Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Immanuel Can]

IF you believe government should be a representative democracy and IF all within that accept this, then ALL are accepting "the money will be spent as decided' AND the minority opinion opposed to this spending HAS "granted permission" (by continuing to accept representative democracy).

So your supposition is that if the majority elected somebody, then whatever he decided to do is something nobody can object to, and something that must be moral, simply because he was an elected representative?

a) Discussing "form" -- but where in the usual forms of representative democracy is it implied that the minority need be happy with the decision?

It's not. But in a liberal polity, the concerns of the minority are supposed to also be the concerns of the majority, since they purport to believe in minority rights. So it's not as if an objection from a minority goes away -- rather, it has to be settled on universal moral grounds, as in "is this thing right?"

Of course, in a secular, relativistic ethos, one skeptical of objective moral values, all that's left is "who has the most power?" And Nietzsche saw that clearly.

b) MORAL does not come into it.

Exactly so. In a secular politic, morality cannot come into it at all, except by accident, habit and misunderstanding of secularism itself. There can be no such thing as "morality" that anybody can find the justificatory leverage to appeal to, because secularism cannot justify even one single small moral rule on the basis of secularism.

So power rules, and right is out. Again, it was Nietzsche who saw that so clearly.

Forms of democracy are NOT about delivering good, just, wise, or moral decisions.

Actually they are. They're certainly not for delivering bad, unjust, stupid and immoral decisions, are they?

Are you proposing to replace democracy with rule by the Christian equivalent of ayatollahs?

It never entered my mind to do so, nor would it logically follow from any form of genuinely Christian belief. As Locke understood and argued so well, compulsion of belief simply does not follow from Christian premises. Rather, the primacy of the right to free conscience for all follows...the most liberal sort of state, really.

Compulsion of belief, as Locke pointed out, is actually anathema to salvation. Everybody MUST be grated the right to make his/her choice about his/her beliefs and commitments. How else can he arrange the eternal disposition of his soul, and give a true account of his volition and actions to His own Creator?

That being said, all choices come with natural consequences, and a Christian is not to be blind to those...to allow somebody to believe something self-destructive (such as that cocaine is the road to happiness, or that murdering babies is not murder, or that a boy is a girl) is not an act of mercy or love, but of neglect, contempt and selfishness. So a Christian may, in good conscience, urge the addict to seek help, induce the potential mother not to abort, or inform the boy that God loves him as he is -- and should do so, of course. So should any decent human being.

But ultimately, the disposition of each person's soul is in his own choice. In any political situation harmonious with Christianity, it can be no other way. A person has to have the right to be wrong.

[MikeNovack]

Sorry, but your belief that secular morality does not exist is not in play here. Christian beliefs don't have a primary role in the Plato vs Aristotle debate (re: government). You might not consider Aristotelian "virtue ethics" to be about morality but Aristotelians certainly do.

But I see you admitting to a "right to be wrong". Do you then consider the decisions of some democratic systems VALID? << to be ACCEPTED by all even if "wrong"? >> Then why are you considering "taxes for some wrong purpose" to be "stealing". That is not accepting the decision, yes? Accepting implies consent to the taking, yes? If not, explain why not.

PS -- I do not agree (at least in terms of history) that Christianity allows for freedom of conscience. The history HERE doesn't go back very far (at least the history of the "settler" culture doesn't). Remember, the Massachusetts Bay Colony hanged four Quakers. And THAT is between Christian sects, Non-Christians have a very different experience of Christian tolerance. Growing up. I experienced mandatory Christian prayer and reading from the Christian version of scriptures in PUBLIC school << mind, this ended shortly after my primary school days >> NOT "ancient history".

[Alexiev]

So your supposition is that if the majority elected somebody, then whatever he decided to do is something nobody can object to, and something that must be moral, simply because he was an elected representative?

a) Discussing "form" -- but where in the usual forms of representative democracy is it implied that the minority need be happy with the decision?

It's not. But in a liberal polity, the concerns of the minority are supposed to also be the concerns of the majority, since they purport to believe in minority rights. So it's not as if an objection from a minority goes away -- rather, it has to be settled on universal moral grounds, as in "is this thing right?"

