Paying taxes -- Patriotic duty or extortion?

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm sure the W-2G doesn't include the free play amount, but any cash winnings from free play is properly reported as business income to Schedule C filers. Unless the professional gamblers who are playing this are also cheating on their taxes, it's still an effective (taxable) bonus of 27-ish percent (assuming a minimal loss of the theoretical value of free play due to playing optimal VP or something).

It's a pet peeve of mine when people say cheat on their
taxes. That's like saying you cheat on your mugging if you hide the bulk of your money somewhere other than your wallet and the mugger doesn't find it.

Quote: rudeboyoi

It's a pet peeve of mine when people say cheat on their
taxes. That's like saying you cheat on your mugging if you hide the bulk of your money somewhere other than your wallet and the mugger doesn't find it.

That's only a correct analogy if you believe your debt to the government is the legal equivalent of your debt to the mugger (which is zero). I don't equate taxes to robbery but I expect some people do.

Quote: MathExtremist

...I don't equate taxes to robbery but I expect some people do.

We prefer to call it what it really is....extortion.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's only a correct analogy if you believe your debt to the government . . .

If the government wanted us to pay our debt correctly they wouldn't have made the tax code 70,000 pages. But that's what they chose to do. I fill out my 1040 and mail it to the experts for review. Then I pay whatever they decide. That is not cheating, that's following the rules.

De Gubment does some good stuff, they do it with my money and yours. They get it right sometimes, in spite of themselves. Most of the lower echelon are trying, with bad operational procedures and inadequate training and equipment that isn't exactly state of the art, so to speak. And sometimes with, with..how do I say ? Maybe some of the employees should be picking strawberries and other vegetables and fruits. And then there are the guys that run the show. The show must go on, the producers do fine even when the show is a flop. They bet your money, not theirs. And often somehow manage a skim off the top? Who said the mob was long gone?.

Quote: TomG

If the government wanted us to pay our debt correctly they wouldn't have made the tax code 70,000 pages. But that's what they chose to do. I fill out my 1040 and mail it to the experts for review. Then I pay whatever they decide. That is not cheating, that's following the rules.

I agree, but that's entirely different than underreporting your gambling winnings because it was a cash transaction and you know it wasn't reported to the IRS. That's explicitly *not* following the rules. There's a big difference between not liking the rules and not following them.

Quote: MathExtremist

I agree, but that's entirely different than underreporting your gambling winnings because it was a cash transaction and you know it wasn't reported to the IRS. That's explicitly *not* following the rules. There's a big difference between not liking the rules and not following them.

Since I started working a job that has a w2 six months ago the records I've been keeping aren't very precise at all. I just know I pay for a lot of things in cash (which are very often taxed) and I always have money in my pocket despite never making a withdrawal from the bank. Today I won $9.70 on a video poker progressive, then cashed about $450 in sports tickets and made another $200 in bets. (To pay out $1300 if everything hits. Lightening and Blue Jays are looking good so far; Penguins and Phillies not so much. Biggest bet is on the Blues later tonight). By tax time next year, it will have all blurred together. If the government has a problem with that sort of accounting they have a few choices: they can mail me a bill anytime they want to, they can prosecute, or they can make the tax laws simpler. Until they do one of those things, they are telling me they are completely ok with the way I claim my income.

Thanks, Axel, for the very kind words about me.

Regarding paying taxes, I tried to split those pots off, but this thread is all screwed up with incorrect tags and I couldn't. This happens when people don't close a quote, table, or things like that. So, somebody please make a new thread to discuss that topic and take it over there.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's only a correct analogy if you believe your debt to the government is the legal equivalent of your debt to the mugger (which is zero). I don't equate taxes to robbery but I expect some people do.

Changing the name of an action doesn't change what that action is. Ibeatyouraces has it right. It's extortion. Maybe you like the services government provides. Maybe you'd like if a mugger handed you a sandwich after taking your wallet. That doesn't change what it really is.

Taxes aren't extortion in countries that permit emigration. If you feel you're not getting a good deal in exchange for your taxes, you can always live elsewhere.

But it's hardly extortion if, knowing about the services you're consuming in exchange for those taxes, you choose to consume those services instead of opting out by leaving. That's like going to a restaurant, eating lots of food, and then being upset that you have to pay for it. If you can prepare your own meals, by all means don't eat out. Or choose the cheaper restaurant next door. But choosing to eat out means accepting the entire transaction, not just the parts you like. It is unjust to dine and dash.

