NAP, Utilitarianism, and Natural Law: Differentiating Morality, Practicality, and Legality

[Xerographica]

OK let's try this again. Perhaps I was a little bit too zealous.

Hi, my name is Pragmatarian. How are you doing, Xerographica? Could I help you spread the Magna Carta Movement?

Yeah, sure. Study all these responses to pragmatarianism...Unglamorous but Important Things.

 

[Pragmatarian]

Can't you just tell me what I said that was wrong?

I will change that immediately.

Perhaps you can't be a pragmatarian who believes that taxation is theft? Is that the issue here? I thought that, as long as you believed taxpayers should have the freedom to allocate their taxes, you were a pragmatarian.

But, if that is the case, then perhaps I need to alter my views now. Remember that I was only recently an anarchocapitalist. Perhaps I need to take a neutral stance on the issue of whether taxation is theft. What do you think Xero?

 

[Xerographica]

Can't you just tell me what I said that was wrong?

I will change that immediately.

Perhaps you can't be a pragmatarian who believes that taxation is theft? Is that the issue here? I thought that, as long as you believed taxpayers should have the freedom to allocate their taxes, you were a pragmatarian.

But, if that is the case, then perhaps I need to alter my views now. Remember that I was only recently an anarchocapitalist. Perhaps I need to take a neutral stance on the issue of whether taxation is theft. What do you think Xero?

You can have whatever moral views you want...but if you recognize the value of allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes then you're a pragmatarian.

 

[Pragmatarian]

You can have whatever moral views you want...but if you recognize the value of allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes then you're a pragmatarian.

Well of course! I believe 100% in allowing people to directly allocate their taxes. That's exactly what I'm striving for.

Maybe you want this to be a one man movement and don't want help. I dunno. And why didn't you answer my serious questions to you?

 

[Xerographica]

Maybe you want this to be a one man movement and don't want help. I dunno. And why didn't you answer my serious questions to you?

Like I said, if you want to help then study all these people's responses to pragmatarianism...Unglamorous but Important Things.

What serious questions did you have? The one's you PM'd me? If so...I prefer discussing serious topics in the open so that others may benefit from the discussion.

 

[Pragmatarian]

Ok, do you want me to post the questions in an open response thread?

 

[Xerographica]

Ok, do you want me to post the questions in an open response thread?

Sure, why not? Can you ever have too much transparency in politics?

 

[Pragmatarian]

Sure, why not? Can you ever have too much transparency in politics?

Ok, done!

 

[ProIndividual]

That you're asking me what "my" ends are indicates that you're not quite clear on the concept. It's really simple. Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. This is the universal economic principle. Now...what happens when we apply this universal economic principle to the public sector?

If you wanted the most bang for your buck, you wouldn't have a public sector as an end result. State monopolies on those services are not necessary to have those services the state monopolizes exist. They exist when not monopolized...because the markets demand them.

Well...given that you're an anarcho-capitalist

I'm actually not. I'm a market anarchist, and you should probably look up the difference in order to understand where I'm coming from. AnCaps are a subdivision of the larger category market anarchist. Also under this category are Voluntryists, Agorists, etc.

According to you...the private sector provides more bang for people's bucks than the public sector.

Not just according to market anarchists of all persuasions...but according to all logic, reason, and what we know of market economics.

Therefore, from your perspective the "ends" of tax choice would be anarcho-capitalism.

The ends should be a free market (and that includes not having govt regulation over any markets...like the ones you ignore that are monopolized in the "public sector"). How is it a free market when there are regulated or coerced monopolization of several sectors of that economy? It's not.

However...if somebody is a socialist then the answer is simple for them as well. They believe that the public sector provides more bang for people's buck than the private sector. Therefore, from their perspective, the "ends" of tax choice would be pragma-socialism.

And they can exist simultaneously with market anarchism. It's called panarchism and panarchist synthesis. BTW, they don't want a public sector (state) either...they want a socialized market. Socialists do not operate outside of market economics per se. Look up market socialism. Maybe you mean anarcho communism, which wishes to operate communally. But even that doesn't want a public sector state, they want a voluntary set of monopolies. You do understand the difference between coerced monopolies and non-coerced monopolies, right? If in a market one company can better produce a service or good at the lowest price and consumers voluntarily give them 100% (or close) market share, that's a voluntary monopoly...but it isn't harmful as there is no barrier to entry into the market. The same can be true if in a commune, where it won't be based on consumers and their purchases, but on their preferences in some organizational method (like democracy for instance). Neither is a coerced monopoly. To have a coerced monopoly you need the same amount of market share, but there has to be barrier to entry into the market (free markets) or the monopoly must be coerced upon the people (commune).

