You have a strange understanding of morality. Morality isn’t merely “common intuition”, as I’d venture to claim that most people have little intuition that could be used to create complex moral societies.
You claim that morality is a balance of things. For example, though taxation is the involuntary taking of other people’s stuff, if it has some good consequences then we ought to not say it’s theft.
Do we, though, agree to the rape of a woman if said rape results in the feeding of 10 starving children in Africa? Of course not. Morality is not about a balance of things—it is a set of rules to be followed. If we agree that theft is legally unethical, then taxation is also legally unethical, regardless of your alleged benefits. If, on the other hand, we accept taxation, we must necessarily decide that theft is not legally unethical and the whole concept of property goes out the window. Yes, the existence of taxation is an explicit repudiation of property.
You have a strange understanding of morality. Morality isn’t merely “common intuition”, as I’d venture to claim that most people have little intuition that could be used to create complex moral societies.
You claim that morality is a balance of things. For example, though taxation is the involuntary taking of other people’s stuff, if it has some good consequences then we ought to not say it’s theft.
Do we, though, agree to the rape of a woman if said rape results in the feeding of 10 starving children in Africa? Of course not. Morality is not about a balance of things—it is a set of rules to be followed. If we agree that theft is legally unethical, then taxation is also legally unethical, regardless of your alleged benefits. If, on the other hand, we accept taxation, we must necessarily decide that theft is not legally unethical and the whole concept of property goes out the window. Yes, the existence of taxation is an explicit repudiation of property.