So you should justify putting Snowden in prison because that's what government wants to do with him for failing his obligations. And since you justify violence when it comes from government, there is a contradiction if you disapprove of it. Are you okay with government coming to your datacenter and forcing you to give them your customers' data or you are not? If government-issued violence is justified, then you cannot be disappointed, no?
You appear to be saying that if I approve of government violence in some cases, I must approve of government violence in all cases. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Ok. So what's the source of your knowledge about morality? You cannot refer to laws because you may disagree with some of them. Which principle do you use to find out when government is doing right and when it is doing wrong?
Also: why would you turn in police some people, but not your friends and family? It sounds to me that your morality is not universal at all, but just a whim. E.g. "I'm okay to kick people I dislike and not okay kicking people I like".
The ultimate basis of my morality is the idea that maximizing overall human pleasure and minimizing discomfort is good, and the opposite is bad. I don't think this has an objective basis. It appears self-evident to me, and as best I can tell most people agree, but I won't pretend it's any sort of law of the universe.
Once you have that basis, game theory lets you extrapolate. Theft is bad it most cases, for example, because it lowers the overall human good, even if it improves my own particular good.
Governments are useful because they're a way to overcome collective action problems like free riders or tragedies of the commons. Because of this, they can be a force for good.
I have no idea where you got this "turn in police some people, but not your friends and family" from. Please try to limit your commentary to things I have actually said, not things you have imagined.
So lets say we have different ideas on how to maximize "overall human pleasure" (I also don't see how'd you measure it). Who should give up his idea? Should I force you to follow my recipe? Or should you force me to follow yours? Or could we just agree peacefully on some line in the sand and we try our ideas separately without insulting or threatening each other?
Example: if we develop a software and have different ideas on how to do it, should we fight till one of us gives up, or we can simply walk away to our computers and work with some other people, if we cannot work together?
I asked you explicitly in Twitter "@mikeash two questions: 1) will you give your friends/family to the police if they don't file taxes? 2) did I threaten you for your beliefs?"
https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/362954987661295616
You answered: "No, I wouldn't turn them in, but I believe such enforcement is necessary and overall good."
Before, in this thread I asked if you will turn me in, you answered:
"Yes, I would justify someone forcing you to pay taxes to fund the NSA in that case."
So my question was (quoting from above):
"why would you turn in police some people, but not your friends and family? It sounds to me that your morality is not universal at all, but just a whim."
How am I being dishonest here? Please answer what's the moral difference between turning me into police and not your family?
