Human, you are not necessary.

[Malcolm]

Good luck with that, people still put nation before class.

I agree. People do not want to identify as working class as the idea that the working class is actually the motor of modern history has become unfashionable. People like to identify as something higher or loftier. Identification with one's class worked during a period when class mobility was basically non-existent and even then people seemed to identify more with a movement based in the working class, than with the class itself.

That class identification also happened when one family dominated all the European countries, i.e., the Sax-Coburgs.

That class identification never took deep roots among white Anglo Americans. Most of the immigrant labor was in factories, etc. It is interesting to see the decade by decade decline in farming communities relative to the total population of the US here:

https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timelin ... s_land.htm

[Grigoris]

That class identification never took deep roots among white Anglo Americans.

I beg to differ: IWW.

IWW.jpg (31.86 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

[clyde]

We are all integral parts of the killing machine/process.

No we are not. For example: The military is payed for by tax money, but the tax payer is not asked where their taxes will go.

An individual, group or company willingly supplying and supporting the military though, well that is a different story.

Don't make excuses for people involved in wrong livelihood, because there are always countless other options; including choosing poverty. I can understand choosing a stint in the military over poverty, but that still does not mean one is not engaging in wrong livelihood.

Like I asked before: Would you make the same excuses for a person that chooses to join a gang to climb out of poverty (for example)?

Now you’re making excuses.

Our government (and yours too I believe) is democratically elected and reflects the will of the people. If we didn’t want our tax dollars going to the military, we could vote for candidates who don’t support the military - or not pay our taxes.

I pay my taxes knowing that a substantial portion goes to the military. I have no excuse. I am, no matter how reluctantly, part of the killing machine/process.

You?

[Grigoris]

Now you’re making excuses.

No I am not.

Our government (and yours too I believe) is democratically elected and reflects the will of the people.

If we didn’t want our tax dollars going to the military, we could vote for candidates who don’t support the military - or not pay our taxes.

Good luck with both of those options. Even if you vote for parties/candidates that are opposed to war, you will still be taxed. Even if you choose not to pay your taxes and be jailed, you will still be forced to work and taxed.

I pay my taxes knowing that a substantial portion goes to the military. I have no excuse. I am, no matter how reluctantly, part of the killing machine/process.

You?

I served in the army, we have conscription here in Greece. If you decide to be a conscientious objector you have two options: jail (where you are still doing the state's bidding), or alternative service for another state organisation.

You seem to be unaware of the difference between willing and unwilling participation. Voluntarily joining the army (in whatever capacity) is willing participation in a killing machine. Like it or lump it.

You also seem to be blissfully unaware of the role of coercion.

[Grigoris]

Now you’re making excuses.

This is the third time I am asking this question:

Would you make the same excuses for a person that chooses to join a gang to climb out of poverty (for example)?

[clyde]

No, but I didn’t say anything about gangs or climbing out of poverty. If joining a gang entails engaging in illegal activities, then no, of course not. But the military is not an illegal organization.

Regarding coercion, I don’t believe I could be coerced to murder someone and certainly the threat of jail would not be sufficient to overcome my will; so how is it that you’re coerced to pay taxes?

[Grigoris]

No, but I didn’t say anything about gangs or climbing out of poverty. If joining a gang entails engaging in illegal activities, then no, of course not. But the military is not an illegal organization.

The first precept says:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami; "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life."

The legality and/or illegality of the action is irrelevant.

Regarding coercion, I don’t believe I could be coerced to murder someone and certainly the threat of jail would not be sufficient to overcome my will; so how is it that you’re coerced to pay taxes?

A completely irrelevant comparison. Apples and oranges.

[Johnny Dangerous]

No, but I didn’t say anything about gangs or climbing out of poverty. If joining a gang entails engaging in illegal activities, then no, of course not. But the military is not an illegal organization.

Militaries do illegal and abhorrent things all the time, probably nearly as often as gangs, and usually with a higher body count. Militaries are usually illegal or illegitimate according to the people they kill. That's not to say all individual members are equally morally culpable for said things, but the idea that militaries are more ethical than gangs is just not so.

Regarding coercion, I don’t believe I could be coerced to murder someone and certainly the threat of jail would not be sufficient to overcome my will; so how is it that you’re coerced to pay taxes?

You will go to jail or face severe financial penalties if you don't pay taxes, unless you heavily modify your lifestyle in such a way that you can avoid paying them entirely. Also it is easy to say we could not be coerced into killing someone when we live in a relatively stable liberal democracy.

[Malcolm]

That class identification never took deep roots among white Anglo Americans.

I beg to differ: IWW.

IWW.jpg

No, The AFL was more powerful, aligned with the Democratic Party, and anti-immigrant as well. The union movement in the US was more guild conscious than class conscious, and it remains so.

The IWW had as many conflicts with competing unions as it did with companies.

[clyde]

Here’s my point: Paying taxes supports the military. You would not murder someone even if threatened with jail and/or a large fine. So, why are you paying taxes that support the military? Is it too inconvenient to stop paying taxes?

