Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

[Gertie]

I was making an argument about what consent means in the context of your specific question, it strikes me as relevant to the discussion - but I'm happy to leave it there.

Okay, sorry about that; I think I misunderstood. What's the conclusion of the argument you were making about what consent means?

No prob.

This roughly sums up my position -


Consent in the context of organising society so that each person gets exactly what they want isn't possible, give and take is inevitable. (This means in your terms any form of government is coercive I think, pretty much by definition, but this isn't a yes/no poll it's a discussion board, so I explored the context further)

In such circs, bearing in mind the realistic alternatives *

Which services are provided for and paid for by the citizenry via taxation under democracy there-by becomes a compromise, which we have an equal say in, and ways to non-violently participate in affecting.

There should be basic Human Rights under-girding such a system, which maintain individual consent on key issues no matter the policies passing governments, to avoid the tyranny of the majority in areas we agree should be protected.

(Side issues in that larger context involve which decisions are best made at which level, and the role of news sources in manufacturing consent in a system which relies on voters being informed).

Conclusion - if you live in a society, the consent of others to your wishes in every case is impossible, and vice versa. The reasonable response to this is to create systems which maximise the benefits of living in a society and minimise the downsides. Democracy is the best realistic option imo, with a Human Rights 'consent safety net'.

* [EDIT -

After ''In such circs, bearing in mind the realistic alternatives'' - ADD ''Democracy is the best system'' ]

[LuckyR]

If you go to a loan shark to borrow money and later don't have the money to pay and he arranges to have your legs broken, was your interaction with the loan shark consensual? You didn't sign up for broken legs, you signed up for a loan. But you knew a loan shark very well could break your legs if you didn't pay. You tacitly "consented" to have your legs broken even though you never said "please break my legs". It's all part of the package, you either participate in the system or you don't.

I read this example as saying that an act - in this instance paying the loan shark - can be both consensual and coerced.

From that you might extrapolate to say that taxation of immigrants is consensual. They may not actually be stopped at the border and asked to sign a form saying that they consent to be taxed, as a condition for entering the country, but it's arguable that it's an implied condition, what you call "tacit consent".

It's harder to argue that being born in a country is tacitly consenting to whatever the government does...

Uummm... no. The guy who seeks out a loan shark is not coerced. He initiated the deal, bottom line. You're confusing the presence of a negative consequence with evidence of coercion, the exact premise I just disproved.

Your description of the group consent of immigrants is absolutely accurate. Having said that, native born citizens also give group consent, though it is less obvious since there isn't a formal "you're a Citizen!" ceremony. However, a natural born citizen (like an immigrant) is either in or out of the society. Options are: 1) you've bought into the system (that is you've reconciled that the benefits outweigh the parts of the system that are bothersome), 2) you become an emigrant to another country because you have made the mental calculation that you cannot accept or give consent to, the parts of the system that you vehemently disagree with or 3) you disagree with the society but don't leave, such as an off the grid protester. Folks who are complete utilizers of the system (use all of the benefits and pay taxes) but enjoy verbal criticism from the sidelines but don't act on those criticisms (such as going to prison for tax dodging) are in category #1, but like to pretend they're in group #3.

[Good_Egg]

...when it's consensual and non-violent, I would typically call it a "fee", or "voluntary price paid". So I paid my annual member's dues to be a voting member of the PTA each year I was, but I was never 'taxed' by the PTA.

That's my understanding also. When government provides a service that is paid for by a dedicated fund to which users of the service are required to contribute, that's a charge or a fee. As against a tax, which is levied on whatever the government chooses, and goes into that government's central fund and can be spent on whatever the government chooses.

I would tend to say that the "user fee" model of paying for services is consensual. Because the individual has the choice of not using the service and not paying the fee.

Is it possible to run a whole society on that basis? I think not. Because there are core government services whose benefits are collective, not individual. You can't opt out of receiving the benefit of a sound currency, a defence force, a framework of law and order.

