How do you know you're a person open to reason?

[wufwugy]

Everybody thinks they're reasonable and that their thoughts are subject to reason, but it seems that few truly are. What do you think are some of the signs that a person shows when they are subject to reason? Conversely, what are some of the signs that show a person is not open to reason?

[MadMojoMonkey]

If a person can explain why they do or think something, and it's not "I don't know," then they are telling me their reasons.

Whether or not those reasons make rational sense or are based on true facts is another story entirely.


Are you conflating being correct with being reasonable?

Seems to me that you can have a load of bad reasons which lead you to believe something incorrect. So reasonable, but wrong.
At the same time, you can simply guess about something without reason and you may still be correct. So unreasonable, but right.


Is this what you mean by reason? That people have reasons for what they do?

[wufwugy]

I guess the contrast I'm making is in how everybody thinks/says they come to their beliefs through reason, but many (most) seem to just reaffirm prejudices.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't see why this is confusing.

It's easy to find reasons which reaffirm prejudices.

[JKDS]

People seem most reasonable when they act the way I want.

Everybody driving faster than you is a maniac, everyone slower is a moron (or something like that, thanks GC)

[wufwugy]

I don't see why this is confusing.

It's easy to find reasons which reaffirm prejudices.

An important distinction is between "reasons" and "reason." "Reasons" exist for all beliefs, regardless of the level of reason behind them. "Reason" is the thoughtful and substantive intellectual consideration for beliefs.

[wufwugy]

People seem most reasonable when they act the way I want.

Everybody driving faster than you is a maniac, everyone slower is a moron (or something like that, thanks GC)

Are you saying that you think the more like the way you want somebody to be, the more they employ reason?

[JKDS]

Of course. You believe this too, provided we substitute my idea of reasonable for yours.

[Eric]

This is an interesting question. We're not robots, we can all be biased sometimes based on life experiences.

[CoccoBill]

We're not robots, we are all biased most of the time based on life experiences.

FTFY

[MadMojoMonkey]

An important distinction is between "reasons" and "reason." "Reasons" exist for all beliefs, regardless of the level of reason behind them. "Reason" is the thoughtful and substantive intellectual consideration for beliefs.

How can "thoughtful" be divorced from "having reasons?"

"substantive intellectual consideration" sounds perfectly subjective, and easy for them to claim that they have it and you don't.

***
JKDS's point (If I may) is that this subjectivity is woven into your question.

Do you feel that you are a reasonable person, wuf? 'Cause you say things like, "taxation is theft," and you refuse to say otherwise, even though many people have explained the nuanced differences between the 2 ideas.

Do you feel that I'm a reasonable person, wuf? 'Cause I say things like "taxation is not theft," and I refuse to say otherwise, even though you've tried to explain that when the nuance is stripped away from these ideas, they are the same.

[spoonitnow]

Two things:

1. Taxation is theft, and abortion is murder. Any argument otherwise is an argument of semantics. However, it doesn't mean that either is wrong unless you believe theft is always wrong and murder is always wrong. I think both are situational, which is a result of my worldview that stems largely around amorality.

2. I'm of the opinion that you can't truly know if you're open to reason.

[OngBonga]

"I know I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."

~ some Greek guy.

[spoonitnow]

"I know I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."

~ some Greek guy.

Pretty sure that was Elvis. I'm so reasonable.

[MadMojoMonkey]

2. I'm of the opinion that you can't truly know if you're open to reason.

[JKDS]

I don't get why semantics gets such a bad rap. Definitions matter, and words have meaning.

That's why they don't chant "taxation is a taking" or "abortion is a killing". It's not as effective, which is why the other terms get used even though they aren't semantically correct

[spoonitnow]

I don't get why semantics gets such a bad rap. Definitions matter, and words have meaning.

That's why they don't chant "taxation is a taking" or "abortion is a killing". It's not as effective, which is why the other terms get used even though they aren't semantically correct

Theft is the act of stealing. Stealing is taking someone's property without their permission. The semantics argument gets a bad rap because it's people trying to change definitions instead of sticking to the ones that already exist.

[CoccoBill]

"steal
stēl/
verb
gerund or present participle: stealing
1.
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

Government has legal right.

"murder
[mur-der]
noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)"

Abortion is not defined as murder.

