Would you voluntarily support murder?

[jts]

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/worldstopmilitaryspender.jpg

Imagine all taxes are abolished and there are no taxes. Imagine government is support only by voluntary donations. Imagine you get to choose which part of government your voluntary donations go to. Would you voluntarily support mass murder war?

[tmj]

yes, total war against an aggressor nation, and salt the soil

[BaalChatzaf]

Delenda Cartago est!

[tmj]

you're damn skippy

[Brant Gaede]

Sure. Depends entirely on legal and moral context.

--Brant

[jts]

A different question. Let's assume that you would voluntarily support mass murder war with your own money. Would you force others to involuntarily support the same mass murder war with their money, maybe on the ground that otherwise the mass murder war would not be funded enough to be successful?

[Peter]

Jts, you keep using the word murder but you do not define it. Objectivists and most constitutionalists know that killing in self defense is not murder. There are provisions in war ethics to eliminate or lessen collateral damage, so that it is not murder. Other ethics explain when it is morally right to stop aggression by striking first. These distinctions are elementary but you do not acknowledge them.

Peter

[jts]

Jts, you keep using the word murder but you do not define it. Objectivists and most constitutionalists know that killing in self defense is not murder. There are provisions in war ethics to eliminate or lessen collateral damage, so that it is not murder. Other ethics explain when it is morally right to stop aggression by striking first. These distinctions are elementary but you do not acknowledge them. Peter

Who is crossing the Atlantic Ocean? Who is occupying whose country? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not responsible for 9-11. If financial support for war had to be voluntary, government would need to convince people that the war is not murder.

[caroljane]

Jts, you keep using the word murder but you do not define it. Objectivists and most constitutionalists know that killing in self defense is not murder. There are provisions in war ethics to eliminate or lessen collateral damage, so that it is not murder. Other ethics explain when it is morally right to stop aggression by striking first. These distinctions are elementary but you do not acknowledge them. Peter

Who is crossing the Atlantic Ocean? Who is occupying whose country? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not responsible for 9-11. If financial support for war had to be voluntary, government would need to convince people that the war is not murder.

You are arguing ad hominid as usual.

[Xray]

Imagine all taxes are abolished and there are no taxes. Imagine government is support only by voluntary donations. Imagine you get to choose which part of government your voluntary donations go to. Would you voluntarily support mass murder war?

Imo the idea of a government being supported only by voluntairy donations is absurd.

[Peter]

Angela wrote:

Imo the idea of a government being supported only by voluntary donations is absurd.

end quote

It is not absurd. Paying for services rendered, national lotteries, etc., are voluntary things people do right now with State and County governments and free market businesses! Why would the law of supply and demand suddenly cease if national governments were the recipient?

I agree that if taxation were voluntary the Western, Enlightenment Republics would not support their defense departments unless war were declared, and the proposed war was using *retaliatory* force.

Peter

[jts]

Imagine all taxes are abolished and there are no taxes. Imagine government is support only by voluntary donations. Imagine you get to choose which part of government your voluntary donations go to. Would you voluntarily support mass murder war?

Imo the idea of a government being supported only by voluntairy donations is absurd.

What is the proper purpose of government? To protect individual rights.

What are taxes? A violation of rights.

[BaalChatzaf]

Imo the idea of a government being supported only by voluntairy donations is absurd.

What is the proper purpose of government? To protect individual rights.

What are taxes? A violation of rights.

Government is a necessary evil (observe Somalia to see what happens when there is no government). A sufficient rate of taxation to maintain a defense is just one of the necessary evils that flow from the necessary evil of government.

The basic problem is that there are evil people in the world. The only solution is to eliminate human evil.

[Dglgmut]

Imo the idea of a government being supported only by voluntairy donations is absurd.

What is the proper purpose of government? To protect individual rights.

What are taxes? A violation of rights.

Government is a necessary evil (observe Somalia to see what happens when there is no government). A sufficient rate of taxation to maintain a defense is just one of the necessary evils that flow from the necessary evil of government.

The basic problem is that there are evil people in the world. The only solution is to eliminate human evil.

But who is going to eliminate the evil people, the people who are forcefully taking your money? Does a peaceful society depend on thugs at some level?

The fact that American's have not voluntarily funded a competitive government may be something that supports your claim, though.

[caroljane]

Imo the idea of a government being supported only by voluntairy donations is absurd.

What is the proper purpose of government? To protect individual rights.

What are taxes? A violation of rights.

Government is a necessary evil (observe Somalia to see what happens when there is no government). A sufficient rate of taxation to maintain a defense is just one of the necessary evils that flow from the necessary evil of government.

The basic problem is that there are evil people in the world. The only solution is to eliminate human evil.

But who is going to eliminate the evil people, the people who are forcefully taking your money? Does a peaceful society depend on thugs at some level?

The fact that American's have not voluntarily funded a competitive government may be something that supports your claim, though.

Yes. As Orwell said, I know I sleep safe in my bed because somewhere in dark places, rough men do violence in my name.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dayaamm!

Carol,

What have you done in your formatting?

Like four times at that?

Whew!

I'll fix it, then fix it again once I chop it down to size.



Michael

EDIT: Ahhh... That's better.

[jts]

Imo the idea of a government being supported only by voluntairy donations is absurd.

What is the proper purpose of government? To protect individual rights.

What are taxes? A violation of rights.

