Originally posted by Philosophickus Rex

Right, the govt. takes it that I've consented. That's what their law says, so I'm sure they will help themselves to my stuff and lose no sleep over it.

Phil, I consider you my friend, and I have a great deal of respect for you ... but there's a word for someone who, when faced with a situation they dislike to which a solution is readily available, refuses the solution but continues to complain about their dislikes.

Originally posted by lilpixieofterror

Interesting position you have there.

Thank you.

I really do doubt the middle east is going to fix itself anytime soon. The only reason why people care as much as they do is because of the oil resources over there.

It's refreshing to see someone admit that.

It might not buy yours, but it does a good job buy other people's. A lot of things tend to go rather wrong when you let private business run everything. Thus the reason government stepped in in the first place.

Hm, I don't think there has ever been a time when govt. has stepped in, mostly because the govt. has always been there. It is rather quite complicated, as in the case of the federal reserve. The fed steps in for a variety of reasons, but many times they claim it is when the free market collapses. Of course, markets do hit rough patches, but it is self-correcting. But even government run marketplaces hit rough patches. Our current housing collapse is but one example.

I really do doubt it would, all that would bring about is the wonderful bidding market and different road standards across the nation. Kind of like the major problems we had with early rail roads in fact it is because abuses of the past by companies that things are the way they are today.

I am not familiar with the abuses of the early rail-roads, but probably free markets would go through phases of expansion--->problem--->solution.

These government regs came out because of business screwed customers and employees over. The reason for the FDA is around is because people would make medicine and throw a bunch of crap in it like cocaine into it and sell it as a cure for some disease when all it did was make a nation of drug users and abusers.

The free market place has standards in place to police these things better than a central planner does.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campai...rtrade/coffee/

The problem was so bad that congress passed laws such as making it mandatory for companies to tell you what is in their products, drug testing, etc. It is because of abuses of private industry that the government had to step in. In fact, alot of the laws and government services we have today are because of situations where private business was trying to screw over the consumer, so if you want to blame anybody for all the government regulation, blame big business for immoral practices to begin with.

"Big business" has always been regulated by and worked hand in hand with governments. If your question is no longer "is taxation immoral?" but "how could the free market handle X?" I suggest we start a new thread.

We are already horribly off-topic (which is probably my fault).

Originally posted by technomage

Phil, I consider you my friend, and I have a great deal of respect for you ... but there's a word for someone who, when faced with a situation they dislike to which a solution is readily available, refuses the solution but continues to complain about their dislikes.

I'd rather you didn't pretend I was stupid. I won't be talked down to like this. Here is your chance to show how it can possibly be right for someone to take something of another's without their consent.

Imagine a world akin to 28 Days Later (don't know if you've seen the movie) and you are a female. Imagine that the world is full of murderous humans, and you are in a city full of them. You manage to escape the city to a mansion that is heavily protected by remnants of the army and basically impenetrable. Unfortunately for you, they are all male and want to have sex with you. In fact, this is the one thing their Captain has promised them-- if a female comes along, they will use her to breed.

Now, does your continuing presence in the mansion somehow imply that you consent to being raped? Or does it rather speak to the fact that she would rather be raped than be murdered? Does it somehow make the rape right?

Originally posted by Philosophickus Rex

It's refreshing to see someone admit that.

It does seem to be a motivation, there is bad things going on in Africa and I don't see many countries concerning themselves with it. Although I'd agree Saddam should of been taken out years ago, the motivation was sure from oil.

Hm, I don't think there has ever been a time when govt. has stepped in, mostly because the govt. has always been there. It is rather quite complicated, as in the case of the federal reserve. The fed steps in for a variety of reasons, but many times they claim it is when the free market collapses. Of course, markets do hit rough patches, but it is self-correcting. But even government run marketplaces hit rough patches. Our current housing collapse is but one example.

Back in the 19th century, the government wasn't all that big, in fact besides the military and postal service, you didn't have much in terms of big government. Much of what we think of as the government today is the products of about the past century. I also don't recall saying that government controlled markets don't run into problems, but the problems tend to be less extensive.

I am not familiar with the abuses of the early rail-roads, but probably free markets would go through phases of expansion--->problem--->solution.

The major problem you had was different standards of building tracks. For example... one might build the rails 20 inches apart while another might build them 23 inches apart. As you can see, that would make it impossible to run a very efficient system. Also, early rail road companies were pretty resistant to technology that improved safety because they thought it would cut into profit. An example of this would be brake men that used to manually tighten brakes on trains and the railroads continued to use them even when safer technology came into us. In fact, after several accidents (and hundreds of brake men dying) The government pretty much forced railroads to adapt technologies such as air brakes to improve safety. Sometimes, business will sacrifice safety for profit in which on those gases... the government steps in to make them correct it.