Of course, in a secular, relativistic ethos, one skeptical of objective moral values, all that's left is "who has the most power?" And Nietzsche saw that clearly.

b) MORAL does not come into it.

Exactly so. In a secular politic, morality cannot come into it at all, except by accident, habit and misunderstanding of secularism itself. There can be no such thing as "morality" that anybody can find the justificatory leverage to appeal to, because secularism cannot justify even one single small moral rule on the basis of secularism.

So power rules, and right is out. Again, it was Nietzsche who saw that so clearly.

Forms of democracy are NOT about delivering good, just, wise, or moral decisions.

Actually they are. They're certainly not for delivering bad, unjust, stupid and immoral decisions, are they?

Are you proposing to replace democracy with rule by the Christian equivalent of ayatollahs?

It never entered my mind to do so, nor would it logically follow from any form of genuinely Christian belief. As Locke understood and argued so well, compulsion of belief simply does not follow from Christian premises. Rather, the primacy of the right to free conscience for all follows...the most liberal sort of state, really.

Compulsion of belief, as Locke pointed out, is actually anathema to salvation. Everybody MUST be grated the right to make his/her choice about his/her beliefs and commitments. How else can he arrange the eternal disposition of his soul, and give a true account of his volition and actions to His own Creator?

That being said, all choices come with natural consequences, and a Christian is not to be blind to those...to allow somebody to believe something self-destructive (such as that cocaine is the road to happiness, or that murdering babies is not murder, or that a boy is a girl) is not an act of mercy or love, but of neglect, contempt and selfishness. So a Christian may, in good conscience, urge the addict to seek help, induce the potential mother not to abort, or inform the boy that God loves him as he is -- and should do so, of course. So should any decent human being.

But ultimately, the disposition of each person's soul is in his own choice. In any political situation harmonious with Christianity, it can be no other way. A person has to have the right to be wrong.

Few people support murdering babies, school children, teenagers, adults or (even) senior citizens. All of those terms refer to people of a certain age, and to call abortion "baby murder" is as ludicrous as to call it "teenager murder". Both are equally stupid.

In addition, to call taxation "theft" is almost equally stupid. If you want to use the more general term ("stealing") you might (or might not) have an argument. "Theft" is a legal term, not a moral one.

Your more general argument depends on the notion that "property" is a natural right, not a legal one. I disagree. So did Jesus, when He asked whose picture is on the coin.

[Immanuel Can]

Few people support murdering babies,...

Actually, in the US alone, in 2023, it was done 1,026,700 times, over 99% for elective reasons, and by "choice."

"Theft" is a legal term, not a moral one.

That is false. "Theft" is first a moral term, as the seventh of the Ten Commandments reminds us, and afterward a legal term too.

Your more general argument depends on the notion that "property" is a natural right, not a legal one. I disagree.

Well, secularism cannot support the idea of any natural rights. So of course you disagree. But you're wrong.

[Alexiev]

Few people support murdering babies,...

Actually, in the US alone, in 2023, it was done 1,026,700 times, over 99% for elective reasons, and by "choice."

Unborn fetuses are not called babies, teenagers, or adults by educated people. Only propaganists so refer to them.

[MikeNovack]

You are totally missing the point when I day a form of democracy is NOT intended to (produce moral decisions. It is NOT how they are to be judged.

A democracy is functioning properly if/f it delivers decisions that are the will of the people. It is functioning poorly if the decision is not the will of the people. If the decision is MORAL (by whomever's standard) but against the will of the people then that is a poorly functioning democracy, a bad democracy.

If you don't believe that, then gird your loins and admit that you have second thoughts about democracy itself. Nothing disreputable with being on Plato's side of the debate.

Uh and no, Locke et al's "freedom of conscience" is NOT at issue here. Again picture me in that 3rd grade class room. I was free to BELIEVE "this is B.S." when subjected to The Lord's Prayer and verses from the King James Bible.

I will not discuss abortion except as a separate topic where we can divide up the (scientifically) different things we are talking about.For example, for 7-10 after fertilization NOT YET ATTACHED ANYWHERE (potential to become a "fetus" IF it manages to properly attach).

[Immanuel Can]

Few people support murdering babies,...

Actually, in the US alone, in 2023, it was done 1,026,700 times, over 99% for elective reasons, and by "choice."