I'd agree that taxes are extortion in countries like North Korea but that's the least of their worries.

Quote: MathExtremist

Taxes aren't extortion in countries that permit emigration. If you feel you're not getting a good deal in exchange for your taxes, you can always live elsewhere.

But it's hardly extortion if, knowing about the services you're consuming in exchange for those taxes, you choose to consume those services instead of opting out by leaving. That's like going to a restaurant, eating lots of food, and then being upset that you have to pay for it. If you can prepare your own meals, by all means don't eat out. Or choose the cheaper restaurant next door. But choosing to eat out means accepting the entire transaction, not just the parts you like. It is unjust to dine and dash.

I'd agree that taxes are extortion in countries like North Korea but that's the least of their worries.

Buddy you can delude yourself all you want. Threatening to kidnap someone and lock them in a cage if they don't pay up is extortion. It doesn't matter how your mind attempts to justify it.

Quote: Wizard

Thanks, Axel, for the very kind words about me.

Regarding paying taxes, I tried to split those pots off, but this thread is all screwed up with incorrect tags and I couldn't. This happens when people don't close a quote, table, or things like that. So, somebody please make a new thread to discuss that topic and take it over there.

I meant it, including more.

PLEASE split off the tax conversation to a different thread.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Buddy you can delude yourself all you want. Threatening to kidnap someone and lock them in a cage if they don't pay up is extortion. It doesn't matter how your mind attempts to justify it.

I'd apply the same standard as you apply. I didn't agree to your concept of civilization, nor am I required to abide by it. I may not follow your moral laws if it all was decided without my consent before I got here. So, I may murder you and take your property, especially if you already live in the nicest area.

Just like you, I never consented to anything did I? Didn't sign any forms after being born that I should abide by anything as the common law of the land.

Quote: rxwine

I'd apply the same standard as you apply. I didn't agree to your concept of civilization, nor am I required to abide by it. I may not follow your moral laws if it all was decided without my consent before I got here. So, I may murder you and take your property, especially if you already live in the nicest area.

Just like you, I never consented to anything did I? Didn't sign any forms after being born that I should abide by anything as the common law of the land.

I haven't the faintest idea what you're attempting to argue here nor do I think you understand what consent means.

Quote: rudeboyoi

I haven't the faintest idea what you're attempting to argue here nor do I think you understand what consent means.

You think taxation is stealing. I think ANY preconceived ideas are bogus until a person has consented, including any ideas you hold dear.

At least that's what I always take away from your "free person" arguments. Even if you were to set up your ideal version of freedom, I don't buy into it, nor abide by any rule at all including your idea of rightness.. Either we're born with the ability to choose anything including my own morality or you're just imposing something you think is best for me.

I always see your arguments as rejecting what was already established with law and taxation. I'm merely doing the same, only I'm rejecting your ideas as well and will decide myself, because no one is telling me what to do either. I may decide what is right for me is to set up my own barbarian culture with me at the top. It will be the new morality as well as long as I win. You're not the only one who can reject whatever order is established and do what you think is best. I can too.

Actually, a lot of revolutionary people have said the same thing -- I invalidate and don't recognize my government, but they might believe in something different like communism or something else. In the method, it is the same though.

And now I will derail no further.

Quote: rxwine

You think taxation is stealing. I think ANY preconceived ideas are bogus until a person has consented, including any ideas you hold dear.

At least that's what I always take away from your "free person" arguments. Even if you were to set up your ideal version of freedom, I don't buy into it, nor abide by any rule at all including your idea of rightness.. Either we're born with the ability to choose anything including my own morality or you're just imposing something you think is best for me.

I always see your arguments as rejecting what was already established with law and taxation. I'm merely doing the same, only I'm rejecting your ideas as well and will decide myself, because no one is telling me what to do either. I may decide what is right for me is to set up my own barbarian culture with me at the top. It will be the new morality as well as long as I win. You're not the only one who can reject whatever order is established and do what you think is best. I can too.

And now I will derail no further.

I don't think you quite understand. Anarchism doesn't impose anything on anyone. Statism is imposing something on other people. Anarchism is simply the negation of that. It's quite sad the lengths people will go to to defend their own enslavement and the enslavement of their fellow man.

It doesn't matter what justification you attempt to make nor what rituals you perform (such as voting) nor how many people perform those rituals. The moment I say I do not consent to being governed it nullifies any argument you attempt to make. Arguing that I should be governed even though I don't consent to it is like arguing that rape is okay even though the victim didn't consent to it. Let's throw in a little democracy. Gang rape is even better since then there's more rapists than the victim.

