A rational proof that taxation is theft.

[WorBlux]

On 9/8/2017 at 2:23 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. At one point or another, I guarantee you, the very land you are standing on had been stolen by someone from another through force and murder. There is absolutely no way to rectify such things. If you however want to hold current owners responsible for things that the previous owners did, I think there is a rabbit hole you will never reappear from. Again, by lawful, I may have not used the word you were looking for. It was basically fully in line with the NAP, property rights, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ducal_Family_of_Luxembourg

2. What do you mean what responsibilities? Here are the details; knock yourself out:

"...The Grand Duke is the head of state. He embodies the independence and continuity of a state that was strongly influenced by the ups and downs of history.

Sovereign power resides in the nation. The exercise of sovereign powers is entrusted to the Grand Duke. He has only those powers that the Constitution and laws expressly confer upon him.

The Grand Duke has a central and essential function: he is considered to be the cornerstone of the institutional system. However, his actions strictly follow the maxim that 'the Sovereign reigns but does not govern.'..." http://www.luxembourg.public.lu/en/le-grand-duche-se-presente/monarchie/chef-etat/index.html

The power of the monarch is kept in check by the other branches of government.

3. You don't really know how monarchies work, do you? Present me a fact that we can both analyze. I am not interested in opinions. (I actually am interested. I am just beinga dick.)

 

 

1. There is a pretty easy way to rectify stolen land. Give it back to the owners or heirs.  There is a point where remoteness from the act of aggression, uncertain inheritance of the original claim, and unwillingness to injure parties who have mixed labor and resources with the land for improvements and maintenance may redeem a claim, however redemption is not automatic. See the recent case in which Bayer was held liable for atrocities they supported in WWII.  The office of the Duke is a lot like a corporation, in a very real sense it is the duchy that was sold in 1443 and granted to the current line in 1813. Corporate transfers retain debt for past actions of that corporation, at least to the value of the corporation at the time.  The is not much remoteness to the act of aggression. While the line of prior inheritance is almost completely opaque, the parties who have fee simple titles are the parties who have maintained and improved most of the lands for the past 200 years or so could keep the same or better title. At most what is due the duchy in a voiding of title would be the price paid in 1443, divided over the appraised value of all freed properties.

2. In contract theory that which you would call consideration. What specific actions must the duke carry out, that if he fails must make restitution from his personal funds, resign from office, or otherwise suffer penalties? The very fact they you call him sovereign is a very strong indicator that he has no real legal duties in a factual sense, as a sovereign is functionally defined as one is answerable to none save themselves.

3. Show to me in the text and backed by fact all of the following: a) offer, b) acceptence, c) meeting of the minds, and d)consideration. within the luxemburg constitution between the duke and all current alleged citizens. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Luxembourg_2009.pdf?lang=en

Additionally the claimed right of legislation within the nation means that the terms are always shifting. Consent is not possible when it is not clear what exactly is being consented to.

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by WorBlux

[Gavitor]

28 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

The problem with shirgall's definition is that it already presumes that tax is deducted by immoral force

If it wasn't it wouldn't be called a tax. It's not called rent nor is it a donation.

Straight from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tax

a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

Its compulsory, ie they will FORCE you to do it. It is not an act of self defense and is a violation of the NAP hence immoral.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Well, we tried that, and that is what we are arguing over. The problem with shirgall's definition is that it already presumes that tax is deducted by immoral force. 

Well, if "tax" is by definition forceful than it is immoral. I think the debate it whether or not "tax" is even "tax" by the definition I provided, and if it is in some cases but not in others, what or where are they? 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

You include force in your definition. How eactly is the current pope forcing someone to believe something? Saying he is lying is one thing, but that claim is rather different.

You misunderstood me. I might have said the Pope indoctrinates but if I did, I made a mistake. I do not think the Pope indoctrinates at all. Some "religious" families might and some priests might tacitly allow it, but I can't say I know of any Roman Catholic priests who indoctrinate (based on the definition I gave) let alone the Supreme Pontiff, even this one. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I think as long as you have the permission to opt out of the game, you are in the game by choice. Because quite frankly, I think claiming such a level of victimhood in America is a slap in the face to everyone in North Korea, Cuba, China, and else.

Well, then there have to be two categories of people: those who can migrate (legally), and those who can't. Given I'm still poor, I can't chose to leave America let alone Pennsylvania unless I wish to do so penniless and perhaps illegally ( I don't know the law enough to say for sure--I might be wrong here). 

Unfortunately opting out involves either abdicating one's own property or moving it. Unless one is wealthy enough to afford the expenses of moving cross-country, learning a new language, new culture, etc. I don't think it's accurate to say even people in freer countries have much of a choice in determining their citizenship. Save becoming stateless and whatever negative consequences of that may be. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

There are only 2 ways to become official resident of the Vatican. Become a member of the Conclave, or become a Swiss Guard. However, that is mainly in theory, as there are many others who have permission to live there. But still, you have to be very useful to the Vatican.

