Violence

[Michael]

For one, it isn't violence. No physical harm comes to you for not paying your taxes. Yes, you could/will lose your freedom, but the act of imprisoning someone does not count as violence.

Um, actually no, that IS violence.

Stop and think about. Some police come to your home. Interrupt your dinner with your daughter and wife and threaten to haul you off to jail. You refuse to go. They grab you, beat you down, mentally scar your child, and rob you of your freedom as you rot in prison until you die there.

If you don't think that's the very definition of violence, again, I'm gobsmacked.

Tax is not immoral. Forcing someone to pay it through threat of violence, is immoral. Something people understood 200 years ago, when they didn't pay it. Income tax was only paid in times of War. Now it seems "normal" - it's not. Even "money" isn't normal. For most of history humans never used money. It only become prevalent when dealing with armies. When armies left, so did coined money.

As for whether or not taxation is "moral," I don't think morality plays into it at all. The question would be whether or not it's fair, and the answer is unequivocally "yes." To live in society, one must contribute to its maintenance. That's the deal.

Who has done more to contribute to society? Steve Jobs or Newt Gingrich?

IOWs entrepreneurs, teachers, doctors, workers, these people "contribute" to "society". They maintain it. They aren't paid any tax money. They're milked of it!

But taxation as a concept is necessary for society to function.

I didn't say NO tax. I said no stealing of private property. No violence. We can still maintain things through other means. If you use a road, you pay a free. Maybe $0.05 per mile? Or free if the people are part of a group who pays to maintain it.

Also, we don't HAVE to issue money as debt (which we do now) we can issue money directly. There's no NEED to tax personal income. Tariffs can be used. Companies can pay tax. There are different ways to generate a currency.


But, the first thing is to recognize that force and violence are immoral.

 

[Michael]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

It appears as if Michael is having some confusion as to the definition of the word "violence," so I thought I'd help.

Armed police coming to your home and threatening you with life in prison is violence.

It meets the definition from your own link. Not that you'd need to read it, anyone knows intuitively that is a violence act.

 

[Michael]

I'm kind of surprised everyone wouldn't see being beaten and robbed of your private property as violent?!?! You can say I'm beating you down, for the greater good. Well, OK, it's still violence.

Hmmmm.....
OK, think of this. Women in KSA are forced (for the greater good) to remain covered. If they show their face in public. They're robbed of their freedom.

Now, according to Asguard this isn't violence, it's the price that must be paid for being BORN a female member of Saudi society. If she doesn't wish to cover herself, well she can leave because the country belongs to the society and is rented by her not owned. Refusing to cover is wrong because she's receiving "benefits" of the society without paying for them by remaining covered.

JDawg makes the argument that she's only being threatened with life in prison. It's not violent. Yeah, she's robbed of her Liberty and freedom. Well, that's not violence.


Surely this is not moral? She didn't have a say in where she was born? Surely it'd be much better if she was left to her own life and her own liberties. Instead of stealing her dignity the government should be protecting her rights.

That is the role of government - it's supposed to protect our property (our body being the most intimate) not steal it!

 

[Michael]

Why this thread?

Well, I think to myself: How are we supposed to create a peaceful prosperous society when we accept violence as a inherent central part of it? Most people, females included, in KSA think it's perfectly moral to force a woman to cover herself for the greater good of society. Here we think it's perfectly moral to force a individuals to pay tax on their personal income for the greater good of society. Both use violence. Neither society is, IMO, ever going to reach the peaceful prosperous State they claim to want.

We need to think outside the box, confront ideas we've grown accustomed to (or were trained to believe). A violence-free society seems like a reasonable place to start.

 

[aaqucnaona]

So your stance is violence is acceptable for the "greater good"?

Mother nature seems to agree to this.

That aside, government is a group of humans. Not a "thing". A collection of people. It doesn't keep society above the hardships of nature at all. Entrepreneurs do that. Scientists working in labs do that. Farmers working in fields to that. Teachers in schools do that. Government doesn't actually DO anything other than pass Laws and regulate the actions of people like Entrepreneurs, scientists, farmers and teachers. Often making a mess of things in the process.

