On human beings being ends in themselves:
**Procacious **: “How did you arrive at such a conclusion?”
The idea that humans are ends in themselves derives from the eighteenth-century philosophy of Kant, part of what’s called the “categorical imperative.” Here in Kant’s own (translated) words.
"“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”
At the time Kant wrote (when slavery was still institutionalized in many places, and democracy wasn’t widespread) this was a pretty rocking ethical principle.
Nowadays the idea that humans, ethically speaking, must be treated as ends in themselves is indeed “enshrined” in laws in most liberal democracies: that is, the rights of individuals are enshrined in constitutional principles, and in criminal and civil law.
Your position that this principle is arbitary with respect to (other) animals is not new. People who favor animal rights, for example, probably argue that some form of the categorical imperative must apply to animals as well as to humans. And it’s true enough that Kant’s or any moral philosophy is based on intutitions about ethics: it isn’t empirically provable, and Kant would be the last person to say that it was.
So what you seem to be questioning is the centuries-old philosophical and legal convention of treating individual humans as ends in themselves. If your purpose is to apply the same kind of rights to animals, or to argue that in practice many humans aren’t treated as ends in themselves, that’s one thing.
But I’m not sure where you coming from, since your point seems to be simply that there’s no good reason to have any kind of ethical principles at all.
Are you sure about that?
Now onto the rest of your post, which doesn’t seem very connected to your thoughts about ethics.
“The choice to live in a city or county is a choice to put up with its taxes (so you can move to a city without its own police department if you feel that taxes for a police department are unreasonable).”
What city do you know of that doesn’t have a police department? I’m not sure I can even find a town or a village that doesn’t have at least a sheriff’s office.
“But with state and especially federal laws, there is no where to move. If a single city chooses to have a public welfare program, fine. But the federal government most certainly should not be making that decision for us.”
That is an opinion, based on the somewhat flawed assumption that there are states or cities where one can avoid taxes. In actuality there are no such states because in actuality modern societies can’t function without public revenues to pay for things that make the society as we know it possible. I don’t think you’d want to live in a place that had no sewerage, no public transportation, no libraries, no roads, no police, no courts of law, no parks, no fire department…etc.
“Taking money from the people to defend one’s own country is one thing. Taking money from the people to invade another country is quite another matter.”
You’ll get no argument from me here. As a matter of fact I think that too many of my tax dollars go to “defense” spending which, IMO, doesn’t actually defend me very well–though it lines the pockets of people who make money off of such things.
However, this doesn’t amount to an argument against taxation. It amounts to an argument about the degree to which taxation and public spending is subject to democratic control. You and I may be in the minority on this issue; and/or the political process may be too bureaucratic to accommodate our views.
“Just because 60% of the population want something that does not mean that they can muscle part of the payment for it from the other 40%.”
Tyranny of the majority is indeed a problem that all democracies must face. Local control, brining things closer to the level of the individual voter, is a good thing–to the extent that it is practicable. As you point out, national defense isn’t a very good candidate for local control. Therefore this might be one area where the minority–or any concerned citizen–needs to be as active as possible. Have you considered joining a citizens group on defense spending?
But may I point that the the issue in this thread is a living wage, which doesn’t have to be a national issue. In practice “living wage” legislation is in fact being enacted at the local and state level–not at the national level. So I suspect you’ll have the chance to “run” from the living wage should it come to a village near you ;).
“I understand your concern, but while my ideas are quite uncommon, they are not based on ignorance or an attempt to intentionally anger anyone. I understand why our system functions the way it currently does, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it.”
I think your ideas are actually pretty interesting, but they’re, IMO, a bit garbled. In what I said above I didn’t mean to suggest that you should post less, or not post at all, but that it might be helpful for you to see where others have tread. Some of your views–your anti-tax sentiments–are extremely common, on this board and in the nation at large. Other views, on defense, for example, are somewhat less common.
As I see it, your views are not internally consistent: i.e., some of your views clash with other of your views. I think that looking at some threads might get your wheels turning–but it is just a suggestion.
“The money I would get from a welfare check would not necessarily be the same money that I gave to the government to begin with. Even though that is true however, I can accept that some of the money in the welfare check came from people that actually wanted it to go to a poor person (i.e. it is more or less a private donation made through the government). But some of the money was taken from people that only paid the tax because they did not want to go to jail (i.e. that money is not a private donation, but is money that was taken from someone against their will). Since I do not know which dollars are acceptable and which ones are corrupt, it is better to take none at all.”
This reasoning is based on the premise that people pay their taxes either to support welfare as a kind of state-enforced charity; or because they fear jail.
I don’t think that either of these assumptions necessary holds. I’d also like to point out from the start that the percentage of taxes that goes to non-Medicaid-related welfare programs is not, I think, very large (unfortunately I don’t have a cite handy, so someone correct me if I’m wrong there).
Personally, I’d like to see you accept whatever your state/local government can offer you by way of assistance so you can get a better paying job and buy yourself a computer. Until that time, I hope your using your local public library where, among other things, you will find books on Kant and the living wage. 
FWIW, I don’t think of welfare as “charity.” I think of it as a subsidy of or, at its best, an investment in people. I would much rather pay for good daycare, Head Start, or job training for someone on welfare than to pay for jail (which among other things is very expensive).
erislover, I’m very tied up and so can’t answer your specific questions.
Apologies.
Here’s my recommendation: Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction, by Will Kymlicka (Clarendon Press, 1990).
Kymlicka is very, very clear as he goes through all of the major political philosophies including Utilitarianism, libertarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism.
There’s something there for almost everyone in this thread–including Sam since Kymlicka is, I think, Canadian ;).
This book used to be used in courses all of the time so you can probably get a used paperback easily. I paid about $10 for mine. Righteous bucks.
but in fact I’ve only become interested in philosophy and public issues shortly before I joined these boards, so it has taken quite a bit of work to even be able to understand some of the issues, and of course I stumble quite a bit (hard to walk with authority when your foot is in your mouth).