Objective Differences

When talking about the corruption of the government, there are a few metaphors that help illustrate its method of operation. The mafia, slavery, and “just another company, but with guns” come to mind. During a discussion, I’ll equate taxation with slavery, and someone will object at the idea. At this point, I need an objective difference between the two ideas to distinguish them, so that they aren’t comparable anymore. To this date, I’ve yet to hear an objective difference.

One of the most common objections – sometimes called commands – I get when talking to people of the statist persuasion, is that if I don’t like getting my money taken from me, then I’m free to move. So why is this not an objective difference? Because an objective difference would need distinguish why taxation is good and slavery is bad. Since “being able to move” is the criteria that makes taxation good, then we can apply that if slave owners allowed the slaves to move somewhere else, that makes slavery okay. This is nonsense.

There are two possibilities for the now “freed” people. They can either go to another slave owner, or they can live in the wilderness and away from the state’s reach. Scenario A is still slavery, and option B is the only option for freedom. So what do we do in scenario B if the slave owner finds us in the wilderness, just move again?

Another common argument is that we get to vote for who taxes us. I don’t think it takes a lot of explanation to see why this line of reasoning is wrong. “I get to vote for the guy who whips me” isn’t a statement that gives me a lot of confidence in your ability to distinguish what is moral from what is immoral.

Once I remember someone so desperate to win the “slave” argument that they forgot entirely on the taxation part. “Well, if everyone who didn’t want to be a slave got a restraining order on every slave owner, then you wouldn’t have to worry about it.” Honestly. Yes, if that’s the way slavery worked – if it was permission based, then it would be moral. Looking at his proposition, it’s clear that he was no longer comparing slavery to the way that government works in reality, because government isn’t permission based. If I could get functioning restraining orders against the government, then I’d agree that it’s a moral institution. Since it’s not an actual option, it’s not an objective difference.

What suprises me the most – when people give me more than two non-objective reasons, and continue to list even more differences without thinking them through. If you’ve just been disproven on your first two objections, then maybe you should stop and think about your third. Follow its implications on both sides of the comparison to see whether or not it’s objective.


The point that people should realize…

Ok I think I’ve used enough tags, and I also have vague title that could be used to describe practically anything. Seriously, what is up with people using way too many (and often inappropriate) tags to describe their post-blog-news.

Is it a vying for attention, a need to have vast amounts of anonymous viewers in the vehicle of their expression? Or is it simply people who visualize their view as such an important piece of information, they must use a vast amount of tags to ensure that their visions reach as many people as possible?

Let me know what you think, and if there’s anything we can do about it?

Bill O’Reilly, why does he keep making himself out to be a tool?

Seriously, he doesn’t have to, it’s like he chooses to or something.

Check out this link on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8x14cLGh5o

and then O’Reilly’s response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHORbWhqUCo

Got those? Great. First things first, the video featuring the child is an advertisement. The girl isn’t being brainwashed, she’s being payed to read a script. That pretty-much debunks his whole arguement right away.

For fun, let’s assume that the girl isn’t a young actress, and that she is infact a kid sending a message that he disagrees with, that doesn’t constitute emotional abuse. His idea is that parents shouldn’t be allowed to teach their kids what they want.

Wendy Murphy says at the very beginning:

I guarantee you a child that age has no idea what she is saying, that is the ultimate inhumane treatment of a child

Really? So we shouldn’t ever teach kids anything that the general public may disagree with? What about religion, as the girl made reference to. Why is it ok to teach kids about religion, and not teach kids about the harm that religion can, and does, cause.

Something else that gets me is when Bill assumes that everyone agrees with him, using phrases like “There’s no question about that” or “You know that”.

Bill goes on to say

So there’s no legal ramification, there’s nothing you can do legally, because emotional abuse is not a crime … maybe social services could make a case, particularly if they investigated the parents, that these parents are simply not suitable to raise the child, or responsible enough to do it.

Thankfully, most people have enough sense to realize that parents should be able to teach their children values that reflect themselves.

Let’s imagine a scenario, where we take a child claiming to love God (it doesn’t matter which one) and praising the Lord, and saying that belief in this God is the only thing to save you, and if you don’t heed the word, something bad will happen to you. The parents have all the right to teach their child this message. Now imagine O’Reilly got his way, and SS got in the way, claiming the parents were unfit. I don’t want to speak for the man, but I’d imagine that Bill would probably make a statement saying that SS is getting in the way of people teaching decent moral values, never mind the fact that that child would be talking about things that many people would disagree with.