In that case, for most people, the Vatican can't be called attainable for those seeking total economic freedom. However for those who happen to be biblical scholars, or somehow friendly enough with the Papacy to be allowed to be living among them, I suppose this is viable. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Why is it so hard to think of the Monarch as a landlord? He inherited it after all, and before him, his ancestors either fought for it, or earned it. 

Depends on the royal government, and its legitimacy. A guy with an army who theoretically seizes Pennsylvania through force and calls himself the "King of Pennsylvania" is essentially no more than a powerful gangster and robber. Likewise his descendants are mere beneficiaries of the theft. However I think, as you'd agree, all fortunes must become virtuous with time because otherwise we all benefit from someone else's theft and it'd be impossible to know for sure who to pay back or whatever. Therefore perhaps 500 years later the Kingdom of Pennsylvania could be called a legitimate state. However the actually economic style and legal rights of the individual determine, to me at least, whether or not the Kingdom in question can be called moral. If the Kingdom respects the rights of the private citizen and the proprietors, and Counts (and higher nobles) are either those who come from families considered loyal and filial enough to the Kingdom  to be granted either a percentage of the tax revenue or are self-made or generationally-made (to invent a phrase) businessmen, then I'd say we have something close to what AnCap is meant to be--a society that respects the individual's rights of property and the Non-Aggression Principle. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

In medieval monarchies, force was always decentralised. After all, the lords were the soldiers to the monarch. It was not rare that a king had smaller armies than some of his lords.

I kinda learned that in video games, and confirmed it with the internet. 

Hence why I think, at least until better arguments are presented, a monarchy/feudal system is more moral than a modern republican one.

If you want I'd like to debate the topic further, however because I can't Direct Message (which I think is because I made a terrible mistake some months ago), feel free to email me at [email protected] .

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I don't think they are wrong. The question is whether or not their ownership is legitimate. A debate over legitimacy is certainly a debate I wish to have. 

Let's have it. I think it'd be a tangent here though. Either a fresh thread perhaps called or themed over whether a monarchy can be called a form of AnCap (I think it might be, at least under the right circumstances), or via email. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Hey, not my words. I think it is somehwere in the middle of Everyday Anarchy. But I agree with you. Those places are very good arguments for AnCap, and its a shame few Anarchists use them.

I might be wrong, but I could have sworn Stef spoke positively of the economic/liberty aspects of the examples given in podcasts since at least a year ago.

Although he's really the only big anarchist personality I know. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

The reason why catholic universities often descend into liberalism is their extreme open-mindedness and tolerance. Catholics are too good at tolerating other opinions, and I think that is going to be the death of us. The ones who I have been intellectually and physically bullied by in my life are protestants, buddhists, muslims and atheists. If there is indoctrination going on, it is not in the Church.

I think that has more to do with the cucking of men, rise of feminism and Socialism, and degradation of Western culture taking the spine out of Westerners than a fault with Christendom. At our best we fought the Muslims who tried to enslave us, and made peace with them once we secured our safety and security. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Seriously, just try mentioning to an atheist parent that there is historical evidence behind the immaculate conception. Since presumption of your intellectual life is immediately discarded, they will instantly move on to ridicule you.

Which is why I never debate atheists on anything substantial. I don't know much about the historical accuracy or probability of the immaculate conception but I can't say 100% it never happened (although I don't think it did personally) and if anyone has evidence and reason for it, I'd open to hear it since it could prove to be very powerful in proving the existence of God and Christ. Which is something our Christian ancestors have spent centuries attempting to prove, at least through logic and conjecture. 

21 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

 

If you are serious about this, I recommend we open a new thread, because it is a very important debate, but also off-topic here.

That would be interesting to read. My one-sentence answer is "no" since I think baptism by itself is merely a ritual of welcoming new or half-way matured life, not necessarily an imposition of anything. 

[lorry]

8 hours ago, shirgall said:

When did I say any of this?

To give consent is to give permission. So, to give consent is to give consent.

 

The rest is the conclusion if you take consent as divorced from preference.

 

Say you do not consent to X. Why? Why do you not consent X? Because you don't want X to happen, because you would prefer X not happen. If consent isn't the communication of what you want to happen then it doesn't have any meaning, it communicates, literally, nothing. So then what does it mean to violate consent? Nothing. So what does it mean to be immoral? Nothing. Conversely, what does it mean to be moral? Nothing. So ethics exists? Nope. But choice requires values, requires ethics? Yep. So there must not be any choices. And what is it called when there is no choice?

 

And I am aware that consent is reducible, it is reducible to preference. I'm taking what you write at face value.