Voluntary monopoly = okay...involuntary monopoly = state and bad.

Your "public sector" is a state...it's creating a monopoly by force, and it limits entry into the markets therefore. It isn't free market, by definition. It may be "pragma" but it's also TYRANNY.

This is why you MUST have the end goal of anarchism for me to support tax choice...otherwise you're just giving the tax cattle a more comfortable stall to live in.

Thou shalt not steal is one of the 10 commandments...but for some reason you think that people don't understand this fundamentally basic concept.

Hence you admit my point (unintentionally). A just and better society occurs via ethical understanding (although I'm not sure religion is needed to have ethics...in fact I know it isn't), not because of economical understanding. You seem to want to spread economical understanding, not ethical...I say spread both by all means, but do NOT say economics trumps ethics..it doesn't. Clearly ethics always trumps economics or we have a world of aggression and "might makes right". That isn't very libertarian.

Who do you think your target audience (TA) is?

Nationalist statists...and they need ethics (which they lack) more than a lesson in economics. They need both sometimes, but all of them need ethics 101.

Are you telling taxpayers...aka the "victims" of theft...that they shouldn't steal?

Stop saying "victims" or I'll qit responding to you...I'm tired of you trying to avoid the undeniable fact that tax is in fact extortion on the threat of kidnapping; and when you resist that kidnapping you are murdered. If that isn't victimization to you, then we have nothing to discuss...that would be apologetics for sociopathy and "might makes right". Yes, I'm waking them up to the fact that raising taxes on their richer neighbors is just cheerleading for extortion for hire (or by proxy)...because that's exactly what it is. It's a more effective argument than Ricardo's comparative advanatge, trust me.

If so...why would you preach to the victims?

Because most of those who are taxed are also under the brainwashed belief it's either necessary, benign, beneficial, or ethical. Those who are victims in most cases are simultaneously perpetrators of this policies (crime) perpetuation.

You should see the face of someone when they first realize that the state is a mafia, that tax is extortyion, that prison for tax evasion is kidnapping, and that resistance to that kidnapping that leads to death of the evader is in fact murder. Their face changes, and so does their worldview forever.

Are you telling voters...aka the beneficiaries of theft...that they shouldn't steal?

You don't need to vote to be a beneficiary or victim of tax. But yes, I'm telling voters (the minority of Americans) that extortion is wrong even when the state does it...because it is!

If so...why would they even listen to your sermon?

Because of these wierd things you stripped out of libertarian philosophy by turning it into an overly simplistic ideology...argumentation ethics, reason, and logic.

Are you telling the state...aka the "evil" organization...that they shouldn't do what voters tell them to do?

You can't be that delusional that you believe the state does what voters tell them too...LOL. Oh, that's rich. LMFAO. Let me clue you in, again: monopolies have no accountability and therefore no incentive to respond to consumers (in this case, voters). All they do is get goodies for their voters, bribe them with extorted money from others, and then keep power. See, the state is a market failure. Market failure is when individuals persue rational goals but it leads to collective irrational results. Whewn politicians keep bringing home goodies, and no one wants to be taxed more but wants everyone else to be paying for their goodies, the deficits and debt rises. When no one is willing to cut their goodies (rational) but it results in 15 Trillion in national debt (irrational) you have a market failure.

That's what you think is politicians in the state doing what the voters tell them to do (supposedly upholding the Constitution)? Yeah right!!! That's pure democracy's failing (the mob voting itself every convenience until collapse)...and apparenly the Republics are also susceptible to it. Hence, all states fail. It's logical. It's predictable. And you seem to like this system of downward spirals or repitious stupidity.

I personally think market failure is a problem. Nothing is more open to market failure, and tragedy of the commons, and the free-rider problem (50% don't pay income taxes right now) than the state.

If so...why bother preaching to the state?

I don't preach to politicians...they wouldn't care. They're almost all (Ron Paul and few others excepted) sociopaths or habitual liars (or both). I'm not into preaching ethics to sociopaths and sophists. They are a tiny fraction of percent of society...I'm preaching to society at large (not the state, logically).