I have woken up and am saddened the rest of humanity hasn't yet though that number is slowly growing by the day. Typically it takes a traumatic experience to open ones eyes to see government for the monster that it is. I had to watch someone very close to me that i cared about deeply needlessly suffer for a whole year before he finally perished due to a lifetime of government propaganda having brainwashed him. No matter what i tried to do I could not get through to him. I had the answer right there for him to ease his suffering and he still stubbornly refused. I had to instead watch him writhe in agony. It opened my eyes up to the monster that government really is. They don't care about any of us. They care only about themselves padding their own pockets no matter the amount of suffering it brought upon others.

We anarchists are the modern day abolishinists. No masters. No slaves. Until you get past your fear of the unknown. Until you get past but who will pick the cotton? Your mind will never be free.

This is a split-off from PLAZA CASINO BONUS FOR TAX DAY (REPOSTED).

My opinion is that if someone doesn't want to pay taxes, then he shouldn't consume the benefits of government either.

Quote: Wizard

This is a split-off from PLAZA CASINO BONUS FOR TAX DAY (REPOSTED).

My opinion is that if someone doesn't want to pay taxes, then he shouldn't consume the benefits of government either.

Don't drive on the road (walking is OK I guess), well until you get run over by a taxpayer. Don't call the cops for assistance and a report (they work for the taxpayers). I'm bored already, nevermind.....

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Quote: Wizard

This is a split-off from PLAZA CASINO BONUS FOR TAX DAY (REPOSTED).

My opinion is that if someone doesn't want to pay taxes, then he shouldn't consume the benefits of government either.

Don't drive on the road (walking is OK I guess), well until you get run over by a taxpayer. Don't call the cops for assistance and a report (they work for the taxpayers). I'm bored already, nevermind.....

Well when there's a monopoly on something (which is what government is) you don't have a lot of choice. However using your argument if you purchase gasoline you already pay for the roads. Only about 30% of the gas tax (it varies from state to state) actually makes it towards building/maintaining the roads. The rest is "administrative" costs. Now imagine a world where you didn't have this bloated middle man taking the lion's share and whoever wanted to build roads was instead paid directly. There would be more competition on who would build/maintain the roads so the prices would be lower and 100% of the money collected would go towards having those roads built. Think of GoFundMe as the way of the future to collect the money to voluntarily build something that everyone uses. Likely what would happen is residential property owners would pay to have the roads built up near their residences. Commercial business owners would pay to have roads built up around their businesses. Highways/interstates would be paid for by businesses that need to use trucks to transport their goods possibly subsidized by anyone else wishing to travel on those roads (a toll).

Quote: rudeboyoi

I don't think you quite understand. Anarchism doesn't impose anything on anyone.

Sure it does. It imposes uncertainty. I'm assuming you live in the US as I do, and in this country one fundamental right is due process under the rule of law. If laws aren't to your liking, you have the right to try to change them (e.g., the growing acceptance of gay marriage). But there are many safeguards in the legislative process that prevent laws from being changed willy-nilly, and the result is that for the most part, you can count on a law being valid for a reasonable amount of time. That means you can plan accordingly.

What do you propose in the absence of laws? Voluntary contracting is the most often proposed alternative, but people breach contracts all the time. It's happened to me personally (well, professonally) numerous times -- gaming is sometimes a rough business. What's the remedy against someone who breaches a contract, and how do you enforce that remedy?

OK, I see what you say, that's cool...
Except now I got to pay a toll to get out my driveway?
Yes my driveway, you want to drive into it, you now pay me.
That's alot of coin bouncing around, somebody has to count it, roll it, deposit it..
Not to mention protecting it from would be Robbers, Bandits, and Thieves ;-)

Don't get me started on Pirates, Gypsies, and Slave Traders.....

Quote: MathExtremist

Sure it does. It imposes uncertainty. I'm assuming you live in the US as I do, and in this country one fundamental right is due process under the rule of law. If laws aren't to your liking, you have the right to try to change them (e.g., the growing acceptance of gay marriage). But there are many safeguards in the legislative process that prevent laws from being changed willy-nilly, and the result is that for the most part, you can count on a law being valid for a reasonable amount of time. That means you can plan accordingly.