[lorry]

The Libertarian is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a sophist, pragmatist, mystic, communist, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But tell him to define his standard of value and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.” -- Ayn Rand.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If someone claims taxation is not theft then start taxing them. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

1 hour ago, lorry said:

To give consent is to give permission. So, to give consent is to give consent.

 

The rest is the conclusion if you take consent as divorced from preference.

 

Say you do not consent to X. Why? Why do you not consent X? Because you don't want X to happen, because you would prefer X not happen. If consent isn't the communication of what you want to happen then it doesn't have any meaning, it communicates, literally, nothing. So then what does it mean to violate consent? Nothing. So what does it mean to be immoral? Nothing. Conversely, what does it mean to be moral? Nothing. So ethics exists? Nope. But choice requires values, requires ethics? Yep. So there must not be any choices. And what is it called when there is no choice?

 

And I am aware that consent is reducible, it is reducible to preference. I'm taking what you write at face value.

Violating consent communicates that you are willing to claim a right you necessarily deny another. As any ethical justification underlying your actions must be universal in order to be valid, such violations of consent  cannot have any valid ethical justification. They are immoral. 

[shirgall]

3 hours ago, lorry said:

To give consent is to give permission. So, to give consent is to give consent.

 

The rest is the conclusion if you take consent as divorced from preference.

 

Say you do not consent to X. Why? Why do you not consent X? Because you don't want X to happen, because you would prefer X not happen. If consent isn't the communication of what you want to happen then it doesn't have any meaning, it communicates, literally, nothing. So then what does it mean to violate consent? Nothing. So what does it mean to be immoral? Nothing. Conversely, what does it mean to be moral? Nothing. So ethics exists? Nope. But choice requires values, requires ethics? Yep. So there must not be any choices. And what is it called when there is no choice?

 

And I am aware that consent is reducible, it is reducible to preference. I'm taking what you write at face value.

Giving consent is not just acceptance of an action, and also acceptance of the consequences of the action. If I order a hamburger at a restaurant I'm not just accepting the offer of a hamburger but also the obligation of paying for it.

Let's use an example other than taxation: I don't consent to searches. I never verbally permit searches. If someone searches my house, person, or vehicle, whether or not they have a warrant, it wan't with my consent. I'm not going to fight it if it happens legally, though, because I know I'd lose that kind of fight. Is a search moral? Maybe a lifting the veil of privacy is not as big a deal as a taking of property or person, but neither this construction, or the taking construction, ignore my preference. I'm not sure why you think it's relevant. I have verbally told people I vote against taxes, and I do in fact vote against taxes. I am stating my preference not to be stolen from.

[Sir Exotic]

On 9/28/2017 at 2:29 AM, lorry said:

Force is a means to an end, but means are valued for the ends they bring, so the ends determine the value of the means.

Force isn't bad, force to bring about a bad end is bad.

Force isn't good, force to bring about a good end is good.

So you can't say "X is force, therefore it is bad" you have to show that "the end achieved by X is bad therefore X is bad".

You haven't actually defined 'good' or 'bad' here, so it is completely subjective.

Anyway, I disagree with your premise that "force to bring about a good end is good" because we are not talking about simple 'force'.
We are talking about the initiation of force, and the initiation of force is always immoral.

Taxation is not just force, it is the initiation of force, and is therefore always 'bad'.

But I'm afraid you have completely ignored my previous comment in where I explained everything in the clearest way I possibly can, so I'm giving up.

[twinklingwinter]

Relevant.

[lorry]

15 hours ago, ProfessionalTeabagger said:

Violating consent communicates that you are willing to claim a right you necessarily deny another. As any ethical justification underlying your actions must be universal in order to be valid, such violations of consent  cannot have any valid ethical justification. They are immoral. 

 

Don't think so. You see, a right guaranties something to everyone in society but it also obligates everyone in society to uphold that guarantied. So "violating" a right, say, the right to private property, isn't necessarily a "violation" of that right, it might also be the enforcement, or fulfilment, of your obligation to some other member of society to uphold their rights.

[lorry]

10 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

You haven't actually defined 'good' or 'bad' here, so it is completely subjective.

Anyway, I disagree with your premise that "force to bring about a good end is good" because we are not talking about simple 'force'.
We are talking about the initiation of force, and the initiation of force is always immoral.

Taxation is not just force, it is the initiation of force, and is therefore always 'bad'.

But I'm afraid you have completely ignored my previous comment in where I explained everything in the clearest way I possibly can, so I'm giving up.

 

Nah. If Taylor Swift pinches my ass, she has initiated force, but the initiation of force in this context is definitely not immoral 

 

btw. You might ask yourself why Stefan, who has stated that taxation IS theft, has never used his ethical system, UPB, to prove taxation is theft.