My TA is obviously the taxpayers. The large majority of them believe that taxes are necessary.

And they're wrong...so why not educate them to this fact?

Trying to dissuade them of their belief will only hamstring my efforts to help them understand the problem with 538 people spending other people's money in the public sector.

You have different goals than me. I'm interested in ending the root problem, the state...not making more comfortable tax cattle out of the currently uncomfortable tax cattle. Again, transitionally I can see the value in your idea...but not in your ideas on persuasion or end goals.

If you want to put it in ethical terms...it's wrong to impose our perspectives onto others.

"Impose" is force...I'm an anarchist, I want an end to imposition of perspectives. But you want to keep the great imposer (coercer, forcer); the state. Anarchists aren't forcing anyone by waking them up to facts and ethical perspective...as no one is forcing them to listen or live our way...anarchism isn't force, it's anti-force. Hence why it seeks to abolish the forcer in society, the state. When has an anrchist threatened you with jail if you didn't fund their ideas? NEVER. When has the state done this imposition of perspective? ALL YOUR LIFE.

You have Stockholm Syndrome of the state, imho. Most Constitutionalist minarchist nationalist statists do. Some wake up, some stay asleep until the end. This is why philosophy is more important than some component ideology contained within it.

But we do it all the time with friends and family.

Just our kids....otherwise conversations are not force dude...please tell me you understand the difference between sharing opposed opinions in conversation and aggression and force.

We tell them to do this instead of that...we grab their keys if they try and drive drunk.

And they thank me when they sober up. It's not coercion when someone isn't in their right mind.

"If you have the mental and physical ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself. If no other person or their property is harmed in that self governance, then logically all external compulsory government is tyranny." --- Me

Notice the "mental and physcial ability"? GOOD.

However, it's still wrong if we do it to such an extent that we smother somebody else's perspective.

And you cannot do that without force...the state. Your arguments are illogical for defense of the existence of the state.

It's really wrong for 538 congresspeople to impose their perspectives onto 150 million taxpayers. They've never met you...they don't know your name let alone your ideas, interests, values, desires, wants, needs, priorities, concerns, fears, hopes, dreams, goals, experiences, preferences, and partial knowledge.

Agreed...so abolish it. Stop trying to make tyranny work "better".

So...in a sense we're saying the same thing. We're saying that freedom matters...but we're saying it in different ways. You're looking at the ethical aspects of restricting people's freedom...while I'm looking at the economic aspects of restricting people's freedom.

I agree...except I'm also stressing economics, just as of secondary importance...because freedom is about an ethical society far more than it's about an economically educated society. You can educate sociopaths all you like, the lack of ethics will inevitably lead to tyranny.

From my perspective...you're not telling people anything that they do not already know.

Oh, but I am! And you should see their faces when they realize it for the first time. The lost look of epiphany setting in, the look of guilt afterward for having participated, and the look of wisdom and confidence afterwards. Moral certitude is a powerful thing.

On the other hand...people clearly do not understand the value of integrating 150 million people's perspectives into the public sector.

Hence the state needs abolished, and a free market (in all sectors, not just the ones you don't mind being de-monopolized while others are remain monopolized) is the answer for all voluntary participants. Panarchism and panarchist synthesis.

Everybody understands that theft is wrong..

Not all...and the ones that do understand (most) don't understand that tax is extortion (because of brainwashing and Orwellian doublethink).

Let's consider it on the individual level. Say I added you to my ignore list. Did I steal from you? Nope. Did you steal from me? Nope. Was there any type of coercion involved? Nope. So was I harmed at all in blocking your perspective? Of course I was! Right? How was I harmed though? Well...you know the value of your perspective. So what if I added somebody else to my ignore list. And then another person...and then another person...until I had 150 million people on my ignore list. There wouldn't be any theft involved...or any coercion involved...or any state involved...but clearly I harmed myself by engaging in self-tyranny.

It is impossible if you are mentally and physically stable to engage in self tyranny...if you agree with it, no matter how detrimental (even suicide), it's not ytanny by definition. It's be tyranny to stop you from engaging in these activities.

But what you describe is what the state does. It doesn't allow other perspectives...it says it's their way of life or you die (or go to prison). They block everyone else out, and only allow one perspective to run society, law, police, fire service, roads, first class mail, legal tender, interest rates, military, etc., etc., etc.

