Philosophy Now Forum

godelian wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:05 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:09 pm Taxes fund public infrastructure, education, healthcare—things that, when done right, create a more stable and equitable society.

"Creating a more stable and equitable society" is not a realistic goal for the individual person.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:09 pm And for you, that works.
But it’s important to note that not everyone has the privilege or mobility to adopt the same strategy.
It’s a personal workaround, not a systemic solution.

A strategy only has to work for the person carrying it out. As an individual, I do not attempt to create a systemic solution. My actions are merely aimed at solving the problem for myself. The idea that an individual could solve the problems at the systemic level is highly unrealistic.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:09 pm Societies without systems for redistributing resources, maintaining infrastructure, and enforcing some semblance of order don’t survive for long.

My goal is not the survival of society, My goal is my own personal survival. I do not intend to "sacrifice for the greater good". I am simply not interested in that.

Your focus on personal survival and pragmatic individual solutions is understandable, especially when societal systems often feel stacked against the average person. And you're absolutely right that no individual can realistically be expected to "fix" systemic problems on their own. But here’s the thing: even if your immediate goal is your own survival—and nothing beyond that—there’s no escaping the interdependence of the society around you. Whether you aim to preserve the system or not, your survival is still shaped by its stability.

Take your strategy of opting out—living in places where taxation is minimal and governments “leave you alone.” It’s effective for you, and it works because you’ve sought out environments where the social fabric hasn’t entirely unraveled. But let’s consider why these systems haven’t fallen apart. Even the countries you describe—where governments don’t aggressively extract resources from individuals—still rely on some form of collective order. There are roads, police forces, and institutions that exist precisely because of collective contributions, whether through taxes, tariffs, or other means. They’re functioning because the system, flawed as it may be, hasn’t collapsed entirely.

Now, you say your goal isn’t to preserve society, and I hear that. But even in pursuing your own survival, you rely on the stability of the broader environment. The grocery stores, markets, and trade networks you depend on don’t exist in a vacuum—they’re products of systems that require at least some level of collective effort. If society falls apart completely, the survival strategies that work for you now might not hold up. A fractured society quickly devolves into a zero-sum game where everyone is worse off, no matter how much they’ve tried to shield themselves.

Your point about the individual’s inability to solve systemic problems is valid. But it’s also deterministic: just as no one individual can break a system, no one can completely escape the systems they’re part of. Even in opting out, you’re influenced by the collective structures that make your survival strategy possible. Whether it’s minimal taxation or functioning markets, your personal success is still tethered to the broader conditions around you.

Finally, let’s address the “sacrifice for the greater good” argument. You say you’re not interested in that—and fair enough. But participating in collective systems isn’t always about altruistic sacrifice. Often, it’s about enlightened self-interest. Stable societies, maintained through collective investment (taxes, for instance), provide the predictability and infrastructure that allow individuals to thrive. If the system collapses, it’s not just “society” that suffers—it’s individuals, including you.

In the end, even if your primary focus is personal survival, the deterministic reality is that your strategy succeeds only as long as the environment around you remains functional. The moment society destabilizes—when roads crumble, law enforcement disappears, or supply chains collapse—your individual approach will be forced to adapt to harsher conditions. That’s not a moral judgment; it’s just how systems work. Whether you care about the greater good or not, your fate is tied to the systems you depend on, even if indirectly.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:28 pm If the system collapses, it’s not just “society” that suffers—it’s individuals, including you.

Not really. It's a one-hour flight by airplane or a two-hour bus drive to the next country.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:28 pm In the end, even if your primary focus is personal survival, the deterministic reality is that your strategy succeeds only as long as the environment around you remains functional.

There are 200+ countries in the world. Most are currently functional. I consider a country to be functional if there is no war raging through it. According to that metric, most countries are functional. Dysfunctional countries are the exception and not the rule. Furthermore, dysfunction tends to be temporary. As an individual, I am not responsible for an entire country. My agency is limited to going to the country where I am treated best.

godelian wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:37 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:28 pm If the system collapses, it’s not just “society” that suffers—it’s individuals, including you.

Not really. It's a one-hour flight by airplane or a two-hour bus drive to the next country.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:28 pm In the end, even if your primary focus is personal survival, the deterministic reality is that your strategy succeeds only as long as the environment around you remains functional.

There are 200+ countries in the world. Most are currently functional. I consider a country to be functional if there is no war raging through it. According to that metric, most countries are functional. Dysfunctional countries are the exception and not the rule. Furthermore, dysfunction tends to be temporary. As an individual, I am not responsible for an entire country. My agency is limited to going to the country where I am treated best.