I pay my taxes with the understanding that I am complicit in actions that my government takes which I disagree with.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Here’s my point: Paying taxes supports the military. You would not murder someone even if threatened with jail and/or a large fine. So, why are you paying taxes that support the military? Is it too inconvenient to stop paying taxes?

I pay my taxes with the understanding that I am complicit in actions that my government takes which I disagree with.

That's a really naive view of what living in a liberal democracy is actually like, completely lacking in the nuances that actually make up the situation. Starting with the fact that someone who simply pays their taxes that indirectly support war indirectly has nowhere near the level of personal culpability of say, an arms dealer or general.

Yes of course it is too inconvenient for people to not pay taxes, if by "inconvenient" you mean that the only way to do it realistically is to learn to survive at a subsistence level of poverty that most are not capabale of. I have friends who have done this. I know one guy who has been this poor, lived on his own land, grown his own food, and refused to use anything but his feet and a bike for most of his life. It's admirable, but IMO very out of step with what his actual culpability is in the things he is avoiding. I respect his decision, but I don't consider it particularly relevant to affecting anything, i.e. his participation in the systems he opposes is minimal enough that his individual abstinence doesn't mean that much.

This would not be the case quite obviously with the general or arms dealer, people have vastly different levels of agency when it comes to affecting these things.

[Grigoris]

Here’s my point: Paying taxes supports the military. You would not murder someone even if threatened with jail and/or a large fine. So, why are you paying taxes that support the military? Is it too inconvenient to stop paying taxes?

I pay my taxes with the understanding that I am complicit in actions that my government takes which I disagree with.

Saying the same thing repeatedly does not make it gain validity. I already answered to your point.

[Malcolm]

Here’s my point: Paying taxes supports the military. You would not murder someone even if threatened with jail and/or a large fine. So, why are you paying taxes that support the military? Is it too inconvenient to stop paying taxes?

I pay my taxes with the understanding that I am complicit in actions that my government takes which I disagree with.

I pay my taxes because I am legally obligated to, with the understanding that I am not complicit in the poor choices others make with respect to where that money is employed. For example, I am not complicit in the decision of the US Government to pay money to the Trump Organization because Donald wants to play golf on his own golf courses at our expense.

[clyde]

Living “at a subsistence level of poverty” may minimize or eliminate taxes owed, but one can simply refuse to pay taxes. Of course, you may be fined or sent to jail, but if the matter is important enough, one will.

Yes, there are levels of culpability. So, at what level does one become complicit with the military? If paying taxes that support the military isn’t sufficient for complicity, but cooking for the military is sufficient, how about selling food to the military? Or raising the food that is sold to the military? How do you determine when an action is sufficient to be complicit?

Or does simply not agreeing with a government’s “poor choice” absolve you?

[clyde]

And how does this issue of paying taxes or cooking for the military compare with “Jobs that serve alcohol”? Is the server not complicit for serving alcohol, but the cook is complicit for serving a meal?

viewtopic.php?f=111&t=29374

[Malcolm]

Or does simply not agreeing with a government’s “poor choice” absolve you?

Yes. And when needed, this dissent can lead to civil disobedience and outright revolution.

[clyde]

Or does simply not agreeing with a government’s “poor choice” absolve you?

Yes. And when needed, this dissent can lead to civil disobedience and outright revolution.

Excellent! The cook is saved as the cook can simply not agree with the “poor choice” of the government.

[amanitamusc]

Or does simply not agreeing with a government’s “poor choice” absolve you?

Yes. And when needed, this dissent can lead to civil disobedience and outright revolution.

Excellent! The cook is saved as the cook can simply not agree with the “poor choice” of the government.

Malcolm never mentioned "the cook".You are mixing up with Greg.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Living “at a subsistence level of poverty” may minimize or eliminate taxes owed, but one can simply refuse to pay taxes. Of course, you may be fined or sent to jail, but if the matter is important enough, one will.

Just kind of flip way of saying nothing. It's also demonstrably untrue, if it were that easy for people to live out their ethics by not paying taxes, many more people would be doing it. If it is that easy, and you think paying taxes makes one culpable, do you not pay them? Or are you just trying to make some abstract point i'm missing?

Yes, there are levels of culpability. So, at what level does one become complicit with the military? If paying taxes that support the military isn’t sufficient for complicity, but cooking for the military is sufficient, how about selling food to the military? Or raising the food that is sold to the military? How do you determine when an action is sufficient to be complicit?

I don't have a definite answer, but you apparently agree with my basic premise anyway, despite evidently having a hard time accepting the idea that indeed, there is a difference between being a soldier and cooking for the military.

Or does simply not agreeing with a government’s “poor choice” absolve you?

No one is fully absolved nor fully guilty, that is sort of the point, and a pretty commonsense notion in Buddhist ethics.

[Kim O'Hara]

No one is fully absolved nor fully guilty, that is sort of the point, and a pretty commonsense notion in Buddhist ethics.

Kim