Delegating a right you don't have to someone else?

[dismal]

I was asking about the specific situation described above. There are no "millions of others". There are no other things society has decided to do, or at least to the extent there are they are the same in both cases. The only incremental act to judge the morality of is the one laid out before you. The taking of $40 from Jim to give $20 each to Bob and Ted.

Well, it depends why they took the money and what it's used for. The question makes no sense without the context of why it's being taken.

Say that Jim runs a business in a dangerous neighbourhood. If he gives the money to Bob and Ted, then maybe he doesn't need to worry about some thugs breaking into the place and smashing up all his shit. That would be immoral.

Say that Jim runs a business which uses the local electric grid which is run by Bob and Ted. He used $40 worth of electricity and didn't pay them. In the absence of any law enforcement authority or regulatory body to call upon to handle the situation, they are within their rights to go and take what he owes them.

I didn't realize the answer would depend on the use of the money.

Are you arguing it's OK to point guns at people and take money from them in general so long as the use of the money is good?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it depends why they took the money and what it's used for. The question makes no sense without the context of why it's being taken.

Say that Jim runs a business in a dangerous neighbourhood. If he gives the money to Bob and Ted, then maybe he doesn't need to worry about some thugs breaking into the place and smashing up all his shit. That would be immoral.

Say that Jim runs a business which uses the local electric grid which is run by Bob and Ted. He used $40 worth of electricity and didn't pay them. In the absence of any law enforcement authority or regulatory body to call upon to handle the situation, they are within their rights to go and take what he owes them.

I didn't realize the answer would depend on the use of the money.

Are you arguing it's OK to point guns at people and take money from them in general so long as the use of the money is good?

Of course it depends on the use of the money. There cannot be a discussion of morality absent the context of situation. If someone were robbing old ladies in a place without any police to call and some other people pointed their guns at him and took the money and gave it back to the old ladies, that would be a moral action.

 

[dismal]

I didn't realize the answer would depend on the use of the money.

Are you arguing it's OK to point guns at people and take money from them in general so long as the use of the money is good?

Of course it depends on the use of the money. There cannot be a discussion of morality absent the context of situation. If someone were robbing old ladies in a place without any police to call and some other people pointed their guns at him and took the money and gave it back to the old ladies, that would be a moral action.

So, if I think I can use Jim's money better than him it is morally acceptable for me to point a gun at him and take it?

Why then do we call this "armed robbery" and send people to prison for it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Of course it depends on the use of the money. There cannot be a discussion of morality absent the context of situation. If someone were robbing old ladies in a place without any police to call and some other people pointed their guns at him and took the money and gave it back to the old ladies, that would be a moral action.

So, if I think I can use Jim's money better than him it is morally acceptable for me to point a gun at him and take it?

Why then do we call this "armed robbery" and send people to prison for it?

Can you include the middle bit of how you got from what I said to what you said? I don't see the thought progression between the two.

 

[dismal]

So, if I think I can use Jim's money better than him it is morally acceptable for me to point a gun at him and take it?

Why then do we call this "armed robbery" and send people to prison for it?

Can you include the middle bit of how you got from what I said to what you said? I don't see the thought progression between the two.

Back when I asked the hypothetical question choice #1 was essentially what we call an "armed robbery". Two guys point guns at another guy and take his money.

You said that the morality of that depends on what they use the money for.

That's how we got here.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Can you include the middle bit of how you got from what I said to what you said? I don't see the thought progression between the two.

Back when I asked the hypothetical question choice #1 was essentially what we call an "armed robbery". Two guys point guns at another guy and take his money.

You said that the morality of that depends on what they use the money for.

That's how we got here.

Ya, the fact that it's armed robbery doesn't make it immoral per se. It's the reasoning behind the armed robbery where moral questions factor into it. Just like in situations where it's moral to shoot someone in the face, the rationale behind the action is what morality applies to, not the fact of the action.