You make a valid point that dysfunction is often temporary, and with over 200 countries in the world, there will likely always be somewhere stable to go. For those with the means, this kind of mobility is undeniably an effective survival strategy. But here's the thing: there's a fine line between pragmatic self-preservation and exploiting systems that others depend on. Whether intentionally or not, avoiding personal contributions to the functioning of a country while relying on its infrastructure, stability, and services can create imbalances. It’s like skimming the benefits without participating in the upkeep.

You might argue—and it’s fair—that your responsibility extends no further than your own well-being. But if enough people with resources take the same approach, treating countries as temporary stops on a global buffet, the long-term effects start to accumulate. The infrastructure you rely on—the roads, the water systems, the safety—is maintained by someone else’s contributions. Those contributions often come from people who don’t have the privilege to simply pack up and leave. When those systems are stretched thin, it’s the most vulnerable who pay the price.

Now, I’m not accusing you of deliberate exploitation here. What you’re doing makes sense: you’ve found a way to preserve your autonomy and minimize your exposure to unfair or extractive systems. But the deterministic reality is that functionality—the kind you value and seek out—doesn’t sustain itself. Countries remain “functional” because enough people remain invested, either by choice or necessity, in keeping those systems alive. If too many people with the ability to contribute decide to opt out, that foundation starts to erode.

So while your approach works for now, there’s a question worth considering: Is relying on a system without supporting it sustainable in the long term? And if enough others followed the same path, what would that mean for the very havens you rely on? The privilege to move between countries is a powerful tool, but it’s also a tool that depends on conditions created by collective participation. If those conditions fray too far, the pool of “functional” places shrinks, and the strategy itself becomes harder to execute. That’s not a moral argument—it’s just cause and effect.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm But here's the thing: there's a fine line between pragmatic self-preservation and exploiting systems that others depend on. Whether intentionally or not, avoiding personal contributions to the functioning of a country while relying on its infrastructure, stability, and services can create imbalances. It’s like skimming the benefits without participating in the upkeep.

It is the country itself that decides what conditions the temporary or long-term visitor needs to satisfy in order to obtain a temporary or permanent leave to stay, i.e. a visa or residence permit. If the country believes that the visitor is "skimming the benefits without participating in the upkeep", they should not grant access to their territory.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm But if enough people with resources take the same approach, treating countries as temporary stops on a global buffet, the long-term effects start to accumulate.

I am not responsible for the choices that other people make. I am also not responsible for any country's immigration policy.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm The infrastructure you rely on—the roads, the water systems, the safety—is maintained by someone else’s contributions.

You typically pay for the water supply. Lots of roads charge toll fees. And so on. If they mismanage the infrastructure by failing to charge user fees, then you would have to raise the issue with the ruling mafia of the country. I am not interested in paying for what I do not use. I am also not interested in using for what I do not pay. I do not make use of socialized education or socialized health care. I simply do not believe in these things.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm Those contributions often come from people who don’t have the privilege to simply pack up and leave.

I have never asked anybody else to pay for my user fees. This is a local mismanagement problem that I cannot get involved with.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm If too many people with the ability to contribute decide to opt out, that foundation starts to erode.

There are countries that attract people with means and there are countries that repel them. It is the country's ruling mafia that chooses to make the country attractive or unattractive. Nowadays, they put in a lot of effort into attracting digital nomads and nomad capitalists by offering digital-nomad visas. Some countries are successful at doing that. Other countries are not.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm And if enough others followed the same path, what would that mean for the very havens you rely on?

That is not my problem as an individual. It is not possible to socialize responsibility for arbitrary problems around the globe. The question, "What if everybody did that?", is simply irrelevant to the individual. I do not have any problems with the local government here. Otherwise, I would just go elsewhere.

If countries could charge more for visas, they undoubtedly would. However, they are in competition with 200+ other countries who may have cheaper conditions or are more attractive. It is free market. If customers do not like your offer, they will buy things elsewhere. The customer is not interested in how much it costs to the supplier to produce his products or services. That is his own problem. The customer only looks at how much the supplier charges. In your view, the customer should try to completely figure out the supplier's cost structure and even voluntarily pay more because otherwise the supplier would go bankrupt. That is a very unrealistic approach to how markets and competition work in the real world.

godelian wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 11:17 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm But here's the thing: there's a fine line between pragmatic self-preservation and exploiting systems that others depend on. Whether intentionally or not, avoiding personal contributions to the functioning of a country while relying on its infrastructure, stability, and services can create imbalances. It’s like skimming the benefits without participating in the upkeep.

