It works fine. In fact we have a system in place for deciding what percentage should be paid, and almost everyone supports it. While you and I both want to abolish the whole democratic state-thing, in this case it goes to show that deciding the level of taxation doesn't have to be an insurmountable problem at all.

A system where you have to pay some of your money towards something that is perceived as a common good. I was just trying to jump a little ahead in the discussion. Sorry.

Well noone's denying that it "works" in the same way that a mugging generally "works" just that it's inconsistent, illogical and illegitimate.

This is like that discussion we had before about the TVs and WalMart, isnt it?

Right, what do you mean by "works?" Something "works" if the world doesnt explode?

Enforced sterilization is very bad. I can not imagine a situation where enforced sterilization would be justified by that line of reasoning.

Thought provoking question, though. Since I am staunchly against enforcing anything on an individual, I can't imagine situations where doing so is justified. I guess since you people are, incredible as it seems to me, as staunchly against stealing as I am against physically enforcing something on an individual, you can't imagine situations where stealing is justified.

Not quite. Stealing to help starving people is not the same as stealing because you want to play ps3 and drink beer.

Have to pay? No, I refuse. What now? How do you enforce this without violence?

Then we just take it. No violence and no problem.

I didnt mean that part. I meant the part where you steal my taxes without me being able to stop you but without you using any sort of physical force.

Through magic? I promise I'll touch my money at all times if we can avoid a few lines in this argument.

Aha. Yeah, the same as that one.

Magic is one possibility. That is render your money useless in some way. Like add them to a list of serial numbers that are now worthless. Another option is to wait until you unevitably have to let go of them, when you try to use them. A third option is similar to the first, and maybe more feasible, in that we add you to a list of people that is excluded from taking part in the fun ride that is property-rights or from something else or both.

If one wolf does something to hurt the pack, then he gets ostracized. Is that a system of morality?

Uhm, no, I don't let you. I keep all my wealth on my person.

No, but a belief that that SHOULD happen is a moral belief. I answered your question but you didn't answer mine. Is there any distinction between whatever you believe and "It's moral to act to the benefit of the human race/immoral to act to its detriment"? Other than your distaste for the word immoral?

Sorry, I keep all my wealth in gold.

So you're going to pay to have people follow me around all the time in case I slip? You're spending more than you're collecting here.

So? Any time I need to sleep, I'll just break into someone's house and use their bed. Hell, at this point, why do I even need my money since I'll just steal everything I need. Congratulations, you have successfully made me a leach on society.

Too easy. I will suck the wealth out of your pockets with my hand helf vacuum cleaner.

I need to go to bed.

You're jumping ahead of yourself. I haven't made any claims about people not being allowed to forcefully stop you from breaking into their house in this thread It's fine that you think this will make society break down, but it's not fine that you use it as an escape hatch to explain why something that has nothing to do with it won't work. For the purpose of this discussion, you can assume I am fine with people forcing you to not break into their house because you want to be a leech.

But yes, I need to go to bed. Good night boys.

On the contrary. By removing and therefore violating my property rights, you have forfeited your own. I wasn't talking about anything outside of your post.

Even the most clueless of politards realized I was joking here.

Not every free cent. Just the ones that my rulers deem necessary for the greater good. Keeping poor people alive is +EV for the economy. You're just too blind to see it. You think Bill Gates is gonna go get a 9-5 at some factory in Cleavland?

I try and I try, but I just can't seem to hate you

No. The things you say in this forum are so ridiculous that it's impossible to separate any jokes you make from the rest unless you use emoticons.

I no more believe that it "should" happen than i believe the sun "should" rise in the East. The fact is that it does happen. Detrimental behavior gets noticed and society acts to protect itself from that behavior. It's as instinctual as seeking food, and it's necessary for the survival of the species.

Morality is just a silly concept invented to make people feel better about punishing and/or executing people who behave detrimentally.

No, morality is how we figure out which actions are detrimental and which aren't.

I want to make sure I understand your disavowing the word should. Am I to understand when you see detrimental acts like rape/murder in the paper, you personally feel indifferent but you observe that the act is punished? You said there's no should, it's just an observable fact. So I take it to mean that you have no opinion on how a person should act? That you have no opinion on which actions should be punished and which should not? Such a position, while logically conceivable seems quite alien to me so I want to make sure that's what you're saying. But if that is the case then surely you realize the punishments that you DO observe are the result of opinions on the above questions that other people have.

You said the punishment response is instinctual, don't you have the same instincts?