Paying taxes -- Patriotic duty or extortion?
That is 180 degrees incorrect:Quote: bigfoot66On the monopoly thing---I am not satisfied with your response, and frankly I think you are violating the rules of debating as a gentleman. You claimed that a retailer could wildly vary his prices to drive out competition, I showed that this has never happened in the history of man as we know it.
"Example of Predatory Pricing Concerns
A real-life example of predatory pricing and its potential effects was brought up in 2013, when it became evident to many that Amazon.com, super-provider of both printed and electronic books, was willing and able to offer books at prices well below those of their brick-and-mortar competitors. The argument is that Amazon has become such a powerful online retailer that it literally threatens the life of the publishing industry.
Amazon has shown that it has the ability to purchase a book for, say $16, then sell it for only $11, in many cases not even charging for shipping. Many feel that Amazon has the staying power to continue selling books at prices well below those of their competitors until it has sewn up the market. In fact, some experts have expressed a concern that Amazon may be able to drive prices down so low that it will be able to offer authors and publishers next to nothing for their works.
A potential danger here not recognized by most consumers is that, after such a company has secured 90 percent of the market, and it starts offering authors very low prices for their works, where else would they go to get their books published? Some people feel that such a scheme has the potential to change the face of providing and obtaining books and other reading materials forever." —ftc
As well as Walmart, 1993 and 2000. American Airlines, 1999.
Quote: bigfoot66
The answer to question is that I don't protect you, you protect your self. If this is important to you then you would be willing to pay for it, right? If there is money on the table an enterprising entrepreneur smarter than me will come up with a way to provide you with defense so that he can pick up that money.
I find the government is my best option for protecting the country. I am not arguing that private security might not be better for protecting a single house, but you cannot convince me that ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Taliban....etc..... would not reek havoc across the what is now USA without a government to stop them. And you know that too.....
That's not always true. The default for employment (in the US, anyway) is at-will, but two parties are free to contract for any terms they see fit. If two parties agree to exchange money for labor, and the money is delivered, the laborer can't simply quit at that point or it's a breach of contract.Quote: rudeboyoiLeaders are okay. Rulers are not. The difference between a leader and a ruler is that you are free to opt out at any time under a leader but not free to opt out under a ruler. An employer is a leader. At any point in time you can just quit.
But generally you're correct -- at any point, if you don't like where you work and the benefits you might get from your employer (including salary, subsidized healthcare, cheap meals in the cafeteria, whatever) then you can pack up your stuff and leave. It's generally considered polite to give two weeks' notice but that's not required; you can just take your personal things and leave the workplace and never come back.
But, if you decide that you like where you work and you want to accept their offer of money and benefits, you're making a tradeoff: your employer demands that about 25% of your time be directed to its wishes rather than your own. Most employers place severe restrictions on what you can do with that time. For example, almost no employers will permit you to spend your designated work time busking on a street corner with a saxophone. (I had one that did, but that's a different story.) During the time you're working, you also have severe location restrictions. Most employers will not allow you to work while sitting on the beach in Cancun. You can go to Cancun on your own time, but work time is not your own time.
You agreed to all those restrictions and tradeoffs when you joined the company, and you implicitly re-accept those terms every day you go back to work. If you want what the employer is offering, you have to accept their terms and give them what they demand. Or you can leave.
Exactly the same thing is true for the US government. If you want what the government is offering, you have to accept their terms and give them what they demand. Or you can leave. Because you can leave -- nobody's stopping you. Every day you remain an American citizen you're implicitly re-accepting their terms. You can even be an American citizen while busking on a street corner with a saxophone or sitting on the beach in Cancun (I have first-hand proof of this), so on the whole I'd say citizenship is far more flexible than most employment arrangements.
Why is there a moral difference between an employer demanding 25% of your time in exchange for income and benefits and a government demanding 25% of your income in exchange for time and benefits, if both of those are deals you can walk away from?
I absolutely am free to leave, why aren't you? I could pull up roots and move to Europe in a month or so. I wouldn't, but I could. What's preventing you from doing the same thing?Quote: rudeboyoiWork is a voluntary arrangement. Being governed is not. And you're absolutely not free to leave.
There are places in the world where you can live ungoverned. I don't think you'd like living in any of them, though. Parts of the Sahara, Somalia, or Antarctica come to mind. You can choose to move there and fend for yourself, completely free of any laws or other obligations to anyone. But you're not going to, I suspect, because on balance you'd rather live governed in the US than ungoverned in Somalia. That is your choice, but don't deny that you're making it.
