Dealing with statist parents

[tarker12]

Hey hey, I recently had a conversation with my mother regarding the government.  I was arging as that she is a christian and therefore dislikes theivery.  I said the government takes her money forcefully and she has no say in it.  Her response is that she gives the money to them willingly because every time she uses the roads she owes them money to finance the war against drugs & iraq/afghanistan.  I told her if she did not give the money willingly they would take it anyway.  She said she would give it willingly anyway and therefore its A-ok.

 

Is it just me or is she an idiot?  I told her she doesnt owe them the sweat off her back and that her money goes to evil causes.  She wouldnt hear any of it and I should, "Find a new place to live".

 

Anyone wanna jump on this and assist me in any way possible please?

Thanks!

[dsayers]

You cannot have a factual conversation with somebody who cannot differentiate between truth and falsehood.

 

Unless the theft is limited to her alone, what she would do were she given a choice doesn't even enter into it.

[andkon]

She should pay for the roads she uses, but taxes don't pay for usage. There's often overlap between taxation and usage, but there's no guarantee. For example:

 

1.) you could pay a tax for X and not use X (like public schools for the childless or those who take their kids to elsewhere)

 

2.) you could pay no tax for X but still use X

 

3.) anywhere in between.

 

If she wants to pay for usage, she should want a system like the supermarket: you get billed only for the products you actually use.

 

(I suspect though a more fruitful discussion would as to why she isn't curious about your ideas and puts you down...)

[alexqr1]

 I told her if she did not give the money willingly they would take it anyway.  She said she would give it willingly anyway and therefore its A-ok.

 

Is it just me or is she an idiot?

 

I think you might both be missing the point. It is not a question about her willingness to give the money, it is about the violence the state initiates against those who don't give their money willingly.

So if she wants to give the government her money that is just fine, it is her money. But if she is against theft, then what does she think about the government  taking the money from those who would not give it willingly to the state?

[Wesley]

Hey hey, I recently had a conversation with my mother regarding the government.  I was arging as that she is a christian and therefore dislikes theivery.  I said the government takes her money forcefully and she has no say in it.  Her response is that she gives the money to them willingly because every time she uses the roads she owes them money to finance the war against drugs & iraq/afghanistan.  I told her if she did not give the money willingly they would take it anyway.  She said she would give it willingly anyway and therefore its A-ok.

 

Is it just me or is she an idiot?  I told her she doesnt owe them the sweat off her back and that her money goes to evil causes.  She wouldnt hear any of it and I should, "Find a new place to live".

 

Anyone wanna jump on this and assist me in any way possible please?

Thanks!

Lets pretend she would pay for the roads.

 

Would she pay for foreign wars?

 

Would she pay for the financial regulators who watch 8 hours of porn a day before the financial crisis?

 

Would she pay for every little thing the government does?

 

This is the easiest way I can see to reach her is to find her pet peeve of spending that she doesn't agree with. At least that portion of her taxes is stolen as she wouldn't pay for it voluntarily.

 

The "I would pay for the roads" argument is then shown as somewhat silly as the roads is such a small fraction comparably to the entirety of taxes. She just picks the one thing that you couldn't argue with as people should pay for their use of whatever roads might exist in a free society, therefore it clouds the issue heavily.

[weeb]

(I suspect though a more fruitful discussion would as to why she isn't curious about your ideas and puts you down...)

 

Bingo.

[LanceD]

She is Christian. That means she cannot think, and how do you expect to change the mind of someone who can't think?

[Wesley]

She is Christian. That means she cannot think, and how do you expect to change the mind of someone who can't think?

I mean, I was raised as a Christian and considered myself a Christian. At some point, I came across ideas where I had to question what I thought and realized that God didn't exist and everything that comes with that realization.

 

I am not saying the odds are very high, but it is possible she has never heard X argument before. You can't just write off a doctor from the 5th century as "unthinking" because they don't know about antibiotics and everyone they ever talked to said leeches were the best. However, you present the argument and the evidence a few times and find out if they can think or not.

 

Not to mention that clarity can be valuable. Even if she cannot think, trying to reason with her will lead to the certainty rather than doubt as to what may have happened. The argument is happening because some part of him believes that she will be able to reason. Nothing answers that question better than empirical evidence through trying every possibility until the situation is obvious.

[alexqr1]

She is Christian. That means she cannot think, and how do you expect to change the mind of someone who can't think?

 

 

This is obviously wrong.

[Brock H]

Try asking her if she wants you to be thrown in jail, raped, and possibly killed because you don't support the war(or anything else) and see what she responds with.

 

This goes in line with Stef's Against Me argument found here

 

[cab21]

You could go find a new place to live.

 

if you are calling a person a idiot, and living in that persons house, what sense does that make?

[dsayers]

if you are calling a person a idiot, and living in that persons house, what sense does that make?

 

People live in houses for the shelter they provide. The ability to identify somebody living there as an idiot would not effect the house's ability to mitigate external factors such as temperature and predators. Nor does living under a roof owned by somebody else preclude them from being identified by a guest as an idiot. Some people do not have the means by which to choose to live in a different house.

 

I fail to see how living in house + identifying house owner as an idiot = irrational.

[cab21]

People live in houses for the shelter they provide. The ability to identify somebody living there as an idiot would not effect the house's ability to mitigate external factors such as temperature and predators. Nor does living under a roof owned by somebody else preclude them from being identified by a guest as an idiot. Some people do not have the means by which to choose to live in a different house.

 

I fail to see how living in house + identifying house owner as an idiot = irrational.

 

how far are people going to take this no government stuff?

Far enough to find another person who is also against government to live with?

Far enough to trade with people who are also against government to obtain shelter?

if people can't help each other out who are against government, what use is there of not having government?

 

the house owners could decide that living in the house is no longer  a option, as the person with a fundamental difference with the houseowner.

 

if the conversation was put here i could tell better what she said.

[Cosmin]

She wouldnt hear any of it and I should, "Find a new place to live".

 

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? Are you able to support yourself financially?

Also, did she mean what she said or was this just an aggressive way to end the conversation?