Easy peasy.

[a500lbgorilla]

Everybody thinks they're reasonable and that their thoughts are subject to reason, but it seems that few truly are. What do you think are some of the signs that a person shows when they are subject to reason?

No, I know that my thoughts are subject to psychologic because they're the product of something that doesn't work by logic but rather works on psychologic.

Conversely, what are some of the signs that show a person is not open to reason?

If they look human, I've got a pretty good sense they're tangled in psychologic.

[a500lbgorilla]

If a person can explain why they do or think something, and it's not "I don't know," then they are telling me their reasons.

Whether or not those reasons make rational sense or are based on true facts is another story entirely.


Are you conflating being correct with being reasonable?

Seems to me that you can have a load of bad reasons which lead you to believe something incorrect. So reasonable, but wrong.
At the same time, you can simply guess about something without reason and you may still be correct. So unreasonable, but right.


Is this what you mean by reason? That people have reasons for what they do?

I say "I don't know" a lot. I'll even use it to preface my nonsense.

[a500lbgorilla]

An important distinction is between "reasons" and "reason." "Reasons" exist for all beliefs, regardless of the level of reason behind them. "Reason" is the thoughtful and substantive intellectual consideration for beliefs.

I dunno. Have you seen that video of the decapitated snake that bites its squirming body, or the gutted fish that swims in the water? Seems like some things just happen in direct reaction to the environment and reasons and reason are things that the forwardly minded find to stitch it all into a meaningful story.

[a500lbgorilla]

Two things:

1. Taxation is theft, and abortion is murder. Any argument otherwise is an argument of semantics. However, it doesn't mean that either is wrong unless you believe theft is always wrong and murder is always wrong. I think both are situational, which is a result of my worldview that stems largely around amorality.

2. I'm of the opinion that you can't truly know if you're open to reason.

Not true. Minimize it however you wish, but you don't know enough to know this for fact - you just know enough and are the sort to demand that it's the case.

[wufwugy]

omg a taxation is theft argument taht i didnt start omg

[MadMojoMonkey]

omg a taxation is theft argument taht i didnt start omg

I think you'll find that you did.

This continuance started in post #11 (me), but referencing your notions vis a vis taxation and theft.

[wufwugy]

"steal
stēl/
verb
gerund or present participle: stealing
1.
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

Government has legal right.

"murder
[mur-der]
noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)"

Abortion is not defined as murder.

Easy peasy.

Arbitrary definitions do not make things things. Principles make things things. This is why, if I take a frog and get everybody on the planet to agree it is instead a toad and even Merriam and Webster write it down, you can still say it's a frog and be right.

The idea that taxation is theft and abortion is murder arises because everything about taxation and abortion are principally the same as theft and murder EXCEPT for these unique exceptions where they are not considered so because they are not considered so.

A different way of looking at it is to find all the principle elements shared in killing a 6 month fetus and a 6 year child. Eventually you're going to find they're the same except that "society" (and the law) has more or less agreed that one is murder and the other is not.

[wufwugy]

I think you'll find that you did.

This continuance started in post #11 (me), but referencing your notions vis a vis taxation and theft.

im okay with this. it means you think about it, even if you disagree with it.

fwiw, i dont think the period of debate is when minds are influenced. i think it comes later when people experience new things and unintentionally check them out through a different lens and see how it fits.

[wufwugy]

How can "thoughtful" be divorced from "having reasons?"

"substantive intellectual consideration" sounds perfectly subjective, and easy for them to claim that they have it and you don't.

I was trying to distinguish reason and reasons the way it is in philosophy and stuff. Other than that, I'm not going to be that good at dissecting it. Maybe view it through the lens of scientific research. In that, reason and logic regardless of emotion is paramount, and folly is when reason and logic are set aside for emotion.

Do you feel that you are a reasonable person, wuf?

At least in some ways, I do. That's also part of why I made this thread. It's easy to think you come to beliefs based on reason instead of emotion more often than others, but since most everybody thinks that (and it not being true), I'm looking for actual signs so that you could actually know if you're a reasonable person or if you're just deluded.