It is the country itself that decides what conditions the temporary or long-term visitor needs to satisfy in order to obtain a temporary or permanent leave to stay, i.e. a visa or residence permit. If the country believes that the visitor is "skimming the benefits without participating in the upkeep", they should not grant access to their territory.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm But if enough people with resources take the same approach, treating countries as temporary stops on a global buffet, the long-term effects start to accumulate.

I am not responsible for the choices that other people make. I am also not responsible for any country's immigration policy.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm The infrastructure you rely on—the roads, the water systems, the safety—is maintained by someone else’s contributions.

You typically pay for the water supply. Lots of roads charge toll fees. And so on. If they mismanage the infrastructure by failing to charge user fees, then you would have to raise the issue with the ruling mafia of the country. I am not interested in paying for what I do not use. I am also not interested in using for what I do not pay. I do not make use of socialized education or socialized health care. I simply do not believe in these things.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm Those contributions often come from people who don’t have the privilege to simply pack up and leave.

I have never asked anybody else to pay for my user fees. This is a local mismanagement problem that I cannot get involved with.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm If too many people with the ability to contribute decide to opt out, that foundation starts to erode.

There are countries that attract people with means and there are countries that repel them. It is the country's ruling mafia that chooses to make the country attractive or unattractive. Nowadays, they put in a lot of effort into attracting digital nomads and nomad capitalists by offering digital-nomad visas. Some countries are successful at doing that. Other countries are not.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 10:53 pm And if enough others followed the same path, what would that mean for the very havens you rely on?

That is not my problem as an individual. It is not possible to socialize responsibility for arbitrary problems around the globe. The question, "What if everybody did that?", is simply irrelevant to the individual. I do not have any problems with the local government here. Otherwise, I would just go elsewhere.

If countries could charge more for visas, they undoubtedly would. However, they are in competition with 200+ other countries who may have cheaper conditions or are more attractive. It is free market. If customers do not like your offer, they will buy things elsewhere. The customer is not interested in how much it costs to the supplier to produce his products or services. That is his own problem. The customer only looks at how much the supplier charges. In your view, the customer should try to completely figure out the supplier's cost structure and even voluntarily pay more because otherwise the supplier would go bankrupt. That is a very unrealistic approach to how markets and competition work in the real world.

Alright, let’s cut through this with some directness, because your reasoning here reveals a profoundly exploitative mindset, whether you want to admit it or not. It’s all well and good to say you’re just playing by the rules set by a country’s government, but let’s not pretend that absolves you of responsibility for the systems you benefit from. Just because you’re not being explicitly asked to contribute doesn’t mean you aren’t taking advantage of the collective investments made by others. The idea that you’re somehow exempt from any obligation to the places that sustain you—because you can always “go elsewhere”—is, frankly, parasitic.

Take roads, for example. You may pay tolls occasionally, but toll fees barely scratch the surface of the actual costs of building and maintaining road infrastructure. The cost of the concrete, the labor, the engineering, and the maintenance required to keep those roads drivable—it’s all subsidized by taxpayers. And yet, you’re perfectly content to use them indirectly, through the transportation of goods you purchase, without considering how much of that burden falls on others. When you buy groceries, the price may include the cost of fuel to transport the food, but it almost never reflects the cost of maintaining the roads that make that transportation possible. You’re benefiting, even if you’re not directly billed.

And let’s not stop there. Think about public sanitation systems. The water you use may come with a fee, but the pipes and filtration systems that deliver clean water to your tap are another example of infrastructure that relies on public investment. When you’re drinking safe water or flushing a toilet, you’re benefiting from a system sustained by contributions you aren’t making. Without those investments, you’d be boiling water or dealing with cholera outbreaks, and let’s be honest—you’re not voluntarily opting out of clean water or sanitation.

Or how about public safety? You might claim you don’t need socialized education or healthcare, but what about the police and emergency responders who ensure the general safety of the area you’re living in? Their presence—whether you personally call on them or not—helps create the stable environment you depend on. You’re not paying into that system either, yet you’re happy to live in the security it provides.