Quote: MathExtremistI absolutely am free to leave, why aren't you? I could pull up roots and move to Europe in a month or so. I wouldn't, but I could. What's preventing you from doing the same thing?
There are places in the world where you can live ungoverned. I don't think you'd like living in any of them, though. Parts of the Sahara, Somalia, or Antarctica come to mind. You can choose to move there and fend for yourself, completely free of any laws or other obligations to anyone. But you're not going to, I suspect, because on balance you'd rather live governed in the US than ungoverned in Somalia. That is your choice, but don't deny that you're making it.
What are you talking about? You need to get a passport. Passports aren't free nor do they issue them to everyone. And to renounce your US citizenship it costs $2250.
Passports only matter if you want to come back, and nobody's going to care if you don't formally renounce your citizenship. What is the US government going to do, send a tax collector to Somalia looking for you? Go to Los Angeles, buy a seaworthy boat, head west, pass Hawaii and the Phillippines and eventually you'll get to Somalia. Some friendly Somalis may even greet you with a welcoming party and help you steer your boat to shore. You might not get it back but that's what happens with pirates.Quote: rudeboyoiWhat are you talking about? You need to get a passport. Passports aren't free nor do they issue them to everyone. And to renounce your US citizenship it costs $2250.
Quote: rudeboyoiWhat are you talking about? You need to get a passport. Passports aren't free nor do they issue them to everyone. And to renounce your US citizenship it costs $2250.
That is fascinating! I never knew you would have to pay to no longer be a citizen! And $2250!
As far as the passport.... If you got on your own boat and started sailing to an uninhabited Caribbean Island, would our government stop you?
I thought the passport was necessary to get back in, not leave. It might be (and of course usually is) required by another government to let you in to their country.
The only people to whom the U.S. denies passports is a minuscule group of extraordinarily threatening individuals. And the U.S. would most likely in such cases gladly issue exit visas. Otherwise, passports are generally a considered a basic right.Quote: rudeboyoiWhat are you talking about? You need to get a passport. Passports aren't free nor do they issue them to everyone. And to renounce your US citizenship it costs $2250.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe only people to whom the U.S. denies passports is a minuscule group of extraordinarily threatening individuals. And the U.S. would most likely in such cases gladly issue exit visas. Otherwise, passports are generally a considered a basic right.
Completely untrue. You can get denied a passport for "owing" back taxes or child support payments.
The generalized "you" doesn't matter here. The specific you -- rudeboyoi -- can leave the United States anytime you want. Are you going to, or do you choose to stay? If you're choosing to stay, why doesn't that make you a hypocrite?Quote: rudeboyoiCompletely untrue. You can get denied a passport for "owing" back taxes or child support payments.
And to bring up a prior point, if you're planning to have kids, doesn't that make you an even worse hypocrite, bringing children into this unjust and morally-bankrupt regime that we all live in?
2. Suppose I get disabled and can't work. Suppose I suddenly have big bills due to having to start caring for a severely handicapped child.
3. What happens if someone takes the name of good businesses? Suppose I find out my insurance company is just using someone else's respected name when I try to collect they balk.
4. IN a really big disaster are my resources from my own sources and my neighbors really be enough. You've heard of predatory contractors coming into disaster areas? And again predatory lenders. Am I really going to be in shape to negotiate against bad people?
Well I do have a positive attitude like this lady, so maybe that will help.
It is morally acceptable to use coercion to stop someone from hurting someone else: I would absolutely use a gun to prevent a rape in the right circumstances. It is wrong to INITIATE force--don't throw the first punch!
You offer some examples. A couple famous ones in libertarian circles are:
1) you post a "no trespassing" sign in your yard, an 8 year old girl ignores it and begins picking flowers in your yard. Can you use a gun to threaten (or worse!) her to protect your property?
2) you fall off a balcony and the only way to save yourself is to grab my balcony railing below you and trespass on to my balcony to break your fall. Is this acceptable?
The answer is that society gets to judge these things, and they would be resolved by judges and possibly juries but we have every reason to think that a judge or other arbitrator would be reasonable in such cases. And yes, you should absolutely push your friend so he doesn't get hit by a bus.
Life is sticky and full of grey areas. The fact that these principles only work for 99.54% of life's interactions is not a strong critcism. I would argue that the government failure rate is far higher...just think about those 500,000 dead Iraqi children that were "worth it" for Madeline Albright to achieve her goals in the Middle East....
