Eva:

I fully understand it is an uncomfortable illustration of the concept 'forced association.'   Especially to those who yet harbor within themselves some got-to-have-it reason for justifying forced association in human interactions.   I'm not surprised in the least that there is a negative reaction to me illustrating what certain abhorrent human practices have precisely in common.

But it is entirely accurate.    Rape, slavery, totalitarianism,,, when you examine that set, the defining characteristic that links them together is exactly forced association.  That is reality.  If you are in a place where that reality is perceivable as unfair or unkind, then you have a choice.   Question my motives, etc., or question your premises.    I'm also not surprised to realize which is easier to do, that is human nature, too.

But there is no part of me that has any concerns about identifying rape as rape, slavery as slavery, totalitarianism as totalitarianism and alternately, freedom as freedom.    If and when I'm requested to defend the concept of freedom by restricting myself to the acceptable terms and playing fields of its adversaries(not you, but the Herdists who have built this cultural mess), I can only recognize that as politics as usual.

regards,

Fred 

Eva,

Objectivists also seem to envisage a world in which force is never used, that everything is voluntary. Yes, this is pretty black/ white. Arguably, anything differing from that--ie that we should try to use coercion as little as possible--is indeed 'progressive'.; or, perhaps 'realistic'?

Objectivists are very comfortable with the use of force in self-defense, and in retaliation against someone who initiated force, fraud or theft.  Other than that... No.  

----------------------------

The reason that everything is voluntary for Objectivists is because they see choice as being at the heart of how humans work, and the prereqisite of reasoning and making decisions, and the fair and equal state of things is when we all have an equal opportunity to make our own choices.  Hence, those metaphysical, epistemological and ethical points naturally give rise to a political state that is based upon protecting choice - i.e., outlawing the initiation of force, fraud and theft and using the minimal amount of police and military needed to achieve that state.

There is nothing unrealistic about saying that your life and your time and your property are yours, and that anything more than a small tax needed to support the minimal state is wrong.  It is a belief in what we should be moving towards.  

If a progressive says that it is unrealistic and that they "need" to tax more to support pre-kindergarten, or research on the sex life of chipmunks, or foriegn aid for this or that impoverished dictator... the only logical answer is to tell them to spend their own money and that they have no right to your money.  

I have no problems with them having their own ideas and beliefs, or with them spending money on what I might consider foolish and futile projects, but not my money.  They want to steal my money to spend on their ideas.  There is no justice or fairness in that.

Steve,

Just because I accept the principle of 'minimal state' is no indication that my 'minimal' will correspond to anyone else's.

As for clarity, yes, you are. That doen't mean that I agree.

Eva

Yes, and what ethical principle will govern its deployment?   Steve has mentioned reasons justifying the use of state force.   I've described an ethics based on, state use of forced in response to acts of forced association, to inhibit same.   They are basically restatements of the same ethical principle.   

None of that says "No force."   It says, state force governed by an ethical principle.   That, I think, is what Steve is asking.

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/05, 9:39am)

The rules of our democracy--or any other that's ever existed--say that tax rates are set by democratic procedeure.

To call the outcome 'rape' because you disagree with the results is 'like' (metaphor) a girl claiming rape as a cover story because she got pregnant.

Steve,

I acknowledge that all taxation is, by definition, 'forced association'.

So my disagreement with you is on epistemological grounds--not, ostensibly what we both feel is 'fair'.

In other words, I see lots of things that are forced, but not unfairly so.

For the reasons cited--including a fundamental disagreement as to how language should be written---I'm simply unwilling to call my sense of unfairness 'rape'.

You, oth, seem to be comfortable with saying, 'Any type of taxations for government expendatures of which I disapprove are going to be called 'rape'.

You're also trying to alter the conversation to what I think taxation fairness is. In a normal conversation, i'd be happy to oblige, as I discuss these things daily on campus with the liberal majority.

But, sorry, I'm not going there, by intent, to prove a point. On campus, if I called liberals 'rapists'  for their views on taxes, I'd be ignored...

Eva

Eva,

You, oth, seem to be comfortable with saying, 'Any type of taxations for government expendatures of which I disapprove are going to be called 'rape'.

It isn't my disappoval which sets the standard.  You're intelligent enough to know that I don't think like that, yet that is the kind of argument you make.  Why would someone make a bad argument on purpose?