What do you propose in the absence of laws? Voluntary contracting is the most often proposed alternative, but people breach contracts all the time. It's happened to me personally (well, professonally) numerous times -- gaming is sometimes a rough business. What's the remedy against someone who breaches a contract, and how do you enforce that remedy?

You really don't understand what words mean. The law is violently imposing the will of certain people (politicians) onto other people. The lack of that is not imposing anything on anyone.

Rights are inherent. Scribbles on piece of paper are not rights. There's no right to due process of law. There's no right to change the law. It does not matter how many people participate or don't participate in making these scribbles on a piece of paper or what method they go about making these scribbles on a piece of paper. That's all they are are scribbles on a piece of paper. But it deludes certain people into thinking other people have the right to violate other people's rights. There is absolutely no difference between law enforcement killing lawbreakers and jihadists killing infidels. It's just more people deluding themselves that certain scribbles on a piece of paper give them the right to do something that no one has the right to do.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

OK, I see what you say, that's cool...
Except now I got to pay a toll to get out my driveway?
Yes my driveway, you want to drive into it, you now pay me.
That's alot of coin bouncing around, somebody has to count it, roll it, deposit it..
Not to mention protecting it from would be Robbers, Bandits, and Thieves like myself ;-)

Don't get me started on Pirates, Gypsies, and Slave Traders.....

If you want to charge a toll for someone to use your driveway it's likely no one is going to use your driveway. The only place that tolls are likely to be used are long expanses of road such as highways/interstates where nothing else is around and near structures such as bridges.

The government is the most massive band of robbers, bandits, thieves, pirates, and slave traders ever imaginable. Yet for some reason you're not fearing them so why do you fear some boogeyman of the unknown? Anarchism is no guarantee that people won't assault, extort, kidnap, rob, murder others. Statism is a guarantee that certain people will. But with anarchy no one hallucinates that the people doing these things actually has the right to do these things.

I met a beautiful and enticing Gypsy once. Was a ton of fun she was.
Wasn't till the next day that I realized my wallet was missing....

Of course there wasn't anything of real value in my wallet.
But it was a really nice Bosca wallet, and it disappeared ;-(

Quote: rudeboyoi

You really don't understand what words mean. The law is violently imposing the will of certain people (politicians) onto other people.

While I agree that law enforcement is violent imposition, I don't agree that I fail to comprehend words. But perhaps I fail to comprehend your words. You said:

Quote:

Rights are inherent.

Please enumerate my inherent rights with precision and completeness.

Quote: rudeboyoi

The government is the most massive band of robbers, bandits, thieves, pirates, and slave traders ever imaginable.

Roman Catholic church?

Quote: MathExtremist

Sure it does. It imposes uncertainty. I'm assuming you live in the US as I do, and in this country one fundamental right is due process under the rule of law. If laws aren't to your liking, you have the right to try to change them (e.g., the growing acceptance of gay marriage). But there are many safeguards in the legislative process that prevent laws from being changed willy-nilly, and the result is that for the most part, you can count on a law being valid for a reasonable amount of time. That means you can plan accordingly.

What do you propose in the absence of laws? Voluntary contracting is the most often proposed alternative, but people breach contracts all the time. It's happened to me personally (well, professonally) numerous times -- gaming is sometimes a rough business. What's the remedy against someone who breaches a contract, and how do you enforce that remedy?

Your argument seems to be that we must grant one organization a monopoly on the enforcement of contract, it is not at all clear why this is the case. In every other area of life monopolies do a pretty poor job and this is no exception. The government does a terrible job of contract enforcement. If I decide not to pay the bill on my credit card will the government enforce that agreement or will it be done through credit reporting---non monopolistic enforcement? What about when there is a dispute among AP's? Do they typically sue each other in government courts or do they find other, mutually respected AP's to render a verdict? My understanding is that it's the latter---Which do you think would be better to render and a verdict?

Even if we needed a monopolist on contract enforcement (we clearly do not), does that give your monopolist the right to put a gun in my ribs to pay for his services? Should the AP's in my example above have the right to stick a gun in my ribs to pay for their arbitration? What gives them the right to do that simply because the arbitrator is a monopolist?

Double post, my bad.

Quote: rudeboyoi

If you want to charge a toll for someone to use your driveway it's likely no one is going to use your driveway. The only place that tolls are likely to be used are long expanses of road such as highways/interstates where nothing else is around and near structures such as bridges.