So here's the one sign I thought may work:

If you're a person who doesn't believe a large quantity of things you believed a few years ago, you're likely a person who comes to beliefs through reason. I say "large quantity" because everybody has some measure of belief changes, so it would have to be higher than average. The change in beliefs is important since it's pretty much standard that everything people believe isn't strictly true, so if somebody is dedicated to reason, they would find that they find many instances of believing wrong things.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The idea that taxation is theft and abortion is murder arises because everything about taxation and abortion are principally the same as theft and murder EXCEPT for these unique exceptions where they are not considered so because they are not considered so.

"Principally the same" implies that it's not the whole story. The "unique exceptions" are exactly the differences worth noting.

If I accidentally hit your car with my car, that's one thing. If I purposefully drive my car into your car, that's an entirely different thing. While I appreciate the notion that they are "principally the same," I think we can both agree that they are not criminally the same.

Intent matters.

[wufwugy]

"Principally the same" implies that it's not the whole story. The "unique exceptions" are exactly the differences worth noting.

If I accidentally hit your car with my car, that's one thing. If I purposefully drive my car into your car, that's an entirely different thing. While I appreciate the notion that they are "principally the same," I think we can both agree that they are not criminally the same.

Intent matters.

I don't think those are principally the same. Purposeful and accidental harm are important distinctions.

There are a lot of people who very much do not want to be taxed, yet they don't put a stop to it because the consequences of doing so are too severe. How is this different than if a man comes into your house every Tuesday and holds a gun to your head and demands that you give him a portion of your paycheck in order for him to not throw you in his trunk and lock you in his basement? If the man wields enough power over you, you're gonna choose to just pay him even though you consider him stealing from you. When you and all your neighbors have undergone this for a lifetime, to the point that the man will only remind you about his guns and basement if you don't fill out some papers once a year, it starts to take on a new word, yet principally is still the same as when you called it theft.

[Savy]

When you say open to reason what do you mean?

I'd say I was open to reason but I don't think that implies that every true thing I'm told, every correct argument that shows that my current stance was incorrect is going to result in me changing my opinion on things especially when those opinions are formed usually as a result of a collection of these arguments.

So let's say I believe X to be true not Y because A B C D E and F back that up. If you prove to me D is wrong in reasonable terms whilst I'm in a listening sort of mood I'll accept that and as a result it may weaken my position on X but not necessarily change it.

If you mean you always absorb the right answers, never misunderstand/confuse things, always come to the correct conclusion then obviously not.

"steal
stēl/
verb
gerund or present participle: stealing
1.
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

Government has legal right.

You can't use a definition like that to clarify what's being questioned in the first place because laws are not a static thing and laws certainly aren't some sort of perfect collection of absolute knowledge.

It's like defending something by saying "because I said so" and I have more authority than you.

[wufwugy]

When you say open to reason what do you mean?

I'd say I was open to reason but I don't think that implies that every true thing I'm told, every correct argument that shows that my current stance was incorrect is going to result in me changing my opinion on things especially when those opinions are formed usually as a result of a collection of these arguments.

So let's say I believe X to be true not Y because A B C D E and F back that up. If you prove to me D is wrong in reasonable terms whilst I'm in a listening sort of mood I'll accept that and as a result it may weaken my position on X but not necessarily change it.

I consider this reason.

I guess what I mean by open to reason is that, over the long term, do the beliefs you form tend to land where they do based on reason or on something else? One basic example of my own life is that I used to believe that artificial sweeteners caused headaches. It was so bad that I used to get headaches from drinking diet soda and I avoided the stuff like the plague. But I researched the issue extensively and found that science says any headaches caused by artificial sweeteners can be attributed to placebo as plausibly as to the sweetener, so I decided that I no longer believed artificial sweeteners cause headaches. Then I drank a diet soda and got a headache, but I told myself it was psychogenic. The next day I drank another one and got a smaller headache. The third day I drank another one and that was the last time I got a headache from them.

Contrast this to some members of my family who completely shut down when I try to discuss this with them. They want to hear nothing of it. They're intent on believing artificial sweeteners are the devil til the day they die. They ignore evidence to the contrary, refuse to research it themselves, use heuristics like "nature=good; artificial=bad," and would get rip-roaring headaches if they were to consume some and know about it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think those are principally the same. Purposeful and accidental harm are important distinctions.

Because "principally the same" is perfectly subjective.