[lorry]

14 hours ago, shirgall said:

Giving consent is not just acceptance of an action, and also acceptance of the consequences of the action. If I order a hamburger at a restaurant I'm not just accepting the offer of a hamburger but also the obligation of paying for it.

Let's use an example other than taxation: I don't consent to searches. I never verbally permit searches. If someone searches my house, person, or vehicle, whether or not they have a warrant, it wan't with my consent. I'm not going to fight it if it happens legally, though, because I know I'd lose that kind of fight. Is a search moral? Maybe a lifting the veil of privacy is not as big a deal as a taking of property or person, but neither this construction, or the taking construction, ignore my preference. I'm not sure why you think it's relevant. I have verbally told people I vote against taxes, and I do in fact vote against taxes. I am stating my preference not to be stolen from.

 

My point is this.

 

Questions of evaluation presuppose values which presuppose a standard of value. In the absence of a standard of value there is no rational basis for evaluation. UPB has not solved the problem of the standard of value. UPB assumes the existence of values, and then evaluates value statements for logical contradictions. The Libertarian NAP is not built upon a standard of value, it is a floating abstraction, so the Libertarian NAP can not be used for evaluation.

 

Anyone seeking to prove taxation is theft is seeking evaluation in the absence of a standard by which to evaluate, it can not be done.

 

So that taxation is theft is just an assertion, it is being offered without proof, and anything offered without proof can be rejected without proof.

[M.2]

19 hours ago, WorBlux said:

1. There is a pretty easy way to rectify stolen land. Give it back to the owners or heirs.  There is a point where remoteness from the act of aggression, uncertain inheritance of the original claim, and unwillingness to injure parties who have mixed labor and resources with the land for improvements and maintenance may redeem a claim, however redemption is not automatic. See the recent case in which Bayer was held liable for atrocities they supported in WWII.  The office of the Duke is a lot like a corporation, in a very real sense it is the duchy that was sold in 1443 and granted to the current line in 1813. Corporate transfers retain debt for past actions of that corporation, at least to the value of the corporation at the time.  The is not much remoteness to the act of aggression. While the line of prior inheritance is almost completely opaque, the parties who have fee simple titles are the parties who have maintained and improved most of the lands for the past 200 years or so could keep the same or better title. At most what is due the duchy in a voiding of title would be the price paid in 1443, divided over the appraised value of all freed properties.

2. In contract theory that which you would call consideration. What specific actions must the duke carry out, that if he fails must make restitution from his personal funds, resign from office, or otherwise suffer penalties? The very fact they you call him sovereign is a very strong indicator that he has no real legal duties in a factual sense, as a sovereign is functionally defined as one is answerable to none save themselves.

3. Show to me in the text and backed by fact all of the following: a) offer, b) acceptence, c) meeting of the minds, and d)consideration. within the luxemburg constitution between the duke and all current alleged citizens. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Luxembourg_2009.pdf?lang=en

Additionally the claimed right of legislation within the nation means that the terms are always shifting. Consent is not possible when it is not clear what exactly is being consented to.

Hi, WorBlux .Now there is a reply I was praying for.

1. Whether or not the land of the Duchy was claimed according to free-market principles is very central to this dicussion, and I think you have just detailed that it in fact was.
What I think is left unanswered is my point about returning property after theft. For example, what legal route would Germany have to take in order to regain Prussia? Or do they not get to do that because they were the ones who supposedly started the war?

2. I am going to be honest here and say that I don't know what his duties are, and I don't know what they should be. This was why I asked the question in the first place. What separates the Duke from a common landlord?

3. I am not even sure how that is supposed to look like. Here is what I found.  http://www.mj.public.lu/nationalite/nat_lux_2009_EN.pdf
As I said, I am here because I want my mind changed and my ignorance solved. What I find very hard to claim is that anyone living in Luxembourg has been coerced into accepting the laws and terms of Luxembourg, whatever they may be. Which I think is the main point here, philosophically speaking.

Since you are such a pleasant person, I would really like to get your take on how an AnCap country would differ from current examples, and which country it is that is closest to it.

[RichardY]

Looking on the Internet the etymology(origin) of the word tax comes from a meaning "to fix". Anyone here want to be "fixed"?

What about a 5% fix? Build some giant death star and obliterate anyone who refuses to pay. "No taxation without representation." If there is going to be a tax those enforcing it should be accountable in someway. Separation of Economy and State. Regional Governors or Continental councils with their fingers in the pie. Looking on Wikipedia had an ancestor that hung himself after 1 day as Lord Chancellor, not the guy in the profile pic, other one served 19 years. 

Can anyone rationally prove that St Nicholas (Santa Claus) exists?