The question is how far the concept "consensual" applies to taxation. Answering it requires a rigorous understanding of how we're using the term "consensual", which may involve relating it to "consent" and/or "consensus".

This roughly sums up my position -

Consent in the context of organising society so that each person gets exactly what they want isn't possible, give and take is inevitable. (This means in your terms any form of government is coercive...

If we say that
1. an act is consensual if all participants consent to it, and coercive if one or more does not
2. To consent is simply to agree
then your conclusion that any form of government is necessarily coercive seems valid. You're saying, in effect, that yes taxation is coercive but it's no big deal.

In a previous post (on a related thread), I tried to put together a different interpretation.

I suggested that consent is not simple agreement, but is an act of waiving one's legal or moral right to object.

What follows is that there is a difference between
1. An "anti-consensual" act = one which breaches a legal or moral right to object
2. An "a-consensual" act where no legal or moral right exists.

With that understanding of consent and consensuality, taxation to pay for a service that one has willingly received is a-consensual, because one has no legal or moral right to withhold payment for a service willingly received.

But, on the basis that once one has paid one's debts one has a legal or moral right to one's property, taxation for any other purpose is anti-consensual.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Good_Egg,

Thank you for your reply!

That's my understanding also. When government provides a service that is paid for by a dedicated fund to which users of the service are required to contribute, that's a charge or a fee. As against a tax, which is levied on whatever the government chooses, and goes into that government's central fund and can be spent on whatever the government chooses.

I would tend to say that the "user fee" model of paying for services is consensual. Because the individual has the choice of not using the service and not paying the fee.

Yes, I agree.

Is it possible to run a whole society on that basis?

I think that question and others like it is off-topic and also helps pinpoint where things are going off the rails before becoming much more off-topic and derailed.

However, I would be happy to post a reply in another topic if you start a new forum topic with a title like "Is it possible to run a society without non-consensual non-defensive violence" or even just "Is it possibly to run a society without taxation [by big non-local governments]?"

To avoid strawmans and such (albeit presumably unintentional ones), I will not answer such questions in this topic.

As to the question at hand, correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems to me we agree: Taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual.


Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Gertie,

Thank you for your reply!

This roughly sums up my position -

Consent in the context of organising society so that each person gets exactly what they want isn't possible, [...]

Consent--or more specifically the absence of non-consensual interactions/transactions--does not mean "getting what you want" per se. Jon might want to have sex with Mary. Mary might not want to have sex with Jon. Jon might be disappointed that he doesn't get to have sex with Mary like he wants. That doesn't mean anything non-consensual has happened.

Moreover, this topic is not really about what kind of societies are possible to organize. This topic is simply about whether or not taxation by big non-local governments is consensual.

Please feel free to start a new separate forum topic with a title like "Is it possible to organize a society without legal non-defensive non-consensual violence?", or "Is it possible to organize a society without taxation by big non-local governments?", or "Is it possible to organize a society without non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.)?" Those are just a few examples of the infinite topics you could make if you desire. This topic is not any of those.

This means in your terms any form of government is coercive...

Depending on exactly how the terms are defined I'd probably agree with that, especially if you replace "government" with "big non-local government". I'd love to discuss that with you further, so I suggest you start a new forum topic with a title like, "Is government necessarily coercive?" or, "Are all governments violently coercive by definition?"


Thank you,
Scott

[Good_Egg]

I think you're persisting in the notion that consensuality/nonconsensuality is logically prior to right/wrong. So that one can first make a factual judgment about the consensuality of taxation, and postpone to a later thread any discussion of how far this is a good thing or a bad thing.

I'm arguing that it's the other way around.

For taxation to be a thing that people are capable of consenting to or refusing to consent to, they must have a legal or moral right to consent.

Consent is not simple agreement. We all have opinions about whether Russia should have invaded Ukraine. But it is nonsense to say that you and I did or did not consent to it. Only Ukrainians (?collectively?) have the right that was breached by the invasion, so only Ukrainians can meaningfully consent or not consent.