There are a lot of people who very much do not want to be taxed, yet they don't put a stop to it because the consequences of doing so are too severe.

Non-sequitur.

How is [taxation] different than if a man comes into your house every Tuesday and holds a gun to your head and demands that you give him a portion of your paycheck in order for him to not throw you in his trunk and lock you in his basement?

How can you claim to be reasonable yet pretend that you don't see the obvious difference in these situations?

Taxation is socially implemented and perfectly legal. The other circumstance is an individual committing a slew of crimes.

If the man wields enough power over you, you're gonna choose to just pay him even though you consider him stealing from you.

Non-sequitur.

When you and all your neighbors have undergone this for a lifetime, to the point that the man will only remind you about his guns and basement if you don't fill out some papers once a year, it starts to take on a new word, yet principally is still the same as when you called it theft.

This is all nonsense and speculation. Nonsense because this is nothing at all representative of the history of taxation in America. Speculation because your premise is a hypothetical.

[wufwugy]

Because "principally the same" is perfectly subjective.

I was being nice by putting an "I think" in front of it. Accidental and purposeful harm are principally very different things.

Non-sequitur.

Non-sequitur.

This is all nonsense and speculation. Nonsense because this is nothing at all representative of the history of taxation in America. Speculation because your premise is a hypothetical.

Detailing the logic behind what makes theft theft and showing it in action in taxation is relevant.

How can you claim to be reasonable yet pretend that you don't see the obvious difference in these situations?

Taxation is socially implemented and perfectly legal. The other circumstance is an individual committing a slew of crimes.

I agree completely with you. Taxation is perfectly legal and theft is a crime. It is this difference that shows that they are principally the same yet not viewed as such because, well, they're not viewed as such. Taxation is legitimized, regularized, mandated theft. Taxation is the law pointing a gun at you and taking your money; criminal theft is somebody other than the law pointing a gun at you and taking your money. This being the distinction between taxation and theft illuminates why taxation is theft, just in that legitimized, regularized, mandated form.

[OngBonga]

It is this difference that shows that they are principally the same

Hi, I'm wufwugy.

[OngBonga]

Taxation is the law pointing a gun at you and taking your money; criminal theft is somebody other than the law pointing a gun at you and taking your money.

I like how you say "criminal theft" here, so as to give the impression that there's a "non-criminal theft", aka "tax", when of course, all theft is criminal, and tax, not being criminal, is therefore not theft.

[wufwugy]

I like how you say "criminal theft" here, so as to give the impression that there's a "non-criminal theft", aka "tax", when of course, all theft is criminal, and tax, not being criminal, is therefore not theft.

I said "criminal theft" because in that instance I was talking about criminal theft, not theft as a concept itself. Criminal theft is theft as defined as a crime.

It's an attempt to show that the "because the law says so" argument is exactly that, an argument that a thing that is a certain way becomes not that way because the law says so. A frog ain't a toad, no matter what the law or a group of authorities say.

[wufwugy]

Hi, I'm wufwugy.

If the law says OngBonga is a girl, does that mean OngBonga is a girl?

[JKDS]

Theft does not exist outside of law. Any argument to the contrary is one of semantics.

[wufwugy]

Theft does not exist outside of law.

TIL that the law is the arbiter of reality.

Theft as a social concept does not arise because it is a legal concept; it arises as a legal concept because it is a social concept.

[a500lbgorilla]

Law is the arbiter of theft. Ownership does not exist outside of law.

[CoccoBill]

Arbitrary definitions do not make things things.

This was all covered fairly thoroughly already by others, but I'd just like to point out that your definition of theft is more arbitrary than the one provided by law. One could easily imagine you aimed this comment at yourself, not unlike this whole thread.

A different way of looking at it is to find all the principle elements shared in killing a 6 month fetus and a 6 year child. Eventually you're going to find they're the same except that "society" (and the law) has more or less agreed that one is murder and the other is not.

Exactly. You're trying to argue that theft and murder are some universal concepts that exist outside human culture. Sounds almost biblical to me. Is eating a seed the same as eating a tree? Is drinking a bottle of water, hops, barley and yeast the same as drinking a beer?

[OngBonga]

Criminal theft is theft as defined as a crime.

You can remove the word "criminal" from this sentence and it still means exactly the same thing.

