Rare Bad Apples Converge

[MithLuin]

I am not under thirty. Yes, I have seen changes in our society. Moreso after 9/11, of course. I had to stop carrying a pocket knife after that, because mine kept being confiscated - not just in airports, but at museums and stadiums and amusement parks, too. Of course, it's not just in our country. My bag was searched before I was allowed to enter St. Peter's in Rome for Easter Vigil mass while JPII was pope.

But no, I do not agree with you. I am more of an anarchist at heart - I can't stand gov't and pretty much hate politicians indiscriminately. I grew up in the country, where everyone mostly keeps to themselves and takes care of themselves and minds their own business (though small town gossip is another matter!) But...I also see the practical need for order in society, and really don't see how you achieve that without laws, taxes, police, elected officials, military, etc. I am not in favor of the privatization of everything, because I don't think that making something private makes it less flawed/corrupt automatically. Meaning...regulations are still needed to keep things the way they ought to be, and those regulations would be needed whether it were the gov't or a private corp. wielding the power. I am in favor of [i]less[/i] government, and I see how the welfare state has facilitated the destruction of the family structure of poor Americans, which is a grave problem. But I am not in favor of just doing away with everything!

It is precisely because you say the system is the problem, not abuses of the system or parts of the system, that we cannot reach agreement.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1297001982' post='2209306']
But...I also see the practical need for order in society, and really don't see how you achieve that without laws, taxes, police, elected officials, military, etc.[/quote]

Order flows from the majority of individuals recognizing God's laws and choosing to live according to God's laws. Do you deny that? I don't see how order has been achieved [i]with[/i] statutes, taxes, police, elected officials and the military in the 20th Century. Order exists prior to, without, and in spite of the State. There is no such thing as the sustainable "small government" that you speak of. It's like a "small avalanche." It doesn't exist for more than the blink of an eye. States grow exponentially in power and in injustice, by their very nature. Jefferson knew it. He said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew the "natural process," but he didn't ask "why," and because he didn't ask "why," he didn't take that truth to its ultimate logical and practical conclusion.

Either it is true that the nature of getting a paycheck at gunpoint tends to reduce accountability and increase corruption, or it is not. But a society in which services are provided through taking money by threat of violence is not an orderly society. It is a gravely [i]dis[/i]ordered society. If you don't have the right to take money from your neighbor at gunpoint, then you can't give that right to a politician. It contradicts human nature to do so. That is the inescapable reality behind the State. I haven't seen that question addressed, but I've seen it ignored, dodged and mocked. Never addressed.

A society that cannot exist except through the violence of taxation is a society that has no right to continue in existence. And such a society will always snowball in its corruption and catabolize. It will consume itself. We're witnessing that right now.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 6, 2011 by Sternhauser

[MithLuin]

But I don't want to live in the Amazon jungle.

The only societies I can think of that don't have taxes...aren't exactly civilization. Civilization means gov't and taxes and all the rest, and I can't see a sustainable way of avoiding that.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1297004881' post='2209314']
But I don't want to live in the Amazon jungle.

The only societies I can think of that don't have taxes...aren't exactly civilization. Civilization means gov't and taxes and all the rest, and I can't see a sustainable way of avoiding that.
[/quote]

Your incapacity to see how a moral, voluntarily-funded society functions isn't my problem. It's your responsibility to overcome consequentialism. You're running up against the bottom line I mentioned above. " If you don't have the right to take money from your neighbor at gunpoint, then you can't give that right to a politician. It contradicts human nature to do so." You can either ignore that reality or deny it. But the reality remains.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 6, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1297005844' post='2209317']
Your incapacity to see how a moral, voluntarily-funded society functions isn't my problem. It's your responsibility to overcome consequentialism. You're running up against the bottom line I mentioned above. " If you don't have the right to take money from your neighbor at gunpoint, then you can't give that right to a politician. It contradicts human nature to do so." You can either ignore that reality or deny it. But the reality remains.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

You can talk about the morality of the situations until you are blue in the face, but if the "moral" alternatives dont work, society is gonna take some severe steps back. So you might wanna put some thought into how this Utopia you are suggesting is going to actually work, taking human nature into account, while you are speaking of reality.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1296968693' post='2209238']
I am all in favor of law, and I am all in favor of men with guns enforcing those laws. I am not in favor of any statute that prohibits behaviors that are not a violation of the life, liberty or property of another individual. And I am not in favor of giving a monopoly on enforcing real laws to a certain group paid for through coercion. In addition to things that bind concupiscence, there are also things that [i]feed[/i] concupiscence, and chief among them is coercive power. And this is far more dangerous when it is [i]monopoly[/i] coercive power.



~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Our government wants to impose a tax on us for the reconstruction of Queensland. I live in Victoria. Do you feel it wrong for the government to force social justice where voluntary justice is not adequate. Is a civilisation as a whole not bound by the same responsibilities as the individual.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1297037221' post='2209485']
Our government wants to impose a tax on us for the reconstruction of Queensland. I live in Victoria. Do you feel it wrong for the government to force social justice where voluntary justice is not adequate. Is a civilisation as a whole not bound by the same responsibilities as the individual.
[/quote]

First, what is "social justice?" Justice, in its broadest sense, is the environment that exists when every man voluntarily renders to every other man his due. It's like saying, "social cooperation." Cooperation is, by its nature, social behavior. And social behavior is mutually-beneficial, voluntary interaction among individuals. A just society is a society in which the individuals are just. We must not try to reify "social justice" as a distinct entity.

Collectives do not have responsibilities. If they had responsibilities, collectives could be guilty of a sin. MGM does not commit a sin when it broadcasts trashy shows. "Civilization" is not going to hell. Individuals in that civilization may very well be going to hell. Only individuals are capable of sin. Because only individuals have responsibilities, only individuals have rights. Taking money from non-violent neighbors at gunpoint is not one of those rights.

Am I bound to send money to earthquake victims in Haiti, or any other [i]particular [/i]good cause? Do you have any right to threaten me, demanding that I send money to support any particular good cause? If you don't have that right, how can you give that right to anyone else?

If voluntary justice does not exist, there is already injustice. Taking money from an unjust person at gunpoint does not make that person any more just. Nor is it just to take money from someone at gunpoint to support any particular cause. The end does not justify the means. Distributive justice flows through voluntary means. On a more practical level, if the State is taking money from everyone, why is there any incentive to [i]give[/i] of one's own free will, in an act of true justice and/or true distributive justice? There sure were a lot more charitable foundations before the State coopted them. People did a lot more for each other voluntarily, because they had no other moral alternative. Then came the State. "Social Security" used to mean "having 10 children." Now "Social Security" means "a bunch of money robbed from you all your life that won't be there at the end of your life."

~Sternhauser

Edited February 7, 2011 by Sternhauser