You support the system that leaves murders unsolved.
The county gave us a little, but the vast majority was donations.
So, you see a distinction between murder and killing. Good, now the government, which reflects our moral judgement as a society and says “this is murder,” needs the funds to deal with it.
Correct, but I don’t support leaving murders unsolved.
I support parenthood. Even though some children will always turn out to be hoodlums.
This is still justification, not a distinction between taxes and theft.
Do you ever feel guilty about receiving stolen goods?
There is a legal and moral distinction. You already said that was sufficient for the distinction between murder and killing.
Right, you don’t like it. You don’t support it. But you do the things you can to minimize it and do what you can with what you know. Thus alleviating moral responsibility even if you are supporting directly or indirectly a system that is flawed and does not meet all of your moral goals.
That doesn’t work. I don’t want to minimize the police because there are unsolved murders. I want to minimize how many murders go unsolved.
This is why I haven’t called it theft. You are for the coercive forcing of people to take property legally an morally created by others who have done nothing wrong. yes?
Well, lets talk morality then. Your distinction is that when one person needs it or its for the overall good of society and the person can afford it. So, I reiterate my previous question, can I take your car? You can afford it. I need it. Getting to my job is good for society.
Taxes, as a common practice provide social goods and a net benefit to a civilized society. Theft, as a common practice would cause social breakdown.
But you support the system that isn’t perfectly fulfilling your moral goals. And right, that doesn’t mean you support the flaws. I want to minimiz coercion. I can still support a system even if it doesn’t eliminate it and hope/work for better.
Um, either in reasonable doses does not and either in excessive doses does.
Nope, you can not take make my car. I don’t support anarchy. And in order to prevent/punish such things we have a social good called government with law enforcement and courts as one of its obligations to us.
[quote=“DoubleDuce, post:153, topic:223168, full:true”]
But you support the system that isn’t perfectly fulfilling your moral goals. [/quote]
That’s a silly argument. That’s like arguing against the system of parenting because some kids still turn out rotten…
The police force is a social good. Funding it is a social good. Confiscating the money for it, is a social good. Theft is a social wrong.
Come on now.
Yup very silly.
I’m against coercion. I’m not an anarchist.
If you’re against coercion than you’re an anarchist.
Laws are coercive
Okay, so if the fed (representative government) passed a law saying you can take stuff if you really need it, THEN it wouldn’t be theft and wouldn’t be immoral?
Depends on the situation. The government can err against morality, but it’s very existence and funding is a social good.