Monday, August 21, 2017

What evidentialism isn't


  1. The surprise for me was towards the end where Dr. Lydia McGrew leaned towards Platonism in regards to the ontology of Logic.

    This question is irrelevant to the video, but do you have any thoughts on Anarcho-capitalism and "Taxes being theft"?

  2. I don't think taxes in principle are theft. The electorate consents to taxation. In society, we sometimes pool our collective financial resources for the common good. That's the idealistic justification.

    Taxation for purposes of income redistribution is theft. Taxation that goes above and beyond the mandated duties of gov't is theft.

    1. Would it be theft for those that wish not to participate for the common good? I think that we usually pay taxes voluntarily and that really isn't theft. It isn't the same thing as someone breaking into our house and taking my property. What thief leaves a military, roads and etc behind? You're completely right on income redistribution being theft.

    2. The social contract involves ceding a degree of individual freedom. In a representative democracy, the majority makes decisions for everyone.

      Admittedly, that principle can allow for opt-out provisions in many cases. Take taxation for public education. If a parent chooses an alternative to public education, he ought to get a tax credit. Why should he pay into a system when he doesn't receive the benefit?

      In addition, there are tons of gratuitous licensing fees that only exist to pad the gov't coffers.

      I'm struck by how passive the electorate is in letting gov't rip them off. In a representative democracy, it's ultimately up to the pubic to determine the rate of taxation. But many people either get used to the status quo, and don't notice it anymore, or are addicted to invasive gov't.

    3. Well, this will be my last question on this issue to keep you from getting bogged down on this issue. I think an Anarcho-capitalist would maintain that the social contract and the state are at a conflict of interest. That the state being apart of the social contract is in conflict with the role of a state that makes laws. The problem I think with that is that the State isn't the final arbiter of conflicts. That the U.S. has a constitution and isn't just arbitrarily setting statutes.
      I think this is based on Voluntaryism. So, what are your thoughts on Voluntaryism? Thank you for your thoughts and God bless.

    4. Voluntarism is too one-sided. Because humans are social creatures who live in community, it is often necessary for humans to take collective action to survive and thrive. Hence, it isn't feasible for each and every individual to have the right to veto collective action. There's a coercive element to social life. Individual liberties must be counterbalanced against the rights and needs of other individuals. And cooperation must sometimes be imposed. That's unavoidable given the fact that humans depend on other humans to flourish.

      Our Constitutional system of gov't is one such attempt. Once ratified by the people's elected representatives, it is default binding on subsequent generations who didn't vote for it.

      However, the Constitution itself has a mechanism for subsequent generations to renegotiate the social contract by amendment or even a Constitutional convention. And the status quo isn't absolute. In extreme cases, revolution remains and option. Indeed, that's how the Constitution came into being.

      Majorities can be tyrannical, but so can ruling elites. I don't think there's a purely abstract way to balance individual liberties over against the common good. I think we need to begin with some specific rights and responsibilities in reference to individual and social ethics alike. The Bible is the primary frame of reference. Of course, that has its own complications, but that's the best starting-point.