However, could you elaborate on why you don’t think theft necessarily justifies murder?
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:04 pm
Once that fetus became capable of sentience, ( a debated subject among groups, but for this purpose I'll suggest just past three months from conception), that fetus becomes an individual capable of feeling pain, and by the NAP protected from harm.
This is a completely rational viewpoint (and I agree)
But I’d argue that abortion violates NAP. Unless you’re willing to bite the bullet and deny the notion of self-ownership, your framework crumbles pretty fast on this point. If fetuses (or late-term babies) possess self-ownership, then killing it, which goes against its biological interests, would certainly be an act of aggression and a violation NAP. However, *banning* abortion could also be deemed an act aggression over the mother's sense of autonomy, and also a violation of NAP.