[JKDS]

TIL that the law is the arbiter of reality.

Theft as a social concept does not arise because it is a legal concept; it arises as a legal concept because it is a social concept.

Go ahead and try to define theft without invoking property rights.

Go ahead and try to define property rights without invoking some rule making body.

[MadMojoMonkey]

TIL that the law is the arbiter of reality.

Theft as a social concept does not arise because it is a legal concept; it arises as a legal concept because it is a social concept.

It's interesting that you resort to sarcasm in this, of all, threads.

Theft arises as a legal concept because of the social concepts of property and ownership. The concepts of property and ownership are fabrications of a human mind which wants to control its environment. The legal framework of theft arises after humans formulate a regulatory system which defines property and the limits of ownership.

Bear in mind that property and ownership is a perfectly arbitrary fabrication which is popular in modern cultures. However, it is much lamented that America got its land because it displaced people from said land. Those people did not believe (or even understand) that land could be property. The notion of property of said land was explained to them when they were killed for going where they'd always gone.

So property is a conceit - and one that not all human cultures adopt.

So the idea that "taking" is the same as "theft" on some deep, human level is demonstrated to be false.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wuf: Do you find anyone or any posts in this conversation as unreasonable or indicative of someone who is not being reasonable?

Follow up:
Are your own posts all perfectly reasonable, while other people's posts show varying degrees of reason?

Prediction: It's about impossible to say no to the above question unless you were openly trolling at some point ITT.

[a500lbgorilla]

theft and murder are some universal concepts that exist outside human culture.

What is theft and murder when you strip away Law? It's still something - some reaction.

[JKDS]

What is theft and murder when you strip away Law? It's still something - some reaction.

There are actions which can be defined as taking or killing. Sometimes, those actions are also defined as theft or murder. (In fact, some things which are not considered taking or killing can be defined as theft or murder.

You can view it as a venn diagram. We got theft on one side, taking on another, and an intersection. Same with killings and murder. But taking away the theft and murder parts doesn't mean the taking and killing parts get bigger. Those sections stay the same size, and include the same things. Performing an action that used be classified as murder does NOT necessarily mean you committed a killing too.

Sound like nonsense? Cinsider this. You commit armed robbery of a bank. In the process, the police fire upon you and accidentally hit a bystander. Depending on law, you may now be charged and found guilty of felony murder. But did you also commit a killing? It's hard to say you did...you didn't actually pull the trigger, the cop did. Someone died, sure, but you didn't do it. Your action was not in the killing part of the vent diagram...even though it was in the murder part. It is only by law that one can say you murdered another.

Likewise, taxation is in the taking part...but not the theft. It is only by law that one can say theft occured.

[a500lbgorilla]

Forget armed robbery. What is it when go to the beach and you find something shiny beneath the surface, and it turns out to be silver jewelry with these fine dark garnet stones intricately placed into a swirling pattern that you only recognize as beautiful -- What is it when your brother takes it from you and trades it away for some pokemon cards? What is it when your parents take it from you and invest it in a bond? What is it when the kid next to you sees it in your hand and takes it from you before anyone else knows you were the proper claimant?

[wufwugy]

Law is the arbiter of theft. Ownership does not exist outside of law.

The social concept of ownership does not exist because of the legal concept; the legal concept exists because of the social concept.

This was all covered fairly thoroughly already by others, but I'd just like to point out that your definition of theft is more arbitrary than the one provided by law. One could easily imagine you aimed this comment at yourself, not unlike this whole thread.

I haven't proposed a definition of theft, at least not one that is any different than the accepted definition of theft. What I've proposed is that the concept exists without the law.

Determining which instances are theft does have some level of arbitrariness to it, but that's also a different topic.

You're trying to argue that theft and murder are some universal concepts that exist outside human culture.

I'm not sure I would say it's universal. Some people may not have concepts of "theirs" in the first place. But what we do know is that we do have a concept of ownership and theft regardless of what the law says.

You can remove the word "criminal" from this sentence and it still means exactly the same thing.

It wouldn't. It would undermine my entire position because I would be saying that the concept of theft is dependent on the law.

Go ahead and try to define theft without invoking property rights.

Go ahead and try to define property rights without invoking some rule making body.