Your or my agreement or disagreement or approval or disapproval does not make the act consensual or nonconsensual.

So the assertion of a moral right to one's property is prior to consideration of whether one consents or not to its being taxed.

You're trying to make an assertion that depends on moral right without acknowledging that moral right exists.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Good_Egg,

I think you're persisting in the notion that consensuality/nonconsensuality is logically prior to right/wrong.

No, that is not an accurate description of my beliefs. Personally, I don't believe in the superstition of morality/sinfulness/etc. at all, as explained best and clearest in my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.

Certainly, for the reasons I have already explained in detail repeatedly, I don't think it is remotely related to this discussion or the nature of consent at all.

Two people of very different religions (or moral superstitions with "sinful" being replaced with "immoral") and an atheist and an amoralist can all easily agree on which acts of sex are consensual or not, despite disagreeing on whether they are morally good or immoral, or whether the participants had a moral right to have sex or not. Martial rape was legal in the USA for most of its history, but that doesn't mean the rapists legally raping their wives--or really anyone being reasonable and honest--thought it was consensual, despite believing they had a moral right to do it and that the rape victim did not have a moral right to say not to the sex.

You're trying to make an assertion that depends on moral right

No, I am absolutely not.

I can describe whether two adults having sex are doing so consensually or not without making any moral claims.

Likewise, two other logical people can both disagree about morality and who has a "moral right" to do what regarding the sex while still easily agreeing on the amoral fact of whether the sex happens to be consensual or not.

Without contradicting himself, a violent but very logical racist can genuinely believe that he has a "moral right" to violently enslave certain other humans but also easily agree that the slavery is not consensual.

You thinking that whether the sex/slavery/whatever is consensual or not depends on "morality' or "moral rights" is utterly inconsistent with how I have ever heard anyone else use the terms 'consent' and 'consensual'.

For taxation to be a thing that people are capable of consenting to or refusing to consent to, they must have a legal or moral right to consent.

No, as already explained repeated and demonstrated by example, that is completely untrue and absurd--or at least it does not remotely reflect how I have ever heard anyone but you use the terms 'consent' and 'consensual'. Again, here is what I have already said about that in the topic already to you:

For example, whether an act of sex between two homosexual men is consensual or non-consensual (i.e. rape) has nothing to do with whether it is "morally good" or "morally wrong" or such, or otherwise what's one's own religious or superstitious beliefs about it happen to be.

To give another example, one could believe it is extremely immoral for a conniving sadistic lesbian to seduce a married woman into cheating on her husband, but that doesn't make it coercive or non-consensual. It doesn't make it rape. The difference between coercion versus persuasion, and likewise the difference between consensual versus non-consensual, has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether the alleged violent force used and/or the alleged threats of violence used is "immoral".


[Emphasis added.]

***

I firmly believe [consent] has absolutely nothing to do with morality or a "moral right" whatever that means.

Jus primae noctis is still not consensual no matter how much of a "moral right" the rapist has to do the rape.

Likewise, one might not have a "moral right" to cheat on their romantic partner by having an affair, but that doesn't mean having an affair is rape, nor would rudely and meanly and selfishly saying "have sex with me, or I'll go have an affair with a consenting partner" be rape. Many would think it is "immoral", whatever that means, but it wouldn't be rape and all the sex involved would be consensual, be it with the partner who got threatened with an affair or the affair itself.


[Emphasis added.]

***

As always, regardless of any so-called 'baseline' (e.g. a history of Alfie giving Bruno drugs or a history or Alfie raping Bruno on a daily basis), the consensuality of the future action done by Bruno under the future threat by Alfie that Alfie will do a certain future action depends on what that future action is regardless and independent of any baseline or morality.

Namely, it depends on (1) whether that certain future action would itself be consensual, and (2) whether that certain future action is violent or non-violent.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will stop donating to Bruno's charity.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will donate to Bruno's charity.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will cheat on his husband and have a gay affair without even using a condom.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will punch Bruno repeatedly in the face while Bruno cries and begs Alfie to stop.