Interestingly in the past and the present men dressing up as Santa often paint their faces black. Heard this in Catalonia, but I think it may have occurred in the UK as well. Black is generally a pretty feminin colour, usually not biologically sound to give presents to someone else's children, but there is a positive community affect. Kind of random, but in Catalonia they also have these figurines of the Pope squatting down to take a shit.

[Sir Exotic]

6 hours ago, lorry said:

Nah. If Taylor Swift pinches my ass, she has initiated force, but the initiation of force in this context is definitely not immoral 

In this context, is Taylor Swift pinching your ass a situation you would like to be in?

[shirgall]

20 hours ago, lorry said:

Questions of evaluation presuppose values which presuppose a standard of value. In the absence of a standard of value there is no rational basis for evaluation. UPB has not solved the problem of the standard of value. UPB assumes the existence of values, and then evaluates value statements for logical contradictions. The Libertarian NAP is not built upon a standard of value, it is a floating abstraction, so the Libertarian NAP can not be used for evaluation.

Anyone seeking to prove taxation is theft is seeking evaluation in the absence of a standard by which to evaluate, it can not be done.

So that taxation is theft is just an assertion, it is being offered without proof, and anything offered without proof can be rejected without proof.

UPB does give a standard of value: universally-preferable behavior, and a methodology for evaluating actions against that. It eliminates certain behaviors from being universally preferable and it clearly sets for the necessary axioms for using the methodology. I've never claimed the NAP is the only value or even a fundamental tenet (I've written on the subject a lot on this board).

We're still talking about definitions, and you are jumping to the end. What is it you do not accept with the definition of theft, and consent, here? Is it because of the conclusion that such definitions will lead to?

[WorBlux]

On 9/29/2017 at 3:17 PM, Mishi2 said:

Hi, WorBlux .Now there is a reply I was praying for.

1. Whether or not the land of the Duchy was claimed according to free-market principles is very central to this dicussion, and I think you have just detailed that it in fact was.
What I think is left unanswered is my point about returning property after theft. For example, what legal route would Germany have to take in order to regain Prussia? Or do they not get to do that because they were the ones who supposedly started the war?

2. I am going to be honest here and say that I don't know what his duties are, and I don't know what they should be. This was why I asked the question in the first place. What separates the Duke from a common landlord?

3. I am not even sure how that is supposed to look like. Here is what I found.  http://www.mj.public.lu/nationalite/nat_lux_2009_EN.pdf
As I said, I am here because I want my mind changed and my ignorance solved. What I find very hard to claim is that anyone living in Luxembourg has been coerced into accepting the laws and terms of Luxembourg, whatever they may be. Which I think is the main point here, philosophically speaking.

Since you are such a pleasant person, I would really like to get your take on how an AnCap country would differ from current examples, and which country it is that is closest to it.

1. You have to be careful here and notice the distinction between a particular claim being passed by contract, and weather that claim was of any validity on the first place. There's no natural law or free market(tm) registrar out there validating claims.  I look at these transfers like a quitclaim title, the real effect relies largely on the validity of the original claim. Additionally only one and a half of the three conditions for redemption have been met, and the tie of sovereignty to such title is suspect. 

Remember anarchist here. The German State hardly has proper claim over it's own alleged territory, much less over any of Poland's alleged territory. Even if they paid cash to each and every individual landowner, their insistence of being the sole and final arbiter of the contract now and forever after would in itself lead be to believe those contracts void, as natural law principles do no allow a party to be a judge in their own case.  They don't get it because they the German state, like all states is fundamentally a criminal organization that operated based on violence and threats thereof.

2. A leasors obligation may vary by the specific contract and local custom, generally they have a duty of care (to mitigate or communicate certain hazard affecting the property), a minimum level of maintenance, and are time bound. The purported "duke" has no such personal duties, and the state generally does not either. 

3. "Coerced into accepting" is not in any way acceptance. Either there is individual consent, or there is coercion.

A few days ago I ordered a few products from amazon.  On the Checkout page I was offered 3 products and shipping for approximately $220. I accepted by entering payment information and clicking "place order".  There was mutual consideration of goods provided by amazon, and money I transferred in return. The meeting of mind is likely as the products were pictured and clearly described in English. Plain, simple contract theory. 

In the case of your source, birth is not evidence of an offer or acceptance of anything.  Even in the case of naturalization it's not clear what exactly is to be accepted, and oaths given to the wind. Mainly what is given is participation in the voting system, of which voting can't be said to be genuine consent of policies in the future. (No Treason, Lysander Spooner)

4. As to concrete example, the closest match medieval Iceland and to a lessor degree Ireland. Just search for anarchic Iceland and anarchic Ireland to find details.  The key feature I feel is polycentric law which is an interesting topic even if you aren't an anarchist.

