"(...) If the state is proposed as the means by which the money is transferred from the wealthier to the poorer, then two additional moral categories are created – those who have the right to use force to transfer income (keeping, usually, the majority of it for themselves!), and those who do not possess this right. These two categories can overlap with all of the three above categories, thus increasing the complexity of this moral theory to the point where we are more than a little tempted to whip out our handy-dandy Occam’s Razor (one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything) and start over!
Universal moral theories – like any scientific, mathematical or logical theory – must be absolute, consistent and independent of time – otherwise, they are mere subjective opinions. Certainly any moral absolutes that are to be enforced through state coercion must satisfy those criteria, since the legal power of the state is absolute and universal! If we advocate irrational and contradictory moral laws, we will inevitably end up with an irrational and contradictory legal system, which always leads to dictatorship.
(...) If armed gangs of looters worries you, are you concerned about the problem of those taking property outnumbering those who trying to defend their property? But what, then, do you think happens in a democracy? The poor outnumber the rich – and politicians always pander to those with the most votes – and so what is the essential difference between looting gangs and looting voters?(...)" The Argument from Morality Versus the Welfare State by Stefan Molyneux
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário