Crom's Black Blade
Well-known member
Not sure if this is the proper place for this but I've recently concluded a rather heated argument over government power and its morality that I guess I wouldn't mind second opinions on. Ego and emotions being what they are on the internet discussion they can blind you to arguments and accent the negative of the opposition's position.
In the simplest terms the disagreement arouse over the desirability of the Government to use a monopoly of food distribution to compel a populace compliance either in compulsion of performance of certain tasks/ duties or as a means to repress riots against the government's rule. While we never delved too far into specifics one recurring element was the formation of camps where citizens would have to go to be evaluated to determine what job they were best suited for.
I objected to this on, among other issues, moral grounds. That it is wrong for a government to treat its citizens as prisoners that need to be caroled into doing the "right" action. Believing it was more moral, and more practical, in a crisis for the governing body to devote its energies maintaining the security and stability so that citizens could make their own informed choices and actions.
Naturally we did not see eye to eye on this. My opponent argued my complaint was groundless. That taxes were a form of coercion since they are not consequence-free if you refuse to pay them. Which I felt was a deliberate obfuscation. That, at least in principal, taxes are a freely entered compact where I pay in part for the commongood in exchange from enjoying the shared security and amenities like roads. That being fined for not paying taxes is no more coercion than going to jail for robbery.
At which point the argument still further descended to the American Revolutionary War leading to a bizarre exchange where I was informed I either had to acknowledge my opponent's view that coercion was moral, at least for governments, or admit that George Washington was morally equal to the Nazi's. It was at this point I ended the discussion rather vehemently.
So yeah. I'll freely admit that maybe I'm naive or just too stupid to gleam the nuance of the situation but it was surreal to me that our disagreement was not over whether something was coercion but that coercion itself was a good thing or not. And having enjoyed lurking in some of the high-minded discussions in this sub-forum I thought I'd kick it here.
At the very worst, I figure ya'll will get a good laugh at me for any stupidity in my argument above.
In the simplest terms the disagreement arouse over the desirability of the Government to use a monopoly of food distribution to compel a populace compliance either in compulsion of performance of certain tasks/ duties or as a means to repress riots against the government's rule. While we never delved too far into specifics one recurring element was the formation of camps where citizens would have to go to be evaluated to determine what job they were best suited for.
I objected to this on, among other issues, moral grounds. That it is wrong for a government to treat its citizens as prisoners that need to be caroled into doing the "right" action. Believing it was more moral, and more practical, in a crisis for the governing body to devote its energies maintaining the security and stability so that citizens could make their own informed choices and actions.
Naturally we did not see eye to eye on this. My opponent argued my complaint was groundless. That taxes were a form of coercion since they are not consequence-free if you refuse to pay them. Which I felt was a deliberate obfuscation. That, at least in principal, taxes are a freely entered compact where I pay in part for the commongood in exchange from enjoying the shared security and amenities like roads. That being fined for not paying taxes is no more coercion than going to jail for robbery.
At which point the argument still further descended to the American Revolutionary War leading to a bizarre exchange where I was informed I either had to acknowledge my opponent's view that coercion was moral, at least for governments, or admit that George Washington was morally equal to the Nazi's. It was at this point I ended the discussion rather vehemently.
So yeah. I'll freely admit that maybe I'm naive or just too stupid to gleam the nuance of the situation but it was surreal to me that our disagreement was not over whether something was coercion but that coercion itself was a good thing or not. And having enjoyed lurking in some of the high-minded discussions in this sub-forum I thought I'd kick it here.
At the very worst, I figure ya'll will get a good laugh at me for any stupidity in my argument above.