How does one justify taxation?

This nigga knows. Utilitarianism is not only shit-tier, but is mostly irrelevant (like all shit-tier anglo philosophy) and has been completely overshadowed by the sweeping influence of Kantian philosophy.

Metaethics > ethics tho

Are you OP? If not, you could have at least offered an explanation of how taxation fits with your esoteric deontological moral code, whatever it may be.

I don't, the communist program does not need to be justified, but it isn't really relevant anyway.

Nothing analogous to "taxes" by the bourgeois state will survive the transition to communism, because nothing analogous to "money", or "property" of any kind will survive. The only thing analogous to taxes in the communist program is deductions from one's labor time in labor vouchers for the common funds (while bourgeois right in the form of labor vouchers still persists). Past this, one does not receive any direct remuneration in exchange for labor time, one receives according to need, so there is nothing to "tax".

Utilitatarianism appeals to autistic STEMlords because they don't feel safe without arbitrary numbers like "units of pleasure" they can weigh against each other which soothes their challenged minds.

In effect, it's a totalitarian ideology that would be like Stalinism. Utiliatarians are mostly sociopaths who like talking about how they're going to kill people to harvest their organs and then Bentham had these insane fantasies about buildings where you could observe all actions of everyone in it at all times (Panopticon).

...

Do you even know where you are, boy?

And here I was thinking Holla Forums wasn't religious.

pessimist utiltarianism would work tho

I WILL NOT GIVE YOU MY ORGANS FUCK OFF

So what you're saying is… you wouldn't pull the lever?

Why the fuck would I you goddamn organ harvesting piece of shit?

Why would I want your organs?

Who would? I assume no responsibility for deaths that I could have prevented, but didn't. I can fly to Africa right now and save a starving child by adopting it, but I don't. Does that mean I killed a starving child? No.
Same reasoning applies to that image.

Why even make the distinction?

The proper aim is to construct a society where no one needs your help.

...

It isn't a question of "responsibility", its a question of what the optimal choice of action is. Obviously you are not responsible for the train or the people being tied there, that is just a red herring.

...

great way of justifying letting 5 people die.

no it really doesnt. the effort it takes to adopt and raise a child isnt comparable to the effort it takes to pull a lever.

CI can never be totalitarian, my little organ harvester.

Am I forbidden from lying? What if most people don't want to outlaw lying? Is CI subject to the popular vote?

how does one justify violent property claims

What the fuck is with you and organ harvesting?

It's kinda irrelevant because socialism has no tax but the way I think about it is if socialists justify violence to end capitalism, the same logic can be applied to justify theft to help the working class with things like healthcare and welfare. Just like the alterntive to not doing the former is pretty bad - the world literally being destroyed, the latter's alterntive isnt great too, that being widespread suffering.

The people owe their lives to the commonwealth so it's only just to have them pay for their safety.

Hobbesposting aside, morals are a spook and moral justification is bourgeois.

You know it.

m8 pls the only correct answer is DOUBLE TRACK DRIFTING

Leviathan's chapter on the Dissolution of a State is a good read.

...

Who the fuck would pull the lever?
Utilitarianism is baby ethics.
Assuming for a second that we both have an axiom of compassion, then the best way to go for a perfect individualist utopia is don't take actions you know lead to negative consequences for others.

So by not taking action, we don't cause anything worse to happen.

Besides
Its their parents fault for giving birth to children whom they know may die in a horrible puzzle dilemma

Placing worth on individuals as a number is religious.

Certainly socdem type taxation is there to transfer wealth back to those whose surplus has been stolen. Obviously the state is a blunt tool and doesn't do this perfectly. This is why I think the taxation on worker coops and income people get from worker coops should be very small.

...

so do you, christfag, consider that a good thing?

if not, the only possible reason for this objection is if you believe people don't have equal worth, in which case, it's time to get the fuck back to >>>Holla Forums

You can't act like the mental decision to do nothing carries no causality weight, but the physical action of pulling the lever does.

That is some false mind/body something something

kek

i agree with utilitarianism but fuck harris

...

I'm hoping you aren't basing this on a fabricated quote.

I wouldn't pull the lever. Five popping blood bubbles are prettier to look at than one.

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU LYING THERE LIKE IDIOTS
YOU AREN'T EVEN TIED DOWN

GET FUCKED

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is The Trolly Experiment Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Tracks Like Nigga Move Your Legs Haha

meant to reply to

This shit gets me really mad every time. So what if I would pull the triggerlever, deep down I'd still wish I didn't.

This can revive the trolley meme in ways not yet imaginable

r8

beautiful numbers

pretty good I rate it 2/2

Its used to build thing you benefit from, to provide for the ones down on their luck. Its society-wide insurance against sickness, accidents, old age, poverty, immobility and whole lots else.

...

...

It is coercively taken from me. If I refuse to pay taxes a group of armed thugs come to my house and throw me in a cage. Sure, it's used to pay for some things I benefit from, but it's also used to fund imperialist invasions and other things I personally object to.

How is taxation any different from a mobster knocking on the door of your business and saying they're going to burn the place down, or harm you/your family, or whatever, if you don't pay them x amount per week? How is taxation any different from extortion?

If 100% of what you work for is forcibly taken from you we call it slavery. How is 10-50% of what you work for being forcibly taken from you not slavery?

This is only a problem because there is no democracy. You do not have a voice in what the money is spend on.

I assumed this scenario was in socialism, tbh.

Also, society is about making everyone work together.

If you want to live in a society, you must live by its rules. You could always move to alaska.