If I ignore you...then I'm saying that your perspective does not matter.

Not necessarily. You're saying it's dogmatic and a waste of your time, or it's naive, or it's offensive for no reason. Hence why above I said I'd stop replying if you kept refering to tax victims as "victims"...because that's offenseive, dogmatic, and a waste of time to me. But I never put anyone on ignore. I would never ignore you. I've had my life threatened on these forums and not turned anyone in, or blocked those that did it. I'm not that sensitive either (I assume you aren't either...and good for you).

If we ignore each other then we are like two countries that do not trade with each other. We would both lose. Lose what though? Can you articulate exactly what it is that we would both lose if we ignored each other?

Yes. I know the importance of free trade...please go look at my past posts on the subject in other threads. I defend it vehemently because it impoverishes the people and trade deficits are not harmful. I gave data, graphs, etc. to support the case. It's also why I oppose Hoppe's ideas on immigration...because a) he makes assumptions about immigrant valuation, and b) it's protectionism. I could add c) it's been proven fallacous with data that "you can't have open borders in a welafre state".

I agree we both benefit from the conversation...even if the benefit for me is just being able to argue against your ideas better when others present them. We could ally...but only if you wanted the same end goal as me...otherwise I think this idea could be very dangerous to my goals and society.

Learning not to disregard other people's perspectives is what led me to pragmatarianism. I was a libertarian that decided not to disregard the perspectives of anarcho-capitalists.

I disregard anything unethical, illogical, or irrational (in reverse order).

In order to become a pragmatarian...perhaps you have to decide not to disregard the perspectives of statists.

I can't do that...I used to be a statist, and I know it to be unethical (coercive), irrational (market failure), and illogical (the arguments for it are decidedly lacking in logic).

They can have voluntary govt if they wish, they may not coerce others into a state against their will. Anarchism and statism are antithetical and mutually exclusive...like life and death. You are either alive or dead...not both. There is no anarchy in a state.

I hope you can read this lengthy comment and really ponder the answers I've given you. Thanks for your time.

 

[Xerographica]

You're saying that the victim is also the criminal. How do you steal from yourself? If somebody is both the criminal and the victim then they are clearly neither. I can't do anything with your logic.

Additionally...none of my friends that are doctors or lawyers or professors would qualify as sociopaths. And neither would any of my family. They all believe that taxes are necessary. The problem has nothing to do with their morality/intelligence...or lack therefore...it simply has to do with the fact that that they can see the visible hand at work (congress) but they can't see the invisible hand at work.

A long time ago there was a guy named Cyrus the Great. By numerous accounts he was really pretty great. He conquered many nations but then abolished slavery, released the Jews from Babylonian captivity, and protected freedom of religion...

I did not allow anybody to terrorize [any place] of the [country of Sumer] and Akkad. I strove for peace in Babylon and in all his [other] sacred cities. As to the inhabitants of Babylon ... I abolished forced labour ... From Nineveh, Assur and Susa, Akkad, Eshnunna, Zamban, Me-Turnu and Der until the region of Gutium, I returned to these sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time.

That was 2500 years ago. The thing is...clearly he didn't abolish slavery because we only abolished it a couple hundred years ago. You can go on and on and on about how slavery is bad and we're all a bunch of immoral brainwashed sociopaths...or you can figure out where Cyrus the Great went wrong. Clearly he saw the benefits of freedom...but he wasn't able to explain to other people why we all benefit from tolerance.

Preaching about the morality of freedom is the tip of the iceberg. The challenge is to show people what lies beneath the surface...that's where all the value lies. Unseen beneath the surface is where the huge mass of value is. That's where all the economic benefits of tolerance are.

Imposing our perspectives on other people suppresses their skills, talent, creativity, innovation...in essence their perspective. It's not just freedom for freedom's sake...it's freedom for prosperity's sake. There's no need to refer to people as brainwashed sociopaths robbers and rapists. How does that help them understand the economic benefits of tolerance? All you have to say is...what if Ron Paul's wife hadn't allowed him to become a politician? What if Chopin's parents had forced him to study science?

You don't need to talk about the state at all in order to help people understand the economic value of tolerance. But if you can help them understand why perspectives should matter then they'll understand the harm in only allowing 538 congresspeople's perspective to matter in the public sector.

