|
Size: 1442
Comment:
|
Size: 1683
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 11: | Line 11: |
| The problem with this seemingly congenial note is that it assumes the discussion was a mere difference of opinion—as though those who oppose violence against peaceful people are on equal moral, economic, and logical footing as those who favor mass organized [[TaxationIsExtortion|extortion]] and enslavement of millions. The existence of government, and more generically, all initiated violence and threats, is necessarily immoral, because it presumes a moral superiority on the part of the aggressor without having to prove himself or herself. | The problem with this seemingly congenial note is that it assumes the discussion was a mere difference of opinion—as though those who oppose violence against peaceful people are on equal moral, economic, and logical footing as those who favor mass organized [[TaxationIsExtortion|extortion]] and enslavement of millions. The existence of government, and more generically, all initiated violence and threats, is necessarily immoral; and there is no moral equivalence between doing such harm and refraining from it. Attempting to whitewash the discussion as if both were the same and thus both disputants were morally equivalent is dishonest. |
| Line 13: | Line 13: |
| "If 'agreeing to disagree' is your goal, than that still means you must accept voluntaryism, for in advocating government solutions you advocate that I should have no say. | If "agreeing to disagree" is your goal then that still means you must accept [[voluntaryism]], because it alone allows for me to disagree with you without harm, whereas the government "solutions" of the statist gives me no say and are imposed by force. |
| Line 15: | Line 15: |
| "Notice how if this reasoning were applied to rape, it would not wash: 'Oh, you don't want me to rape you? But I do want to rape you! I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, while I rape you of course." | If this reasoning were applied to rape, it would not be considered acceptable: "Oh, you don't want me to rape you? But I do want to rape you! I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree… while I rape you of course." ([[DBR]], based on comment by Benjamin Richards) |
Fallacy:
Long discussion pointing out that force against peaceful individuals is wrong, etc. with stastists defending such force (using some of the other fallacies in the list)
Statist: Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree….
Response:
Often the statist will conclude with both parties will "just have to agree to disagree" or similar after a drawn out debate where their defense of the state and harm against peaceful individuals has been found wanting.
The problem with this seemingly congenial note is that it assumes the discussion was a mere difference of opinion—as though those who oppose violence against peaceful people are on equal moral, economic, and logical footing as those who favor mass organized extortion and enslavement of millions. The existence of government, and more generically, all initiated violence and threats, is necessarily immoral; and there is no moral equivalence between doing such harm and refraining from it. Attempting to whitewash the discussion as if both were the same and thus both disputants were morally equivalent is dishonest.
If "agreeing to disagree" is your goal then that still means you must accept voluntaryism, because it alone allows for me to disagree with you without harm, whereas the government "solutions" of the statist gives me no say and are imposed by force.
If this reasoning were applied to rape, it would not be considered acceptable: "Oh, you don't want me to rape you? But I do want to rape you! I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree… while I rape you of course." (DBR, based on comment by Benjamin Richards)