[CounterChaos]

If this is a trait of leadership, then how is it reconcilible with imposing values?

Like I said, you don't know much about leadership. This topic is:

Imposition of Moral Values: Self-Defeating? Imposition of Moral Values is Leadership - Leadership is not Self-Defeating - it is just a lonely road.

You cannot please all the people all the time, but you can use those traits as your guide, there is nothing to reconcile - if you did your best in your own minds eye...........

[Sceptic]

Like I said, you don't know much about leadership.

No, not really

[EastCoastAmerican]

For a moral value to be considered genuine it has to be an outcome that is valued for itself and exempt from the threat, or imposition, of penalties and not valued for other possibly advantageous outcomes.

Allow me to explain:

A shopkeeper who charges fairly because he values being an honest person is acting with genuine moral values. (The outcome is valued for itself).
A shopkeeper who charges fairly because he fears penalties imposed by the law is not acting with genuine moral value. (The outcome is only valued because of the absence of penalty).
A shopkeeper who charges fairly because he anticipates good business is not acting with genuine moral value. (The outcome of being honest is not valued: it is the other good that can be obtained - good business - that is valued by the shopkeeper).
A shopkeeper who charges fairly because he is made to do so at gun point is not acting with genuine moral value. (The outcome is not valued: instead penalty has been imposed in this circumstance).

Liberals, in the modern sense of liberalism (a progressive economic and social outcome), value the outcome of progressive taxation. However, this requires that the tax payer does not act upon genuine moral values because the penalty has been imposed: the tax payer cannot be called a good samaritan.

Only in the absence of progressive taxation is their space for upper income brackets to donate of their own charitable accord.

So my question is, does the imposition of moral values prevent people from acting with genuine moral character as they would be enabled to do so in a voluntary community at their own liberty?

Also, if this is true, could the only justification of imposing moral values be outcome, namely the increasing equality that is arguably the result of progressive taxation?

Yours sincerely,

The imposition of moral values is not self-defeating because almost every form of law is the imposition of moral values. Murder, rape, and torture are illegal largely because they're considered immoral actions. If the police arrest a thief, they are imposing moral values by keeping the social order, punishing negative behavior, and warning other potential law-breakers that their actions will be met with resistance.

In regards to taxes, taxes are necessary in society. They pay for the hospitals, schools, roads, the military, and many other programs necessary in our lives. If taxes were voluntary and we could give the money to whomever we want, our system would fall down; I do not know how large the budget of the military needs to be to function, and I don't know how to manage the affairs of public works. The people who collect and manage taxes, loathed as they are by many taxpayers, have a better understanding of this system.

There is also the Just World Fallacy: the belief that all humans are good at heart and that people will do the right things if left to their own devices. What do you do about those who want to watch the world burn, those who would profit off of intentional economic havoc (like Goldman Sachs), or groups who would create a monopoly so that they can charge whatever they want (like Standard Oil)? The world of capitalist business and commerce is motivated by profit: profit can be obtained through the dissolution of society and the exploitation of workers. Taxes, regulation, and government oversight are needed for fiscal issues.

[Sceptic]

The imposition of moral values is not self-defeating because almost every form of law is the imposition of moral values. Murder, rape, and torture are illegal largely because they're considered immoral actions. If the police arrest a thief, they are imposing moral values by keeping the social order, punishing negative behavior, and warning other potential law-breakers that their actions will be met with resistance.

See my post about justice.

In regards to taxes, taxes are necessary in society. They pay for the hospitals, schools, roads, the military, and many other programs necessary in our lives. If taxes were voluntary and we could give the money to whomever we want, our system would fall down; I do not know how large the budget of the military needs to be to function, and I don't know how to manage the affairs of public works. The people who collect and manage taxes, loathed as they are by many taxpayers, have a better understanding of this system.

- post about Georgism.

There is also the Just World Fallacy: the belief that all humans are good at heart and that people will do the right things if left to their own devices.

Woah...now I never said that. I merely implied that imposing moral values is self-defeating in the sense that it doesn't have the effect of having people act morally of their own accord.

There is still a utilitarian justification for it but the deontological justification has to be more inclined towards justice.

What do you do about those who want to watch the world burn, those who would profit off of intentional economic havoc (like Goldman Sachs), or groups who would create a monopoly so that they can charge whatever they want (like Standard Oil)?

In all honesty, it doesn't really matter anyway. The universe does not give one jot what happens in our insignificant lives.

The world of capitalist business and commerce is motivated by profit: profit can be obtained through the dissolution of society and the exploitation of workers. Taxes, regulation, and government oversight are needed for fiscal issues.

I could just as easily argue that the world of Statism is motivated by power and status. None of the Statist elite could give a toss about the poor: that is just a pretence while they callously lick their lips and enjoy ruthlessly exercising their dominance over markets and people, taking and destroying as they desire just for the thrill and for the sake of being top dawg. What makes you think a monopoly on guns is going to be any better than a monopoly on wealth and graft?

Fact is, I am not especially inclined towards unadulterated laissez-faire anyway but I realise that the animalistic hunt for profit provides the desire for internal security mechanisms and regulations (not that laissez-faire is all about greed so much as it is tolerating the world of motives). External regulations/controls have to reflect trends in the market and take into account the individual motives of the various actors to be effective.

[Rainbow Crow]

OP has a good point I think, though it isn't a reason to not tax or provide social services of course.

Liberals do tend to talk about helping the downtrodden etc., but helping the downtrodden is not done because we think that we can force the tax payers to be "Good Samaritans." Maybe some believe this but they're naive. Taxation and social services are done for two main reasons.

1. Rather than encourage the rich to be good, social services discourage the lower class from being bad. As soon as someone can justify their crime, you are on a hopelessly slippery slope. When you find yourself on that slippery slope, the moral superiority of the law is brought into question, and this threatens the entire social order. Proper social services can almost entirely eliminate this problem from occurring.

2. Everyone benefits from a well-educated society. Social services in education do a good deal to keep people from becoming so ignorant that they are a complete net drag on society. I sometimes contemplate the existence of a class below the lower class, people who can't even operate a mostly automated cash register. Someone as pitiful as that is a problem, but such people only come into being because they are either mentally retarded or received no education of any kind at all. Society has an easy way to keep the second type from coming into being and should exercise that potential.

I want to stress that my first point is not appeasement of the middle/lower class by redistributing wealth. It is about giving them a fair chance in this game we call the economy, so that they won't be able to get up in front of a jury and say "I stole that bread to feed myself" and have an otherwise clear guilty verdict annulled.