[+Donny]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's amazing. I can answer with just +C and +V

"My point is the inevitable conclusion of their absolute moral statement that the government should not have their money is zero government. "

Yet people have stated repeatedly they aren't making an absolute moral claim about taxation. You can keep bringing that back up, but I'm pretty sure we're on the same side of that claim.

So you've accused me of being "derogatory", "arrogant" and "poopy-pants", but said nothing on the topic?

I said I would probably use "social engineering" derogatorily, since it sounds arrogant. The "poopy-pants" charge, though, I fully admit to.

So you want to make taxes less "terribly coercive" by using taxes to control people's behavior (make them calm)? I don't think you know what coercive means.

Look closely at what I said, Mr. Love. "Why not try to calm that part down a bit[sic - silly missing question mark]." "that part" refers to the coercive and tense relationship between the people and the government. My point is about a relationship. Taking into account how one's actions affects someone else is hardly coercion. Would you call it coercion when someone makes a nice meal for their wife or buys her flowers? Would you call it coercion when someone apologizes to someone else they've wronged? Or when they avoid being an ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ to as not to create conflict?

The larger point I'm alluding to is that when government has an antithetical relationship to the people, there will be problems, especially with taxation. As long as the government is a violent, coercive force making sure all its citizens pay up and expecting them not to, if they can get away with it, then of course every system of taxation will be full of difficulties. If the government is perfectly content with this relationship, even making it worse worrying only about numbers and not about the psychological impact of its actions, than the relationship will get even worse, producing more waste and more people slipping through the tax-cracks (interesting phrase...).

So, if you want a practical argument for being impractical, there you have it.

So we should pass a tax that's less effective because people have been convinced by demagogues that it's bad; knowing full well that those self same demagogues made their fame by expressing anger at whatever the status quo is and will therefore turn the people against the less-effective tax system you just implemented over the more effective one for the purpose of making people not against you?

To what end? It seems "to win an election". *that* is pandering.

When did I say that? I just specifically said "I'm not advocating it." I just don't want to throw out all considerations of the people and how they will react to a tax simply for the sake of numbers. That's not all cowardly/devious pandering; it's sensitivity and, in some cases, even kindness or love (read: good leadership).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

You don't believe that intentionally causing anger, resentment, etc. doesn't affect the morality of the decision? If there is no significant difference between two choices except that one causes hard feelings and the other does not, does morality not dictate that choice that causes the least hard feelings should be the one chosen?

You believe that morality is a function of popularity?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Yet people have stated repeatedly they aren't making an absolute moral claim about taxation. You can keep bringing that back up, but I'm pretty sure we're on the same side of that claim.

Some did. If you are not, then we can discuss your position. As long as we are discussing what I said in response to someone who did make a moral argument; I'm going to attack the consistency of the moral statement.

Look closely at what I said, Mr. Love. "Why not try to calm that part down a bit[sic - silly missing question mark]." "that part" refers to the coercive and tense relationship between the people and the government. My point is about a relationship. Taking into account how one's actions affects someone else is hardly coercion. Would you call it coercion when someone makes a nice meal for their wife or buys her flowers?

Of course I would: presuming that it was done for the purpose of coercing a behavior in response.

The larger point I'm alluding to is that when government has an antithetical relationship to the people, there will be problems, especially with taxation. As long as the government is a violent, coercive force making sure all its citizens pay up and expecting them not to, if they can get away with it, then of course every system of taxation will be full of difficulties.

So a government that doesn't make sure people pay taxes will fare better? How do you figure?

When did I say that? I just specifically said "I'm not advocating it." I just don't want to throw out all considerations of the people and how they will react to a tax simply for the sake of numbers. That's not all cowardly/devious pandering; it's sensitivity and, in some cases, even kindness or love (read: good leadership).

So given two taxes. One is more "fair" (by whatever definition you want to use), and the other *looks* more fair. Which one do you vote for? Actual fairness (that appears unfair) or the appearance of fairness (which is actually unfair)?

[tlj009]

You believe that morality is a function of popularity?

No. But I do think that morality involves how our actions affect other people. Including their emotional state. The fact that an action incites anger or hatred in other people would be a factor in determining whether or not it is a morally good or bad action.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

No. But I do think that morality involves how our actions affect other people. Including their emotional state. The fact that an action incites anger or hatred in other people would be a factor in determining whether or not it is a morally good or bad action.

