Monastics protesting social injustice

[retrofuturist]

Greetings DC,

Even so, I find others brave for attempting it and then reflect on whether it means I am being cowardly.

Ultimately that is for you to decide.

As I explained earlier, I find that the intent to change another's mind is invariably based on:

- aversion that they think differently
- greed that they should think the same

Your mileage may vary, but that is why I do not try to change people's minds. It is the dukkhata of activism.

Anyway, my intent was primarily to let you know you are free to speak as you see fit, limited only by the Terms of Service.

Metta,
Paul.

[Mr Man]

Not taxes, wealth “tax”.



https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el282.html

(1) an article belonging to another legally and blamelessly (the billionaires wealth)

(2) the perception of it as belonging to another (Mr Smith owns it)

(3) the thought or intention of stealing (I want to take it from Mr Smith without his permission)

(4) the activity of taking the article (the state takes the property)

(5) the actual appropriation of the article (the state owns the property and gives it to Mr Y who is poor, or spends it on Z pet project)

I don't see it.

I think you would do well to consult with a learned bhikkhu to see if your interpretation is correct - that a lawfully imposed tax can be considered theft.

I wonder if you would have seen the Soviet confiscation of wealth as theft.

All these different examples you like to pull up are, in my opinion, irrelevant to the question at hand.

[Ceisiwr]

I don't see it.

I think you would do well to consult with a learned bhikkhu to see if your interpretation is correct - that a lawfully imposed tax can be considered theft.

I wonder if you would have seen the Soviet confiscation of wealth as theft.

All these different examples you like to pull up are, in my opinion, irrelevant to the question at hand.

Not really since we are discussing what is and isn’t theft and the position of the venerable. Your position is that if the state says it’s legal then it’s no longer theft. That would also mean that the Nazis never stole from the Jews. If you really want to perfectly align morality and law then the Nazis never murdered any Jews either. My position is that the law does not always match the moral view of what is and isn’t theft, or murder. Theft and murder are moral and legal concepts that do not always match. The law does not always match the Dhamma. Taxes are allowed. Stealing from others is not, even if the state decrees that it is legal and allowable to take property from others.

[Dhamma Chameleon]

Anyway, my intent was primarily to let you know you are free to speak as you see fit, limited only by the Terms of Service.

Thank you, also for the invitation to speak. I was thinking out loud a bit but will stick to my approach, as it seems to lead to more peace.

[Mr Man]

I wonder if you would have seen the Soviet confiscation of wealth as theft.

All these different examples you like to pull up are, in my opinion, irrelevant to the question at hand.

Not really since we are discussing what is and isn’t theft and the position of the venerable. Your position is that if the state says it’s legal then it’s no longer theft. That would also mean that the Nazis never stole from the Jews. If you really want to perfectly align morality and law then the Nazis never murdered any Jews either. My position is that the law does not always match the moral view of what is and isn’t theft, or murder. Theft and murder are moral and legal concepts that do not always match. The law does not always match the Dhamma. Taxes are allowed. Stealing from others is not, even if the state decrees that it is legal and allowable to take property from others.

We were discussing what constitutes theft according to the Theravada and the precepts and if Ven Sujato was advocating theft (I thought).

I didn't think it was appropriate of you to accuse Ven Sujato of advocating theft and breaking the 2nd precept.

[Ceisiwr]

Mr Man

We were discussing what constitutes theft according to the Theravada and the precepts and if Ven Sujato was advocating theft (I thought).

I didn't think it was appropriate of you to accuse Ven Sujato of advocating theft and breaking the 2nd precept.

Yes, that is what we are discussing. Using examples of when theft has been legal is part of that discussion, unless you take the view that whatever is legal is moral. I don’t think that’s the Theravadin position.

[Mr Man]

Mr Man

We were discussing what constitutes theft according to the Theravada and the precepts and if Ven Sujato was advocating theft (I thought).

I didn't think it was appropriate of you to accuse Ven Sujato of advocating theft and breaking the 2nd precept.

Yes, that is what we are discussing. Using examples of when theft has been legal is part of that discussion, unless you take the view that whatever is legal is moral. I don’t think that’s a Theravadin view.

No I don’t hold the view that whatever is legal is moral.

