It seems you grant that initiation of force should be considered acceptable under these situations that you call rare. But I don' t think they're rare. I think they're a normal part of life. Watch my video "Extortion begets Extortion" where I try to try to show that regular and systematic initiation of force may be necessary to survive.
No, only under the situation in which you do not have an alternative. I am aware that these situations are not rare in societies where slavery still exists; or in societies which are ruled by tyrants. However, in free societies initiation of force must be barred. And never is the initiation of force needed UNLESS you are being coerced into doing so.
I do not need to coerce my way into a business much like I don't need to coerce others to buy my products.
I agree that is. But I'm saying I have reason to believe initiation of force is necessary for me to survive and maximize my liberty. This is one of the things that prevents me from being an Objectivist. Like Rand, I'm base my ethics on self interest, my desire to live a long and happy life, but I reach some different conclusions on what is most conducive to that. I disagree that it's unethical for me to support initiatory force taxation for defense from invaders.
In a free society, with a representative government that supports individual rights, there is no need to initiate force to raise money for defense. Those who wish to be defended will voluntarily pay for it, just as those who wish to be defended by the cops will have to pay for it, as will those who wish to have civil or criminal disputes in the law courts. Or it may work by charging people for citizenship or by distinguishing between paying citizens and non-paying citizens.
If the government is limited only to retaliatory force and healthcare, education and the rest of the economy is left alone, then there will be no need to raise trillions of dollars and the level of affluence would increase, increasing paying citizens ability to fund a standing army, police and courts. It is rational to do this, but then again, this presupposes a much more rational culture than we live in.
I also believe that it is not moral to take another's money by force on a regular basis, by law. I do believe however that it could be moral to steal another man's money if it will save your life, but certainly not as a general rule.
But what if stealing another's money on a regular basis is what is necessary to save your life? If so then it should be a general rule to support taxation for defense. You may be making a mistake thinking that initiation of force is not necessary for your survival. (See my video Extortion Begets Extortion for more on this).
Impossible scenario, necessarily stealing on a regular basis. Stealing another's money, or initiating force, on a regular basis as a rule is never moral or possible in a free society. That's why I started my previous comment that way. Being forced by another negates your ability to choose and therefore morality is a concept that is necessary in a free or relatively free society, but impossible under coercion. Initiation of force in never necessary, but may be moral, under rare circumstances.
Retaliation, or self-defense (I include morally acceptable preemptive strikes here), may be necessary, though. I think it is clearly more important for you to read more Ayn Rand than it is for me to watch your video! But, I will. :)
You seem to have a premise that an absolutely free society is in your self interest. I don't believe it is in my self interest. I think taxation is necessary to maximize my protection. A totally free society would be easily overrun by oppressive invaders. It wouldn't last long enough to make like enjoyable. So I'm not in favor of an absolutely free society in the first place - unless it encompasses the whole world, which is a utopian position. And since it does not, extortion is not immoral.
On second thought, even if it encompassed the whole world I would be opposed to it. But for other reasons, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Free society that respects individual interests is not in my self interest? I don't think so. Extortion is evil. OK, you mean some evil is not evil. Contradiction. Oppressive invaders are not going to be as powerful as a free well defended, by a voluntary tax paying people. The more free societies like Ancient Greece, Rome and the US fall from within, the more they consider extortion as moral. Then and only then can a barbaric invader conquer.
agreed- most great empires tend to fall not from the outside; but always fall first from the inside. Subversion, ignorance & naivity is often more deadly than raw brute force.
Close. An objectivist epistemology and metaphysics is a good foundation for a proper egoistic ethics and politics, but won't be complete without the rejection of the actual existence of freewill, the soul and spirit.
It seems you grant that initiation of force should be considered acceptable under these situations that you call rare. But I don' t think they're rare. I think they're a normal part of life. Watch my video "Extortion begets Extortion" where I try to try to show that regular and systematic initiation of force may be necessary to survive.
Individualistico 2 years ago
No, only under the situation in which you do not have an alternative. I am aware that these situations are not rare in societies where slavery still exists; or in societies which are ruled by tyrants. However, in free societies initiation of force must be barred. And never is the initiation of force needed UNLESS you are being coerced into doing so.
I do not need to coerce my way into a business much like I don't need to coerce others to buy my products.
