Is it moral to use violence against an innocent person?
Sure.michael said:Well, for example. We think income tax on personal wealth is moral. But, is it?
What should NOT happen is those two come over and use tyranny of the majority and force him to fork over his extra fish. That's wrong. You should not feel you are entitled to someone else's private property. You surely should not feel you can use violence against them and take it.
Is it moral to use violence against an innocent person?
Suppose the guy does NOT want to lend his net. Then what?Like in your story - if the guy lends his net, and the other guys beat it up a bit but catch a lot of fish, the guy who made the net is entitled to a few of those fish to tide him over while he fixes the thing.
You can't just take somebody's net, use it to catch a lot of fish, and keep all the fish for yourself. That's wrong.
I disagree. You can not force someone to pay for something.Innocent, of what in your example? If there's a law that is part of the society that says everyone should help pay for certain things then those things should be paid for if within reason.
I disagree again. In a just society they will pay for what they use. They'll pay a fair price (for them) or they simply won't use it.The problem is that SOME people do not pay anything into the system and use everything to their adavantage.
No, because they'll have to pay. There won't be a system to game. That's the whole point of a free society.Then some take advantage and only take from the system and never put anything back.
If the business is profitable then that's obviously perfectly fine. So long as the market is FREE then competitors will create similar (or better) products that they'll offer to the market cheaper because they won't have the waste of managers not doing something that is worth while.Their are some that are paid to do nothing or just take up space somewhere for nothing more than a job to do so that some managers and supervisors can make loads of money telling those people what not to do.
Well, for example. We think income tax on personal wealth is moral. But, is it?
Suppose three people were on an island. All three spend all day fishing by hand trying to catch a fish. On average, they catch one a day. One day one of the three decides to forgo his fish and he makes a net instead. While making the net, the other guys laugh telling him not to expect any of their fish and if he keeps trying these harebrained ideas he'll starve. While in the past, yes, he's went without to no avail. But, this time, having learned a thing or two from his past endeavors, he makes a net and is able to catch three fish in two hours.
In this small island scenario we could think of fish as currency. The man with three fish has two spare. Compared to the other two he's "rich".
Suppose one asks for his net. I mean, he's got two fish, he doesn't need it the next two days. He could give his net, but, that's taking a risk. The other person may not give it back. He could give his two spare fish to the two men so they can eat and make a net. But, he shouldn't have to. He could salt down his fish and save them and take a couple days off fishing. He could make more nets and trade them for something those guys have. He could offer to make nets, in return for a few fish per net (seeing as in those guys will be more productive).
Whatever he chooses to do, should be up to him. He made the net. He made this small society a bit more prosperous.
What should NOT happen is those two come over and use tyranny of the majority and force him to fork over his extra fish. That's wrong. You should not feel you are entitled to someone else's private property. You surely should not feel you can use violence against them and take it.
Is it moral to use violence against an innocent person?
Take a person's private property under threat of violence, is violence. IOWs, if I hold a gun to your head, and tell you to give me your wallet, I may not actually shoot you, but the threat itself is a violent act. Calling my stealing "tax" doesn't make it any less than what it is.I don't see how your example relates to the question. Taxes are not collected by violent means.
Why not just come out and ask if we think income tax is fair? Why the subterfuge?
Take a person's private property under threat of violence, is violence. IOWs, if I hold a gun to your head, and tell you to give me your wallet, I may not actually shoot you, but the threat itself is a violent act. Calling my stealing "tax" doesn't make it any less than what it is.
Try not paying your income tax. The State will send you to prison. That's violence. That's a gun to your head. It doesn't matter if the people doing the violence are wearing Blue Police uniforms and have titles like Sergent. They could be wearing pink leotards and titles like SillyFace. It's still violence.
One would think it's therefor immoral. I'd rather we focus on that as terms like "fair" have varying degrees of meaning to various people. I think most people know violence when they see it.
Think of it as starting from first principles and building from there.
The first principle basis of human society is not betraying your fellows. The second is gratitude. They are related.Think of it as starting from first principles and building from there.
Suppose the guy does NOT want to lend his net. Then what?
You just going to take his fish? Take his net?
Asguard,so you think you deserve peoples labor for free do you? Government employees deserve pay too, if you dont want to use those services you dont have to pay, there is an apsolute international right to leave any country. So you are free to fly to Sub Seharran Africa and see what its REALLY like to live in a libitarian paradise where there is no laws, no government services and suprise suprise, no society
So your stance is violence is acceptable for the "greater good"?Taxes are the natural fee that the government deserve for keeping the society above the hardships of nature. Violence is a fact of life and a method of persuation among all species. We work hard to put our lowly origins behind us, but only a post-capitalistic, resource based economy with no human labour [use of machines and robots + human experts in the knowledge, operation and organisation of a particular field] can truely transcend the stamp of nature that becomes so obvious during a riot or a war.
Take a person's private property under threat of violence, is violence. IOWs, if I hold a gun to your head, and tell you to give me your wallet, I may not actually shoot you, but the threat itself is a violent act. Calling my stealing "tax" doesn't make it any less than what it is.
Try not paying your income tax. The State will send you to prison. That's violence. That's a gun to your head. It doesn't matter if the people doing the violence are wearing Blue Police uniforms and have titles like Sergent. They could be wearing pink leotards and titles like SillyFace. It's still violence.
One would think it's therefor immoral. I'd rather we focus on that as terms like "fair" have varying degrees of meaning to various people. I think most people know violence when they see it.
Think of it as starting from first principles and building from there.
Wow, how far people will fall over themselves to advocate violence... quite astounding.Tax isn't theft or violence, it's a fee payable for being a mber of society x, if you don't wish to pay you can leave because the country belongs to the society and is rented by you not owned. Refusing to pay tax is theft because you believe you should revive the benefits of the society without paying for them.