[Ceisiwr]

Mr Man

We were discussing what constitutes theft according to the Theravada and the precepts and if Ven Sujato was advocating theft (I thought).

I didn't think it was appropriate of you to accuse Ven Sujato of advocating theft and breaking the 2nd precept.

Yes, that is what we are discussing. Using examples of when theft has been legal is part of that discussion, unless you take the view that whatever is legal is moral. I don’t think that’s a Theravadin view.

No I don’t hold the view that whatever is legal is moral.

Do you then agree that something can be theft even if the state rules that it is not?

[Mr Man]

Mr Man



Yes, that is what we are discussing. Using examples of when theft has been legal is part of that discussion, unless you take the view that whatever is legal is moral. I don’t think that’s a Theravadin view.

No I don’t hold the view that whatever is legal is moral.

Do you then agree that something can be theft even if the state rules that it is not?

Legal speaking no. Not if I am living under the laws of that state although personally it may feel like theft to me and I may judge it to be immoral. unless there may be international laws that come into play but I don't know about this.

This is interesting.

"The position that taxation is theft, and therefore immoral, is a viewpoint found in a number of radical[1] political philosophies. It marks a significant departure from conservatism and classical liberalism. This position is often held by anarcho-capitalists, objectivists, most minarchists, right-wing libertarians and voluntaryists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft No mention of the Theravada.


Perhaps we need to look to an authoritative voice on the question of "if tax is theft according to the Theravada". As we do not seem to be getting anywhere.

[Ceisiwr]

Mr Man

Legal speaking no. Not if I am living under the laws of that state although personally it may feel like theft to me and I may judge it to be immoral. unless there may be international laws that come into play but I don't know about this.

Legally no, morally it can be. International law? You need that? You can judge if it’s moral or not via the Dhamma. Forget international law, as useless as it usually is.

This is interesting.

"The position that taxation is theft, and therefore immoral, is a viewpoint found in a number of radical[1] political philosophies. It marks a significant departure from conservatism and classical liberalism. This position is often held by anarcho-capitalists, objectivists, most minarchists, right-wing libertarians and voluntaryists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft No mention of the Theravada.


Perhaps we need to look to an authoritative voice on the question of "if tax is theft according to the Theravada". As we do not seem to be getting anywhere.

I’m not arguing that all tax is theft. I’m not an anarchist.

[zerotime]

Perhaps we need to look to an authoritative voice on the question of "if tax is theft according to the Theravada". As we do not seem to be getting anywhere.

I'm no expert but inside DN.5 there is a situation in where the taxing to common people is rejected but there is an advice to share the wealth of the richest men, in this case the same king:

‘Thereupon The Brahman who was chaplain said to the king: "the king's country, Sire, is harassed and harried. there are dacoits abroad who pillage the villages and townships, and who make the roads unsafe. Were the king, so long as that is so, to levy a fresh tax, verily his majesty would be acting wrongly. But perchance his majesty might think: 'I'll soon put a stop to these scoundrels' game by degradation and banishment, and fines and bonds and death!' But their license cannot be satisfactorily put a stop to so. the remnant left unpunished would still go on harassing the realm. Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm, the king's revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors."

https://tipitaka.fandom.com/wiki/Kutadanta_Sutta


in that case the richest man was the King, and he agreed to be free of his own wealth accumulation to preserve the social order. He seemed to be not only the political ruler but also the lawyer, the banker to give credits. and etc.. With all the power concentrated in himself.

Anyway, from that episode one can infer in modern times there is an immoral situation when persons with an excessive wealth denies to share it so their own societies can live in a better way. A different discussion would be to know if the solution could be a modern tax for that specific people. Maybe it is not effective or there is another way. No idea.

Although when we read the first intention of that king to do sacrifices, we can detect the same stupidity in powers of present times. Today still there are eugenics ideas to kill billion people to reduce their number. It belongs to those aberrant and racist designs from the British X-Club 150 years ago. And this is the same primitive energy of the blood sacrifice and the same botched jobs that that ancient Brahman was trying to avoid.

For sure today all the intelligent people inhabiting the exospheres with their big-datas and etc, they can produce something more clever than blood sacrifices driven by similar primitive-rational alligator instincts.

[Mr Man]

Mr Man

Legal speaking no. Not if I am living under the laws of that state although personally it may feel like theft to me and I may judge it to be immoral. unless there may be international laws that come into play but I don't know about this.

