Magox

That was funny! It took the press a few seconds to get it.

One was humorous the other made a decent point. I'm going to push on this quarter

I'll consider that a tacit acknowledgement from you that morality is indeed subjective. Tgreggy, you mean between TYTT and Rich?

So I think it is safe to say that all these biased members of the media have their own sets of morality that often times don't line up with some of their counterparts.

Correct

Steltler is the worst. The guys is a complete shill for the left. Having said that, it isn't just CNN polling that shows this. A number of polls show the same

You have got that completely backwards. The only pleading I am seeing is coming from you. You are essentially wanting people to come to your view, where you decide all matters of morality or that what is understood to be acceptable in terms of morality is written in stone somewhere and that we are all ascribing to these universal sort of truths. So when you say Under my argument, that in this society that we live in, if government makes a decision that is against the will of the people that there will be a course correction and that policy will then begin to more closely reflect the wishes of the people. That's how a functioning Democracy works. Doesn't mean that injustices don't occur under these systems, just that reforms and changes take place when government comes to the wrong conclusion or if major overreaches occur. And I seem to remember saying something like that in a previous post. You either come to a realization that what I'm saying is factually correct or you don't. If you cannot accept the fact that morality is subjective, then we really can't go any further on this topic.

What I said was that the concept of morality is a subjective matter and it is, that is a factual truth. However, there can be a consensus among decent humans that such examples that you and firechan provided would be considered to be morally wrong. Still doesn't change the fact that it is a subjective. I'm sure that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin who were previous slave holders had some sort of explanation of subjectively to justify the morality of their past decisions. Or if you talk to a terrorist who kills innocent people has some sort of justification as to why they believe they are doing their God's work. Doesn't mean that the vast majority of the population is in agreement but just shows you that what is right and wrong in terms of morality is in the eyes of the beholder. But that's not what we were talking about, the context of all this came under your opinion that it is morally unjust for the government to tax individuals. That is without doubt, subjective. Just like whether a government has moral justification in providing social safety nets to its citizens. That as well would be subjective. I'm not taking a position one way or another in regards to the morality of all this because I tend to view things from a practical point of view. I believe social safety nets if provided in an efficient and accountable manner helps citizens get back on their feet so that they can then be a productive member of society again. They pay into a system, when they are down on their luck, the safety net is there for them. Not to get sidetracked on social safety nets, my point is that my view of all this, comes from what I would consider to be practical terms as opposed to what is morally just or not. Bleeding hearts believe caring for the poor is the morally just thing to do. Individualists believe the preservation of their rights is at the epicenter of morality. Both sides tend to disagree with one another, doesn't make any one of you right or wrong. Now, if there is policy that is attached to that moral justification, then we can judge whether or not that law or taxation effectively addresses what the law was intended to do in an objective matter.

So when you post the above in response to the below What you are saying is the examples that I posted in differences of morality from your view is wrong. Right? Of course that is what you meant. So when I tell you that you aren't the official arbiter of what is morally just or not, you come up with You are drawing a moral equivalence of my example to what you posted. Do you not see the absurdity of your argument?

Is that how you argue? You go from one extreme to another. I give you a practical example of disagreements of morality and you provide this?

I'm sorry, you aren't the official arbiter of what is morally just or not. Yes, we will have to.

Yes, their is a level of subjectivity in what is or isn't pragmatism, I recognize that. But not nearly as much from my view as morality. Many people believe it is morally correct to take care of those in need. Many people believe it is morally correct to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Many people believe it is immoral to pollute the environment. What I'm saying is that what is morally just for you does not necessarily mean is something that is morally acceptable for another person. So yes, it is highly subjective.

Morality is subjective, what I believe to be morally correct maybe something that you don't believe to be just and vice versa. Whereas pragmatism, for me is the search to properly assess truth in meaning of a belief and apply that in practical terms. To me that is logical. We are going to go round and round here, so to avoid repeating myself. I believe we will have to simply agree to disagree.