Your argument about markets and competition completely ignores the moral hazard in this situation. Sure, countries compete for residents and capital, but that doesn’t mean those systems are infinite or immune to strain. By treating countries like a free buffet, where you pick and choose what benefits you without contributing to the collective effort, you’re actively undermining the very havens you claim to rely on. And when enough people with means take this approach, the system buckles, leaving those who can’t leave to deal with the fallout.

Your dismissal of the question “What if everyone did that?” is particularly galling. Of course, not everyone can—or will—follow your example, but the fact that they don’t doesn’t make your actions benign. It just means you’re free-riding on their sacrifices. It’s not "mismanagement" that others are carrying the weight you refuse to lift; it’s exploitation. You might not ask anyone to pay for your user fees directly, but you’re happy to benefit from systems others are forced to sustain.

You’re right that governments set the rules, and people will naturally seek out the best deals for themselves. But let’s not pretend this is a morally neutral or purely transactional arrangement. You’re benefiting from collective investments while giving nothing back—and justifying it with a shrug and a plane ticket. That’s not just pragmatic; it’s opportunistic in the most unflattering sense.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 11:39 pm You’re right that governments set the rules, and people will naturally seek out the best deals for themselves. But let’s not pretend this is a morally neutral or purely transactional arrangement. You’re benefiting from collective investments while giving nothing back—and justifying it with a shrug and a plane ticket. That’s not just pragmatic; it’s opportunistic in the most unflattering sense.

The answer clearly depends on the moral theory that you accept.

I accept Islamic law as the benchmark for good and for evil. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, determining the morality of the digital nomad strategy requires a jurisprudential ruling. Believers in Islamic law are not even allowed to accept moral conclusions from non-Muslims. That is strictly forbidden.

I cannot immediately find a ruling on the matter by a trained Mufti. However, I think that I can accept the answer by ChatGPT:

Is being a digital nomad halal for a Muslim?

Yes, being a digital nomad is generally halal (permissible) for a Muslim, provided certain conditions are met. Islam encourages lawful work, flexibility, and exploration, but it also places emphasis on maintaining ethical and spiritual obligations. Here are some considerations for a Muslim digital nomad:
1. Income Source

Your work and income must come from halal (lawful) sources. Avoid jobs or industries that involve haram activities such as dealing with interest (riba), gambling, alcohol, or any unethical business practices.

2. Fulfillment of Religious Obligations

As a Muslim, you are required to maintain your prayers (salah), fasting during Ramadan, and other acts of worship. Make sure your lifestyle allows for this, such as:
Finding a place to pray wherever you are.
Adjusting your schedule to accommodate prayer times and Islamic holidays.
Planning fasting days if you are traveling across time zones during Ramadan.

3. Modesty and Environment

While traveling, adhere to Islamic principles of modesty in behavior and clothing, and avoid environments that encourage un-Islamic behavior or compromise your faith.

4. Community and Friday Prayers (Jumu'ah)

Being a nomad can mean constant movement, which may make it harder to join a Muslim community or attend Jumu'ah prayers regularly. Try to stay in places where you can connect with local Muslim communities.

5. Travel and Safety

Islam permits travel and exploration, but you are encouraged to prioritize safety and avoid unnecessary risks.
If you are traveling alone as a woman, ensure your journey aligns with Islamic guidelines for safety and security.

6. Maintaining Family Responsibilities

If you have dependents (e.g., spouse, children, or parents), ensure that your lifestyle does not negatively impact your ability to fulfill your responsibilities towards them.

7. Intention (Niyyah)

Ensure your intentions for being a digital nomad align with Islamic principles. Traveling for halal work, personal growth, or exploring Allah's creation is commendable.

Summary

Being a digital nomad is permissible as long as you:

Earn a halal income.
Maintain your religious duties.
Stay within the boundaries of Islamic principles.

If you’re mindful of these aspects, a digital nomad lifestyle can be a fulfilling way to work and explore the world while adhering to your faith.

Individual responsibility is mostly about avoiding interest, gambling, and alcohol.

Concerning taxes, the following taxes are considered halal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_taxes

zakaat (charity), jiziah (exemption fee for military service), kharaj (land tax), ushr (harvest tax and import duties)

The taxes stipulated by Islamic law generally did not generate enough revenue even for the limited expenditures made by pre-modern governments, and rulers were forced to impose additional taxes, which were condemned by the ulema.[7]

Of course, the taxes stipulated by Islamic law generally did not generate enough revenue. They never do. That is by design. The ruling mafia has an infinite need for tax revenue. Levying taxes, on the other hand, yields limited tax revenue because of growing taxation elasticity.