Quote: bigfoot66ME--I will give you a better response on Monday. You said that law enforcement is always coercive, you are kind of right. I make a distinction between law and legislation. Legislation is top down: these 536 people have decided that this shall be the rule. Law is a more informal, often unwriten, and a bottom-up phenomenon. There are things that violate one but not the other: for example if I grow a marijuana plant in Arizona that violates legislation but not law. If I steal your wallet I have broken both. If I go 36 in a 35 mph zone I have not violated the law though I have violated legislation....depending on the circumstances I might have to go 46 or 49 to break the law.
It is morally acceptable to use coercion to stop someone from hurting someone else: I would absolutely use a gun to prevent a rape in the right circumstances. It is wrong to INITIATE force--don't throw the first punch!
You offer some examples. A couple famous ones in libertarian circles are:
1) you post a "no trespassing" sign in your yard, an 8 year old girl ignores it and begins picking flowers in your yard. Can you use a gun to threaten (or worse!) her to protect your property?
2) you fall off a balcony and the only way to save yourself is to grab my balcony railing below you and trespass on to my balcony to break your fall. Is this acceptable?
The answer is that society gets to judge these things, and they would be resolved by judges and possibly juries but we have every reason to think that a judge or other arbitrator would be reasonable in such cases. And yes, you should absolutely push your friend so he doesn't get hit by a bus.
Life is sticky and full of grey areas. The fact that these principles only work for 99.54% of life's interactions is not a strong critcism. I would argue that the government failure rate is far higher...just think about those 500,000 dead Iraqi children that were "worth it" for Madeline Albright to achieve her goals in the Middle East....
So much writing, yet no answers.
Who are these judges and juries? Is this something that's going to be imposed on me if I have committed a crime? Try to be a bit more specific -- who call them into power, do they even have power, might I go to prison if the judge/jury thinks I'm guilty, what if I don't accept them as having power over me (just like y'all anarchists say the govt. has no power over you)? Don't say you'll be shunned or something like that....stupidest crime-deterrent I've ever heard.
Quote: rudeboyoiThere just won't be a parasitic criminal gang of thugs that call themselves government
They won't call themselves government, but there will be criminal gangs. Not much difference, if that's what you really believe. Just a different name.
Quote: rxwineThey won't call themselves government, but there will be criminal gangs. Not much difference, if that's what you really believe. Just a different name.
There will always be gangs. It's to get people to stop hallucinating that the gang that calls themselves government aren't a gang. Recognizing you have every right to defend yourself against their aggression and have no obligation to obey any of their demands as with any other gang.
Quote: RogerKintHow do propulsion systems work in a vacuum, anyway?
It's not rocket science.
$;o)
Quote: SOOPOOI thought the passport was necessary to get back in, not leave. It might be (and of course usually is) required by another government to let you in to their country.
They don't ask to see anything when you drive into Mexico. However, they do when you fly in.
Quote: WizardThey don't ask to see anything when you drive into Mexico. However, they do when you fly in.
Canada it's the same, at least Windsor but you need a passport or enhanced ID to get back to Detroit. Hence why I haven't been to Caesars there since before 9-11.
That's the closest I have ever been (and hopefully, ever will be) to Canada. It was an awful experience. Ugh.
With all due respect, that's utter bunkum. A society cannot be based on informal, variable rules that are open to interpretation. Misinterpretation of rules leads to disputes and disputes lead to conflict and violence; to the extent that your proposal actually encourages violence, it is immoral under your own morality. Different cultures have different responses to what you might think is morally repugnant. Child marriage? Cannibalism? Human sacrifice? Polygamy? Eating dogs? Those are all accepted practices in other societies, and "the law" as you define it would not prohibit those acts in those cultures. As you admit, "the law" is a bottom-up phenomenon. But if "the law" isn't even consistent between two people, it cannot form the basis of a stable society. The reason people write down their laws, and mutually agree to enforce them on themselves, is to achieve that stability.Quote: bigfoot66ME--I will give you a better response on Monday. You said that law enforcement is always coercive, you are kind of right. I make a distinction between law and legislation. Legislation is top down: these 536 people have decided that this shall be the rule. Law is a more informal, often unwriten, and a bottom-up phenomenon. There are things that violate one but not the other: for example if I grow a marijuana plant in Arizona that violates legislation but not law. If I steal your wallet I have broken both. If I go 36 in a 35 mph zone I have not violated the law though I have violated legislation....depending on the circumstances I might have to go 46 or 49 to break the law.