The free market place has standards in place to police these things better than a central planner does.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campai...rtrade/coffee/

They were not doing a very good job with mine or railroad safety.

"Big business" has always been regulated by and worked hand in hand with governments. If your question is no longer "is taxation immoral?" but "how could the free market handle X?" I suggest we start a new thread.

We are already horribly off-topic (which is probably my fault).

If companies did correct themselves, you would not have the regs you see. I have given you historical examples and explained why the government had to do something because these companies were not. If you'd like to, you can start another thread.

Originally posted by Philosophickus Rex

I'd rather you didn't pretend I was stupid. I won't be talked down to like this. Here is your chance to show how it can possibly be right for someone to take something of another's without their consent.

Imagine a world akin to 28 Days Later (don't know if you've seen the movie) and you are a female. Imagine that the world is full of murderous humans, and you are in a city full of them. You manage to escape the city to a mansion that is heavily protected by remnants of the army and basically impenetrable. Unfortunately for you, they are all male and want to have sex with you. In fact, this is the one thing their Captain has promised them-- if a female comes along, they will use her to breed.

Now, does your continuing presence in the mansion somehow imply that you consent to being raped? Or does it rather speak to the fact that she would rather be raped than be murdered? Does it somehow make the rape right?

While I've not seen the movie, I am familiar with the post-apocalyptic genre.

This is not a parallel situation, regardless of your efforts. However, let me ask you this: were I to answer such a question in the affirmative, with an argument so compelling you had no rebuttal, would you (like it or not) change your mind?

Originally posted by technomage

While I've not seen the movie, I am familiar with the post-apocalyptic genre.

This is not a parallel situation, regardless of your efforts. However, let me ask you this: were I to answer such a question in the affirmative, with an argument so compelling you had no rebuttal, would you (like it or not) change your mind?

Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I can't tell the future. I'm not a Wiccan.

How is it not parallel? What would you change?

Originally posted by lilpixieofterror

It does seem to be a motivation, there is bad things going on in Africa and I don't see many countries concerning themselves with it. Although I'd agree Saddam should of been taken out years ago, the motivation was sure from oil.

We are agreed here.

Back in the 19th century, the government wasn't all that big, in fact besides the military and postal service, you didn't have much in terms of big government. Much of what we think of as the government today is the products of about the past century. I also don't recall saying that government controlled markets don't run into problems, but the problems tend to be less extensive.

I don't know, a few inches off on rail tracks seems to be a smaller problem than a housing bubble or the Great Depression.

The major problem you had was different standards of building tracks. For example... one might build the rails 20 inches apart while another might build them 23 inches apart. As you can see, that would make it impossible to run a very efficient system. Also, early rail road companies were pretty resistant to technology that improved safety because they thought it would cut into profit. An example of this would be brake men that used to manually tighten brakes on trains and the railroads continued to use them even when safer technology came into us. In fact, after several accidents (and hundreds of brake men dying) The government pretty much forced railroads to adapt technologies such as air brakes to improve safety. Sometimes, business will sacrifice safety for profit in which on those gases... the government steps in to make them correct it.

It seems as if the free market could easily correct all those problems. As soon as riding a train becomes too risky, people would look for other venues. That would force railroad companies to improve standards.

But even if some people were dying working on trains, it doesn't seem like it is the feds place to keep people from causing harm to their own body if they are of sound mind. Should the govt. tell us what to eat, or tell us we can no longer smoke or play sports because of damage we could cause to our bodies?

If companies did correct themselves, you would not have the regs you see. I have given you historical examples and explained why the government had to do something because these companies were not. If you'd like to, you can start another thread.

I thank you for your kind responses thus far. If you want me to take this to another thread I will. But the OP person doesn't seem to be around any longer, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Philosophickus Rex

Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I can't tell the future. I'm not a Wiccan.

I predict raspberries in your future.

How is it not parallel? What would you change?

Seriously, the relationship of government to governed (as we've established it here in the West) is a mutual relationship, and requires consent from the governed--that much is parallel. Where it is not parallel is that the relationship between government and governed also involves certain specific rights of the governed, and certain specific responsibilities. Those responsibilities include obedience to the law, and engagement in civic affairs (voting, jury duty, and the like). The situation you describe removes all rights of the female in that situation--thus the lack of parallel.

Like it or not, paying taxes is part of that relationship. You have given implied consent to the conditions of the relationship by remaining in the relationship. If you no longer wish to abide by the terms, sever the relationship.

Two threads have already started. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=107328 Only Christians can post in it.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=108296 Everybody can post in it.


LilPixie is wrong about the railroads. The government was involved, especially during the Lincoln administration and afterwards. The industry would not have evolved the way it did otherwise.

What the government says is legal is not necessarily moral. Techomage has to admit that the morality of government and its actions beg the question as well.