I would certainly be in a quandary if I was talking about the law.

Let's say you live in the woods. You find some seeds. You clear a space, till the soil, plant them, guard them, nurture them, etc., then eventually you have tomatoes. You start picking your tomatoes and are going to eat them, but then somebody else comes along, punches you, and takes your tomatoes. Even though there is no law designating ownership or conduct of any sort, the reality of the situation is that those things exist because of your efforts and purpose, and that before you could fulfill the purpose for which you created those things, somebody else took them.

This is where the concept of theft comes from. The law is a reflection of these basic physical and social realities, but that doesn't mean the law determines the existence of the physical and social realities.

it is much lamented that America got its land because it displaced people from said land. Those people did not believe (or even understand) that land could be property. The notion of property of said land was explained to them when they were killed for going where they'd always gone.

So property is a conceit - and one that not all human cultures adopt.

So the idea that "taking" is the same as "theft" on some deep, human level is demonstrated to be false.

The concept is probably not universal. But we have it, so the concept exists for us.

[wufwugy]

@wuf: Do you find anyone or any posts in this conversation as unreasonable or indicative of someone who is not being reasonable?

Follow up:
Are your own posts all perfectly reasonable, while other people's posts show varying degrees of reason?

Prediction: It's about impossible to say no to the above question unless you were openly trolling at some point ITT.

I don't know; it's why I wonder about signs so that one can know.

[JKDS]

Wuf, you've described a situation where someone took tomatoes from someone else. Both parties claimed the right to own those tomatoes. Libertarians would say that the farmer rightfully owns them because it's the product of labor. Others would say might makes right.

Without law, all you have is a taking...with one person peeved about it.

[a500lbgorilla]

The social concept of ownership does not exist because of the legal concept; the legal concept exists because of the social concept.

It may be a bit of cat and mouse, chicken and egg, but the concept of ownership does exist because of the legal concept. Otherwise, you're left to the law of the jungle and you only own what's in your belly and already integrated into your person.

[wufwugy]

Wuf, you've described a situation where someone took tomatoes from someone else. Both parties claimed the right to own those tomatoes. Libertarians would say that the farmer rightfully owns them because it's the product of labor. Others would say might makes right.

Without law, all you have is a taking...with one person peeved about it.

If the law is what makes a particular type of taking wrongful, then it means that morality is determined by law. I think most people have a different idea of where morality comes from (even among those who are amoral). People don't think killing is wrong because the law says so; people think it's wrong for some other reasons that probably have more to do with natural visceral human disgust with it and how it dismantles social order. It's also wrong by custom before it's wrong by statute or legal precedent.

Additionally, according to the law, pretty much the only reason why taxation is not called theft is because it's legal. If you take all the elements of what the law calls theft and superimpose them on taxation, you end up finding something that would be called theft if it wasn't that those who write the law say it's not. It's because of this double standard that a lot of people cut to the chase and just call it theft. It's like if little Susie punched little Timmy and little Timmy told his mom little Susie punched him and his mom said that little Susie didn't punch him because girls can't punch and instead they "splunch."

[wufwugy]

It may be a bit of cat and mouse, chicken and egg, but the concept of ownership does exist because of the legal concept. Otherwise, you're left to the law of the jungle and you only own what's in your belly and already integrated into your person.

Animals of the jungle fight over what's "theirs" all the time.

[JKDS]

If the law is what makes a particular type of taking wrongful, then it means that morality is determined by law. I think most people have a different idea of where morality comes from (even among those who are amoral). People don't think killing is wrong because the law says so; people think it's wrong for some other reasons that probably have more to do with natural visceral human disgust with it and how it dismantles social order. It's also wrong by custom before it's wrong by statute or legal precedent.

Additionally, according to the law, pretty much the only reason why taxation is not called theft is because it's legal. If you take all the elements of what the law calls theft and superimpose them on taxation, you end up finding something that would be called theft if it wasn't that those who write the law say it's not. It's because of this double standard that a lot of people cut to the chase and just call it theft. It's like if little Susie punched little Timmy and little Timmy told his mom little Susie punched him and his mom said that little Susie didn't punch him because girls can't punch and instead they "splunch."

You've ignored the argument completely, strawmaned to morality, and retreated to a talking point that ignores everything previously said.