All other taxes, except for the four mentioned above, are condemned by the ulema (i.e. scholars).

Additional revenue can only be collected by means of user fees. Hence, avoiding to pay any other tax than the taxes deemed to be halal, is commendable behavior for the believer, and doing so, is an auto-da-fé (act of faith).

When we talk about morality, it is of primordial importance to indicate what moral theory you accept and where it is documented. You cannot teach morality to anybody who does not accept the same moral theory as yourself.

By the way, I can trivially use a tool like chatGPT to producing rulings in Islamic morality. I do not know what morality that you subscribe to, but I doubt that ChatGPT can produce advice in that context. Your brand of morality does not seem sufficiently documented for that purpose.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:02 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 11:39 pm You’re right that governments set the rules, and people will naturally seek out the best deals for themselves. But let’s not pretend this is a morally neutral or purely transactional arrangement. You’re benefiting from collective investments while giving nothing back—and justifying it with a shrug and a plane ticket. That’s not just pragmatic; it’s opportunistic in the most unflattering sense.

The answer clearly depends on the moral theory that you accept.

I accept Islamic law as the benchmark for good and for evil. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, determining the morality of the digital nomad strategy requires a jurisprudential ruling. Believers in Islamic law are not even allowed to accept moral conclusions from non-Muslims. That is strictly forbidden.

I cannot immediately find a ruling on the matter by a trained Mufti. However, I think that I can accept the answer by ChatGPT:

Is being a digital nomad halal for a Muslim?

Yes, being a digital nomad is generally halal (permissible) for a Muslim, provided certain conditions are met. Islam encourages lawful work, flexibility, and exploration, but it also places emphasis on maintaining ethical and spiritual obligations. Here are some considerations for a Muslim digital nomad:
1. Income Source

Your work and income must come from halal (lawful) sources. Avoid jobs or industries that involve haram activities such as dealing with interest (riba), gambling, alcohol, or any unethical business practices.

2. Fulfillment of Religious Obligations

As a Muslim, you are required to maintain your prayers (salah), fasting during Ramadan, and other acts of worship. Make sure your lifestyle allows for this, such as:
Finding a place to pray wherever you are.
Adjusting your schedule to accommodate prayer times and Islamic holidays.
Planning fasting days if you are traveling across time zones during Ramadan.

3. Modesty and Environment

While traveling, adhere to Islamic principles of modesty in behavior and clothing, and avoid environments that encourage un-Islamic behavior or compromise your faith.

4. Community and Friday Prayers (Jumu'ah)

Being a nomad can mean constant movement, which may make it harder to join a Muslim community or attend Jumu'ah prayers regularly. Try to stay in places where you can connect with local Muslim communities.

5. Travel and Safety

Islam permits travel and exploration, but you are encouraged to prioritize safety and avoid unnecessary risks.
If you are traveling alone as a woman, ensure your journey aligns with Islamic guidelines for safety and security.

6. Maintaining Family Responsibilities

If you have dependents (e.g., spouse, children, or parents), ensure that your lifestyle does not negatively impact your ability to fulfill your responsibilities towards them.

7. Intention (Niyyah)

Ensure your intentions for being a digital nomad align with Islamic principles. Traveling for halal work, personal growth, or exploring Allah's creation is commendable.

Summary

Being a digital nomad is permissible as long as you:

Earn a halal income.
Maintain your religious duties.
Stay within the boundaries of Islamic principles.

If you’re mindful of these aspects, a digital nomad lifestyle can be a fulfilling way to work and explore the world while adhering to your faith.

Individual responsibility is mostly about avoiding interest, gambling, and alcohol.

Concerning taxes, the following taxes are considered halal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_taxes

zakaat (charity), jiziah (exemption fee for military service), kharaj (land tax), ushr (harvest tax and import duties)

The taxes stipulated by Islamic law generally did not generate enough revenue even for the limited expenditures made by pre-modern governments, and rulers were forced to impose additional taxes, which were condemned by the ulema.[7]

Of course, the taxes stipulated by Islamic law generally did not generate enough revenue. They never do. That is by design. The ruling mafia has an infinite need for tax revenue. Levying taxes, on the other hand, yields limited tax revenue because of growing taxation elasticity.

All other taxes, except for the four mentioned above, are condemned by the ulema (i.e. scholars).

Additional revenue can only be collected by means of user fees. Hence, avoiding to pay any other tax than the taxes deemed to be halal, is commendable behavior for the believer, and doing so, is an auto-da-fé (act of faith).