It depends on what that certain future action is, and the so-called baseline and "morality" or "moral rights" are all completely irrelevant.


It seems to me, the difference between consent and non-consent is not that complicated at all.

[...]

Consent is simple. It's clearly not about the so-called 'baseline' and it's not about morality or so-called "moral rights".

It's clearly about violence, namely non-defensive violence, and the threat thereof.


[...]

Whether you have been paying someone with money, drugs, or sex, or otherwise giving a certain person money, drugs, or sex on the daily for a long time, it wouldn't be rape to say, hey do sex with me or I will stop paying you (i.e. giving you) the money, drugs, or sex I've been giving you.

[...]

I absolutely and whole-heartedly reject both the negative/positive distinction and the baseline . With politeness, they are both utterly absurd on the face, as best I can tell.

Your own example with Alfie beating up Bruno on the daily proves it. Let me show:

"Hey, Bruno! You know how I beat you up every day while you cry and beg me to stop. If you give my your lunch money today, I won't do it today--which would be a great positive consequence for you that is much better then the baseline of me beating you up every day like I have been. But if you don't give me your lunch money I will beat you up again today!"

Likewise, we can see the same complete and utter irrelevant of the positive/negative decision and the irrelevant of the so-called baseline in the inverse situation as well:

"Carl, I know you have been working for us as a porn star for a long time, and we have been paying you $100 every day to have sex on camera with Darla, but we've decided to change gears and become a gay sex company, so you either need to have sex with Eric today on camera or we will have to let you go, hire someone else, and stop paying you $100 per day."


[Emphasis added.]

Whether or not Person A having sex with Person B is consensual or non-consensual (i.e. rape) has nothing at all to do with whether person A has a "moral right" to have sex with person B or whether the sex (or lack thereof) is immoral or morally good. The claim otherwise is patently absurd.





Thank you,
Scott

[Good_Egg]

Whether or not Person A having sex with Person B is consensual or non-consensual (i.e. rape) has nothing at all to do with whether person A has a "moral right" to have sex with person B

Because you use "consensual" to mean that A and B agree to the act ?

What about C ?

If A and B agree that jumping into bed together is a great idea but non-participant C does not agree, is that still a consensual act ?

If so, why ?

If you can't say that C has no right to object...

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Good_Egg,

Thank you for your latest reply.

Whether or not Person A having sex with Person B is consensual or non-consensual (i.e. rape) has nothing at all to do with whether person A has a "moral right" to have sex with person B

Because you use "consensual" to mean that A and B agree to the act ?

Define "agree".

What about C ?

If A and B agree that jumping into bed together is a great idea but non-participant C does not agree, is that still a consensual act ?

You can't be a rape victim if nobody had sex with you.

If two consenting gay adults have gay sex in the private there may be some homophobes scattered all over universe thinking or saying the words, "I don't agree with gay sex".

I don't know what that sentence would mean when they say it or what it has to do it all with anything we are talking about.

Obviously, the consensuality of a transaction or physical or sexual interaction between two or more parties is determined by the whether the parties in the transaction consented. It has absolutely nothing to do with the religion or moral superstitions of uninvolved people or things.

Gay sex between two consenting gay isn't rape just because some homophobe somewhere is a homophobe.

If you can't say that C has no right to object...

I am not saying anyone has a "moral right" to do anything or to not do anything, namely since such moralizing and superstitions have absolutely nothing at all to do with consent.

The homophobe might have the "moral right" to object. Perhaps even the superstitious or religious basis for his homophobia might turn out to be true. Even if the homophobe turns out to be 100% right that consensual gay sex is terribly immoral and sinful and naughty and that gay people have not moral right to have gay sex, it doesn't at all change the fact that the gay sex is consensual.

I certainly would defend to the death the freedom of the homophobe to be homophobic and to peacefully but judgmentally say homophobic things like, "I object to gay sex! I object to two peaceful consenting gay adults having gay sex with each other in the privacy of their own home! They have no moral right to have consensual gay sex! Even though the gay sex they have is consensual, I object to it!"

