Such people are hypocrites at best. Don't they use roads for their commute. Dont' their kids go to public schools. Don't they visit national parks etc. If they do all these things, aren't they ashamed of living off the money of the rest of the society that diligently pays taxes, and not contributing/pitching their share towards these common societal support structures?
Conscientious objection within a system is not hypocritical. That's how actual change begins. Movements generally arise through disobedience to immoral laws and through an appeal to the reason and compassion of others. It's unintellectual to presuppose the validity, morality, and consistency of the actions of others based on divergent false equivalencies.
There is currently only centralized, pooled, coercive funding. Certain institutions (e.g. war industries and monopolistic entities) are disproportionately backed by forced funding. Certain road contracting is also backed by forced funding. It's illogical to suggest that a conscientious objector to the war industry is therefore being hypocritical by using roads. They are, as it happens, trapped within a system where the only alternative would be to refrain from using roads, which itself is a highly oppressive suggestion and a predicament many people find worth conscientiously rejecting. The funding of roads and the funding of unethical industries are not mutually inclusive. These are the types of moral imperatives that most discriminatory and anti-humanitarian policies have imposed on people throughout history.
Wiser is the one who asks why and listens. Many things that appear hypocritical are, in actuality, the superficial understanding of a much deeper dilemma taking place.
Comments
Such people are hypocrites at best. Don't they use roads for their commute. Dont' their kids go to public schools. Don't they visit national parks etc. If they do all these things, aren't they ashamed of living off the money of the rest of the society that diligently pays taxes, and not contributing/pitching their share towards these common societal support structures?
Conscientious objection within a system is not hypocritical. That's how actual change begins. Movements generally arise through disobedience to immoral laws and through an appeal to the reason and compassion of others. It's unintellectual to presuppose the validity, morality, and consistency of the actions of others based on divergent false equivalencies.
There is currently only centralized, pooled, coercive funding. Certain institutions (e.g. war industries and monopolistic entities) are disproportionately backed by forced funding. Certain road contracting is also backed by forced funding. It's illogical to suggest that a conscientious objector to the war industry is therefore being hypocritical by using roads. They are, as it happens, trapped within a system where the only alternative would be to refrain from using roads, which itself is a highly oppressive suggestion and a predicament many people find worth conscientiously rejecting. The funding of roads and the funding of unethical industries are not mutually inclusive. These are the types of moral imperatives that most discriminatory and anti-humanitarian policies have imposed on people throughout history.
Wiser is the one who asks why and listens. Many things that appear hypocritical are, in actuality, the superficial understanding of a much deeper dilemma taking place.
> diligently pays taxes
This is a phrase that should only ever be used ironically. :/