When we talk about morality, it is of primordial importance to indicate what moral theory you accept and where it is documented. You cannot teach morality to anybody who does not accept the same moral theory as yourself.

By the way, I can trivially use a tool like chatGPT to producing rulings in Islamic morality. I do not know what morality that you subscribe to, but I doubt that ChatGPT can produce advice in that context. Your brand of morality does not seem sufficiently documented for that purpose.

Your response, cloaked in the language of religious jurisprudence, is as absurd as it is galling. To invoke Islamic law—or any religious doctrine, for that matter—as a benchmark for morality in this context is not just a deflection but a profound abdication of personal responsibility. It’s a smug retreat behind dogma, all while you continue to exploit the systems others work to sustain. The hypocrisy here is staggering.

Let’s set aside, for a moment, the fact that invoking divine sanction for personal choices is the oldest trick in the book to justify anything from tax evasion to outright oppression. The real issue is that you’re using this framework not as a guide to ethical behavior, but as a shield to avoid accountability for your freeloading. You declare that Islamic law permits or even encourages your behavior, as though this absolves you of the very tangible consequences your actions have on the world around you. It’s a moral fig leaf for a very earthly exploitation.

The idea that morality must stem from a documented theory is laughable. Morality isn’t a rulebook handed down from on high—it’s a product of rational reflection, social contract, and our shared, observable reality. When you claim that morality is inaccessible unless someone subscribes to your specific dogma, you’re admitting that your ethics are not universal but tribal, self-serving, and deeply insulated. Worse, you dismiss any critique from outside your framework as irrelevant. That’s not morality—it’s intellectual laziness dressed up in robes of piety.

And here’s the kicker: the infrastructure and systems you exploit with such casual entitlement are not maintained by adherence to Islamic law, nor to any particular religious doctrine. They’re upheld by the collective contributions of people who, regardless of their beliefs, understand that functioning societies require shared investment. These are the roads you travel, the systems you draw water from, the safe environments that allow you to sit back and moralize. And yet, you contribute nothing to them—not because you can’t, but because you won’t.

Your appeal to Islamic law as justification for avoiding taxes is both disingenuous and self-serving. You cherry-pick the parts of doctrine that align with your personal interests—zakat and ushr as sufficient forms of contribution—while ignoring the very real, tangible ways in which your presence depends on systems others are paying for. It’s convenient, isn’t it, to say you’ll only pay into systems explicitly required by your faith, while using everything else with no concern for the broader impact of your parasitism?

The veneer of religiosity doesn’t mask the truth: this isn’t about faith or morality—it’s about selfishness, pure and simple. You’re skimming off the efforts of others while hiding behind a doctrine that conveniently absolves you of contributing back. It’s exploitation wrapped in sanctimony, and it’s a disgrace. Faith, morality, or whatever you choose to call it, doesn’t justify taking without giving—it’s just an excuse to shrug off the obligations that make societies work.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:33 am It’s a smug retreat behind dogma, all while you continue to exploit the systems others work to sustain.

It is the country's immigration policy that determines what conditions the foreigner has to satisfy. These countries are not "victims" when they grant their visas. Furthermore, these countries are not even interested in your opinion on their policies.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:33 am The idea that morality must stem from a documented theory is laughable.

This is what Jews and Muslims respectively believe. It does not matter to us what other people may think about that. Again, we do not care about the opinions on morality of unbelievers. That is totally irrelevant to us.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:33 am Morality isn’t a rulebook handed down from on high—it’s a product of rational reflection, social contract, and our shared, observable reality.

For us, all morality emanates from the scriptures. For you, it may work differently. I personally do not accept moral conclusions from any other source than the scriptures, if only because the scriptures strictly forbid that.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:05 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:33 am It’s a smug retreat behind dogma, all while you continue to exploit the systems others work to sustain.

It is the country's immigration policy that determines what conditions the foreigner has to satisfy. These countries are not "victims" when they grant their visas. Furthermore, these countries are not even interested in your opinion on their policies.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:33 am The idea that morality must stem from a documented theory is laughable.

This is what Jews and Muslims respectively believe. It does not matter to us what other people may think about that. Again, we do not care about the opinions on morality of unbelievers. That is totally irrelevant to us.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:33 am Morality isn’t a rulebook handed down from on high—it’s a product of rational reflection, social contract, and our shared, observable reality.