This is certainly possible but I tend to think that toll roads would not exist in the free market. Economics predicts that the price of a good in a free market tends towards the marginal cost and typically the marginal cost of road use is zero (though there are times when the marginal cost is very high--in a traffic jam adding 100 cars to a freeway makes the jam much worse and increases transportation costs for all parties involved). Billboards might pay for some of the roads. I can imagine a mall owner might pay for the road to get to his mall. In many cases today residential developers have to pay for a good deal of the infrastructure required to support the housing communities they build.

Quote: bigfoot66

Your argument seems to be that we must grant one organization a monopoly on the enforcement of contract, it is not at all clear why this is the case.

I'm not making an argument (yet), I'm just asking what is the proposed alternative to government-enforced rule of law the way the US does it. Certainly he's not proposing a North Korea-style dictatorship, so what is he proposing?

Edit: for the record, there is no monopoly on contract enforcement now, so I don't think that characterization is accurate anyway. Under current contract law, two parties who contract can agree on how to resolve disputes (courts, arbitration, mediation, and many flavors of each). In that regard, the appropriate question is "if we abolish contract law, who decides what terms of contracts are enforceable and by whom?" I'm skeptical of any generic proposal to discard thousands of years of legal theory, and history has demonstrated that society without the rule of law inevitably perishes (consider the number of law-based societies today vs. 5000 years ago). What is a plausibly-successful alternative to the rule of law?

Quote: MathExtremist

Please enumerate my inherent rights with precision and completeness.

1) You have a right to your body and other legitimately acquired property.
The end.

Quote: MathExtremist

While I agree that law enforcement is violent imposition, I don't agree that I fail to comprehend words. But perhaps I fail to comprehend your words. You said:
Please enumerate my inherent rights with precision and completeness.

The only objective right is the right of self defense. We can realize this by observing nature and how living organisms attempt to defend themselves from being attacked. Every other right is subjective. A subjective right is the right to your property. Property can be argued that it is an extension of one's self. Think of a prosthetic limb. When it's attached to you its clearly a part of your body. If you then accept that it's an extension of your body after taking it off to lay down then anything you own is an extension of your body whether or not it's attached to your body.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm not making an argument (yet), I'm just asking what is the proposed alternative to government-enforced rule of law the way the US does it. Certainly he's not proposing a North Korea-style dictatorship, so what is he proposing?

From past experience I know that he and I have similar beliefs but of course I can only speak for myself.

You are placing the burden of proof on me but the burden of proof is on you. The natural state of man is liberty. If you want to take money out of my pocket to pay for a system of contract enforcement then you must explain why free people are incapable of achieving this absent the coercion you plan to impose. Further you must justify stealing/taking/taxing money from me to support a system that I want nothing to do with.

Quote: bigfoot66

1) You have a right to your body and other legitimately acquired property.
The end.

Perfectly succinct, thanks.

What happens when two people disagree as to the definition of "legitimately"?

Quote: bigfoot66

From past experience I know that he and I have similar beliefs but of course I can only speak for myself.

You are placing the burden of proof on me but the burden of proof is on you. The natural state of man is liberty. If you want to take money out of my pocket to pay for a system of contract enforcement then you must explain why free people are incapable of achieving this absent the coercion you plan to impose. Further you must justify stealing/taking/taxing money from me to support a system that I want nothing to do with.

This is really a conditional probability question. The current state of human society is, by an overwhelming majority, law-based government. The question of personal liberty within those societies varies widely (e.g. China or Saudi Arabia) but that is how humanity has self-organized. If you pushed a magic red button, dismantled every single government in the world, and gave everyone amnesia with regard to the laws they formerly followed, why do you believe humanity would self-organize into other societal forms in the next go-around?

I don't need to justify anything, I'm not trying to prove anything. You appear to believe that humanity is capable of peaceful, non-coercive existence. History has never shown that to be true, so I'm wondering why you think that.

Quote: MathExtremist

Perfectly succinct, thanks.

What happens when two people disagree as to the definition of "legitimately"?

That is a very good question and it will be difficult for me to answer completely in this space. The short answer is that cultural norms and expectations evolve around these things. This process is better than central planning for answering such questions, but it will probably be imperfect.