If we can have a government with representations from all the major human endeavours as 49% of the government - that would solve pretty much all problems. We had discussed how a decentralised world government would be a better system than the current one - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111654

 

[cosmictraveler]

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.

So when a society needs jails, police or firemen how does someone pay for their services if they never need to use them? What is a "fair price" anyway, today unions dictate what they want their members to earn not what the taxpayers can afford. Getting rid of unions to stop this ever increasing spiral of inflationary trends would be very helpful or ay least have them adjust to the COLA in the society they are working within.

 

[Balerion]

Armed police coming to your home and threatening you with life in prison is violence.

No it's not.

 

[Balerion]

I'm kind of surprised everyone wouldn't see being beaten and robbed of your private property as violent?!?! You can say I'm beating you down, for the greater good. Well, OK, it's still violence.

1) Nobody is being beaten.

2) Nobody is being robbed.

3) There is no physical harm, hence no violence.

This really isn't a difficult concept.

Hmmmm.....
OK, think of this. Women in KSA are forced (for the greater good) to remain covered. If they show their face in public. They're robbed of their freedom.

Now, according to Asguard this isn't violence, it's the price that must be paid for being BORN a female member of Saudi society. If she doesn't wish to cover herself, well she can leave because the country belongs to the society and is rented by her not owned. Refusing to cover is wrong because she's receiving "benefits" of the society without paying for them by remaining covered.

Again, that is not violence. I know you're aware of this.

And women being forced to cover their faces is not the same as paying taxes. Taxes are a necessity for a functional society. Perhaps there are different models for taxation that may work better than our current setup, but at the end of the day you're going to have to pay taxes if you want your society to work.

JDawg makes the argument that she's only being threatened with life in prison. It's not violent. Yeah, she's robbed of her Liberty and freedom. Well, that's not violence.

It isn't.

Surely this is not moral? She didn't have a say in where she was born? Surely it'd be much better if she was left to her own life and her own liberties. Instead of stealing her dignity the government should be protecting her rights.

I wholeheartedly agree. Women being forced to cover their faces is a dehumanizing policy that should be abolished.

That is the role of government - it's supposed to protect our property (our body being the most intimate) not steal it!

I agree. But you are wrong in equating taxes with theft. If you don't want to pay them, get off the grid. Quit your job and go live off the land somewhere.

 

[iceaura]

I didn't say NO tax. I said no stealing of private property. No violence. We can still maintain things through other means. If you use a road, you pay a free. Maybe $0.05 per mile? Or free if the people are part of a group who pays to maintain it.

We already chose option B - we are part of a group that pays to maintain the roads, so we get to travel on them for free.

Occasionally we have to deal with a group member who tries to weasel out of their share of the maintenance bill but still use the roads to travel, do business, set up their factories, etc. We fine them or jail them - is that OK?

 

[spidergoat]

Is it moral to use violence against an innocent person?

Mostly no, but it can be. For instance, to stop a greater harm.

But I see your ridiculous point. The thing you have to know is that no man is an island in modern society. You are spoiled because you never lived in a land without a state system, so you take it all for granted. For shame. I bet you didn't know that the money you make isn't really yours! Before you even collect a penny, you owe a debt to the nation that made it possible for you to make money. It provided the system of law that ensures a civil society, it provided your education, the roads to transport goods, the airwaves used for advertising products, the police to prevent armed gangs from taking total control, it helped protect you from diseases that might have killed you already if it weren't for the CDC and school vaccine requirements.

 

[spidergoat]

Why this thread?

Well, I think to myself: How are we supposed to create a peaceful prosperous society when we accept violence as a inherent central part of it? .

It's a paradox. Civilization is based on brutality. But the lack of civilization can also be brutal.

