WickedFire Congress: Bomb Syria or Not?
- Thread starter Dwight Schrute
- Start date
Force others to pay for activities they disagree with.
Example: dchuk wanting to use taxes of others to ban all guns.
The question is though, what is authority?
If I say it is ok for Obama to do something, does that make it ok?
Does it make me complicit?
I can understand authorizing Obama to do something to my life or my property, but the idea that I could authorize Obama to do something to someone I have never met, seems, alien to me.
If I say it is ok for Obama to do something, does that make it ok?
Does it make me complicit?
I can understand authorizing Obama to do something to my life or my property, but the idea that I could authorize Obama to do something to someone I have never met, seems, alien to me.
Of course, one could argue that by paying taxes you are funding and in effect authorizing such things every day.
The only people I've met that I think could come close to honestly saying they are not complicit and don't de facto authorize such things are the Amish, but even they are forced to pay property taxes and whatnot...
I don't think this line makes sense, because there is a difference between explicit and implicit permission.
To "authorize" seems to me to be EXPLICIT permission.
Also, the "guilt by taxation" argument is very poor. If not for threats of violence, I would not pay taxes, so my "authorization" by your rationale is gained through coercion.
If that's the standard, then women authorize their rapists and are complicit in their rape when threatened with violence.
---
My question about complicity was based on me saying "Obama, on my behalf, go bomb those people". When he then does that, am I then complicit in his actions?
I agree that taxes are a form of theft.
The rape comment isn't an accurate comparison though. If you are raped you don't have any choice in the matter. However, there are options and avenues available to avoid paying taxes, legal and otherwise, should your convictions on the matter be strong enough and should you be willing to endure hardships.
It's just that most of us would prefer a more comfortable existence, so we pay the tax man and hope to quietly go about our business. Like it or not, this is a form of complicity.
Consider this scenario:
You are held at gunpoint in an alley. The person with the gun demands that you hand over your wallet. The consequences of refusing his demands are clear.
Your wallet contains $500. You hand it over.
By relinquishing your wallet under threat of death, are you authorizing the thief to use that $500 to purchase another gun to kill people?
Let's take this further.
Suppose you actually do feel responsible for the mayhem the thief will commit with the money he has stolen from you. Would it then not be a moral imperative for you to do everything possible to ensure such an event could never occur?
Can you imagine the ramifications of answering "yes"?
Sure you do. You can always resist.
We were working with the idea that the only way to not pay taxes would be to resist taxes. Don't muck up the argument with loopholes pls.
If you resist the state, even for something as mundane as filing a tax return where you don't actually owe anything, the ultimate penalty for resistance will be death.
And unlike rape, your neighbors and family will actually approve of your death for the sake of maintaining a system of which they are also slaves.
My point is, that your argument implies that having free will requires participation in a suicide pact.
I guess I don't care anymore. The best part of this whole Syria thing is watching the liberal hand-wringers attempt to justify Obama's thuggery, while despising Bush for his thuggery. Maybe I just enjoy watching people squirm in the knowledge that even though they know it's wrong, they just worship that man too much to call him out on it.
I don't get any fantasy points for it, so it's a no go. I drafted Assad on my team earlier this year.
Morally, the man who stands his ground no matter the consequences has the high ground.
Realistically, most of us just hand over the money.
Loopholes exist in real life. Don't muck up the argument with absolutes pls.
Not requires, no. It does leave the option open though.
The point I was trying to make is from an objective and moral perspective.
You seem to be going to lengths to justify the fact that some of your tax dollars are being used to murder people and wage wars you don't agree with. I just accept it, know it's wrong, but it's the machine I choose to live in. Maybe someday I'll opt out of it though.
If a country is at war with its people we need to let it run its course unless they break international law at which point the country's neighbors should be the immediate police. At such time that they fail a powerful light with the United States Flag should be shined brightly into the sky and people should wait for us to respond. If and when we respond we should be compensated financially.
This statement is debatable. More importantly, it evades my question.
I was not asking how the "high ground" is obtained. I was asking whether you, as a presumably moral person, would not have a moral imperative to take every possible measure to ensure the crime described in my last post never comes to pass.
If yes, then wouldn't choosing to do otherwise be immoral?