[lorry]

On 30/09/2017 at 4:46 PM, shirgall said:

UPB does give a standard of value: universally-preferable behavior, and a methodology for evaluating actions against that. It eliminates certain behaviors from being universally preferable and it clearly sets for the necessary axioms for using the methodology. I've never claimed the NAP is the only value or even a fundamental tenet (I've written on the subject a lot on this board).

We're still talking about definitions, and you are jumping to the end. What is it you do not accept with the definition of theft, and consent, here? Is it because of the conclusion that such definitions will lead to?

 

I wasn't clear enough. UPB gives A standard of value, it doesn't solve the problem of THE standard of value. By THE standard of value I mean the standard by which any preference is measured. Take two ends and ask, what is it in these two ends which is commensurate with one another and so establishes the standard by which they are measured? What are the dimensions of value?  UPB doesn't solve this problem.

 

Like, UPB is a function, returning a Boolean value, to an argument in the form of a statement about what is universally preferable.

So it assumes preferences, it doesn't prove preferences, but by assuming preferences it proves universal preferences. If preferences exist then universal preferences exist. If ethics exists, UPB is a valid framework of evaluating ethical propositions.

 

By what standard do we measure preferences? UPB doesn't solve that problem.

 

What I do not accept in your definition is that it is not true. Say we take consent as the definition of theft so that violation of consent is theft. What does it mean if I expressly do not consent to give you something and then, without expressly consenting to give you said thing, I give it to you? I do not consent to give you $10. I give you $10. WTF just happened? I just stole from myself! Do I have an obligation to make reparations to myself? How would this go down in a court, I'm the defendant and the complainant.

 

(bear in mind, UPB states that I can't steal from myself. So consent as the basis of theft implies UPB is invalid)

 

Your definition obviously reduces to something else, because consent obviously reduces to something else (the answer to above is that I changed my mind!). So why isn't the basis of your definition that which your definition reduces to? What do you have to reject so as to reduce your definition? I think it is the subjective theory of value, which means we have a problem of THE standard of value.

 

[shirgall]

Because my definition is clear, simple, and complete, and comprises all of the necessary elements of "theft": consent, property, and taking. All three elements have to be present: the taking of property without consent. There is no need to make it more complex or eliminate elements because they are inconvenient.

[Sir Exotic]

On 9/29/2017 at 8:38 PM, lorry said:

Nah. If Taylor Swift pinches my ass, she has initiated force, but the initiation of force in this context is definitely not immoral 

 

On 9/30/2017 at 3:37 AM, Jos van Weesel said:

In this context, is Taylor Swift pinching your ass a situation you would like to be in?

 

Still haven't received an answer to that.

[lorry]

I consent to abort a child 1 day away from term. Not a problem, consent!

I consent for you to set my dog on fire. Not a problem, consent!

A child consents to transgender surgery. Not a problem, consent!

Can a child not give consent, why not? Who can then? The parents? OK, I consent for you to preform a sex change on my child. Not a problem, consent!

I consent for you to gas me with Zyklon B, like I'm some sort of typhus spreading louse. Not a problem, consent!

I consent for you to poz my neg hole, to infect me with HIV. Not a problem, consent!

I consent for you to bleach my eyes, because I identify as a blind man. Not a problem, consent!

 

Your definition is a (attempt at a) legal one, it is the (attempt at the) necessary elements for a court of law, and you know this, so what are you doing trying to pass it off as a definition for the immorality of theft?

 

And, even by that standard, it is a non-definition.

Section 1 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property, belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving a person of said property.

No mention of consent.

When does a theft begin? When is a property appropriated?

Section 1 (3) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

When one assumes the rights to the property, not when one takes the property, because the assumption of ownership precedes the taking. You steal a thing when you decide to steal it, not when you stick it in your pocket. Sticking it in your pocket is how one would prove the theft, consent is how one would prove preference.

[lorry]

58 minutes ago, Jos van Weesel said:

 

 

Still haven't received an answer to that.

 

No need, you define all force as bad, as immoral.

 

Here is where I am.

 

The most generalised conception of a force is a generalised action producing a generalised displacement in some co-ordinate system. Displacement, being vector quantity, requires a magnitude and a direction. A direction requires a basis. That a force is positive is that a force results in a positive displacement. Positive? Positive defined by the basis. That a force is negative is that a force results in a displacement. Negative? Negative defined by the basis.

 

I absolutely reject the definition that the initiation of force is immoral, because that force was initiated says nothing about the resulting displacement (initiated? In what direction?).

I absolutely reject the definition that force is only negative, resulting in a negative displacement (bad or immoral in a ethical context), because it implies the non existence of the positive, and the non existence of the positive implies the non existence of the negative (good and bad, moral and immoral don't exist).

[lorry]

And for all you Libertarians! That the state holds the legal monopoly on the initiation of force does not imply that every action takes is the initiation of force.