For us, all morality emanates from the scriptures. For you, it may work differently. I personally do not accept moral conclusions from any other source than the scriptures, if only because the scriptures strictly forbid that.

It’s hard not to notice what’s really happening here. Your insistence that morality can only come from scripture—combined with your outright rejection of any secular ethical framework—feels less like confidence and more like an act of desperation. You’re not engaging with rational arguments or observable realities because, deep down, you can’t afford to. To even consider an alternative moral framework—one rooted in reason, interdependence, and shared responsibility—would unravel everything you’ve anchored your worldview to.

Let’s be honest: this isn’t about a lack of convincing arguments against your position. It’s about protecting the scaffolding of your faith. Determinism, for instance, is an inescapable truth of our shared reality: cause and effect govern everything, from our choices to the very belief systems we cling to. But acknowledging that would force you to confront uncomfortable implications. It would mean admitting that your actions, beliefs, and morality are not divinely chosen or sacred; they’re the product of countless physical and social forces, none of which required a god to steer them. It would also mean that morality doesn’t need scripture—it emerges naturally, as a practical necessity for coexisting in a shared world.

That’s a deeply destabilizing idea for someone whose entire ethical framework is bound to religious law. Rejecting determinism, dismissing secular morality, and clinging to the idea of “scripture as law” isn’t about truth—it’s about survival. If you allow the cracks to form, the whole edifice could collapse. And that’s what makes this conversation so uncomfortable: you’re not actually defending morality, you’re defending yourself.

You scoff at the morality of “unbelievers” as irrelevant, yet you rely on systems shaped and maintained by those same people. You refuse to engage with arguments outside your faith, because to do so risks confronting the shaky foundation of your worldview. If you were truly confident in the morality you claim to follow, you wouldn’t need to dismiss secular ethics so forcefully. You’d engage, argue, and explore. But instead, you retreat behind scripture and refuse to look beyond it—not because the arguments are weak, but because they might be too strong.

Here’s the truth you can’t admit: morality doesn’t need scripture. Roads get built, water gets purified, and societies thrive not because of divine law, but because people—regardless of belief—work together to create functional systems. If morality were as limited as you claim, humanity wouldn’t have made it this far. But here we are, building societies, solving problems, and finding meaning without the need for a divine checklist. That’s not a threat to morality—it’s evidence that morality transcends faith.

You’re not rejecting secular arguments because they’re wrong—you’re rejecting them because they scare you. And maybe they should. Because if you let yourself follow the thread of causality far enough, you’ll find that everything you believe is the result of deterministic forces, not divine will. That realization might shake you—but it might also set you free.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am It’s hard not to notice what’s really happening here. Your insistence that morality can only come from scripture—combined with your outright rejection of any secular ethical framework—feels less like confidence and more like an act of desperation.

It is you who make failing moral arguments. I merely reject them.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am Let’s be honest: this isn’t about a lack of convincing arguments against your position. It’s about protecting the scaffolding of your faith.

The reason why religion institutes a monopoly on moral arguments is otherwise very simple. Religion is a community of common spirituality and common morality. If I accepted arguments outside the shared moral understanding, it would quickly make me incompatible with the other believers. I don't see how that would benefit me.

Furthermore, isn't it obvious that the rulings in Islamic law on the matter, benefit me personally much more than what you are suggesting? As I have already mentioned previously, it is expensive to believe people like you. It does not just cost a lot more money, but according to religious doctrine, it leads straight to burning in hell after dying.

Why would I be interested in moral conclusions that are not just expensive but also damage my prospects for the afterlife?

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am It would also mean that morality doesn’t need scripture—it emerges naturally, as a practical necessity for coexisting in a shared world.

I certainly don't have a problem with the fact that other people believe that, but I obviously don't believe it. I am only interested in myself going to heaven instead of of going hell. I don't care where other people will be going, because that is their problem and not mine.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am You scoff at the morality of “unbelievers” as irrelevant, yet you rely on systems shaped and maintained by those same people.

I pay my suppliers for their deliveries and their work. I don't care what their religion is. That is their problem and not mine. When the water company sends their monthly invoice, I don't ask them what their religion is. It is about water. I don't even talk about electricity with them because there is another company that takes care of that.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am Here’s the truth you can’t admit: morality doesn’t need scripture.

That cannot be completely true because in my case, for example, all morality emanates from the scriptures. So, what you are saying, may be true for you but not for me.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am Roads get built, water gets purified, and societies thrive not because of divine law, but because people—regardless of belief—work together to create functional systems.