Consider the responsibilities that would place on every person. For it is not enough to be willing to sacrifice your life in an attempt to wrest control of the gun from our hypothetical thief. After all, he might shoot you dead, and take your money to cause mayhem for which you would then become responsible.
No. You must take every possible measure to the point of never leaving your home. You must also never enter into a transaction that would entail you giving your money to another since that person might use those monies to cause mayhem. You must never give your children money because it might be taken from them, and used to cause mayhem.
Does this not sound silly to you? Yet, you stated here that allowing monies to be taken by force through taxation was "authorizing [the state to kill others] every day."
I suspect this is going to be a rabbit hole for you and I. Given that, I am bowing out of the discussion.
Just by being a citizen in a representative democracy you are authorising the representatives to act on your behalf.
It doesn't matter if you voted or not - if you voted you explicitly participated, and if you didn't, you said in effect, I'm happy for other citizens to make the decision on my behalf or I'm happy for the status quo to continue. There's no way to have completely clean hands as long as you remain a citizen.
The only way to get out of it is to go live in some atol in the Pacific which hasn't been claimed by any country or buy a boat and float out in international waters - seasteading I believe it's called, at which point you arn't part of any nation.
Re OP's question - No they shouldn't authorize bombing. Part of the reason Parliament voted No was because they felt that it wasn't clear whether it was really Assad who'd launched the chemical weapons or the rebels (who used sarin in May). There was a feeling that the west was being played by interested parties who wanted to use our blood and treasure for their own ends.
The MPs who voted No were mainly Labour (who whipped the No vote) but also Green, Scottish nationalists, Welsh nationalists, Northern ireland protestants (DUP), Northern ireland catholics (SDLP and Alliance), independents, some 30 Tories and 11 Libdems.
And they won. So it's definitely worth lobbying representatives instead of just giving up.
It might make you feel superior to act like it's all a waste of time, but that conceit is in reality simply a way of getting others to make the decision for you. There is no way of avoiding responsibility unless you dump your citizenship and go live on a boat in international waters (and even then you'd need to pay for a flag of convenience).
(O_o)
H̨̼̩͐̑͆̀̚&
No.
The UN takes care of the Geneva convention of which Syria is part of. If Assad violated that via using chemical weapons, its a UN deal, US does not need to stick its nose into it by itself. The FSA rebels aren't trained very well and I can see then using it against their own people sadly to get US gain/interest. :C
The SAA is winning the war, why would they need to use chemical weapons against its own people? That being said, sometimes dictators aren't the most rational people but let the UN decide 100% what happened and who did it before taking action.
for the best up-to-date syria news:
Combat Forum
Syria's Civil War (2011-ongoing)
see shit from both sides.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLsV7DZmxoU&feature=share"]ادلب-جبل الاكراد||ابطال ألوية صقور الشام يتصدون للطيران ولØGAYظة سقوط برميل على المجاهدين24-8-2013 - YouTube[/ame]
This is some of the realest footage i've seen come out of Syria so far. Its a bunch of FSA rebels firing an anti air gun at an SAF jet. The SAF jet hits them with a huge missile. Man that wasn't that best of ideas to take pot shots at a jet.... [higly NSWF and a lot of allah akbars]
The UN takes care of the Geneva convention of which Syria is part of. If Assad violated that via using chemical weapons, its a UN deal, US does not need to stick its nose into it by itself. The FSA rebels aren't trained very well and I can see then using it against their own people sadly to get US gain/interest. :C
The SAA is winning the war, why would they need to use chemical weapons against its own people? That being said, sometimes dictators aren't the most rational people but let the UN decide 100% what happened and who did it before taking action.
for the best up-to-date syria news:
Combat Forum
Syria's Civil War (2011-ongoing)
see shit from both sides.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLsV7DZmxoU&feature=share"]ادلب-جبل الاكراد||ابطال ألوية صقور الشام يتصدون للطيران ولØGAYظة سقوط برميل على المجاهدين24-8-2013 - YouTube[/ame]
This is some of the realest footage i've seen come out of Syria so far. Its a bunch of FSA rebels firing an anti air gun at an SAF jet. The SAF jet hits them with a huge missile. Man that wasn't that best of ideas to take pot shots at a jet.... [higly NSWF and a lot of allah akbars]