 

[ProIndividual]

You're saying that the victim is also the criminal. How do you steal from yourself?

You're running in logical circles. You cannot steal from yourself...but all TAX is theft (tax is by definition involuntary). If it's voluntary it's a donation or payment for service rendered. That means if you want to donate to a government but not force others to do so, then you have abolished the state and have entered voluntary governance (Voluntaryism).

You need to recognize these facts to be logical. Calling tax voluntary is as illogical as hell. It's like calling the state voluntary...lol.

Additionally...none of my friends that are doctors or lawyers or professors would qualify as sociopaths.

If they advocate tax on others they are advocating extortion...hence it's a sociopathic act. That doesn't make them sociopaths per se, but that doesn't exclude their action from falling under a symptom of sociopathy. You aren't necessarily psychotic if you think in black and white (either/or) fallacies...but it is no less a symptom of psychosis.

Do you see the difference?

They advocate a sociopathic action (one that lacks empathy, places no blame on the self, and believes standards, rules, and ethics do not apply to them because they/it are a special case). They are not sociopaths, per se. See? You know tax is theft, but you advaocate it because you believe pragmatically the state is a special case...you have no empathy for those who protest it by refusing to pay, and when they are murdered by police for refusing to go to prison (kidnapping) you do not call for police to be charged with murder. You do not blame yourself for this tax system, even as you justify it sophistically. These are all symptoms of sociopathy.

The problem has nothing to do with their morality/intelligence...

Actually, it has everything to do with morality. And might I add...the loose definition of insanity is trying the same action over and over again expecting a different result. Hence why I assert statism (and nationalism) are mental disorders. The good news is they are completely curable via ethics (and the rest of philosophy --- NOT just ideology).

A long time ago there was a guy named Cyrus the Great.

I know who Cyrus II was...he was a tyrant.

So no, he wasn't really pretty great at all. He conquered people with military slaughter. It's like saying Iraq is better off now, and worse off before the USA invaded. This argument in favor in tyrants omits the thousands upon thousands of dead that were murdered in order to conquer.

Please don't try to convince me some Iranian King was a great person...what a load of BS. Do you rationalize tyranny in such ways a lot? Is this who you think we should emulate? Your worlview and understanding of what liberty is, is vastly different from mine. In my view no murderous tyrant king is ever great.

He conquered many nations but then abolished slavery, released the Jews from Babylonian captivity, and protected freedom of religion...

By this standard Lincoln wasn't a tyrant...but he was. If you think Cyrus or Lincoln were great men and humanitarians I question your grip on history, reality, and ethics.

Imposing our perspectives on other people suppresses their skills, talent, creativity, innovation...

Again I'm never imposing anything...only states with guns and swords do that. Get it? It's not imposing anbything to wake them up via logic and reason and ethics. That's philosophy. They are not held at gunpoint or on threat of law to listen to me. There is no imposition, clearly. If you oppose imposition you should oppose the state...because that's all it does.

You don't need to talk about the state at all in order to help people understand the economic value of tolerance.

There is nothing less tolerant than the state? How do you not see this? What are you talking about? The state uses violence and the threats of violence to enforce uniformity, and if you refuse to conform they use violence. That's tolerance? No tolerance is accepted in a state...end of story.

 

[Xerographica]

ProIndividual, somebody is a sociopath because they do not follow your ethical code? So you believe that everybody that is a consequentialist is a sociopath? Do you believe that David Friedman is a sociopath?

You have no idea how many people willingly pay taxes. Taxes are nothing more than individuals sacrificing for others. Everyday people make sacrifices for the things that they want. They give up one thing that they value in exchange for another thing that they value even more. People make sacrifices for their families...and friends...and complete strangers.

It's fine if you're morally opposed to involuntary sacrifice...but it's the height of conceit to say that all taxes are involuntary sacrifice. You have no idea how many people voluntarily sacrifice their hard-earned money for the public good.

Attacking people's morals is not the answer. Instead, it's better to help them understand that their sacrifice...whether it's voluntary or involuntary...should not be wasted. If we allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes than 150 million taxpayers would strive to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain.

