Reply to post: Re: "Blaming companies for doing what the law allows is both futile and foolish."

Re: "Blaming companies for doing what the law allows is both futile and foolish."

@ dan1980

"We risk being seriously diverted from the topic but what is the point of all this if not to discuss and debate with one another?"

I am happy to discuss as long as you dont mind. It is interesting to hear another perspective on the same issue. And you make it very interesting by boiling it down to 2 options- morals and legality.

I dont believe in morals in an absolute sense. Morals are very flexible, very fluid and can easily be manipulated. Morals do not stand still nor are they the same for people living together never mind over large populations. Almost anything can be justified and when an argument falls to morals it risks lacking good reason.

So of your 2 options I find legality to be the easiest and most amusing. Who sets the law? What is this creator of the law? It is the 'might is right' rule where the law of the land comes from the ones with the power to apply it (physical might). The UK is fairly stable but we have seen the relevance of law in the middle east where you pay your dues to the one in charge that day. The mafia made their own laws and while this country is pretty civil this rule still stands.

Someone above put up a link over the definition of theft. The only thing defining tax as different from stealing is the legality issue which as I point out law is might. Simply stealing is ok as long as nobody has the might to challenge it. Not a bad definition if your in charge.

As far as checks and balances of law being the highest law of the land, it doesnt exist. As recently proven over the developed world the idea of courts being in charge has been challenged by the immediate threat of terrorism where freedom and liberty have been pushed aside for militarised operations against populations all at a higher cost (to the tax payer of course). Recently the HMRC in the UK has the right to take the money before you have the opportunity to prove they are (as is often the case) wrong. The above experiences of Pompous Git sounding very theft like but for the only defence of legality.

It sounds a lot like saying- it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but for just this one special case we will call it a turtle.