THUGS beat up the police

[baldy01]

The laws of taxation are much closer to an act of extortion than the provision of a service under a contract, the latter being something that, both legally and intuitively, can exist only when both parties are aware of the making of the contract and it's conditions.

You could argue that the whole thing boils down to democracy ( well the odd mangled kind that we have here anyway).

The Govornment that collects taxes is democratically elected so in theory it is the will of the majority that taxes be collected. You could therefore say that for the majority it is indeed a contract.

What of the minority? Are they being extorted from if they are made to pay to implement policies of which they don't approve?

Therefore is extortion ok if the majority sanction it?

What else become OK when sanctioned by the majority?

Imprisonment? This is deemed acceptable by the state i.e when sanctioned by the majority.

Murder?

At what point do immoral acts for the individual stop becomming acceptable because they are sanctioned by the majority? And who decides if not the majority?

 

[Slogger]

the above is probably the reason so many of us take the law into our own hands in many ways ?

democracy is a tool to control the masses as the law of the land is and its not working too well

 

[Softus]

democracy is a tool to control the masses as the law of the land is and its not working too well

I disagree - it's working extraordinarily well. It just isn't perfect; but what is?

 

[baldy01]

democracy is a tool to control the masses as the law of the land is and its not working too well

I disagree - it's working extraordinarily well. It just isn't perfect; but what is?

Agreed, its nowhere near perfect, but its the best we humans have been able to come up with thus far, by quite a margin. IMO

 

[baldy01]

oh look another simple thread which gets turned into yawning waffle with extended answers. Makes a change

Part of the joy of living in a land of free speech. We're free to waffle and you're free to completely ignore us!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What of the minority? Are they being extorted from if they are made to pay to implement policies of which they don't approve?

To a large extent that is part of the "contract" too, that people accept the will of the majority.

Therefore is extortion ok if the majority sanction it?

I'm still uncomfortable with equating extortion by an individual with taxation, no matter how unpopular, in the context of a discussion of morality, I don't think the two acts are equivalent.

At what point do immoral acts for the individual stop becomming acceptable because they are sanctioned by the majority? And who decides if not the majority?

Let me reverse that, and ask you:

Are there no acts which remain immoral even if sanctioned by the majority?

Imagine a country comprised of two ethnic groups, one more numerous than the other. If the larger group decided it wanted to kill every man woman and child belonging to the smaller group, would that be not immoral, because the majority wanted it?

A less hypothetical example - the Nazis were democratically elected. Does that mean that what they did was moral?
Does that mean that it would have been immoral to refuse to obey their laws?

 

[pickles]

the Nazis were democratically elected.

Sorry to be pedantic and interrupt but that isn't actually correct. Hindenburg won the 1932 election with 49% of the vote. Hitler persuaded him to appoint him Chancellor "in the national interest" and then dismantled the nations democratic institutions after the Reichstag burnt down in a fire that the nazis may, or may not, have started.

 

[Zampa]

No matter what the content of a topic, or the rights and wrongs of the opinions of the contributors, behaviour that leads to deletion or locking transcends any moral, religious or political argument, because it undermines the whole point of the existence of the forum. No topics - no forum; no forum - no debates.

Yep..well said

 

[splinter]

the Nazis were democratically elected.

Sorry to be pedantic and interrupt but that isn't actually correct. Hindenburg won the 1932 election with 49% of the vote. Hitler persuaded him to appoint him Chancellor "in the national interest" and then dismantled the nations democratic institutions after the Reichstag burnt down in a fire that the nazis may, or may not, have started.

I cannot beleive you wrote that,what a brave person

 

[Softus]

You could argue that the whole thing boils down to democracy ( well the odd mangled kind that we have here anyway).

But it doesn't (unless we take the mangled model), because too many of the policies that win votes are quietly abandoned after winning an election.

The Govornment that collects taxes is democratically elected so in theory it is the will of the majority that taxes be collected.

I agree, so far.

...You could therefore say that for the majority it is indeed a contract.

No. A contract is a specific thing, some of whose attributes are glaringly absent from the process and result of passing an Act of Parliament.

What of the minority? Are they being extorted from if they are made to pay to implement policies of which they don't approve?

Therefore is extortion ok if the majority sanction it?

What else become OK when sanctioned by the majority?

These are exceedingly good questions.

Imprisonment? This is deemed acceptable by the state i.e when sanctioned by the majority.

Not sure I agree with you there. Do you believe that this always holds true, or that it holds true enough of the time for it be considered a rule?

Murder?

He wrote.

At what point do immoral acts for the individual stop becomming acceptable because they are sanctioned by the majority? And who decides if not the majority?

It stops when the representatives of the majority discuss and vote on the issues, i.e. when Parliament decides. And in the implementation of the resulting leglistion, whenever interpretation is required, the judiciary decides.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry to be pedantic and interrupt but that isn't actually correct. Hindenburg won the 1932 election with 49% of the vote. Hitler persuaded him to appoint him Chancellor "in the national interest" and then dismantled the nations democratic institutions after the Reichstag burnt down in a fire that the nazis may, or may not, have started.

OK - sorry - got that wrong, then, which somewhat buggers up my example .

Hopefully the other one still stands though, as an example of behaviour that should not be supported as "moral" just because the majority want it.

I cannot beleive you wrote that,what a brave person

Why is he brave?

 

[baldy01]

This is the point I'm trying to get to, and these really are not rhetorical questions.

Our laws are theoretically based on the will of the majority. I think softus is right that the theory doesn't really match the practice much as our politicians would wish us to think otherwise, but thats not the point I'm getting at.

BAS makes an example of something that should not be supported as moral just because the majority want it. As it happens I agree with his example but thats not the point either.

The point is if the majority don't decide whats moral, who does? By what authority do they tell the majority what is moral and what isn't? Cos it certainly isn't democratic authority. What then? Religious authority? Sheer force of personality?

Say BAS is, as he appears to think, the holder of all moral wisdom. By what right does he impose his morals on everyone else? Assuming he tried to.

Its a conundrum.

 

[baldy01]

It stops when the representatives of the majority discuss and vote on the issues, i.e. when Parliament decides. And in the implementation of the resulting leglistion, whenever interpretation is required, the judiciary decides.

So you are saying that the people whom the majority elect to represent them should then turn around and tell that majority whats right and whats wrong?

Thats not a democracy then, its an elected oligarchy.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The problem with morality, as you can deduce, is that there are no rules or mechanisms by which it can be established.

All any individual can hope for is that as many people as possible share his moral outlook, but ultimately, just like religious faith, a moral position is not something that can be validated or promulgated by logic or facts.

 

[baldy01]

The problem with morality, as you can deduce, is that there are no rules or mechanisms by which it can be established.

All any individual can hope for is that as many people as possible share his moral outlook, but ultimately, just like religious faith, a moral position is not something that can be validated or promulgated by logic or facts.

I absolutely agree. So can we finally agree that your moral outrage as regularly directed at others on this board is in fact your personal opinion and not based on logic or fact?