Can there be such a thing as an ethical act without liberty? I brought this up here: Why is liberty a virtue? - #25 by Phi_est_aureum
The premise is that if an individual is not free, his actions cannot be considered ethical because he does so under duress, if you will. For example, just because one pays taxes (which are necessarily extracted through force), and those taxes are used to provide food stamps through government, one cannot claim they are doing a selfless thing (or otherwise, performing an ethical action) by feeding those in need. The act of paying this tax is merely a selfish act, because the person does not give so that the hungry can eat (which would be considered charity, a virtue in some people’s beliefs), but rather, the person pays to avoid fines, jail time, or some other act of aggression/coercion by the hands of the state. In essence, he pays the taxes because it is in his interest to do so; the fact that someone can eat with his tax money is merely a side-effect (after all, tax money can and often is wasted in the tangled mess of bureaucracy or otherwise diverted to sources it wasn’t originally intended for).
So what I’m proposing (or maybe just asking for insight from others on this proposition) is that while liberty itself is not a virtue, but is a condition under which humans may act, is liberty the only form through with virtues can be achieved? Or, is taxation still considered to be charity (are recipients of taxes, legal plunder, recipients of charity or beneficiaries of legal plunder)? And since many different virtues (or vices) are valued by many different people, does that not simply imply that liberty is a means to achieving values?
"… which is infinitely preferable to the present social order where the powerful never come to justice because they are the very ones who administer it.
Clayton -"
+1