Even the objecting homophobe can easily agree that the gay sex to which he objects is consensual.


Thank you,
Scott

[Good_Egg]

Obviously, the consensuality of a transaction... ... between two or more parties is determined by the whether the parties in the transaction consented.

This seems standard use of language. I'm pointing out that it is the usage of a society with a background belief that people have "natural rights" over their own body, and therefore whatever they get up to in terms of bodily interaction is their business and nobody else's. (Assuming that the parties in question are adults).

Imagine a slave-owning society in which slavery is not only legally permissible but also universally considered morally legitimate. If my slave has sex with your slave, such a society would say that the sex is not consensual unless you and I agreed to permit it.

Similarly you've quoted as an example marital rape. (Which your spell-checker renders as "martial"). You count that as rape, asserting that it matters whether the wife agrees to the act. I'm saying that in making that assertion you are making a moral judgment - saying that she has a natural right to object, that her objection is significant.

Or try another example - if Alfie is a swindler who sells Bruno's car to Charlie without Bruno's knowledge, is that a consensual transaction ? There's a clear case for saying that no it isn't, because Bruno is an "involved party". But he is an involved party precisely because he has a right of ownership over the car.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Obviously, the consensuality of a transaction... ... between two or more parties is determined by the whether the parties in the transaction consented.

This seems standard use of language.

Then it seems we agree on all the on-topic matters.

Similarly you've quoted as an example marital rape. [...] You count that as [non-consensual sex], asserting that it matters whether the wife agrees to the act. I'm saying that in making that assertion you are making a moral judgment - saying that she has a natural right to object

No, that contradicts what we just agreed on (as shown earlier in this post).

When I point out that so-called martial rape was in fact non-consensual, I am absolutely not making any kind of moral judgement. The legal rapists themselves could easily and in a logically consistent way agree that their sex with their raped wife was non-consensual despite agreeing that they have a "moral right" to do the raping (i.e. non-consensual sex) and that the victim doesn't have a "moral right" to say no.

Again, as I already demonstrated clearly, consent has absolutely at all noting to do with "morality" or "moral rights".

Without contradicting himself, a violent but very logical racist can genuinely believe that he has a "moral right" to violently enslave certain other humans but also easily agree that the slavery is not consensual.

You thinking that whether the sex/slavery/whatever is consensual or not depends on "morality' or "moral rights" is utterly inconsistent with how I have ever heard anyone else use the terms 'consent' and 'consensual'.

***

For example, whether an act of sex between two homosexual men is consensual or non-consensual (i.e. rape) has nothing to do with whether it is "morally good" or "morally wrong" or such, or otherwise what's one's own religious or superstitious beliefs about it happen to be.

To give another example, one could believe it is extremely immoral for a conniving sadistic lesbian to seduce a married woman into cheating on her husband, but that doesn't make it coercive or non-consensual. It doesn't make it rape. The difference between coercion versus persuasion, and likewise the difference between consensual versus non-consensual, has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether the alleged violent force used and/or the alleged threats of violence used is "immoral".


[Emphasis added.]

***

I firmly believe [consent] has absolutely nothing to do with morality or a "moral right" whatever that means.

Jus primae noctis is still not consensual no matter how much of a "moral right" the rapist has to do the rape.

Likewise, one might not have a "moral right" to cheat on their romantic partner by having an affair, but that doesn't mean having an affair is rape, nor would rudely and meanly and selfishly saying "have sex with me, or I'll go have an affair with a consenting partner" be rape. Many would think it is "immoral", whatever that means, but it wouldn't be rape and all the sex involved would be consensual, be it with the partner who got threatened with an affair or the affair itself.


[Emphasis added.]

***

As always, regardless of any so-called 'baseline' (e.g. a history of Alfie giving Bruno drugs or a history or Alfie raping Bruno on a daily basis), the consensuality of the future action done by Bruno under the future threat by Alfie that Alfie will do a certain future action depends on what that future action is regardless and independent of any baseline or morality.

