moral categories

[labmath2]

The fundamental problem with engaging a statist is moral categories. Rven if he could concede universality, he still holds that government is a different moral category from citizens. I think this position is the result of living in a society where standards change based on arbitrary factors (race, gender, age, emotional state, relation, intoxication, wealth, religion, occupation, mental state and disease). How do we get from that to something more concrete?

[dsayers]

government is a different moral category from citizens. I think this position is the result of living in a society where standards change based on arbitrary factors (race, gender, age, emotional state, relation, intoxication, wealth, religion, occupation, mental state and disease). How do we get from that to something more concrete?

 

Actually, you've demonstrated here how they've arrived at that conclusion by using the word government. "Government" is a concept and therefore cannot be placed in a moral category. What you need to talk about is the PEOPLE making decisions, edicts, and engaging in behaviors in the name of the State. PEOPLE are moral actors and therefore their behaviors can be designated as moral, immoral, or amoral (lacking a moral component). At this point, we're now looking at a behavior of a person and not a "government."

 

This is just one of many examples where language is used to conceal immoral behavior. That's why they say taxation instead of theft, arrest instead of assault, incarcerate instead of rape, and war instead of murder. Or my personal favorite: When they say law instead of command backed by credible threat of violence. The laws of physics cannot be changed, which is precisely why they're called laws. So when we refer to arbitrary edicts as "laws," this programs people subconsciously to accept and not question it. When they say "government," we think of something that cannot be controlled or stopped.