We have markets for pretty much all of that. I can work together with a Hindu on building software. I did it in the past and it worked like a charm. The software was perfectly functional.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am You’re not rejecting secular arguments because they’re wrong—you’re rejecting them because they scare you.

I originally started rejecting them because they do not benefit me. Just look at what you are saying. According to you, it is not enough to satisfy just the conditions for getting a visa from a country because that would be exploitative. You seem to suggest that only by volunteering to pay hefty taxes, you can achieve salvation. I don't like your brand of religion, if only, because it sounds overly expensive.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am That realization might shake you—but it might also set you free.

Your views certainly do not set me free from paying exorbitant taxes to the local ruling mafia, while Islam encourages me to do exactly the opposite. Why would I need to be free from Islam? Just so that I would be free to pay more tax? I do not seek to get the freedom to pay more tax. I'd rather remain enslaved to not paying it.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am Let’s be honest: this isn’t about a lack of convincing arguments against your position. It’s about protecting the scaffolding of your faith.

I put in exactly zero effort into convincing other people into my brand of morality. I absolutely do not care about that at all, if only, because I would not make even one lousy dollar by doing that. There is absolutely no benefit for me whatsoever. If I do not benefit, I do not lift a finger. I wonder why you put in so much effort into trying to convince other people into adopting your brand of morality? Seriously, what's in it for you? How do you even personally benefit?

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:46 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am Let’s be honest: this isn’t about a lack of convincing arguments against your position. It’s about protecting the scaffolding of your faith.

I put in exactly zero effort into convincing other people into my brand of morality. I absolutely do not care about that at all, if only, because I would not make even one lousy dollar by doing that. There is absolutely no benefit for me whatsoever. If I do not benefit, I do not lift a finger. I wonder why you put in so much effort into trying to convince other people into adopting your brand of morality? Seriously, what's in it for you? How do you even personally benefit?

I me mine

godelian wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 11:17 pm The question, "What if everybody did that?", is simply irrelevant to the individual. I do not have any problems with the local government here. Otherwise, I would just go elsewhere.

Hmm. Sounds like it could conceivably be fertile ground for irresponsibility.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:46 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:35 am Let’s be honest: this isn’t about a lack of convincing arguments against your position. It’s about protecting the scaffolding of your faith.

I put in exactly zero effort into convincing other people into my brand of morality. I absolutely do not care about that at all, if only, because I would not make even one lousy dollar by doing that. There is absolutely no benefit for me whatsoever. If I do not benefit, I do not lift a finger.

So how do you know when someone has transgressed your morality and what obligates them to observe your "brand" of morality or what if you transgress theirs? It seems like morality has to be shared in some sense in order to do its thing.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 9:27 pm

Read it again, Mike...

“TAXATION” BY LYSANDER SPOONER

It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

If the trial by jury were re-established, the Common Law principle of taxation would be re-established with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practice upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because: 1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and, 2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed. The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or a shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free. [1]

By what force, fraud, and conspiracy, on the part of kings, nobles, and “a few wealthy freeholders,” these pillars have been prostrated in England [as in the rest of the world], it is desired to show more fully in the next volume, if it should be necessary.

[1] Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, mutually sustain each other, and can be sustained only by each other, for these reasons:

Juries would refuse to enforce a tax against a man who had never agreed to pay it. They would also protect men in forcibly resisting the collection of taxes to which they had never consented. Otherwise the jurors would authorize the government to tax themselves without their consent, a thing which no jury would be likely to do. In these two ways, then, trial by the country would sustain the principle of no taxation without consent.
On the other hand, the principle of no taxation without consent would sustain the trial by the country, because men in general would not consent to be taxed for the support of a government under which trial by the country was not secured.
Thus these two principles mutually sustain each other.

But, if either of these principles were broken down, the other would fall with it, and for these reasons: If trial by the country were broken down, the principle of no taxation without consent would fall with it, because the government would then be able to tax the people without their consent, inasmuch as the legal tribunals would be mere tools of the government, and would enforce such taxation, and punish men for resisting such taxation, as the government ordered.

On the other hand, if the principle of no taxation without consent were broken down, trial by the country would fall with it, because the government, if it could tax people without their consent, would, of course, take enough of their money to enable it to employ all the force necessary for sustaining its own tribunals, (in the place of juries,) and carrying their decrees into execution.

...if, after a third read, you're still flummox'd, I'll go thru it and explain it to you.