For Those Who Support Anarchy As A Form Of Government

[Winchester]

Of course not, but like we have said, there is no way to know how many B's will help C in order to make up for A's contribution. Maybe 0 B's will help. Then all the C's are neglected. Sorry if that word threw you off. 

 

But what Havok was trying ask is if taxes trumped the health and care of C? At least from  your own personal view of its relative evil/badness/whathaveyou.

You say that the work of A is sooooo bad it does not justify the good end of caring for C.

No, the Church says the ends never justify the means. Your best hope is to claim that taxation is not theft. 

[Winchester]

of course his idea is that if the violence in government is in itself evil, then it cannot be morally justified to do it.  the twisting around of the logic to claim that to STOP doing that violence is somehow a "means" that is so-called "delegitimized" is not the proper argument to that.... you have to argue that the violence of government is legitimate for certain purposes, that it is morally justifiable to use the violence of government to accomplish things like a social safety net.  

 

there is plenty from the teaching of the Church that says that the use of government force is justified in the enforcement of the natural law, and the universal destination of goods (in the sense that the whole earth belongs to the whole of mankind) is part of the natural law that must be enforced.  I think you're going about it all wrong on the level of the means/ends argument, because Winnie's the only one at this point who's actually using the means/ends argument correctly.

But the actions of anyone in enforcing natural law are justified. This is not unique to the state (as the Catechism calls it).

 

What's left out of the Catechism is the means by which ordinary people obtain rights like taxation. That's a massive omission. 

[CrossCuT]

You can move to a country that doesnt tax. Then you wont have it on your conscience. 

[Aloysius]

it's not that ordinary people aren't justified in enforcing the natural law here, it's that ordinary people are not capable of enforcing the natural law universal destination of goods.  the principle of subsidiarity applies (in the reverse way that you usually hear political conservatives reference it).  the argument about which government or which governmental official is "legitimate" is largely irrelevant; any body that is capable of enforcing the natural law principles relating to the universal destination of goods is justified in doing so, but it should attempt to leave it to be handled at the lowest possible level that it can be capably handled.

[Winchester]

You can move to a country that doesnt tax. Then you wont have it on your conscience. 

 

Yeah, because US imperialism isn't destroying the planet.

[CrossCuT]

I heard people are going to Mars

[Lilllabettt]

stop trying to kill Winchester

[CrossCuT]

Who said anything about dying?

They put lung food in tanks these days. He can slap on one of those

[havok579257]

No, the Church says the ends never justify the means. Your best hope is to claim that taxation is not theft. 

 

 

so do you believe all taxation is theft?  what about taxes that go to services or inferstructure that you can not get by without using such as roads and bridges that we have? 

 

also, do you believe government taxation is an intrinsic evil?

[4588686]

I have a natural right to bestow legitimacy the government and have used that natural right to legitimize taxation.  I challenge any of our resident anarchists to prove me wrong.

[4588686]

but, of course, they can't prove me wrong.  Which is why, paradoxically, they are promoting a totalitarian ideology.  Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies ftw!

[4588686]

Leninists also wanted to smash the state.  They also had a magic roadmap to justice that only they had access to.  Only, rather that 'natural rights' they had 'correct' interpretations of Marx's work. 

[Winchester]

so do you believe all taxation is theft?  what about taxes that go to services or inferstructure that you can not get by without using such as roads and bridges that we have? 

 

also, do you believe government taxation is an intrinsic evil?

 

This has been answered. I don't think you're open to the notion that government isn't exempt from the normal moral order. Or perhaps you believe that all the governments in our United States actually obtained consent from all people subject to their rule. Either way, I don't think it's likely any of my statements will change your beliefs.

[Aloysius]

the government isn't exempt from the normal moral order--but the normal moral order allows for the enforcement of the natural law by any organization capable of doing so.  an individual is not capable of enforcing the natural law of the universal destination of the earth's resources... a governent as it is, is capable of doing so and therefore it is morally justified in enforcing it.

 

I will repeat my extreme example that I used to make a point earlier in this thread (it was at the end of a bit of a long post so perhaps it got passed over): if a single individual, presupposing that what he does here is totally and completely within his property rights, were to monopolize all the resources in a given location such that some person or family within that location was incapable of obtaining resources except from him, and that individual either withheld those resources or only offered those resources at a price that the person or family within that location could not afford... even if he did all these things within his own property rights, that individual would be actually STARVING that person or family.  He would be committing an act of violence against that person by starving them and any use of force that could stop him from doing so would be justified.

 

Now away from that example and looking more broadly, our economic and financial system as it is set up includes individuals and families who are unable to afford basic necessities.  Therefore, organizations that are capable of doing so have the right and duty to enforce the natural law and see to it, through force, that those people are helped.  Whether the current institutions that do so are legitimate or not, there is one thing that they are legitimate in doing--requiring by force that the natural law of the universal destination of the Earth's resources ordained by God is enforced so that no one starves, so that all have shelter and access to the bounty of the earth.  if there was no state, some other organization that had the capability of doing that, within the proper order of subsidiarity so that the lowest competent level is preferred, would have to do it.

 

you have every right to rebel against the taxes that bomb children overseas.  you have zero right to rebel against taxes which are the forceful enforcement of the natural law, however.  since they are sadly the same taxes, if you want to overthrow our government then fine--but you have no right to declare that no organization has the right to forcefully compel you to pay for the welfare of the poor (as long as that organization doesn't burden you to an unacceptable level that harms your ability to carry out your duty to your self and your family and to benefit from your labor, there is of course a debatable line as to what level that would be but herein I am only concerned with establishing the principle itself that forceful taxation for the sake of the needy is morally justified).  any organization that is capable of doing so can indeed do that through the use of force because it's the enforcement of natural law.  of course I believe in doing our best to move away from enforcing such things with violence and finding other ways to solve these problems, but violence to enforce the natural law is absolutely justified.  currently the only organization we have that's capable and competent to enforce such things is what is called government, whether you consent to it or not or consider it legitimate or not, in the function of providing welfare and a social safety net, that organization is definitely justified in forcefully enforcing the natural law.

[Aloysius]

oh shoot that turned into a long post too... hard to make my point succinctly, but see post #64 for an abbreviated version of what I said there.