ProximaMinor 2 years ago
Are you saying that taxation is not initiation of force because if you're doing it for the reasons I state in that video, you're being coerced?
Individualistico 2 years ago
Taxation IS initiation of force. At the barrel of a gun you are being forced to pay for a product you may not want.
ProximaMinor 2 years ago
I agree that is. But I'm saying I have reason to believe initiation of force is necessary for me to survive and maximize my liberty. This is one of the things that prevents me from being an Objectivist. Like Rand, I'm base my ethics on self interest, my desire to live a long and happy life, but I reach some different conclusions on what is most conducive to that. I disagree that it's unethical for me to support initiatory force taxation for defense from invaders.
Individualistico 2 years ago
In a free society, with a representative government that supports individual rights, there is no need to initiate force to raise money for defense. Those who wish to be defended will voluntarily pay for it, just as those who wish to be defended by the cops will have to pay for it, as will those who wish to have civil or criminal disputes in the law courts. Or it may work by charging people for citizenship or by distinguishing between paying citizens and non-paying citizens.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
If the government is limited only to retaliatory force and healthcare, education and the rest of the economy is left alone, then there will be no need to raise trillions of dollars and the level of affluence would increase, increasing paying citizens ability to fund a standing army, police and courts. It is rational to do this, but then again, this presupposes a much more rational culture than we live in.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
I also believe that it is not moral to take another's money by force on a regular basis, by law. I do believe however that it could be moral to steal another man's money if it will save your life, but certainly not as a general rule.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
But what if stealing another's money on a regular basis is what is necessary to save your life? If so then it should be a general rule to support taxation for defense. You may be making a mistake thinking that initiation of force is not necessary for your survival. (See my video Extortion Begets Extortion for more on this).
Individualistico 2 years ago
Impossible scenario, necessarily stealing on a regular basis. Stealing another's money, or initiating force, on a regular basis as a rule is never moral or possible in a free society. That's why I started my previous comment that way. Being forced by another negates your ability to choose and therefore morality is a concept that is necessary in a free or relatively free society, but impossible under coercion. Initiation of force in never necessary, but may be moral, under rare circumstances.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Retaliation, or self-defense (I include morally acceptable preemptive strikes here), may be necessary, though. I think it is clearly more important for you to read more Ayn Rand than it is for me to watch your video! But, I will. :)
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You seem to have a premise that an absolutely free society is in your self interest. I don't believe it is in my self interest. I think taxation is necessary to maximize my protection. A totally free society would be easily overrun by oppressive invaders. It wouldn't last long enough to make like enjoyable. So I'm not in favor of an absolutely free society in the first place - unless it encompasses the whole world, which is a utopian position. And since it does not, extortion is not immoral.
Individualistico 2 years ago
On second thought, even if it encompassed the whole world I would be opposed to it. But for other reasons, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Free society that respects individual interests is not in my self interest? I don't think so. Extortion is evil. OK, you mean some evil is not evil. Contradiction. Oppressive invaders are not going to be as powerful as a free well defended, by a voluntary tax paying people. The more free societies like Ancient Greece, Rome and the US fall from within, the more they consider extortion as moral. Then and only then can a barbaric invader conquer.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
@MCTMD1
agreed- most great empires tend to fall not from the outside; but always fall first from the inside. Subversion, ignorance & naivity is often more deadly than raw brute force.
swu880 1 year ago
And what subversion, ignorance & naivety there is all around!!! Where going down, the way of 1984.
MCTMD1 1 year ago
@MCTMD1
The cure for 1984 is the virtue & spirit of 1776 completed with objectivist individuality
swu880 1 year ago
Close. An objectivist epistemology and metaphysics is a good foundation for a proper egoistic ethics and politics, but won't be complete without the rejection of the actual existence of freewill, the soul and spirit.
MCTMD1 1 year ago
This is really hard to hear. Sounds like you need to turn up your microphone input level.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Comment removed
Individualistico 2 years ago
I can hear it with my ear close to the speaker tho.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Yeah, sorry about that. I should probably buy a new camera that has a built in Microphone instead of my current rig...
ProximaMinor 2 years ago
No prob. Thanks for posting a video.
Individualistico 2 years ago
I, too, had to put the speaker right up to my ear in order to hear you. :-(
legendre007 2 years ago