There were cultural norms that it was OK to enslave certain people, take land from natives but not Europeans, etc. at various points in history. Obviously there were some major problems there. I will point out that the government will not trump cultural norms though. We needed major philosophical and cultural shifts to take place before slavery (which existed as long as man did) was ended. Admittedly the state did some work to end slavery but to focus on this misses the point, the state changes their policy in response to cultural shifts. Obama and Clinton--the liberal politicians!!!--both supported the traditional definition of marriage 8 years ago, today anyone who holds that position is considered a pariah. Look at the beating that North Carolina is taking for enforcing rules that say you can't go in a women's restroom if you have male genitals. Can you imagine this being the slightest bit controversial 15 years ago?

Similar norms evolve around property. If you go to a bar and the gentleman behind the counter offers you a glass of beer you will owe him some amount of money should you accept. If you are a guest in my home and I offer you a glass of beer you would owe me nothing. The norm has evolved that eating at a table in a restaurant creates a contract, eating at a table in my home does not create a contract.

Quote: MathExtremist

This is really a conditional probability question. The current state of human society is, by an overwhelming majority, law-based government. The question of personal liberty within those societies varies widely (e.g. China or Saudi Arabia) but that is how humanity has self-organized. If you pushed a magic red button, dismantled every single government in the world, and gave everyone amnesia with regard to the laws they formerly followed, why do you believe humanity would self-organize into other societal forms in the next go-around?

I don't need to justify anything, I'm not trying to prove anything. You appear to believe that humanity is capable of peaceful, non-coercive existence. History has never shown that to be true, so I'm wondering why you think that.

Suffice to say that we should be aiming for the dismantling of all institutions of organized aggression, however I confess that abolishing all government overnight would probably not be pretty. Governments are fundamentally evil institutions but they do provide some stability and any kind of radical shift would come with a number of short term problems. However these problems would also provide entrepreneurs with opportunities to make a lot of money by providing people with stability, I think it would not be nearly as bad as people picture when they hear the word "anarchy" and the problems would be solved relatively quickly.

I never said we could end all coercion, I am trying to shame you for promoting coercion. Everything is impossible until it is accomplished.

I'm not promoting coercion, I'm suggesting the hopefully-uncontroversial notion that no human society has ever existed without it. It's all well and good to aim for a non-coercive society, but I submit that a haphazard and ill-conceived response to private aggression (cheaters) is far worse than an organized one based on the rule of law. What you need to consider is that not everyone shares your desire (or even capacity) to personally self-govern. If someone is truly free, that person has the right to delegate the management of certain of those freedoms to others, and to codify the rules for that management. That is government based on the rule of law.

I'll admit that I am *very* rusty when it comes to my political philosophy, but I don't recall any major political theorist advocating for a society without laws. On what basis do you suggest that such a society could ever either arise or persist, especially since it's never happened before? I don't see the present day as particularly ripe with intelligent political thought. Not if you've been following the US Presidential campaign. So what do you imagine would happen if the US government (and all state/local governments) were to simply disappear? Trace it through for me, because if I follow that through to its logical conclusion I see an increase in coercion and an increase in instability.

I agree that humans need governance and that society needs laws. I am just making the humble claim that socialism, monopolies, and central planning work very poorly everywhere they are tried, this is also true in the area of creating and enforcing law. The best voluntarist political philosphers were Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner. Rothbard was smarter but Spooner is more interesting. Spooner was an early abolitionist and started his own mail delivery service to protest the governments monopoly there. They had to substantially lower the price of a stamp (they were at 12 cents, he was at 5 cents) to compete with him and they still used criminal law to shut him down.

Robert Nozick was not an anarchist but he was very close. I really encourage you to read his very short "tale of the slave". You are very bright, I would love to hear your response to the question in the story.

https://chhaylinlim.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/are-we-all-slaves-excerpt-from-robert-nozicks-anarchy-state-and-utopia/

Quote: rudeboyoi

I don't think you quite understand. Anarchism doesn't impose anything on anyone.

Sure it would. Suppose I move in your area and pee and throw my trash in your drinking water.

I don't consent to observe your concept of what is right, or your political position as described..

Regarding self-defense as the only right, I reject that as well. You don't speak for me. You just made that up and it holds no value to me. Nor does anything else you believe.

I'm just doing what you're doing, and making my own status quo.

Quote: bigfoot66

I agree that humans need governance and that society needs laws. I am just making the humble claim that socialism, monopolies, and central planning work very poorly everywhere they are tried, this is also true in the area of creating and enforcing law. The best voluntarist political philosphers were Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner. Rothbard was smarter but Spooner is more interesting. Spooner was an early abolitionist and started his own mail delivery service to protest the governments monopoly there. They had to substantially lower the price of a stamp (they were at 12 cents, he was at 5 cents) to compete with him and they still used criminal law to shut him down.