I say... might makes right. Your farmer is a wimp, so had no right to anything. It was wrong of him to try and own tomatoes, and the so called "theif" merely took what was rightfully his. Likewise, you have no right to defy the government, because you lack the means to fight them. Might makes right. There is no theft, because neither party had the right to own what was taken.

[wufwugy]

You've ignored the argument completely, strawmaned to morality, and retreated to a talking point that ignores everything previously said.

I say... might makes right. Your farmer is a wimp, so had no right to anything. It was wrong of him to try and own tomatoes, and the so called "theif" merely took what was rightfully his. Likewise, you have no right to defy the government, because you lack the means to fight them. Might makes right. There is no theft, because neither party had the right to own what was taken.

I didn't ignore, straw man, or retreat. I responded directly to the suggestion that without law, it is only a taking. My mistake was in not quoting just that part.

As for the might makes right claim, I'm happy that you would say this since I view it as supporting my position.

Few people believe that might actually makes right. Might certainly makes reality, but only a small number of people will make the argument that morality in the human world is determined by might. "Might makes right" implies all sorts of things that people want no business with, like Hitler having moral right.

If the distinction between taxation and theft is that they're the same thing except one is moral because might makes right, I think I've made my case that the distinction is window dressing. A person taken from by a scoundrel is no less taken from if it's by a king. If "might is right" is the one distinction between the two, he's gonna pretty quickly start calling them both theft.

[OngBonga]

It wouldn't. It would undermine my entire position because I would be saying that the concept of theft is dependent on the law.

How astute of you to get my point.

[wufwugy]

How astute of you to get my point.

Appeal to definition.

[a500lbgorilla]

Animals of the jungle fight over what's "theirs" all the time.

Yeah. People fought over what's "theirs" all the time. Eventually we've settled on a system where you don't have to fight over ownership because we've developed rules to govern ownership called Laws.

There wasn't ownership before law, there were just animals fighting.

[CoccoBill]

I haven't proposed a definition of theft, at least not one that is any different than the accepted definition of theft. What I've proposed is that the concept exists without the law.

Determining which instances are theft does have some level of arbitrariness to it, but that's also a different topic.

What is the accepted definition, if it's not the legal definition? Accepted by whom? Your implied definition of theft includes taxes. Since we are talking about social constructs, I can only think of two frameworks to define them, formal (laws) and informal (morals). Your definition is clearly not the formal one, so it must be the informal one. If you had originally said "in my opinion, taxation is morally the same as theft", I don't think anyone would have had any beef with it.

I'm not sure I would say it's universal. Some people may not have concepts of "theirs" in the first place. But what we do know is that we do have a concept of ownership and theft regardless of what the law says.

A moral concept based on each individual's beliefs on what's acceptable and what's not. Indeed very non-universal. You're arguing that your morals are more correct than those of others, and those defined by [a set of] laws. I'd argue that the legal definition is the least incorrect. This also as a response to ImSavy's earlier comment.

[wufwugy]

Yeah. People fought over what's "theirs" all the time. Eventually we've settled on a system where you don't have to fight over ownership because we've developed rules to govern ownership called Laws.

There wasn't ownership before law, there were just animals fighting.

Why do you think the law created the concept? How do you think people viewed things they fought over and protected before there was law? When two things are the same except for a law saying they're not, what makes them different other than the law?

[wufwugy]

What is the accepted definition, if it's not the legal definition? Accepted by whom? Your implied definition of theft includes taxes. Since we are talking about social constructs, I can only think of two frameworks to define them, formal (laws) and informal (morals). Your definition is clearly not the formal one, so it must be the informal one. If you had originally said "in my opinion, taxation is morally the same as theft", I don't think anyone would have had any beef with it.



A moral concept based on each individual's beliefs on what's acceptable and what's not. Indeed very non-universal. You're arguing that your morals are more correct than those of others, and those defined by [a set of] laws. I'd argue that the legal definition is the least incorrect. This also as a response to ImSavy's earlier comment.

I'm not arguing for my moral beliefs. I've addressed what I'm arguing for in recent posts to others. The short of it is that the distinction between taxation and theft is merely a legal one. From this, I believe it is reasonable to appeal to the reason of others by claiming they're the same.

