Rather have the government use our tax dollars to pay for people's health care than for tax breaks to big corporations, aid to countries with terrible human rights records just because their governments oppose communism, or to make up for the taxes that the wealthy refuse to pay.
Without a doubt, there are better and worse ways to spend tax money. But let's get more basic that that…
If I point a gun at someone and say that I am going to lock them in my basement unless they pay for…
• my health care
• my cousin's health care
• special favors for my corporation
• special favors for someone else's corporation
• aid that I want to send to a comparatively decent country
• aid that I want to send to a rotten country
• etc. etc.
…I am guilty of a crime. Not just legally, but morally. I have initiated force (or the threat of force) against another human being. I am using violence to make a human person into the means to my ends. In fact, no matter what my end is, the crime is the same: the initiation of coercive force.
Indeed, this is THE signature human evil. When we look back through history at all the evil done, most of it can be boiled down to a simple equation: forcing one person to become the means to another person's ends.
So, what is the difference whether I use the force or I get a government to do it for me?
The right to use coercive force is the definition of government. The “dangerous servant and terrible master” is increasingly revealing itself to be the source of evil in the world.
All governments use force. State-sanctioned violence is the only violence considered legitimate, so the main difference is the legality of the two actions.
I'm not sure if there's anything we can do about it, unfortunately. Keep letting them know what we think, but it seems like the only people they listen to or work for are the wealthy.
Rather have the government use our tax dollars to pay for people's health care than for tax breaks to big corporations, aid to countries with terrible human rights records just because their governments oppose communism, or to make up for the taxes that the wealthy refuse to pay.
Without a doubt, there are better and worse ways to spend tax money. But let's get more basic that that…
If I point a gun at someone and say that I am going to lock them in my basement unless they pay for…
• my health care
• my cousin's health care
• special favors for my corporation
• special favors for someone else's corporation
• aid that I want to send to a comparatively decent country
• aid that I want to send to a rotten country
• etc. etc.
…I am guilty of a crime. Not just legally, but morally. I have initiated force (or the threat of force) against another human being. I am using violence to make a human person into the means to my ends. In fact, no matter what my end is, the crime is the same: the initiation of coercive force.
Indeed, this is THE signature human evil. When we look back through history at all the evil done, most of it can be boiled down to a simple equation: forcing one person to become the means to another person's ends.
So, what is the difference whether I use the force or I get a government to do it for me?
The right to use coercive force is the definition of government. The “dangerous servant and terrible master” is increasingly revealing itself to be the source of evil in the world.
And we are waking up to it!
Feels good, doesn't it? Like, it's terrible because it's all-pervasive, but liberating to know the truth.
All governments use force. State-sanctioned violence is the only violence considered legitimate, so the main difference is the legality of the two actions.
Yes indeed. But set aside the fact that we accept the violence as legal, and thus "legitimate." Is it moral?
Not at all.
This means that government itself is fundamentally, and ineluctably, an immoral institution. What do we do about that?
I'm not sure if there's anything we can do about it, unfortunately. Keep letting them know what we think, but it seems like the only people they listen to or work for are the wealthy.