Right now they do not know what value they are getting for their money. This is because congress spends their money for them. When we started this discussion you argued that the private sector gives people more value for their money. If we allow people to choose how they spend their taxes in the public sector...then they will know exactly how much value they get for their money in the public sector. Given that, according to you, they would receive more value for their money in the private sector...then wouldn't 150 million taxpayers put pressure on congress to decrease the tax rate?

Pragmatarianism says that we need to open people's eyes. Wouldn't you agree that opening people's eyes is a good thing?

 

[ProIndividual]

ProIndividual, somebody is a sociopath because they do not follow your ethical code?

Reread what I wrote. You seem to not have read it:

"That doesn't make them sociopaths per se, but that doesn't exclude their action from falling under a symptom of sociopathy. You aren't necessarily psychotic if you think in black and white (either/or) fallacies...but it is no less a symptom of psychosis.

Do you see the difference?"

So you believe that everybody that is a consequentialist is a sociopath? Do you believe that David Friedman is a sociopath?

David Friedman is an anarchist, BTW.

And I have adressed in my essay (the OP) the failures of consequentialist ethics as a stand alone theory. I also showed how deontological ethics fail as a stand alone ethical theory. I also showed how both together make up a coherent ethical theory that predicts human behavior in the moderate and extreme conditions. That was the point of the post; that both are incorrect on their own...and that neither properly predicts human behavior on their own.

You have no idea how many people willingly pay taxes.

None do:

Wikipedia:

To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. Taxes are also imposed by many administrative divisions. Taxes consist of direct tax or indirect tax, and may be paid in money or as its labour equivalent (often but not always unpaid labour).

A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."[1]

Clearly, tax is not voluntary EVER. If it's voluntary it's called a donation or payment for service. Are we clear now?

Taxes are nothing more than individuals sacrificing for others.

That's known as collectivist tyranny when it's against your will. Is that what you advocate?

Everyday people make sacrifices for the things that they want. They give up one thing that they value in exchange for another thing that they value even more. People make sacrifices for their families...and friends...and complete strangers.

And they do it voluntarily when they aren't forced...so why do you insist force is necessary?

It's fine if you're morally opposed to involuntary sacrifice...

I'm against all forms of it. Any ethical person should be. How dare you advocate force upon innocent people.

but it's the height of conceit to say that all taxes are involuntary sacrifice.

Actually it's the height of ignorance for you to deny it. Refer to the definition above.

You have no idea how many people voluntarily sacrifice their hard-earned money for the public good.

And you have no idea how many would do it of their own free will...but you're so afraid to give up your precious state that you won't allow them. It's force for force's sake with you and this Pragmatarianism it seems (like all forms of statist ideology).

Attacking people's morals is not the answer.

Your form of tyranny is not the answer, clearly.

Instead, it's better to help them understand that their sacrifice...whether it's voluntary or involuntary...should not be wasted.

If it is not voluntary it is tyranny...I don't wish for more efficient tyranny.

If we allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes than 150 million taxpayers would strive to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain.

You still can't beat the market and allowing them to never pay the tax against their will to begin with in terms of efficiency and maximum economic effect. You so want force that you let it blind you to how much less efficient, less effective, and less ethical the idea of tax is.

When we started this discussion you argued that the private sector gives people more value for their money.

IS there a debate about that? Who thinks the market doesn't allocate resources better than the government? It doesn't matter who spends it! If you get tax choice, you still have the waste of tax collectors and stamp lickers sending that money to the individual allocators! And it's still immoral!

If we allow people to choose how they spend their taxes in the public sector...then they will know exactly how much value they get for their money in the public sector.

Still less efficient and effective (and less individual marginal utility) than the private sector. Why shoot for so-so when you can shoot for awesome? You do have a choice here...and you shoot for so-so from bad....how about go from bad to awesome? It's only ethics and economics...don't let morality and practicality get in the way or anything (sarcasm).

For someone who talks about Adam Smith so much you seem to miss the part of his ideas that stood the test of time...the markets are better and create more Wealth. He failed to take it to it's logical conclusion as you seem to. You don't require monopolies of force to have these services you seem to want the government to provide...it's simply not necessary. And above all, it's immoral.

You neither have an economic nor moral justification here. You have your preference...and it includes tyranny on 150 million others (and their kids, and retirees).

Given that, according to you, they would receive more value for their money in the private sector...then wouldn't 150 million taxpayers put pressure on congress to decrease the tax rate?