Legally no, morally it can be. International law? You need that? You can judge if it’s moral or not via the Dhamma. Forget international law, as useless as it usually is.

This is interesting.

"The position that taxation is theft, and therefore immoral, is a viewpoint found in a number of radical[1] political philosophies. It marks a significant departure from conservatism and classical liberalism. This position is often held by anarcho-capitalists, objectivists, most minarchists, right-wing libertarians and voluntaryists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft No mention of the Theravada.


Perhaps we need to look to an authoritative voice on the question of "if tax is theft according to the Theravada". As we do not seem to be getting anywhere.

I’m not arguing that all tax is theft. I’m not an anarchist.

No you are not arguing that all tax is theft.

You are arguing that Ven Sujato advocates theft and breaking the 2nd precept and that a "wealth tax" can be considered theft according to the Theravada.

[Mr Man]

Perhaps we need to look to an authoritative voice on the question of "if tax is theft according to the Theravada". As we do not seem to be getting anywhere.

I'm no expert but inside DN.5 there is a situation in where the taxing to common people is rejected but there is an advice to share the wealth of the richest men, in this case the same king:

‘Thereupon The Brahman who was chaplain said to the king: "the king's country, Sire, is harassed and harried. there are dacoits abroad who pillage the villages and townships, and who make the roads unsafe. Were the king, so long as that is so, to levy a fresh tax, verily his majesty would be acting wrongly. But perchance his majesty might think: 'I'll soon put a stop to these scoundrels' game by degradation and banishment, and fines and bonds and death!' But their license cannot be satisfactorily put a stop to so. the remnant left unpunished would still go on harassing the realm. Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm, the king's revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors."

https://tipitaka.fandom.com/wiki/Kutadanta_Sutta


in that case the richest man was the King, and he agreed to be free of his own wealth accumulation to preserve the social order. He seemed to be not only the political ruler but also the lawyer, the banker to give credits. and etc.. With all the power concentrated in himself.

Anyway, from that episode one can infer in modern times there is an immoral situation when persons with an excessive wealth denies to share it so their own societies can live in a better way. A different discussion would be to know if the solution could be a modern tax for that specific people. Maybe it is not effective or there is another way. No idea.

Although when we read the first intention of that king to do sacrifices, we can detect the same stupidity in rulers of present times. Today still there are eugenics ideas to kill billion people to reduce their number. It belongs to those aberrant and racist designs from the British X-Club 150 years ago. And this is the same primitive energy of the blood sacrifice and the same botched jobs that that ancient Brahman was trying to avoid.

For sure today all the intelligent people inhabiting the exospheres with their big-datas and etc, they can produce something more clever than blood sacrifices driven by similar primitive-rational alligator instincts.

Thanks zerotime. That is interesting.

[zerotime]

Thanks zerotime. That is interesting.

only to add that at same time I agree with the people saying the monks should avoid be involved in protests and turmoils. Well, with the exception of some threat for access to Dhamma.

I believe we cannot forget there are racist genocides of billion people in Africa, from decades ago, and without any global action. Some still are active today. So I think these social turmoils are part of a wordly fight for power. Because If tomorrow these demands were extended to the African lives (which never matters) the turmoils will vanish from the mass-media in 48 hours.

This is the mechanics of this madhouse: power, codice, manipulation, turmoils, etc... If one become involved with the screams instead understading dukkha, the calm and positive energy to develop metta for everybody can be damaged. Just my view.

[Mr Man]

Thanks zerotime. That is interesting.

only to add that at same time I agree with the people saying the monks should avoid be involved in protests and turmoils. Well, with the exception of some threat for access to Dhamma.

I believe we cannot forget there are racist genocides of billion people in Africa, from decades ago, and without any global action. Some still are active today. So I think these social turmoils are part of a wordly fight for power. Because If tomorrow these demands were extended to the African lives (which never matters) the turmoils will vanish from the mass-media in 48 hours.

This is the mechanics of this madhouse: power, codice, manipulation, turmoils, etc... If one become involved with the screams instead understading dukkha, the calm and positive energy to develop metta for everybody can be damaged. Just my view.

For the most part I also think that monks should not be directly involved in protests/mass demonstrations.