We need to go to the basics and the threads linked above do that, especially the first one.

As to the issue of desertion rather than do an immoral action, I don’t understand why it’s immoral to break a contract in order to avoid doing an immoral act. Suppose you were working for a company, and out of the blue your boss orders to murder someone. What would you do?

Originally posted by Augustine2004

As to the issue of desertion rather than do an immoral action, I don’t understand why it’s immoral to break a contract in order to avoid doing an immoral act. Suppose you were working for a company, and out of the blue your boss orders to murder someone. What would you do?

Well, I think the relative corollary would be "what if you had signed a contract that said you might be in a position to kill someone". I wouldn't sign it, but I don't know if the army is always murdering.

Originally posted by Augustine2004

As to the issue of desertion rather than do an immoral action, I don’t understand why it’s immoral to break a contract in order to avoid doing an immoral act. Suppose you were working for a company, and out of the blue your boss orders to murder someone. What would you do?

I would remind the boss that it is illegal to order an employee to commit an illegal act. Any discrimination suffered by the employee as a result of his/her refusal to commit an illegal act (note, I'm talking about real illegal here, not la la land "the war is illegal" wishful thinking "illegal") would be grounds for a lawsuit, not to mention various criminal penalties for trying to solicit someone to commit the act in the first place.

The ex union VP in me might be tempted to add "That is not in my job description."

Originally posted by Augustine2004

What the government says is legal is not necessarily moral. Techomage has to admit that the morality of government and its actions beg the question as well.

I never said government actions are moral. Indeed, I am of the opinion that governments do not have ethics: they have interests. But morality, in and of itself, is too subjective--what one considers moral, another considers immoral.

As to the issue of desertion rather than do an immoral action, I don’t understand why it’s immoral to break a contract in order to avoid doing an immoral act. Suppose you were working for a company, and out of the blue your boss orders to murder someone. What would you do?

This is not a parallel for the Christian, because bosses do not fall under Romans 13.

Christians can take enlightenment from the passage in Matthew I cited: Christ did not quibble over the morals of the government (and I think we can all agree that the Roman government was immoral). Christ treated the government as an irrelevance: pay your taxes, obey the law, and otherwise ignore them unless they try to force you personally to do something evil. And if the government tries to get you to do something evil, the example of Peter before the Sanhedrin gives further illustration--refuse, and accept the consequences, but do not go further into wrongdoing.

Originally posted by technomage

I predict raspberries in your future.

Seriously, the relationship of government to governed (as we've established it here in the West) is a mutual relationship, and requires consent from the governed--that much is parallel. Where it is not parallel is that the relationship between government and governed also involves certain specific rights of the governed, and certain specific responsibilities. Those responsibilities include obedience to the law, and engagement in civic affairs (voting, jury duty, and the like). The situation you describe removes all rights of the female in that situation--thus the lack of parallel.

Right, she is losing the right to her property (her body) without her consent and I am losing the right to my property (my money) without my consent.

You have given implied consent to the conditions of the relationship by remaining in the relationship. If you no longer wish to abide by the terms, sever the relationship.

Only because I am scared of the zombies outside.

Originally posted by Philosophickus Rex

Right, she is losing the right to her property (her body) without her consent and I am losing the right to my property (my money) without my consent.

Property is not a guaranteed right--at least not one listed in the preamble of our Constitution. And to attempt to conflate a person's liberty with "her property (her body)" is not only wildly inaccurate (technically, a red herring), but downright delusional. If you got that analogy from someone else, they need slapped upside the head with a red herring--preferrably a dead, smelly one.

Originally posted by technomage

Property is not a guaranteed right--at least not one listed in the preamble of our Constitution.

I don't get my idea of morality from the constitution. But yes, my argument certainly depends on the validity of private property which not all are willing to admit. It is my belief that my body is my property to do what I want with unless it infringes upon someone else's rights.

And to attempt to conflate a person's liberty with "her property (her body)" is not only wildly inaccurate (technically, a red herring), but downright delusional.

Personal liberty follows from personal property.

Originally posted by technomage

Rando, I hate to tell you this--but tax resistance (even "by issue" tax resistance) violates Matt 22:21.

Perhaps- the "Render unto Caesar" passage is so enigmatic though. It's so famous because it can be (legitimately) taken a variety of ways depending on the theological precept one wishes to stress. Perhaps more to the point (and less enigmatic) would be Romans 13:7.

It's not a form of resistance I would undertake, but I can't speak for Phil. Maybe he's coming from a different place than I am.

The practice of war tax resistance, I've learned, is a lot more common than you might think. Those who practice it generally donate the portion they've withheld (usually a percentage of owed income tax equal to the percentage of the federal budget set aside for military expenditure) and donate it to life-affirming causes. The recent film Stranger Than Fiction highlighted the practice.