[a500lbgorilla]

Why do you think the law created the concept? How do you think people viewed things they fought over and protected before there was law? When two things are the same except for a law saying they're not, what makes them different other than the law?

You want to make it seem like you don't need a law degree to identify theft but what happens when two people claim ownership over the same thing?

Either it becomes an issue about legal ownership or it becomes a conflict that needs to be resolved by some other means including violence.

With law we have a method to identifying what someone does or does not own. Without law, ownership literally becomes a logistical problem of what you can secure from others. Law secures your ownership. If, for example, someone steals your car, you can sick the cops on them. As opposed to taking the law in your own hands and hunting them down yourself, or whatever it is you imagine a person needs to do to secure the things he claims to own.

[wufwugy]

You want to make it seem like you don't need a law degree to identify theft but what happens when two people claim ownership over the same thing?

Either it becomes an issue about legal ownership or it becomes a conflict that needs to be resolved by some other means including violence.

With law we have a method to identifying what someone does or does not own. Without law, ownership literally becomes a logistical problem of what you can secure from others. Law secures your ownership. If, for example, someone steals your car, you can sick the cops on them. As opposed to taking the law in your own hands and hunting them down yourself, or whatever it is you imagine a person needs to do to secure the things he claims to own.

I totally agree. This is why we have law.

Do you think this addresses the claim that the distinction between taxation and wrongful taking* is the law?

*I'll use the phrase "wrongful taking" instead of "theft" since it seems this may be creating some confusion, even though I do not see how they are different since the law does not make something necessarily moral.

[a500lbgorilla]

Wrong in whose judgement?

[wufwugy]

Doesn't matter. If it's not wrong in some judgment, even if the details are not known, it means that the wrongness is created by the existence of the law. While that is a reasonable position to take, I disagree with it and I think most others do to.

In my tomato example, do you think the guy who punched the gardener did anything wrong?

[JKDS]

No. He likes tomatoes. He had 0 tomatoes, now he has many. Taking them was in his best interest, and he never agreed to abide by a law against such takings

[OngBonga]

No. He likes tomatoes. He had 0 tomatoes, now he has many. Taking them was in his best interest, and he never agreed to abide by a law against such takings

I never agreed to abide by any law that says I can't smoke a plant.

You should know better than most that one is not subject to laws through agreement.

[OngBonga]

In my tomato example, do you think the guy who punched the gardener did anything wrong?

Sure he did something wrong. That's my judgement though. Very probably, most neutral observers would agree that this man did something "wrong". But he didn't commit "theft" if there is no law that defines it. Law creates theft, just like law creates murder.

Without law, there is only taking of something which another person claims to be his.

[wufwugy]

Sure he did something wrong. That's my judgement though. Very probably, most neutral observers would agree that this man did something "wrong". But he didn't commit "theft" if there is no law that defines it. Law creates theft, just like law creates murder.

Without law, there is only taking of something which another person claims to be his.

I'm glad you said this, because by the logic you're using, it isn't that law creates theft, but that it codifies theft.

[wufwugy]

No. He likes tomatoes. He had 0 tomatoes, now he has many. Taking them was in his best interest, and he never agreed to abide by a law against such takings

Why do you think morality is created by law?

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm glad you said this, because by the logic you're using, it isn't that law creates theft, but that it codifies theft.

Law codifies theft. Law defines theft. Law makes theft.

[a500lbgorilla]

Doesn't matter. If it's not wrong in some judgment, even if the details are not known, it means that the wrongness is created by the existence of the law. While that is a reasonable position to take, I disagree with it and I think most others do to.

In my tomato example, do you think the guy who punched the gardener did anything wrong?

The tomato seeds are doing much more work than you are.

The guy that punched you and took the tomatoes did nothing wrong. He was able to do it and he got tomatoes for it.

To call it wrong is to try to control the behavior of others. Don't do wrong things, only do right things.

[JKDS]

I never agreed to abide by any law that says I can't smoke a plant.

You should know better than most that one is not subject to laws through agreement.

Im presuming no such laws exist.

Why do you think morality is created by law?

Why are you talking about morality?

[OngBonga]

I'm glad you said this, because by the logic you're using, it isn't that law creates theft, but that it codifies theft.

Law creates theft because without law, one cannot take something "unlawfully".