Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
True, but that still doesn't handle the moral basis, unless you take the Sidd/Gatti position that the individual wouldn't earn anything without the government.
|
1. I think you're confusing me with someone else. If you're asking, I agree that the absence of government makes it difficult to earn anything, at least absent a private security force that protects your fortified villa. The existence of the government justifies
a tax. Theories such as Rawls' justify a progressive tax system of some sort.
2. You keep repeating this word "moral" as a distinguishing mark from (say) philosophical or other terminology. I honestly don't know what you're trying to get at.
Morality is
generally defined as "complex of concepts and philosophical beliefs by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong. Oftentimes, these concepts and beliefs are generalized and codified in a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members."
It is not inherently a religious term, but instead "can be derived from many sources. Very often, an individual's morality is influenced, to large degree, by religion, but other sources are also often cited, such as objective (natural) reality or political reality." Morality as a code of conduct does not require the presence of religion, nor does its absence (or the presence of other entities, like government, found in the social compact) preclude it.
When you say that the differentiator here is the presence of the government as intermediary, I don't know what the hell you mean, unless you're trying to tell us that any activity involving the government's taking funds from your cold, dead hands is inherently evil, and can never be moral. If so, then at least the conversation has become simpler.
Gattigap