Namely, it depends on (1) whether that certain future action would itself be consensual, and (2) whether that certain future action is violent or non-violent.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will stop donating to Bruno's charity.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will donate to Bruno's charity.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will cheat on his husband and have a gay affair without even using a condom.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will punch Bruno repeatedly in the face while Bruno cries and begs Alfie to stop.

It depends on what that certain future action is, and the so-called baseline and "morality" or "moral rights" are all completely irrelevant.


It seems to me, the difference between consent and non-consent is not that complicated at all.

[...]

Consent is simple. It's clearly not about the so-called 'baseline' and it's not about morality or so-called "moral rights".

It's clearly about violence, namely non-defensive violence, and the threat thereof.


[...]

Whether you have been paying someone with money, drugs, or sex, or otherwise giving a certain person money, drugs, or sex on the daily for a long time, it wouldn't be rape to say, hey do sex with me or I will stop paying you (i.e. giving you) the money, drugs, or sex I've been giving you.

[...]

I absolutely and whole-heartedly reject both the negative/positive distinction and the baseline . With politeness, they are both utterly absurd on the face, as best I can tell.

Your own example with Alfie beating up Bruno on the daily proves it. Let me show:

"Hey, Bruno! You know how I beat you up every day while you cry and beg me to stop. If you give my your lunch money today, I won't do it today--which would be a great positive consequence for you that is much better then the baseline of me beating you up every day like I have been. But if you don't give me your lunch money I will beat you up again today!"

Likewise, we can see the same complete and utter irrelevant of the positive/negative decision and the irrelevant of the so-called baseline in the inverse situation as well:

"Carl, I know you have been working for us as a porn star for a long time, and we have been paying you $100 every day to have sex on camera with Darla, but we've decided to change gears and become a gay sex company, so you either need to have sex with Eric today on camera or we will have to let you go, hire someone else, and stop paying you $100 per day."


[Emphasis added.]

Whether or not Person A having sex with Person B is consensual or non-consensual (i.e. rape) has nothing at all to do with whether person A has a "moral right" to have sex with person B or whether the sex (or lack thereof) is immoral or morally good. The claim otherwise is patently absurd.

Thank you,
Scott

[Good_Egg]

When I point out that so-called martial rape was in fact non-consensual, I am absolutely not making any kind of moral judgement.

You are making a judgment that the wife is an involved person who has the possibility of consenting. I agree with that judgment But it is a judgment; the wife is a person and she is involved because it is her body.

Just as, if you say that Alfie selling Bruno's car to Charlie is non-consensual, you are making a judgment that Bruno is an involved person who has the possibility of consenting. Rather than merely approving, which any uninvolved person may do. Bruno is an involved person because it is his car.

And if you say that my choosing to take my dog for a walk in the rain is non-consensual, you are making a judgment that the dog is an involved person who has the possibility of consenting. (Some dogs hate going out in the rain).

(Don't think I'm making light of rape here; just trying to get at what is being asserted when we say an act is nonconsensual, by considering a range of different examples).

Without contradicting himself, a violent but very logical racist can genuinely believe that he has a "moral right" to violently enslave certain other humans but also easily agree that the slavery is not consensual.

The logic of that person's position is "I don't mind and they don't matter". It is that the agreement of the lesser races is not necessary, not of any significance. Just as you don't ask a slave, because a slave is property. Non-persons cannot consent; they have no rights to waive. So no, such a person would not say their act was either consensual or nonconsensual. They would say that consensus implies the involvement of multiple persons.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Good_Egg,

Thank you for your latest reply.

When I point out that so-called martial rape was in fact non-consensual, I am absolutely not making any kind of moral judgement.

You are making a judgment that the wife is an involved person who has the possibility of consenting. I agree with that judgment But it is a judgment; the wife is a person and she is involved because it is her body.