No..because the mob is fickle, violent, and stupid. You want to poll a lynch mob and are suprised they vote for lynching? You think renters realize when they overwhlmingly vote to raise property taxes on their landlords that all they're doing is raising their own rent? This is why I'm anti-democratic! You think we can educate our way out...but they'll always vote for tyranny...so stop letting people vote! End the damn state and be done with it. If they want voluntary government and voting, fine...but they cannot hold people not voluntarily involved to the outcomes of their votes, and they can't hold a geographic monopoly on roads, schools, defense, cops, fire depts, first class mail, courts, laws, social contracts, et cetera. That would be a state. No state is necessary for masochists to do masochistic things, like voting. If they want to hurt themselves voluntarily, fine...but doing it to others against their will based on geography is called TYRANNY and sadism.

Sadistic actions are again, symptomatic of sociopathy...but that doesn't make them sociopaths per se.

Pragmatarianism says that we need to open people's eyes. Wouldn't you agree that opening people's eyes is a good thing?

I'm trying to open yours...you refuse to open them. Ethics always overrules economics when no extreme situation exists (like the starvation examples in my OP). Otherwise, you are advocating criminality for criminalities sake. Even when economics overrule ethics because of the lesser coercion of consequentialism over deontologicalism, it is still criminal. The crime remains...it's the punishment that varies due to circumstance. You both deny it's a crime and wish for no punishment to the extortionists (taxers). The state is a mafia criminal organization, it's taxes are extortion...simply changing who spends the money doesn't change those ethical and (natural) lawful facts.

 

[Xerographica]

I don't think enough people are "bad" enough where it's necessary to go on and on about morality...

In a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. - Rothbard

Like David Friedman...I have no interest in your morality. In other words...I have no interest in your religion...

I generally prefer consequentialist arguments. I think I understand economics better than I understand moral philosophy, and possibly better than anyone understands moral philosophy. - David Friedman

I guess the first thing is that it offers arguments which don't require that people already share your religion...using the term "religion" broadly. That as far as I can tell, nobody, whether deontological libertarians or communists or anyone else really has a really convincing argument to show that their moral views are right. - David Friedman

Rothbard himself said that most people are not "bad" and David Friedman argues that deontological libertarians do not have convincing arguments to show that their moral views are right.

Pragmatarianism is completely neutral on the issue of morality. It does not require that you give up whatever moral code you already have. It does not require that you abandon your religion. It doesn't require that anybody abandon their religion. It simply promotes the concept that taxpayers should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. Why would you argue against giving taxpayers more freedom?

 

[ProIndividual]

White House releases tax tracker

The executive branch has created a handy application to help you figure out where your tax money goes.

Does knowing how your money is spent make you feel better about paying taxes?

28 %

Yes
5,737 votes

67 %

No
13,511 votes

5 %

I'm not sure.
924 votes


I found the above poll interesting.

I don't think enough people are "bad" enough where it's necessary to go on and on about morality...

That's your opinion. My opinion is that if tax is extortion, which it logically is, then we shouldn't excuse it. If the state is the mafia extorter, which it is, then we shouldn't ignore it.

Call me crazy...but I think this might be just a tad more important than some scheme to make extortion more palatable to those being extorted. You can decry the unnecessary exposure of this unethical practice, but you aren't doing anything but rationalizing excuses for aggression. You can't debate that, it's logically what you're advocating. If you don't like it being pointed out how immoral this is, then stop advocating immorality. Don't act like I'm wrong to point out what you're logically advocating in plain and simple langauage because you can't face it yourself (or have rationalizations for it).

You act as if I'm lecturing the masses...so for the sake of argument, let's assume I am.

I'm the lecturer...but they don't have to listen, because I'm not aggressing against them. You, on the other hand, are the extorter (albeit a more efficient extorter)...and they do have to do what you want on the threat of violence. You are an aggressor.

But I'm soooo wrong to point out the ethics (or lack thereof) in this? No. You're soooo much more wrong for doing it.

Don't shoot the messenger, as they say.

Like David Friedman...I have no interest in your morality. In other words...I have no interest in your religion...

Nothing I've mentioned is religious. You are failing this debate, so now you've turned to ad hominem, buzzword, red herring, and straw man (informal logical fallacies and propaganda forms).