What I believe is that within this Democracy and the system we have today, that I know that in order for new taxes to come about, it has to pass the house, the senate and signed off by the US president. If they make a decision that is against the will of the American public, I recognize that we live in a Democracy that will hold those politicians accountable and with that course correction will come about new policies. I accept the way our Democracy is crafted. I don't believe it to be perfect but I do recognize that our system relative to virtually any other country gives more power to the individual than others.

Which is why I have a hard time for ever voting for someone with modern day progressive values. Everyone out of their voting coalition is a victim, and since they are an aggrieved class they are entitled to A) punitive measures against those that aren't them and B) some sort of compensation because they are a victim. If you really think about it, Nationalism is similar in the sense that they are victims as well. Which is why I adamantly oppose modern day progressives and nationalists.

Yes, and you are welcome to believe that we should be able to own nukes. and no one is handing out guns either. Sounds like you are backtracking from your previous argument. There are limits, this is the conundrum that purists face, they take their argument to absurd levels and then get caught looking silly having to defend extreme examples, like the one you made regarding nukes.

I don't think that is a convincing argument. We elect officials who can change tax policy, and the decisions that our elected officials make has electoral consequences which in turn has consequences in tax policy. It is a part of our and other Democracies across the world, just count your lucky stars that we have a better system of checks and balances than other governments across the world.

Ok, but that isn't quite the same as not having a choice, which is what being robbed at gunpoint or slavery explicitly implies. The government in all practicality doesn't have the right to tax as they "see fit" without the validation of the people. Taxation is largely determined through legislation, which means you'd have to at least have the majority of house and senate along with the presidency. Same with state and local taxes, except they are done at the state/local level. If taxation is enacted through the decisions of our elected officials, that is indeed not theft, that is what we call Democracy. To your last point, well I'm glad you didn't fall in the same trap as Firechan. Bingo! Price transparency and providing patients the ability to choose from a menu of options without network restrictions would go a long way in helping drive down medical costs. Yes, I sense that about you.

If you are robbed at gunpoint and/or a slave to the state, that would imply that you don't have a choice. That is the point that you are making, correct? In regards to the second point, sure. It's not a yeah or nay proposition. Let's revisit a discussion I had with firechan. In regards to guns and weapons, Where do you draw the line on what sort of weapon citizens should and should not own?

Aside from the ideological argument, which I think if you've seen me post long enough, you know that I'm not a fan of rigid ideologies. It narrows the scope of reason, once you become a "believer" of whatever ideology that you are beholden to, you tend to not consider arguments outside that range. Essentially you become immune to changing conditions because the thought process is that whatever ideology you are captive to, that it will apply with the same effectiveness in every single situation. That would be a logical fallacy. Back to the taxes issue, I think most people that have problems with taxation isn't so much the amount that they are taxed or rather the ideological argument against taxation but how their money is spent. They see waste and the more of it they see the less confidence that they have in the overall system.

Or Portugal. Southern Europe is not like their neighbors from the North.

I misunderstood your intent. So when you say this: If you are robbed at gunpoint or held as a slave to the state, what are the two commonalities here?

I don't view it from a moral standpoint but purely from a transactional pragmatic view. Clearly there are services provided by federal, state and local governments, and the money has got to come from somewhere to pay for those services. So the question is what should the proper rate of taxation be? The answer would be that it depends on all the services and debt that each level of government has. The best way to have lower taxation would be to reduce the reliance from the public of some of these services. I'm not advocating for taking a hatchet to government, as I know many here would want. But I do believe that it needs to be trimmed, and it should be something that we have people in government that are always looking to reduce wasteful government programs and projects.

I think that TYTT was implying so. It's what I call the Libertarian conundrum. No offense to TYTT or Firechan, but they are victims of this conundrum. Just ask Firechan his beliefs whether or not private citizens should own Nukes.

So essentially he believes that if you make a lot of money, that you are white a person, white male to be more specific.