My position is that taxation for other than the purpose of protection of individual rights is improper.  Government is a man-made institution. It has a valid purpose.  That purpose is the protection of individual rights. I do not call taxation of any kind rape.  Taxation is taxation and rape is rape.  I say that taxation for purposes other than the protection of individual rights is LIKE rape in that they are a form of forced association (this is using Fred's metaphor - if I stick with Objectivism's language I'd say that taxation for purposes of than the protection of individual rights is, in fact, a violation of individual rights).

------------------

You're also trying to alter the conversation to what I think taxation fairness is. In a normal conversation, i'd be happy to oblige, as I discuss these things daily on campus with the liberal majority.

But, sorry, I'm not going there, by intent, to prove a point.

I'm not the one trying to alter the conversation. I'm trying to find out what your base political principle is. I have asked in other threads and you have never answered. It isn't me trying to shift the conversation. It is you.  Are you trying to hide a belief?

I don't know why you don't see that I have an objective criteria, not 'disapproval' that determines what is a proper government function and what isn't. I can't imagine anyone who is at all serious about political issues not holding some kind of principle by which they parse the proper versus not-proper actions of a government. And that has been the key theme running throughout this thread. Professor Machan starts it with Obama's failure to understand the proper nature of a government.  Fred continues that thread by pointing out that unfettered democracy ("...what most American's want") can be a violation of free association. You entered the thread with questions about a majority and about calling people 'rapists' - you left the orgional theme... unless you were attempting to say that a majority should have unfettered political rule. Which, I hope you are seeing, is back to this question of what is the standard for parsing a proper versus non-proper act of government. Are you saying that if a majority vote for X, then X is proper? Other member's popped up to point out that Fred was equating the forced association of a rape with the forced association of improper government actions - both violate a person's right to make their own choice.

It shouldn't be difficult to say what you think a proper government should do for the people, if anything, beyond the basic protection against initiated force, fraud and theft. 

Eva,

...it's a fact of social life that taxes are seen as a means of redistribution, social welfare netting and infrastructure, including education. So what you're doing is taking an idal situation (upon which we agree) and saying, 'If my ideal isn't met, I'm calling it rape'.

It is a fact that SOME people believe in redistribution, social welfare netting and infrastructure, including education.  Others don't.  I assume that everyone wants to steer society from where we are towards what they see as ideal. You should never negotiate with your basic principles. That's like negotiating between eating some poison versus some nutritional food. "Hey, let's compromise and just put a little arsenic in the Cheerios!"  [that was sarcasm for those who are reading impaired]

You persist in engaging in that same faulty argument. You accuse me of calling taxation rape. I've never said that, nor has Fred. What we have both said is that taxation can be a form of forced association, and that forced association is what makes rape different from consensual sex.

-------------

This attitude [identifying forced association in a strong way] is wrong because it indicates a lack of willingness to negotiate which, ultimately, is what politics is all about.

Would it have been wrong of the Jews, had they indicated a lack of willingness to negotiate about the WWII gas chambers? Politics is all about moving towards liberty or away from it. It is about what structures are the best for a government that is intended to protect individual rights.

I'll always negotiate about how big a step we should take towards liberty, but not about steps away from liberty.   That's the wrong direction and I'm not going there.

My base principle is that 'base principle' and base political principle are different. One concerns personal beliefs which we share, tha other is an acknowledgement of others, which are different, therefore negotiable.

Because a belief is held by another does not mean that it is right, or that it should be given a pass if it is not only wrong, but down-right harmful if implemented. If someone were to have the base political belief that I should be their slave, I have an obligation to tell them that is not going to happen and that I'll not be negotiating on that.

Steve,

>>>>You should never negotiate with your basic principles.<<<<<

As I wrote of 'principles' elsewhere, the word itself indicates nothing more than those things which you do  not, or cannot, discuss.

Eva

Steve,

As I wrote on another thread, much of expressing a 'principle' is the Jamesean thing: a post hoc explanation of one'actions.

The rabbit experiences fear because it ran from the fox. or rape followed by seduction.

Principles are also conceptual lines drawn in the sand: "at this point, ther's no negotianion".

As such it's not having a philosophy, which involves examination, but rather a philosophical way of saying, "I have a beleif'.

Eva