We don't live in a central planning society, not the way that phrase is normally used. You may argue that a representative democracy is not good enough and that direct democracy is required to achieve justice, but it's certainly better than a monarchy. To your point, FedEx is a thriving enterprise despite the business school professor's belief that it would fail utterly.

Once you accept that the rule of law (in some form) is required for a functioning society, you necessarily accept that some manner of coercion is required. Jury service, for example, is a civic obligation without which the rule of law cannot operate. Think about the truth of that simple statement, and then think about how many people try to get out of jury service at any opportunity...

For what it's worth, for about 10 years I've been wondering what our society would be like if the coercive government were very small and large but voluntary corporate collectives provided the bulk of the services to their members. I have a feeling that we'd end up in nearly an identical situation (if not worse due to fragmentation) but I can't do the economic analysis myself.

Quote:

Robert Nozick was not an anarchist but he was very close. I really encourage you to read his very short "tale of the slave". You are very bright, I would love to hear your response to the question in the story.

https://chhaylinlim.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/are-we-all-slaves-excerpt-from-robert-nozicks-anarchy-state-and-utopia/

Nozick wasn't an anarchist, he was a libertarian. The gist is that "slavery," as Nozick uses the word, isn't always as bad as you think it is. It's been a very long time since I studied any of this so I had to dust some of it off, but I think one of Nozick's central tenets is that personal freedom is the absolute highest good. That implies that any two people should be able to agree to anything, including an unfair exchange of property. Nozick starts from the premise that everyone is a rational actor, fully capable of realizing self-government, and perhaps you do too, but you only need watch the nightly news to disabuse yourself of that notion. Maybe it'd be great if everyone actually were fully rational, but we're just not. Without intending to sound like a jerk, it's a mathematical truth that roughly half of the human population has below-average intelligence. A law or regulation that prohibits unconscionable exchanges is just, even if it impinges on personal freedom. Without such laws, society quickly devolves into a different kind of slavery -- the kind borne from the truth that not all citizens have equal intelligence or are equal deal-makers. It will always be true that some people are cleverer than others, and a society that permits those people to rise to positions of power due to their greater ability to acquire assets (that is, without preserving the rights of less-skilled negotiators) is precisely the sort that we've been trying to get away from for the past few thousand years. If you need a reminder of that, Game of Thrones premieres this weekend. :)

Here's a yanked-from-the-headlines scenario to consider:
A man was drowning in a river, quickly becoming hypothermic, but he resisted rescue attempts. It's unclear whether he resisted intentionally because he knew he had outstanding warrants, or because he was irrational due to hypothermia. But he was ultimately rescued -- forcibly -- and subsequently arrested on those warrants. In a just society, should he have been allowed to drown?

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/34277210-75/man-floating-on-willamette-refuses-rescue-attempts-arrested-on-multiple-warrants.html.csp

I live in the real world. As imperfect as governments are, anarchy would be far worse. Just witness what happens, for example, during a blackout when there is even just perceived anarchy.

Quote: SOOPOO

I live in the real world. As imperfect as governments are, anarchy would be far worse. Just witness what happens, for example, during a blackout when there is even just perceived anarchy.

That's a good point. The fact that in popular parlance, the word "anarchy" is applied to both "a non-statist society" and "looting during blackouts" isn't just a coincidence or a marketing problem.

Perhaps the theories put forth by political philosophers shouldn't be taken seriously until their children are teenagers. :)

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a good point. The fact that in popular parlance, the word "anarchy" is applied to both "a non-statist society" and "looting during blackouts" isn't just a coincidence or a marketing problem.

Perhaps the theories put forth by political philosophers shouldn't be taken seriously until their children are teenagers. :)

Or they should buy guns ( guns used generically for any number of lethal weapons ). They are coming, it's true. Might be someone from across the globe, or across the galaxy (ies). Hopefully you don't have to find out just how brave you are. But then that leaves it to your kids, or their kids. This day, this beautiful day, is always a good day to die.... Two Feathers

Quote: MathExtremist

I'll admit that I am *very* rusty when it comes to my political philosophy, but I don't recall any major political theorist advocating for a society without laws. On what basis do you suggest that such a society could ever either arise or persist, especially since it's never happened before?