I am not absolutely not making a "moral judgement", and for that reason I would not use the word "judgement" to describe what I am doing. (One could arguably call what I am doing an amoral judgement, but I wouldn't call it that, precisely to avoid the fallacy of incorrectly conflating what I am doing as being anything remotely close to a moral judgement at all.)

Instead of the word 'judgement', I would use a term like "observation" or a term like "descriptive claim regarding alleged objective material facts".

I observe the objective material fact that the raped woman is "involved" in the rape, as you put it.

I observe the objective material fact that the allegedly raped woman is one of the two people having sex when the two people have sex.

I absolutely make no moral claims at all.

Without contradicting himself, a violent but very logical racist can genuinely believe that he has a "moral right" to violently enslave certain other humans but also easily agree that the slavery is not consensual.

So no, such a person would not say their act was either consensual or nonconsensual. They would say that consensus implies the involvement of multiple persons.

I disagree with you. I absolutely 100% believe that my statement is 100% true: A violent but very logical racist can genuinely believe that he has a "moral right" to violently enslave certain other humans but also easily agree that the slavery is not consensual. Such a position does not necessarily logically contradict itself.


Thank you,
Scott

[Good_Egg]

Instead of the word 'judgement', I would use a term like "observation" or a term like "descriptive claim regarding alleged objective material facts".

I observe the objective material fact that the raped woman is "involved" in the rape, as you put it.

I observe the objective material fact that the allegedly raped woman is one of the two people having sex when the two people have sex.

If someone says "the fact that Alice and Bernard are having sex is their business and nobody else's", that is a judgment. It's clearly saying something more than the neutral observation that the physical act has two participants.

If you say "for that act to be consensual, it is necessary and sufficient that Alice consents and Bernard consents" then you are making that same judgment. You are asserting that the will of both physically-involved parties matters, and the will of any third parties (parents, for example) doesn't.

This is clearer if you could bear to move away from sex to the suggested example where swindler Alfie sells Bruno's car to Charlie. Only two people are in the room where the sale is made. But Bruno is a person whose consent matters because of his right of ownership of the car.

I absolutely make no moral claims at all.

Yes, in the sense that you are not saying that any particular act of sex is a good thing or a bad thing.

But you are making a claim about whose will matters - who has to consent in order for a transaction to be deemed consensual. I would call that a claim about natural rights - not sure what you'd call it...

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Good_Egg,

As a friendly request, I ask that you please do avoid using the word "judgment" alone when discussing anything with me. Instead, use either the phrase "moral judgement" or "amoral judgement", so that I know what you mean.

Consent has nothing to do with "morality" or "moral rights" or "moral judgements".

If someone says "the fact that Alice and Bernard are having sex is their business and nobody else's", [..]

If you say "for that act to be consensual, it is necessary and sufficient that Alice consents and Bernard consents" then you are [saying the same thing].

No, I am not.

It seems to me you have misunderstood me gravely.

To say, "the sex between Alice and Bob was their business and nobody else's" is very different than saying "the sex between Alice and Bob is consensual".

Are you sure you have read all my preceding posts in full, including for instance the examples regarding cheating spouses who don't even use condoms when they have an affair?

I absolutely did not at all say that the sex between the two cheaters' is the two cheaters' business and nobody else's (including the spouse that gets cheated on or viciously pressured into sex via the threat thereof).

I absolutely make no moral claims at all.

Yes, in the sense that you are not saying that any particular act of sex is a good thing or a bad thing.

But you are making a [moral claim] about whose will matters ...

No, I absolutely am not.

I am absolutely not making any moral claims at all in any sense.

If you are reading between the lines at all, I strongly suggest you do your best to avoid doing that or else my words will surely be misunderstood by you.

If you want to re-word my words to verify you understand them or because you think your wording is more clear, I suggest you do so as a question. Instead of saying, "You said ABC which is the same as saying XYZ" (a statement not a question), you can ask, "You said ABC; to ensure I understand correctly, does that mean XYZ?"



Again, here is my previous posts about this including the example of the cheating spouse:

Without contradicting himself, a violent but very logical racist can genuinely believe that he has a "moral right" to violently enslave certain other humans but also easily agree that the slavery is not consensual.