 

I'm going to go to McDonalds later, and they hold a legal monopoly on Big Macs, but I'm going to buy some fries. WTF JUST HAPPENED?!

[Sir Exotic]

I am not going to bother reading your reply because you are not answering the question.
You know what your answer is and you know that I know, and you also have a good idea of what my response will be, and you're avoiding it.

Your cop-out was to not answer the question, then put up a straw man ("You define all force as bad") and then talk about something else.

If you're not going to have respect for other people in a discussion forum by responding to their arguments and the points they make or by avoid conclusions, let's end it here.

On 9/30/2017 at 3:37 AM, Jos van Weesel said:

On 9/29/2017 at 8:38 PM, lorry said:

Nah. If Taylor Swift pinches my ass, she has initiated force, but the initiation of force in this context is definitely not immoral 

In this context, is Taylor Swift pinching your ass a situation you would like to be in?

If not, you're free to answer my question.
If my position is so weak that it is easily broken down, you don't need to put up a straw man to fight it.

[lorry]

On 29/09/2017 at 9:31 AM, Jos van Weesel said:

Anyway, I disagree with your premise that "force to bring about a good end is good" because we are not talking about simple 'force'.
We are talking about the initiation of force, and the initiation of force is always immoral.

Taxation is not just force, it is the initiation of force, and is therefore always 'bad'.

 

Force to bring about a good end is not good.

Force to bring about a bad end is bad.

All ends are good or bad (yeah, I know I'm skipping indifference).

That which is not good is bad.

So all force is bad.

 

12 hours ago, lorry said:

No need, you define all force as bad, as immoral.

 

The most generalised conception of a force is a generalised action producing a generalised displacement in some co-ordinate system. Displacement, being vector quantity, requires a magnitude and a direction. A direction requires a basis. That a force is positive is that a force results in a positive displacement. Positive? Positive defined by the basis. That a force is negative is that a force results in a displacement. Negative? Negative defined by the basis.

 

I absolutely reject the definition that the initiation of force is immoral, because that force was initiated says nothing about the resulting displacement (Initiated? In what direction?).

 

6 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

Your cop-out was to not answer the question, then put up a straw man ("You define all force as bad") and then talk about something else.

If you're not going to have respect for other people in a discussion forum by responding to their arguments and the points they make or by avoid conclusions, let's end it here.

If my position is so weak that it is easily broken down, you don't need to put up a straw man to fight it.

 

I'm basically just throwing out examples to provoke the re conception of the definitions, as, I think, the definitions used have no basis in reality (floating abstractions).

Here is a new one.

Initiating force to stop a girl from killing herself, is, by your definition, always immoral. I dunno.....

[Sir Exotic]

12 hours ago, lorry said:

Force to bring about a good end is not good.

Force to bring about a bad end is bad.

All ends are good or bad (yeah, I know I'm skipping indifference).

That which is not good is bad.

So all force is bad.

I disagree with your premise that "force to bring about a good end is good"
I disagreed with your premise because of the wording of it. 'to bring about a good end' can mean different things. If "helping a homeless person" is a good end, then "using force to help a homeless person" may have a good end, but isn't good in its entirety. So yes, in principle, the initiation of force is always immoral. But don't forget that there is a degree of immorality. Stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving is not the same as raping a woman out of lust. In the first situation there is less of an initiation of force, plus the value lost is almost nothing, plus the value lost can be paid back easily. But stealing a loaf of bread is still immoral.

 

12 hours ago, lorry said:

I'm basically just throwing out examples to provoke the re conception of the definitions, as, I think, the definitions used have no basis in reality (floating abstractions).

Here is a new one.

Initiating force to stop a girl from killing herself, is, by your definition, always immoral. I dunno.....

I'll answer your new question(s) when you come around to answer mine. I'm still waiting..

[RichardY]

[lorry]

14 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

I disagree with your premise that "force to bring about a good end is good"
I disagreed with your premise because of the wording of it. 'to bring about a good end' can mean different things. If "helping a homeless person" is a good end, then "using force to help a homeless person" may have a good end, but isn't good in its entirety. So yes, in principle, the initiation of force is always immoral. But don't forget that there is a degree of immorality. Stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving is not the same as raping a woman out of lust. In the first situation there is less of an initiation of force, plus the value lost is almost nothing, plus the value lost can be paid back easily. But stealing a loaf of bread is still immoral.

 

1. Cutting someone open to save their life. This is good. 

2. Cutting someone open to murder them. This is bad.

 

If I take away the ends from 1 and 2 you have:

 

A. Cutting someone open to...

B. Cutting someone open to...

 

Which one, A or B, is the immoral act? And why?