 

[ronburgundy]

Or the more apt analogy to democratic government:
2) Bob, Ted, and millions of others agree to collectively pool some $ to pay for their common interests in basic infrastructure and enforcement of laws to protect rights (which include communal rights over public resources inherent to any free civilized society) , all which allows for all of the future private resources gained by anyone living within their society.Jim comes along and is born into that society, reaping all those benefits for 16 years for free. Once he starts earning income via economic activities made possible only by the prior expenditures of Bob, Ted, and those other millions, he is asked to either contribute his fair portion of those benefits he gains or leave that society. Instead, Jim is a greedy asshole who want to violate other people's rights by stealing from them in the form of not paying his share of the costs incurred in all the things that allow him to even exist, let alone acquire any wealth. To protect their own rights, Bob, Ted, and others point a gun at Jim and demand he pay his debts.

I was asking about the specific situation described above. There are no "millions of others". There are no other things society has decided to do, or at least to the extent there are they are the same in both cases. The only incremental act to judge the morality of is the one laid out before you. The taking of $40 from Jim to give $20 each to Bob and Ted.

Your reference to voting implied that you were making an analogy to something akin to taxation, especially in the context of the OP's reference to collective "representatives" within the "Politics" forum, which seems an attempt to analogize to government. If you want your hypothetical to be a meaningless situation that has no relevance to anything that occurs in the real world, then that is fine, but it should be in "Philosophy". I was just pointing out what an valid analogy to anything related to government and taxation would look like.

 

[dismal]

I was asking about the specific situation described above. There are no "millions of others". There are no other things society has decided to do, or at least to the extent there are they are the same in both cases. The only incremental act to judge the morality of is the one laid out before you. The taking of $40 from Jim to give $20 each to Bob and Ted.

Your reference to voting implied that you were making an analogy to something akin to taxation, especially in the context of the OP's reference to collective "representatives" within the "Politics" forum, which seems an attempt to analogize to government. If you want your hypothetical to be a meaningless situation that has no relevance to anything that occurs in the real world, then that is fine, but it should be in "Philosophy". I was just pointing out what an valid analogy to anything related to government and taxation would look like.

I created a hypothetical to isolate a specific moral question. #2 may evoke "taxation" to you, and I'd be willing to let you assume Bob and Ted even call it "taxation" when they vote to take Jim's money by force in #2 if you can then explain why calling it "taxation" has an effect on the morality of the act.

 

[arkirk]

Your reference to voting implied that you were making an analogy to something akin to taxation, especially in the context of the OP's reference to collective "representatives" within the "Politics" forum, which seems an attempt to analogize to government. If you want your hypothetical to be a meaningless situation that has no relevance to anything that occurs in the real world, then that is fine, but it should be in "Philosophy". I was just pointing out what an valid analogy to anything related to government and taxation would look like.

I created a hypothetical to isolate a specific moral question. #2 may evoke "taxation" to you, and I'd be willing to let you assume Bob and Ted even call it "taxation" when they vote to take Jim's money by force in #2 if you can then explain why calling it "taxation" has an effect on the morality of the act.

You are talking about rights here. Isn't that what Morals and Principles forum is for? I think the mob mentality is what this is actually about and not some sort of well debated redistribution of some kind for legitimate purposes. The shades of gray should be worked out in Morals and Principles.

 

[arkirk]

Your reference to voting implied that you were making an analogy to something akin to taxation, especially in the context of the OP's reference to collective "representatives" within the "Politics" forum, which seems an attempt to analogize to government. If you want your hypothetical to be a meaningless situation that has no relevance to anything that occurs in the real world, then that is fine, but it should be in "Philosophy". I was just pointing out what an valid analogy to anything related to government and taxation would look like.

I created a hypothetical to isolate a specific moral question. #2 may evoke "taxation" to you, and I'd be willing to let you assume Bob and Ted even call it "taxation" when they vote to take Jim's money by force in #2 if you can then explain why calling it "taxation" has an effect on the morality of the act.

I am hearing here a typical dismal argument and the only thing I hear being questioned is the "takings." This is actually a specialty of Libertarian arguers who think only in terms of what they have managed to wrest control of from others as something "owned." Once you understand ownership, you begin to see it as a question of sole control and power and not some sort of absolute moral principle. Libertarian arguments tend toward solipsism. So this one is doing that.