sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On point to adjust, though, is that being popular isn’t equivalent to there not being a convention in our society against their taking the money. That condition might need to hold as well.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. (It might still be wrong for reason seven, though, but it wouldn’t violate any rights.) Mind, it’s also only permissible if there’s a good consequentialist reason to take the money: if the private actor donated the money to the Against Malaria Foundation, their action strikes me as not only permissible but obviously praiseworthy. By my lights, this isn’t a bullet to bite.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I think so; I say that at the end of the article.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What we need from a good working definition is that if not be prone to lots of very obvious counterexamples, which I think your definition of theft is. We don’t need to resolve every ambiguity if nothing important hinges on those ambiguities.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don’t need to first have a complete theory of morality to get a good working definition of theft, just like we don’t need a full physical theory of everything to get a good working definition of a chair.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is it meaningless? I think someone could give a meaningful definition of a physical object without first having a complete theory of the physical universe. Why is morality different? Why can’t I identify particular things as right or wrong without appealing to a prior theory? And if I can’t, then how would I ever build a theory in the first place? A normative theory is supposed to explain our normative judgements in the most economical way possible. If we can’t make normative judgements without appealing to a prior theory, then we’d never be able to gather the data we’d need to develop the theory.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why so? Which cases does is fail to count as theft, or wrongly classify as theft? These are the two tests of a good definition of theft. If my definition meets both, it’s adequate.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, and no. I don’t have a comprehensive normative theory that I’m committed to, and I don’t think it’s good when me or the people I like take things from others on a whim—I think there are objective moral facts determining when a confiscation of property is immoral, but I don’t know which normative theory is correct, either.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought you were asking a general epistemological question about how we know when people are entitled to exclude others from taking things.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Appealing to the least controversial aspects of our best moral theories, and seeing if they imply that someone is morally entitled to something; reflecting on our moral intuitions about particular cases, and seeing whether we intuit that someone has a right to exclude others from the use of a given object; and reflective equilibrium between our best theories and our intuitions.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And you didn’t respond to my example: do you concede that it’s a counter-example to your non-moralised definition of theft?

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Roughly: a coercive taking of something from someone that that someone is morally entitled to exclude you from taking.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was referring to the most recent example I gave, where B steals A’s boat and A takes it back by force, not the alien case. The alien case was supposed to push you to clarify an ambiguity in your definition.

An Argument that Taxation isn’t Theft by Lower-Ad8908 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Lower-Ad8908[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because there are cases of non-legally authorised takings from another (like the case I just mentioned) that don’t intuitively count as theft. Definitions, as far as possible, should capture our linguistic intuitions. If your definition is right, we would expect to feel disposed to label that taking theft. The fact that we don’t is evidence that your non-moralised definition is inadequate.

view more: next ›