 

[Gavitor]

7 minutes ago, lorry said:

 

1. Cutting someone open to save their life. This is good. 

2. Cutting someone open to murder them. This is bad.

 

If I take away the ends from 1 and 2 you have:

 

A. Cutting someone open to...

B. Cutting someone open to...

 

Which one, A or B, is the immoral act? And why?

 

Give me an example of when stealing from someone is good for the person being stolen from.

[Sir Exotic]

9 hours ago, Gavitor said:

Give me an example of when stealing from someone is good for the person being stolen from.

I second this question. Lorry changed the nature of the situation to where you're saving someone's life, so of course they would consent to the 'cutting' if they had the choice. He has to go to these absurd scenario's to justify the ones he can't, and refuses to answer.

Lorry we keep answering your questions, but you keep avoiding mine.

I am still waiting for you to answer my question about your Taylor Swift scenario, and you have already come up with 2 new questions for me that I will both answer once you answer mine. The way this discussion will continue depends entirely on you.

[lorry]

On 05/10/2017 at 2:18 AM, Gavitor said:

Give me an example of when stealing from someone is good for the person being stolen from.

Stealing a knife from someone who is going use said knife to slice their wrists open and kill themselves.

Now you try.

[lorry]

On 05/10/2017 at 11:45 AM, Jos van Weesel said:

I second this question. Lorry changed the nature of the situation to where you're saving someone's life, so of course they would consent to the 'cutting' if they had the choice. He has to go to these absurd scenario's to justify the ones he can't, and refuses to answer.

Lorry we keep answering your questions, but you keep avoiding mine.

I am still waiting for you to answer my question about your Taylor Swift scenario, and you have already come up with 2 new questions for me that I will both answer once you answer mine. The way this discussion will continue depends entirely on you.

 

Well, yeah I'm not answering the question. I know your response to the answer and I reject it, so...... why? I'm fairly sure I figured out the problem, effort post incoming!

[Gavitor]

2 hours ago, lorry said:

Stealing a knife from someone who is going use said knife to slice their wrists open and kill themselves.

How is this good for them? Is it ok for you to prevent someone from killing themselves and if so why? Maybe they have a legitimate reason for ending their life like being in constant pain with no way other than death to get relief.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else does with their own life and body? If that person values death more so than life then stealing from them has not changed that value judgement and they will likely kill themselves by some other means.

Are you willing to kill someone so that they cannot do it themselves?

 

[lorry]

OK, new podcast from those who shall not be named. So.....

 

1.

The most generalised conception of a force is a generalised action producing a generalised displacement in some co-ordinate system. Displacement, being vector quantity, requires a magnitude and a direction. A direction requires a basis. That a force is positive is that a force results in a positive displacement. Positive? Positive defined by the basis. That a force is negative is that a force results in a displacement. Negative? Negative defined by the basis.

 

2.

In the context of ethics, a positive displacement is a good, a negative displacement is a bad.

 

3.

The libertarian has no basis of good and bad, ethical and unethical, because they have no standard of value.

 

4. 

Objectivism does have a standard of value.

Quote

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.

 

5.

Objectivism defines the concept of the standard of value.

Quote

The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

 

6.

From the standard of value, Objecivism can define the initiation of physical force as the negation of said standard.

Quote

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.

Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no “right” to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him in a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: “Your money or your life,” or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: “Your children’s education or your life,” the meaning of that ultimatum is: “Your mind or your life”—and neither is possible to man without the other.

 

7. 

The problem is Objectivism defines man as a rational animal....

Quote

Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”

(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)

 

8.

Explicitly.

Quote

To think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question “to be or not to be” is the question “to think or not to think.”

 

9.

So, the initiation of physical force is the negation of man's mind [6] but the use of mans mind if optional [7] [8]. Therefore, the initiation of physical force is only the negation of man's mind if man has chosen to use his mind. As it is the negation of man's mind [6], which is the good [5], it can only be that it is the initiation of physical force against a man who acting rationally is immoral. For example, man, acting rationally, is acting to achieve the good and thus the initiation of physical force must be so as to force said man away from the good, which is logically, always, the bad.

 

10.

Reviewing my examples, i.e., use force to stop a suicide, I am giving examples of initiating the use of again the irrational, and we know they are irrational because acting contrary to the good, man's life.

 

Thoughts:

If it is that the initiation of force is immoral because it negates the fact of a man's mind, it must be that it is only immoral to initiate the use of physical force against a man acting rationally, a man using his mind.

If it is that the initiation of force is immoral against the rational AND the irrational, the it is that physical force is the negation of the capacity, the potential, of the mind, not of the mind. If this is true, then abortion must be immoral, objectivly, on the same grounds, i.e., that the fetus irreducible [can not be separated into sperm and egg] and has the capacity, the potential, of the mind (note Rand held that abortion is NOT unethical).