Unborn fetuses are not called babies...

Now THAT's a typical propaganda move: redefine those you plan to kill as "subhuman," and you'll never feel bad when you abuse or murder them. And it works, sort of. Although you always know you're lying to yourself. The Nazis made a whole career of that. So did the Stalinists and Maoists. Congratulations: you're in famous company.

But what would you claim they are? What species are they? And at what point do they become human?

[Age]

Actually, in the US alone, in 2023, it was done 1,026,700 times, over 99% for elective reasons, and by "choice."

Unborn fetuses are not called babies...

Now THAT's a typical propaganda move: redefine those you plan to kill as "subhuman," and you'll never feel bad when you abuse or murder them.

Like, for example, when you redefine those with 'less money', as 'subhuman', then you can tell "yourself" if governments want to help 'them', through social services, then 'this' is 'stealing'.

And it works, sort of. Although you always know you're lying to yourself. The Nazis made a whole career of that. So did the Stalinists and Maoists. Congratulations: you're in famous company.

So to do the so-called "christians". 'they' know they are lying to "themselves" as well. 'they' have obviously made a whole career out of it also.

"immanuel can" and other so-called "christians" are therefore in the exact same category as those people that "immanuel can" just listed, here.

But what would you claim they are? What species are they? And at what point do they become human?

'This', here, goes to show, and prove, just how 'far back', and 'behind', these 'human beings' were, back in the days when this was being written.

'they', literally, could not even define, in agreement and in acceptance, of who and what 'they' were, exactly.

Which explains why 'they' took so, so long to 'catch up' to be able to know thy 'Self' and who 'I' am, exactly.

[Alexiev]

Actually, in the US alone, in 2023, it was done 1,026,700 times, over 99% for elective reasons, and by "choice."

Unborn fetuses are not called babies...

Now THAT's a typical propaganda move: redefine those you plan to kill as "subhuman," and you'll never feel bad when you abuse or murder them. And it works, sort of. Although you always know you're lying to yourself. The Nazis made a whole career of that. So did the Stalinists and Maoists. Congratulations: you're in famous company.

But what would you claim they are? What species are they? And at what point do they become human?

Since you ask, thr word educated people, like Daniel Webster, use is "fetus". If you want to say "human fetus' that's Ok. Calling fetuses ^teenagers" is ludicrous. Calling them "babies" involves the same lexicagraphical error.

[phyllo]

IC successfully changes the subject to abortion?

Say it isn't so.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A democracy is functioning properly if it delivers decisions that are the will of the people. It is functioning poorly if the decision is not the will of the people. If the decision is MORAL (by whomever's standard) but against the will of the people then that is a poorly functioning democracy, a bad democracy.

If you don't believe that, then gird your loins and admit that you have second thoughts about democracy itself. Nothing disreputable with being on Plato's side of the debate.

The facts seem to be: America, and possibly the entire world today, have issues with democracy. That is, if a functioning democracy is one that allows the manifestation of “the people’s will”. That outcome is glorious if the view ‘you’ (a hypothetical person) hold is ascendant. But if the other side is winning democratically, well that is condemnable and the wise and responsible must intervene in ‘democracy’ and get it back on course.

I think you are wrong when you say that the intervention by ‘moral’ actors to arrest immoral decisions by the democratic mass is indicative of a dysfunctioning democracy. Moreover it points to the actual fact: you cannot depend on The People to truly know what is in their own best interest. That is precisely why, from a Platonic perspective, democracy was understood to be flawed.

‘You’ and everyone in fact and in truth know that democracy is flawed and that is, of course, why the model of a constitutional republic which gives restraining and directing power to a thoughtful elite, is in reality the better model.

Seen from the widest angle, the crisis brewing in America is truly a crisis of democracy which the ruling powers must overcome. In a nation as large as America there is not, and likely cannot be, one singular national will. But if the (natural) divisions are allowed to develop without intervention, national unity is endangered. So democratic peculiarity (as in the secession of the southern states) must be encountered and suppressed by “aristocratic” intervention: war waged to defeat the rebel so that the nation and ‘democracy’ is thus preserved.

(That war will be waged by the Union Army, or by the FBI and any paramilitary entity representing actual ownership.)