Notice, nationalism is a pseudo-religion by definition which holds the state as a near-deity. I'm anti-nationalist and anti-statist...you on the other hand seem to be both nationalist and statist. So who is more religious about this topic? The nationalist statist extorter who continues to advocate tax for the state? Or the anti-nationalist anti-statist who keeps pointing out tax is extortion and the reason the state has any tyrannical power to do anything?

Clearly nothing about my philosophy was remotely religious, and clearly your nationalism, that leads to your statism, is illogical like so many other religions or pseudo-religions. There's a reason nationalism becomes a pseudo-religion...to evoke emotion rather than reason.

And again, Friedman agrees with me...he's an anarchist. His consequentialist ethics lead him to my side of the argument, not yours. So FAIL on trying to use him as cover for your nonsense.

He may not have considered the failings of different ethical theories in certain situations, but he still came to conclusion tax was extortion and the state was criminal.

You quoting him about ethics is such sophism, when you already know he's an anarchist!!!!!!!!!

And in the quotes, he criticizes deontological ethics...ummmm yeah, so did I in the OP, genius. So we agree there too...I just go a step further and criticize consequentialist ethics as well.
And again, he still concluded anarchy was the answer, sophist (intellectually dishonest debater).

Are you finished with rationalizations, sophism, propaganda ploys, and informal logical fallacies now?

Rothbard himself said that most people are not "bad" and David Friedman argues that deontological libertarians do not have convincing arguments to show that their moral views are right.

I never said humans were inherently bad...you're simply straw manning (and grasping at straws). I pointed out facts...like what they advocate is unethical...unethical acts EQUAL to the acts they advocate, when performed by ANY OTHER BODY in society, are considered sociopathic...they therefore exhibit a objective symptom of sociopathy, which does not make them sociopaths (no more than using black and white fallacies make them psychotic, even though it is a symptom of psychosis).

If you could comprehend what I've repeated to you several times already, we'd of moved on from this already. I'm clearly correct. I'm clearly not arguing against human nature (as your straw man says I am), and I'm clearly not arguing the people who exhibit a symptom of sociopathy are sociopathic (although some are, of course...2-4% of the population are sociopaths...and disproportionately those 2-4% end up in high positions in police forces, militaries, and politics).

Are you comprehending the logic here yet?

Pragmatarianism is completely neutral on the issue of morality.

That's it's failing. Congrats, you've put your finger on it.

It does not require that you give up whatever moral code you already have

Well that's unfortunate, since it advocates for unethical stuff like taxes and the state. If you think these things are immoral, you can't be Pragmatarian, logically. Sooooo...as it turns out it does ask people to change their morality...but only those who have a coherent moral theory apparently...everyone else, they can keep their immoral statism and extortion. Anarchists and Voluntaryists, it's change or go to prison apparently.

It does not require that you abandon your religion. It doesn't require that anybody abandon their religion

Again, we never discussed religion beyond nationalism, so wtf would you even say that for? Anarchism doesn't require you to have or not have religion. It's a philosophy, not a religion. There are anarcho Christians, Toaist anarchists, Buddhists, Hindues, Muslims, etc. This straw man/ad hominem is total BS.

It simply promotes the concept that taxpayers should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

And logically then, it advocates tax as the end goal...EXTORTION, no matter how you dress it up and spray with perfum. You call that freedom and choice...I call that the illusion of choice and tyranny. If you're so convinced society wants this, then tell them tommorow "you no longer have to pay tax legally, no one will put you jail if you refuse, but we're starting this voluntary donations system called 'tax choice' where people give of their own free will but spend the money themselves directly on voluntary government services"...but we both you know you won't do that, because people wouldn't choose to pay overwhelmingly. Some would...but most would choose some other form of voluntary government, and some like me would choose self government.

The prblem is...you don't want people to have this CHOICE. You're decidely ANTI-CHOICE, and wish to call it "choice" sophistically. You aren't fooling me.

Why would you argue against giving taxpayers more freedom?

What you call freedom is being extorted on the threat of violence. What I call freedom is the ability to choose whether you pay or not, logically ending extortion, and making all allocated funds of all governments devoid of geographic monopoly donations or payments for services rendered, PERIOD.

I think I have the more compelling case for what "freedom" is. I know I have the more compelling case for what liberty is.

Just admit you like extortion and you refuse to allow people to opt-out of your system. Just call it what it is, and quit acting like you can argue logically it's anything else.