You thinking that whether the sex/slavery/whatever is consensual or not depends on "morality' or "moral rights" is utterly inconsistent with how I have ever heard anyone else use the terms 'consent' and 'consensual'.

***

For example, whether an act of sex between two homosexual men is consensual or non-consensual (i.e. rape) has nothing to do with whether it is "morally good" or "morally wrong" or such, or otherwise what's one's own religious or superstitious beliefs about it happen to be.

To give another example, one could believe it is extremely immoral for a conniving sadistic lesbian to seduce a married woman into cheating on her husband, but that doesn't make it coercive or non-consensual. It doesn't make it rape. The difference between coercion versus persuasion, and likewise the difference between consensual versus non-consensual, has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether the alleged violent force used and/or the alleged threats of violence used is "immoral".


[Emphasis added.]

***

I firmly believe [consent] has absolutely nothing to do with morality or a "moral right" whatever that means.

Jus primae noctis is still not consensual no matter how much of a "moral right" the rapist has to do the rape.

Likewise, one might not have a "moral right" to cheat on their romantic partner by having an affair, but that doesn't mean having an affair is rape, nor would rudely and meanly and selfishly saying "have sex with me, or I'll go have an affair with a consenting partner" be rape. Many would think it is "immoral", whatever that means, but it wouldn't be rape and all the sex involved would be consensual, be it with the partner who got threatened with an affair or the affair itself.


[Emphasis added.]

***

As always, regardless of any so-called 'baseline' (e.g. a history of Alfie giving Bruno drugs or a history or Alfie raping Bruno on a daily basis), the consensuality of the future action done by Bruno under the future threat by Alfie that Alfie will do a certain future action depends on what that future action is regardless and independent of any baseline or morality.

Namely, it depends on (1) whether that certain future action would itself be consensual, and (2) whether that certain future action is violent or non-violent.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will stop donating to Bruno's charity.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will donate to Bruno's charity.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will cheat on his husband and have a gay affair without even using a condom.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will punch Bruno repeatedly in the face while Bruno cries and begs Alfie to stop.

It depends on what that certain future action is, and the so-called baseline and "morality" or "moral rights" are all completely irrelevant.


It seems to me, the difference between consent and non-consent is not that complicated at all.

[...]

Consent is simple. It's clearly not about the so-called 'baseline' and it's not about morality or so-called "moral rights".

It's clearly about violence, namely non-defensive violence, and the threat thereof.


[...]

Whether you have been paying someone with money, drugs, or sex, or otherwise giving a certain person money, drugs, or sex on the daily for a long time, it wouldn't be rape to say, hey do sex with me or I will stop paying you (i.e. giving you) the money, drugs, or sex I've been giving you.

[...]

I absolutely and whole-heartedly reject both the negative/positive distinction and the baseline . With politeness, they are both utterly absurd on the face, as best I can tell.

Your own example with Alfie beating up Bruno on the daily proves it. Let me show:

"Hey, Bruno! You know how I beat you up every day while you cry and beg me to stop. If you give my your lunch money today, I won't do it today--which would be a great positive consequence for you that is much better then the baseline of me beating you up every day like I have been. But if you don't give me your lunch money I will beat you up again today!"

Likewise, we can see the same complete and utter irrelevant of the positive/negative decision and the irrelevant of the so-called baseline in the inverse situation as well:

"Carl, I know you have been working for us as a porn star for a long time, and we have been paying you $100 every day to have sex on camera with Darla, but we've decided to change gears and become a gay sex company, so you either need to have sex with Eric today on camera or we will have to let you go, hire someone else, and stop paying you $100 per day."


[Emphasis added.]

Whether or not Person A having sex with Person B is consensual or non-consensual (i.e. rape) has nothing at all to do with whether person A has a "moral right" to have sex with person B or whether the sex (or lack thereof) is immoral or morally good. The claim otherwise is patently absurd.

Thank you,
Scott