Is this not the real model of the American polity? It all points to the fact that no one really believes in democracy.

Democracy is, seen in this light, a farce. It is a political game of appearances.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.” — Edward Bernays

Bernays interview

[phyllo]

Can it be shown that "a thoughtful elite" makes better decisions than "the people"?

I don't doubt that there are some who have great skill and ability in specific fields.

And certainly some decisions coming from the masses are idiotic.

However, are we really better off being ruled by "thoughtful elites"?

[Immanuel Can]

Unborn fetuses are not called babies...

Now THAT's a typical propaganda move: redefine those you plan to kill as "subhuman," and you'll never feel bad when you abuse or murder them. And it works, sort of. Although you always know you're lying to yourself. The Nazis made a whole career of that. So did the Stalinists and Maoists. Congratulations: you're in famous company.

But what would you claim they are? What species are they? And at what point do they become human?

Since you ask, thr word educated people, like Daniel Webster, use is "fetus".

Abortion's whole purpose is not to prevent "fetuses." If it were a matter of a mere "cluster of cells," then nobody would care. The whole POINT is to kill a baby, so that that baby can never seem real, or need care, or have to be raised, or make claims on the love of his/her mother. So abortion is the baby-killing business, and everybody knows it is.

If you want to say "human fetus' that's Ok.

Well, it's not an elephant, or a dog, or a fish. Everybody knows that, too. And the word "fetus" means "an offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception)." [Oxford] Since we're not talking about another mammal, we know exactly what this "fetus" is: it's a human being, who, left to his/her own natural development, would be every bit as much a complete, adult human as you and I are. And it is THAT eventuality that abortion is designed to destroy.

This we all know. Calling the child something else is the same strategy as when the Nazis called the Jews "vermin." It's nothing but a tawdry attempt to dehumanize those who are human, so we can kill them without compunction. And it's totally immoral.

But one who has participated in such a murder will never, never admit it: because to do so would require her to admit she has done the most wicked sort of act a human being can possibly perform. And since secularism knows nothing of forgiveness or restoration of the moral state, the only ruse possible is to deny she has done it at all. Why would somebody who fears she cannot be healed ever admit to something so hideous?

Therefore, if you have advocated or participated in any such murder, I can't expect you to agree, though I know you know I speak the truth.

[MikeNovack]

Now THAT's a typical propaganda move: redefine those you plan to kill as "subhuman," and you'll never feel bad when you abuse or murder them. And it works, sort of. Although you always know you're lying to yourself. The Nazis made a whole career of that. So did the Stalinists and Maoists. Congratulations: you're in famous company.

But what would you claim they are? What species are they? And at what point do they become human?

Since you ask, thr word educated people, like Daniel Webster, use is "fetus". If you want to say "human fetus' that's Ok. Calling fetuses ^teenagers" is ludicrous. Calling them "babies" involves the same lexicagraphical error.

Does THIS help?
zygote => embryo => fetus Fertilized egg but still single cell => ball of cells => implanted and developing shape well enough can tell whether a mammal, etc. Some dispute as to how many weeks for humans. In all but the placental mammals, the embryo by itself has the potential to develop by itself. In placental mammals, it would run out of stored nutrients long before becoming a fetus. It MUST successfully attach itself ton a placenta if it is to continue to develop (if detached, it will die.

That is why I will not continue to discuss except as a distinct separate topic where we can propose all sorts of scenarios, morally equivalent questions about "obligation to supply what is necessary to keep another alive" (when is not doing so "murder". This is a philosophy forum.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can it be shown that "a thoughtful elite" makes better decisions than "the people"?

I don't doubt that there are some who have great skill and ability in specific fields.

And certainly some decisions coming from the masses are idiotic.

However, are we really better off being ruled by "thoughtful elites"?

Are you saying that you oppose Abraham Lincoln’s radical intervention in our nation’s major and still defining crisis to defend the union? His decision was classically executive and embodied a counter-democratic manoeuvre to defend a Higher Principle. (I am not being entirely ironic either).

Similarly, do you oppose the FBI’s paramilitary war against the revolutionary Black (and other) liberation movements of the 1960s?

Essentially these are manifestations of the same ruling power acting counter-democratically for “the good of the nation”.