I read a bunch of this stuff in college and am probably even rustier than you. However, I find it all very interesting. There are two basic branches. One is right-wing, anarcho capitalism. This seems to be the camp of rudeboi and bigfoot, and bigfoot mentioned some advocates. There's also a guy on youtube named Stefan Molyneux who is roughly in this camp and has a big following. I don't know if it's fair to say he represents the camp well, or not. I think he's fun to watch but not very convincing.

Left wing anarchists, sometimes AKA libertarian socialists, can trace their lineage to Mikhail Bakunin. I found his stuff very fun to read. He was a gadfly to Marx and co. Also, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who I haven't read much of. In more recent times, Murray Bookchin added an environmental element, though he hated the term "environmentalist," and named his outlook "social ecology." Noam Chomsky is an anarchist of this school, though it seems to mostly be a theoretical position that he is happy to compromise on.

Those on the left wing side would point to the anarchists during the Spanish civil war as a realization of their ideals.

Though not strictly an anarchist, I guess those on the right envision something more or less like Nozick's utopia, though I think he realized it was un-realizable.

As far as I understand it, the right wing response to those who are weak, gullible etc. being constantly exploited by the clever is that it is OK because everything is voluntary. Maybe consistent exploiters get a bad rep and more honest and fair dealers get a good rep. I think these views have become more plausible with the internet and the ease of accessing information, which is one reason they are more popular.

The left version is more focused on collective decision making, participated in voluntarily. For example, they think everybody should have a voice in how their workplace is run. So I think their answer to that problem would be more like, exploitative arrangements would eventually be considered illegitimate.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Changing the name of an action doesn't change what that action is. Ibeatyouraces has it right. It's extortion. Maybe you like the services government provides. Maybe you'd like if a mugger handed you a sandwich after taking your wallet. That doesn't change what it really is.

It is the "why" taxes are forcibly collected, that escapes most people. It is not to fund operations.

The .gov right now, today "prints" 60% of the fiat they spend. It is impossible for them to collect from the chattel, all that they desire to spend. However, they "could" just print every dollar for every action they choose to direct capital towards instead of just the majority of it.

They have the IRS as well as the other murder control systems, to enforce their authority. It is the same reason that they force UA testing across the land, while they fly the heroin in from AFG. It is about control, they do it for control. We know they can create the money out of thin air, to fund all their evil plans. Then why the bureaucracy [the 3 letter agency's] for the illusion of fair taxation?

It is similar to elections, to pacify the servants by allowing them to think they have a choice. Governments exist as a barrier between the serfs and the owners, so the poor don't eat the rich.

Quote: Rigondeaux

As far as I understand it, the right wing response to those who are weak, gullible etc. being constantly exploited by the clever is that it is OK because everything is voluntary.

Except as that society evolves, that voluntary nature evaporates because the clever realize that the most efficient path to profit is monopoly. Under monopolists, the ideal of freedom is merely illusory because you have no actual choices. Antitrust laws are necessarily a restriction of freedom, but they prevent an even greater restriction of freedom.

Quote: rudeboyoi

You really don't understand what words mean. The law is violently imposing the will of certain people (politicians) onto other people. The lack of that is not imposing anything on anyone.

Rights are inherent. Scribbles on piece of paper are not rights. There's no right to due process of law. There's no right to change the law. It does not matter how many people participate or don't participate in making these scribbles on a piece of paper or what method they go about making these scribbles on a piece of paper. That's all they are are scribbles on a piece of paper. But it deludes certain people into thinking other people have the right to violate other people's rights. There is absolutely no difference between law enforcement killing lawbreakers and jihadists killing infidels. It's just more people deluding themselves that certain scribbles on a piece of paper give them the right to do something that no one has the right to do.

Well said.

Government is the mercenary army of the NWO.

Quote: petroglyph

It is similar to elections, to pacify the servants by allowing them to think they have a choice. Governments exist as a barrier between the serfs and the owners, so the poor don't eat the rich.

If that's true, then isn't government the natural outcome of any society that starts from a state of perfect freedom and experiences unequal wealth accumulation? In other words, if you eradicate governments, won't they spontaneously recreate themselves (just as they have in the past)?

Quote: SOOPOO

I live in the real world. As imperfect as governments are, anarchy would be far worse. Just witness what happens, for example, during a blackout when there is even just perceived anarchy.

Amen. Anarchists do a good job complaining about taxes and government but I'd be interested to hear their alternative.

Let me guess, the alternative is sponge of taxpayers like me and complain at the same time.