Tom Palven wrote:
In the logic of ethics do two wrongs make a right?
We’re not actually talking about “two wrongs” here, Tom. The whole point of giving the state the exclusive right to have recourse to force, and the mandate to enforce this exclusivity, is that the state will suppress – in so far as practicable – the mafia protection rackets. It won’t always be completely successful, of course, but nobody is arguing for a state of affairs in which we accept both taxation by the state (and other instances of the use of force by the state) and
mafia protection rackets doing whatever they like, without hindrance of any kind.
The choice is between an environment in which we have a state which uses force to suppress mafia protection rackets, and an environment in which nobody uses force to suppress mafia protection rackets – the mafia rackets have the monopoly of force. Even if you regard both of these as wrong, you cannot regard them as equivalently
wrong, unless you are going to argue that no value at all is to be attached to characteristics like the rule of law, or accountability.
Tom Palven wrote:
Is it ethical for the state tax you against your wishes, so that it can protect you from being robbed? If you accept the premise that no people, regardless of race, color, creed, gender, or sexual preference are created "more equal than others" how can it be logically ethical for anyone to be able to do unto someone that which he/she does not want done to them, or delegate this authority to a third party?
I’d go further, Tom. It’s ethical for the state to tax you against your wishes so that it can prevent me
from being robbed. (I’m the socially inept weakling here, remember.)
This may amaze you, but your wishes are not the only moral principle in the universe. Human beings are social animals, we live in community, our humanity is defined and constituted by our relationships with one another, we have moral obligations to one another which are not limited to not directly attacking one another.
So, yes, sometimes it may be moral for the community to do things to you that you do not want done to you. In particular, there is no obvious reason why the community should accept your assertion that the bills in your wallet can never be taken out of your wallet by anyone but you. It may upset you that the community does not share your view on this matter, but can you say why you think the community is morally obliged to accept your view on this?