Government is a necessary evil (observe Somalia to see what happens when there is no government). A sufficient rate of taxation to maintain a defense is just one of the necessary evils that flow from the necessary evil of government.

The basic problem is that there are evil people in the world. The only solution is to eliminate human evil.

Even if government is a necessary evil, it does not follow that taxes are necessary. There is such a thing as voluntary donations.

A government (to protect individual rights) supported by taxes (a violation of individual rights) is absurd.

[BaalChatzaf]

The basic problem is that there are evil people in the world. The only solution is to eliminate human evil.

Even if government is a necessary evil, it does not follow that taxes are necessary. There is such a thing as voluntary donations.

A government (to protect individual rights) supported by taxes (a violation of individual rights) is absurd.

Try maintaining a modern military organization on voluntary donations. You have no idea of how expensive it is.

The only way I can see it happening is if a bunch of Rich Guys got together and built a doomsday machine, and then dictated terms to the world. Of course, they must be willing to die by the sword that they have chosen to live by.

[caroljane]

Dayaamm!

Carol,

What have you done in your formatting?

Like four times at that?

Whew!

I'll fix it, then fix it again once I chop it down to size.

Michael

EDIT: Ahhh... That's better.

I don't know! My computer is possessed by the devil.

Thanks for the exorcism.

[jts]

Even if government is a necessary evil, it does not follow that taxes are necessary. There is such a thing as voluntary donations.

A government (to protect individual rights) supported by taxes (a violation of individual rights) is absurd.

Try maintaining a modern military organization on voluntary donations. You have no idea of how expensive it is.

How can you specialize in logic and be so good at logic and not see the contradiction? People are forced to give their money to support a fight against tyranny. That is a contradiction.

If you really believe people should give money to support a war, use reason to convince them, not force. Show them the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Prove that they are intended to be used against your country.

[BaalChatzaf]

Even if government is a necessary evil, it does not follow that taxes are necessary. There is such a thing as voluntary donations.

A government (to protect individual rights) supported by taxes (a violation of individual rights) is absurd.

Try maintaining a modern military organization on voluntary donations. You have no idea of how expensive it is.

How can you specialize in logic and be so good at logic and not see the contradiction? People are forced to give their money to support a fight against tyranny. That is a contradiction.

If you really believe people should give money to support a war, use reason to convince them, not force. Show them the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Prove that they are intended to be used against your country.

The alternative is worse. Being taxed (at an appropriate rate) is the lesser of evils. The alternative is being open and defenseless against foreign attack.

[jts]

Even if government is a necessary evil, it does not follow that taxes are necessary. There is such a thing as voluntary donations.

A government (to protect individual rights) supported by taxes (a violation of individual rights) is absurd.

Try maintaining a modern military organization on voluntary donations. You have no idea of how expensive it is.

How can you specialize in logic and be so good at logic and not see the contradiction? People are forced to give their money to support a fight against tyranny. That is a contradiction.

If you really believe people should give money to support a war, use reason to convince them, not force. Show them the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Prove that they are intended to be used against your country.

The alternative is worse. Being taxed (at an appropriate rate) is the lesser of evils. The alternative is being open and defenseless against foreign attack.

You can't rationally convince people that they need to heavily support a war. They must be forced to support a war for their own good. You must use tyranny to fight tyranny.

Why can't you rationally convince people that they need to heavily support a war? Do you not have facts and reason on your side?

[Brant Gaede]

Even if government is a necessary evil, it does not follow that taxes are necessary. There is such a thing as voluntary donations.

A government (to protect individual rights) supported by taxes (a violation of individual rights) is absurd.

Try maintaining a modern military organization on voluntary donations. You have no idea of how expensive it is.

How can you specialize in logic and be so good at logic and not see the contradiction? People are forced to give their money to support a fight against tyranny. That is a contradiction.

If you really believe people should give money to support a war, use reason to convince them, not force. Show them the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Prove that they are intended to be used against your country.

The alternative is worse. Being taxed (at an appropriate rate) is the lesser of evils. The alternative is being open and defenseless against foreign attack.

You can't rationally convince people that they need to heavily support a war. They must be forced to support a war for their own good. You must use tyranny to fight tyranny.

Why can't you rationally convince people that they need to heavily support a war? Do you not have facts and reason on your side?

If you set up a government with war powers the support is implicit from the start. Facts and reason then get layered on--or bullshit. Then the mob hits the street demanding the enemy's heads.

--Brant

preferably on spikes

[Dglgmut]

Try maintaining a modern military organization on voluntary donations. You have no idea of how expensive it is.

lol

[jts]

Try maintaining a modern military organization on voluntary donations. You have no idea of how expensive it is.

lol

Suppose (just as an example) you are currently forced to pay $50,000 in tax per year toward war. Now suppose the tax is abolished. Why would you not voluntarily donate $50,000 per year toward war? Do you just talk the talk? Or do you also walk the walk? Do you have some doubt whether the war is necessary?

If you voluntarily donated $50,000 per year toward war instead of being forced to pay $50,000 per year toward war, you might take a more active interest in how efficiently the money is being used. (Government tends to be inefficient in the use of money.) You might want to have some say in where the money is going. You might want better evidence of weapons of mass destruction and what they are intended for. You might want regular reports of the military's activities. All this would be good.

Oh, voluntarily donating $50,000 per year is laughable. You would not do it voluntarily. But you are quite willing to be forced to pay the money as a tax.