The property you talk about has already been stolen by you, otherwise it wouldn't be private. How can you claim ownership of anything? Isn't that violent too? If I need what you have control of, you will use violence to prevent me from taking it, thus the concept of private property is as much synonymous with violence as any other rule of law.

 

[Michael]

1) Nobody is being beaten.

2) Nobody is being robbed.

3) There is no physical harm, hence no violence.

This really isn't a difficult concept.

Wait here. What do you think will happen to you, if you do not pay your income tax AND the police come to collect you, you refuse to go. You steadfast refuge to budge. Absolutely 100% are not going to go willingly with the police. You're not going to harm anyone. You're just going to sit on your lawn and refuse to walk anywhere with anyone.

How is it, do you think, the police "escort" you to prison? Describe to me how that process takes place.

When that police officer used orange pepper spray on those kids in CA, was that violence?

 

[Michael]

And women being forced to cover their faces is not the same as paying taxes. Taxes are a necessity for a functional society. Perhaps there are different models for taxation that may work better than our current setup, but at the end of the day you're going to have to pay taxes if you want your society to work.

I didn't say it's the exact same.

Is the threat to put a woman in a hole in the ground for showing her face in public; alone, away from her children, never to see or speak to her parents ever again, until she dies, is that threat a Violent act?

See, I think you know it is a violent act.

I agree. But you are wrong in equating taxes with theft. If you don't want to pay them, get off the grid. Quit your job and go live off the land somewhere.

No, that's not how Americans lived. In 1910 we didn't have income tax. We we prosperous, had roads, had schools, had medical doctors, inventors, museums, all of it.

We were a community too.

 

[Michael]

We already chose option B - we are part of a group that pays to maintain the roads, so we get to travel on them for free.

Occasionally we have to deal with a group member who tries to weasel out of their share of the maintenance bill but still use the roads to travel, do business, set up their factories, etc. We fine them or jail them - is that OK?

We had roads before we had income tax. Roads should be paid for by people who used them. People who don't, shouldn't be forced to pay.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing? If it's desired, the market will deliver it at an affordable price. We don't NEED the central government to pave a road for Christ's sake! Jesus, have you seen the super computer in your pocket you bought for a couple hundred bucks. I'm more than sure roads at an affordable price is doable.


BUT, that's not really my point. My point is we can organize ourselves to create a society based on peace, not violence. To do so we NEED volunteerism and individualism. IOWs free exchange with one another. You didn't need the government to pick your iPhone for you. You don't NEED it for anything other than ensuring the Law and protecting the country.

 

[spidergoat]

Every society that wants to ensure peace will require someone willing to do violence.

 

[Michael]

Mostly no, but it can be. For instance, to stop a greater harm.

But I see your ridiculous point. The thing you have to know is that no man is an island in modern society. You are spoiled because you never lived in a land without a state system, so you take it all for granted. For shame. I bet you didn't know that the money you make isn't really yours! Before you even collect a penny, you owe a debt to the nation that made it possible for you to make money. It provided the system of law that ensures a civil society, it provided your education, the roads to transport goods, the airwaves used for advertising products, the police to prevent armed gangs from taking total control, it helped protect you from diseases that might have killed you already if it weren't for the CDC and school vaccine requirements.

I understand your sentiment. We do have these things, but, it's also possible we would have a much better society if we organize ourselves differently. Surely you can entertain the possibility such a society may have existed now?

And you know, I think a central government helps maintain us as islands. It reduces our need to form collective unions with one another - to get stuff done. It acts to destroy our society - not build on it. It's treating us like Cattle. Fed pellets of USD paper and forced to work as debt slaves.

When the government borrows from China is really is OUR children's future that's being sold. Their labor. That is immoral. We must organize ourselves differently, with a limited role for government. Not no government. But, a limited one.

As I said before, we can do anything the government can do - except initiate force. Anything. Build schools, issue our own currency, make medical breakthroughs, all of it. We just need to break away from this God damn pen we've been raised to live in and think is normal.




