Well, my experiences with people have led me to far different conclusions than the ones Clayton puts forth about the character of men’s interest and their “moral sense.”
I do not see good in man. I see fear.
*shrug - Any moral assessment of man qua man is an arbitrary aesthetic judgment… it’s like saying “I do not see good in tigers… I see fear.”
Meaningful moral assessment can only occur at the level of the subject experience of the individual (that is, pleasure and pain or satisfaction and want). We tend to refer to a society characterized by widespread cooperation as a “civilized” “decent” or “good” society and vice-versa but it must be understood that this assessment is fundamentally aesthetic in nature - it is not in the same category as moral assessment based on subjective experience.
The only way that social cooperation is possible is when the social order is disposed in such a way that the subjective morality of the individual leads him to social cooperation. That is, it is impossible for social cooperation to exist in a social order where not cooperating leads to greater individual satisfaction than cooperating does.
Clayton -
With all due respect, are you being deliberately vague? If so, why?
You can’t spot his logical fallacies if he doesn’t say anything!
I’m being vague because this subject seems silly to me. I do not feel any confusion as to why governments exist nor why people are willing to deal with the “moral double standard” a state implies. It just seems self evident to me as to why governments exist and persist through time. I also do not see any reason to explain why trade exists. It also seems self evident.
This I’d like to hear - pray tell, why do people accept the morall double-standard of the State?
Clayton -
For the same reason people do anything: based on their values, it’s worth it.
The government is like a sword that cuts the hands of those who wield it. I calculate that the pain in my hands is worth the pain I am able to cause by wielding the sword.
At some level I believe statists all understand this. They calculate that the damage done to their hands is worth the damage they are able to deal to those they don’t like.
Taxes are an annoyance but a tolerable one. This is why people are willing to accept the double standard.
I can barely afford an entry-level, one-bedroom apartment where I live and I pay nearly 50% of my income in taxes. I don’t understand how anyone can say taxes are merely an “annoyance”. To give you an idea of the utter absurdity of our tax system, I got a $800 bonus this year… $350 of that went to taxes leaving $450. But then when I filled out my tax return over the weekend guess how much I ended up owing? That’s right, $450. I’m a fairly typical earner - there must be millions of people with exactly thiis same kind of story.
I guess I should be happy that I got the bonus so that it could take care of my tax bill instead of coming out of my bank account. Yay.
Clayton -
I can see why taxes would be more annoying to you then. Most of what I pay is in capital gains.
What’s that saying? “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”
Whether you think the subject is silly has nothing to do with explaining to me your position on the subject. I see no good reason why you can’t fully elucidate your position, regardless of how silly you think the subject is.
Now then, in a way I agree with you - we all put up with the state because we think we’ll be better off doing so. But isn’t that akin to giving a thief my money when he has a gun to my head? My point here is that the way things are and the way we think things ought to be can be two completely different things. I’ll submit to you that I wouldn’t give my money to a thief, after he puts a gun to my head and demands it, because I think he therefore deserves it or is otherwise justified in his actions toward me. In other words, even though I may give the thief something, I don’t think I owe him anything.
However, I don’t think Clayton is really wondering about why people simply choose to put up with the state. I think we all agree that that’s pretty easy to understand. So I think what he’s really wondering about is why so many people not only put up with the state, but why they believe in the state. That is, why do they think it’s necessary, if not also right and good? How do they reconcile that belief with the moral double standard that the state nevertheless presents?
First question: Why don’t you think you owe the thief anything?
Because I don’t consider it legitimate for him to put a gun to my head and demand my money.
Who are you to decide what is and is not a legitimate claim?
Who is he to decide that? Who are you to decide it?
There is no objective, empirical existence regarding legitimate claims per se. Legitimacy is a value judgement, therefore it’s subjective.
Well his subjective claim is backed by force, what is yours backed by?
That’s irrelevant to whether I think his claim is legitimate.
Who cares about what you think?
(I’m not being mean, honest question.)
I do.
Ok.
You ask " why do they think it’s necessary, if not also right and good?"
This is a lot of ideas boiled into one question. I ask first: necessary for what?
I hope my last answer satisfied that line of questioning. My point was that, of course no one else has to care what I think - but who, if anyone, else does is not necessarily relevant to what I think.
I’d say necessary for social order. Many (if not most) people today* see the state as the foundation of civilization. Were it not for the state, they believe, people would be constantly at each other’s throats. All morality and decency would be thrown out the window in a massive Hobbesian war of all against all. Order must be imposed upon chaos - it cannot simply emerge therefrom.
- Note: I use the qualifier “today” because I see no reason to assume that moral authoritarianism or any other form of authoritarianism is ingrained in human nature.