I find it very hard to believe you're having such difficulty understanding such simple words and phrases such as "rights" and "morality". I think you're just trying to twist semantics around to try and paint me into a corner. It's a rather infuriating, juvenile tactic, and isn't getting you anywhere with me.
And I don't like putting words in people's mouths. I've offered you my understanding of the words, you haven't objected to them, but you really don't seem to be using the concepts in the same way I do, so what choice do I have but to ask?
My refusal to support it wouldn't be the cause of its collapse at all. Oh for fuck's sake. Again, you're participating in a society, you do use the infrastructure, even if you never physically cross it. You pay to maintain the bridges and infrastructure your food is delivered in to the grocery store. Yeah, you can grow your own food, and 'rely on no public infrastructure whatsoever", but again, that's more and more a "retreat to a small village rather than a larger society".
Thanks for proving my point. You had made the claim that, if society has given someone a right, then it's moral and ethical to carry it out.
NO I DID NOT. I made it quite clear it is NOT MORAL AND ETHICAL to carry out. I said 'society gave someone a right, so they are obviously ALLOWED to do so", but 'just because someone can do something' does NOT make it moral. "Rights" are, to me, not inherently "moral" or "amoral", my ethics aren't based on whatever the law of a society might be.
Read my words, "All of that is unquestionably morally wrong and abhorrent", as a MORAL issue, the fact is that it is wrong, but as a LEGAL issue, rights existed to abuse jewish individuals. Society determines rights, but ethics are a lot more personal, and mine are informed by empathy, not legalize.
It's amazing how you're accusing me of black and white thinking by demonstrating black and white thinking yourself. I thought you were an intentionally obtuse troll before, but this cinches it.
How? Again, 'it can', I'm not willing to make an absolute like 'a lesser injustice ISN'T ok', because I'm afraid of treating morality and ethics like something where you can easily agree on how much a limit of 'freedom' is acceptable for a more empathetic, sustainable and functional society. There are way too many political theories out there for me to strongly adhere to any which doesn't at least acknowledge that how we define what are 'injustices' and how much those are 'acceptable' are not EASY questions to address.
You're delusional. If you really think money wouldn't exist if taxes and government didn't exist, you're simply ignorant, sheltered, and have a poor grasp of reality and the nature of unencumbered human interactions
'Taxes' have existed for just about as far back as large societies have. But hey, you pretend you know what my educational background is, so fuck you too.