*sigh*
I just figured, identifying the inherent violence in our present system would help put a crack in one of the walls that makes up our pen. It's sort of like religion. When you're trained to believe something your whole life, it's pretty damn hard to see things without this massive central pillar. But, try to think of it as a small box, not a pillar. Certainly not a foundation. A small dark box. There's a better world on the other side and we're only going to get there if we can break through this pen :shrug:


-
-
As an aside, I think the first step is to End the Federal Reserve system of Banking and put our monetary system back in the People's hands.

 

[spidergoat]

OK, anything the federal government does, we can do also? Are you aware that once we are able to do so on the same scale, that is the same as a federal government? So why eliminate something only to replace it with the same thing?

 

[Michael]

Every society that wants to ensure peace will require someone willing to do violence.

IN self defense it's OK I agree.
Initiating violence against an innocent person is not moral.


What do you think about the threat of going to prison for not wearing a veil(for the greater good of society) / paying income tax (for the greater good of society)? Is the Threat itself a form of immoral violence?

 

[Michael]

OK, anything the federal government does, we can do also? Are you aware that once we are able to do so on the same scale, that is the same as a federal government? So why eliminate something only to replace it with the same thing?

Yeah, I see your point - short answer = Volunteerism.

Sorry my wrist is killing me... to much typing

 

[Balerion]

Wait here. What do you think will happen to you, if you do not pay your income tax AND the police come to collect you, you refuse to go. You steadfast refuge to budge. Absolutely 100% are not going to go willingly with the police. You're not going to harm anyone. You're just going to sit on your lawn and refuse to walk anywhere with anyone.

But now you're adding qualifiers. Of course if you resist arrest they're going to make you come with them. You don't have the right to just sit on your lawn when you've been arrested.

How is it, do you think, the police "escort" you to prison? Describe to me how that process takes place.

Have you ever been arrested? I have. They put handcuffs on you, search your person, and sit you in the back seat of the cruiser. There's nothing violent about the process whatsoever. Unless, of course, you resist, in which case they are permitted to use just enough force to subdue you.

When that police officer used orange pepper spray on those kids in CA, was that violence?

I don't know which incident you're referring to, but of course police officers have gone over the line. They're human. Some of them are jerks, some of them are idiots, and some of them make mistakes. Do you expect them to be perfect?

Let's get serious here. Citing rare cases in which the police cross the line does your argument no good, because those officers are often reprimanded, suspended, fired, and sometimes convicted of a crime for their behavior. They're the exception that proves the rule.

There is nothing inherently violent about arrest procedure. If you resist arrest, then yeah, it can get violent, but then you're in the wrong, not the cop. You have a right to a fair trial if you want to plead your innocence.

But again, this isn't what you're talking about. You just don't want to pay taxes. That's what you find unfair, not the way police arrest people.

I didn't say it's the exact same.

Sure you did. Your OP was "Is it moral to use violence against an innocent person?" And you followed that with the example of people being forced to pay taxes. You've even said people are "beaten" and their property "stolen," so yes, you did say they were exactly the same thing.

Is the threat to put a woman in a hole in the ground for showing her face in public; alone, away from her children, never to see or speak to her parents ever again, until she dies, is that threat a Violent act?

Seriously? You're asking if the threat of arrest and detention is a violent act? C'mon, you're not stupid. You know that a threat is not a violent act.

And you're not comparing like with like. Taxation is not the same as women being forced to cover their faces. The former enables a society to function, the latter is a dehumanizing mandate drawn from Bronze Age mythology.

See, I think you know it is a violent act.

No, I don't. Because I know what "violent" means, and I'm not trying to give it some new meaning.

No, that's not how Americans lived. In 1910 we didn't have income tax. We we prosperous, had roads, had schools, had medical doctors, inventors, museums, all of it.

We were a community too.

In 1910 there were about 130,000 cars in the United States. In 1900 there were about 6,000. For the society we live in today to exist, you have to pay taxes.