So something immoral can become moral if enough / the right people like it?

[+Donny]

Some did. If you are not, then we can discuss your position. As long as we are discussing what I said in response to someone who did make a moral argument; I'm going to attack the consistency of the moral statement.

Leboman admitted to the qualification. So, now that the claim has been qualified, what problem do you have with the opposition to the income tax specifically over other taxes?

Of course I would: presuming that it was done for the purpose of coercing a behavior in response.

There's a pretty wide linguistic gap between us, isn't there?

So a government that doesn't make sure people pay taxes will fare better? How do you figure?

You're doing that thing again where you take people's statements farther than they intend them. You might want to stop that; people don't like it.
But to talk a little more about the point I was actually making, government's fare better when they don't promote the idea that the people and the government are automatically at odds. Sure, the government should try to collect taxes. But that's a far cry from treating people like numbers and damning the consequences. Just because the government has the authority doesn't make it right, or wise, to wield it irresponsibly and to promote more dissension.

So given two taxes. One is more "fair" (by whatever definition you want to use), and the other *looks* more fair. Which one do you vote for? Actual fairness (that appears unfair) or the appearance of fairness (which is actually unfair)?

I don't know; depends on what you mean by "looks more." Since we've had some linguistic quibbles lately, it would be better if you just gave me an actual example. I'll still probably say "I don't know," but you can take a shot.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Leboman admitted to the qualification. So, now that the claim has been qualified, what problem do you have with the opposition to the income tax specifically over other taxes?

I don't inherently. I have found the cases made on poor / inconsistent premises.

There's a pretty wide linguistic gap between us, isn't there?

It's possible that we are talking past each other.

You're doing that thing again where you take people's statements farther than they intend them. You might want to stop that; people don't like it.

I suppose I should ask if it's immoral?

But to talk a little more about the point I was actually making, government's fare better when they don't promote the idea that the people and the government are automatically at odds. Sure, the government should try to collect taxes. But that's a far cry from treating people like numbers and damning the consequences. Just because the government has the authority doesn't make it right, or wise, to wield it irresponsibly and to promote more dissension.

I agree. A government is less likely to be killed off in a populous uprising if they rank and file *feel* like the have something to loose, or it's not the government's fault.

A really good example there would be North Korea. Their propaganda has proven itself very good at convincing its citizens that they and the government are "in this together"... generally focusing on a narrative of a world out to get them and their bravely standing up as a world power.

I don't know; depends on what you mean by "looks more." Since we've had some linguistic quibbles lately, it would be better if you just gave me an actual example. I'll still probably say "I don't know," but you can take a shot.

I cannot give you an example because I do not know what examples would meet those criteria for you. I could give examples for me, but they would not help you.

I suppose "looks more" would equate to what will make it that "people will react" with the perception that the government isn't "at odds" with the people.

[+Donny]

I agree. A government is less likely to be killed off in a populous uprising if they rank and file *feel* like the have something to loose, or it's not the government's fault.

A really good example there would be North Korea. Their propaganda has proven itself very good at convincing its citizens that they and the government are "in this together"... generally focusing on a narrative of a world out to get them and their bravely standing up as a world power.

Sure. Now imagine if a government actually did humbly work for the good of its people. A lot of these struggles tend to go away, or at least they become minimized.

I cannot give you an example because I do not know what examples would meet those criteria for you. I could give examples for me, but they would not help you.

I suppose "looks more" would equate to what will make it that "people will react" with the perception that the government isn't "at odds" with the people.

I think it would really depend. I could definitely see going for the more fair tax over the popular tax, is the "fairness" difference is huge. But I could also see it going the other way. Relationships involve compromise, even government-people relationships.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Sure. Now imagine if a government actually did humbly work for the good of its people. A lot of these struggles tend to go away, or at least they become minimized.

Seems unlikely to happen. People like that rarely get or hold power.

I think it would really depend. I could definitely see going for the more fair tax over the popular tax, is the "fairness" difference is huge. But I could also see it going the other way. Relationships involve compromise, even government-people relationships.

Well it goes to what you said before... working for the good of the people.

Sadly: what is good is not what is popular, and what is unpopular is how power is lost.

Do you think that making people take their shoes off in airports has been to the good of the people? No. But it's supported because people are scared. Scare people, and they will do anything. Someone working humbly for the good of the people will loose power to someone using scare tactics.