Ron Paul choice of the troops march on the white house

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have heard this same exact argument from "pro-slavers".

That's why I chose it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The counter-argument to that is: "They have not lived a free life and can, therefore, not choose to be in slavery with an informed mind."

Glib response: "If you've always been free how can you know what it is to be a slave?"

Serious response: The notion that uninformed happiness is bad is ultimately an arbitrary addition to utilitarianism. The danger of adding new principles is that is specifies your the argument and you need this one to apply broadly (so it can apply to many things and can't be twisted in ways other than slavery).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Then we just add in a dash of the absurdity that pretty much no one wants to live as a slave: slave or free (this is based off of my studies of American Slavery of Africans...I had a hard time finding a single slave/formerly enslaved express the desire to be enslaved). Then there's your confirmation that the argument is flawed from its inception.

"Slavery will be more fun this time." 😛

Originally posted by dadudemon
It boils down to this: To be able to choose is better than not to be able to choose.

Relevant, yes, but not argument ending.

Felicitific calculus cares about the end result not the ingredients. The presence of a negative does not taint the result. Reality limits even the best system to producing greatest *possible* happiness not the greatest *imaginable* happiness.

1 is greater than -1 but 1+1+2 and 5+(-1)=4

Deontological and rights based principles like "slavery is bad" (which seems to be where this argument is going) are vulnerable from the simple method of being able to "slavery is good" with equal basis. They're weak because they have no buffer between their core assumption and their conclusion.

I think it's interesting that you made this slight changeover. Regular people do not, in my experience, limit themselves to a single moral system. If we want the big picture morals we reach for utilitarianism but when we want specifics we make exceptions based on a new set of sacred principles. I don't believe I've ever encountered a moral system I find both emotionally satisfying and internally consistent (although I've met people who seem committed to their favorite).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Glib response: "If you've always been free how can you know what it is to be a slave?"

Do you think the psychological mechanics of moving from enslaved to freedman is the same for a person moving from free to enslaved? Do you think the decisions for either would be equally informed of their opposing situation?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Serious response: The notion that uninformed happiness is bad is ultimately an arbitrary addition to utilitarianism.

This is not about happiness, is it? I thought this was about the ability to maximize freedom and "good".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The danger of adding new principles is that is specifies your the argument and you need this one to apply broadly (so it can apply to many things and can't be twisted in ways other than slavery).

I don't understand this statement.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Slavery will be more fun this time." 😛

I agree that some forms of slavery can be quite awesome for some people. There are lots of S&M clubs. But does that type of "happiness" evaporate when the participant cannot end the "game" at the club? Maybe it would be fun for a bit but after a while, I think the games would lose their "fun" factor.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Relevant, yes, but not argument ending.

I think it is.

Unless you need to inject God into it? Everyone likes their big "o" "Objectivity."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Deontological and rights based principles like "slavery is bad" (which seems to be where this argument is going)

This argument is going nowhere. There are far better ways of differentiating why taxes or good or bad other than using the argument that quickly falls into the trap of "time-specific morals".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
are vulnerable from the simple method of being able to "slavery is good" with equal basis.

That's not correct and I outlined why, already. They are definitely not equal. But you're more than welcome to make that argument to a recently freed slave currently paying their taxes. Let me know how that goes. lol

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They're weak because they have no buffer between their core assumption and their conclusion.

That's also not correct.

The cores are not the same.

Sure, to a nihilist, there is no differentiation because they are all arbitrary justifications.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it's interesting that you made this slight changeover. Regular people do not, in my experience, limit themselves to a single moral system.

I don't know what changeover you are talking about. What changeover did I make? And why do you think "normal" people do not limit themselves to a single moral system?

Remember, my argument was against his, not the other way around.

I argued against the following justification:

"Taxes are a lawful, normal part of civilized society. Deal with it."

Taxes are good because they are lawful. That can be rephrased to: "Lawful taxes are good because those taxes are lawful."

That's tautological.

The second portion: taxes are good because they are a normal part of society. That can be rephrased to, "normal taxes are good because they are normal taxes." Also tautological. It can be rephrased in a different way: "Because most civilized societies do X, X is good." That would be argumentum ad populum.

None of those arguments/statements are logically coherent.

Here are some questions for you:

Are taxes better than slavery, morally?

Can people make legitimate moral parallels between slavery and taxes?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't believe I've ever encountered a moral system I find both emotionally satisfying and internally consistent (although I've met people who seem committed to their favorite).

I subscribe to 2.5 ethical systems:

Pragmatic Ethics
Consequentialism
Deontological ethics

The first 2 are my primary the last is my secondary.

YouTube video