Quote from: User_513 on December 14, 2013, 11:00:18 PM

Quote from: Kluge on December 13, 2013, 11:50:10 AM

Quote from: hawkeye on December 13, 2013, 10:18:25 AM

Quote from: Mike Christ on December 12, 2013, 08:37:21 PM

This is why I'm a libertarian: these horror stories will only stop once people take responsibility for their actions. A part of this responsibility is not allowing other men to commit immoral atrocities in your name. We're all responsible for these deaths.

I'm not responsible. The government has nothing to do with me. They are a racket that steals my money at gunpoint, nothing more. If a thug steals my money on the street and buys some bullets with it and shoots someone with them I am not responsible. If I cheered the thug on or made excuses for the murder that would make me pretty immoral which is why I don't defend the government at all.

I think it could be argued that we, as US citizens, ARE responsible (to a much lesser degree -- I don't think anyone would equate a US citizen to the US government) unless we're actively resisting. But I definitely would say it's an "argument," not some self-evident truth.

You know - I think of it in a comparison between the actions of what happened on flight 95 vs flights 11, 175, and 77. On 95, passengers actively resisted and minimized casualties. This was not successfully done on any of the other flights. I don't think anyone would argue they shouldn't have resisted and crashed the plane into a field, and I think the question's really whether or not everyone has that moral obligation to resist (and resist how much?).

If we're paying taxes and not actively opposing laws which allow these kinds of things to happen, then to some degree, whether it's at gunpoint or not, I think we are responsible. We know where our tax money's going. We know these kinds of tragedies happen fairly frequently. We contributed to these fifteen murders in Yemen. I don't think we can completely wash our hands of it. At best, we failed in resistance, and at worst, we didn't actively oppose it.

In the same sentence you go from pinning responsibility for actions which the US government takes without my consent which are absolutely contrary to my moral beliefs ON ME by using the royal 'we', and then you say that you don't think anyone would equate a US citizen with the US government. News flash... the people doing those terrible things aren't doing them because you consent in any way. Want proof? Withdraw your consent. I'll go out on a limb here and tell you that they...the government...will keep on doing as they wish regardless of what you want. And as for being responsible unless one 'actively resists', whatever the hell that means, you're wrong on that count as well. Unless you are willing to accept some of the blame for every rape, every instance of child abuse, every occurrence of mistreated animals, etc, etc, etc worldwide. After all, you didn't 'actively resist' all of them, right? So that means you must be, at least in part, responsible for them... right?

Active resistance was left intentionally vague. The easiest way is to go on welfare. At that point, you are actively preventing rape and murder. The more palatable option is to ensure you never generate enough income to pay an income tax. If you combine welfare with a maximum EITC, you can easily suck more than $20k/yr in funds away from the state. If you have health problems, you can make an even bigger impact. It's all effective and legal, but not effective enough given it's still happening.

And yeah, I'd argue we're partially responsible for every rape and murder which happens. Charities and death squads don't pop up for no reason. Most people feel compelled to prevent those kinds of acts (... I think). I can't imagine any person walking by a rape in progress and just thinking "huh. Sucks to be them. Not my problem. Some camembert sounds good right about now...."