The libertarian-favorite Non-Aggression Principle is not absolute. It can't be or it leads to ridiculous conclusions, like "you can't burn wood in your firepit because it causes smoke pollution that gets into my lungs and makes me cough, so then I can shoot you in self defense." Or, "I'm frustrated that my six-year-old is such a picky eater, so I just put food in the fridge and ignore him. He begins to starve and cry. The neighbor breaks into my house in order to check on my child and I shoot him for violating my property rights."Quote:It is morally acceptable to use coercion to stop someone from hurting someone else: I would absolutely use a gun to prevent a rape in the right circumstances. It is wrong to INITIATE force--don't throw the first punch!
I'll await your reply on Monday, but I'm still concerned that your proposed society requires everyone to share the same political philosophy. We know that's not the case in the US, at least, so to me it's wholly unrealistic. Perhaps anarchy works in a smaller, tighter-knit community where philosophical dissent is non-existent, but you obviously don't live in one of those.
How can you simultaneously be for anarcho-capitalism and against collectivism when corporate capitalism is collectivist?Quote: rudeboyoiPeople can organize themselves however they want to under anarcho-capitalism. Those that want to live under some form of collectivism can. Those that don't can.
And if people can legitimately organize themselves however they want, why don't you respect the way they already have?
"I'll just start my own billion dollar road building company." In the unlikely event that you get this off the ground, you are harassed and obstructed or perhaps killed.
The other kind of anarchism makes far more sense to me, since you'd have a say in all your affairs based more or less on your humanity, rather than how much money you have. But even then, I don't see how criminal justice doesn't devolve into witch trials, or be grossly inadequate.
As flawed as our system is, and I do think people are unfairly comparing Anarchism to perfection in some cases, I personally have been deterred from commiting crimes on a few occasions. And I'm a fairly low key and honest guy.
I think either system is best thought of as something like a Platonic ideal, that you'd like to get close to, but which is unrealizable in our world.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd if people can legitimately organize themselves however they want, why don't you respect the way they already have?
Heh, same thing I was just thinking.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd if people can legitimately organize themselves however they want, why don't you respect the way they already have?
People can organize however they want AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT INITIATING FORCE on other people. Very simple. If we were arguing about chattel slavery 300 years ago you could have made all the same arguments you are currently making: "Chattel slavery has been a part of every human society" "Without slaves no one will do X work and we will all die." It was unpopular but right to oppose chattel slavery then, and it is unpopular but right to oppose the free range slavery imposed on us today.
Quote: MathExtremistWith all due respect, that's utter bunkum. A society cannot be based on informal, variable rules that are open to interpretation. Misinterpretation of rules leads to disputes and disputes lead to conflict and violence; to the extent that your proposal actually encourages violence, it is immoral under your own morality. Different cultures have different responses to what you might think is morally repugnant. Child marriage? Cannibalism? Human sacrifice? Polygamy? Eating dogs? Those are all accepted practices in other societies, and "the law" as you define it would not prohibit those acts in those cultures. As you admit, "the law" is a bottom-up phenomenon. But if "the law" isn't even consistent between two people, it cannot form the basis of a stable society. The reason people write down their laws, and mutually agree to enforce them on themselves, is to achieve that stability.
Everything you said here is incorrect. Society can absolutely be based on informal rules that evolve and are open to interpretation. Are you at all familiar with the history of the common law? This is exactly how it worked. As long as the incentive structure is right the judges will have every reason to make fair and reasonable findings. Specifically, if you and I have dispute over, let's say, a property line between our homes. You say that this "lead to violence", that is not at all obvious to me. Violence is extremely expensive, wouldn't we prefer to let an arbitrator resolve our dispute? We would both have to agree on which mediation service to use, and we would probably only be able to agree on one who had a reputation for being fair, right? If you are black and I am white, would you agree to go to the racist court? This market process means that unreasonable or unfair judges would go out of business and the fair ones would attract a lot of business. We would both agree to be bound by the mutually chosen arbitrator's decision.
Having simply read this summary of what the process might look like, I am sure you can offer 1000 objections to my proposal. It is simply impossible for me to reinvent the wheel here and give an academic level outline of how private law creation and enforcement might work, so I will point you to a talk by the great David Friedman, son of Milton and by far the smartest man I have ever had the pleasure of having a drink with. It takes this genius an hour to explain this topic, but he is a pretty good speaker. I really encourage you to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSrf9j2pvmU
I would also point out that the precision of legislation is an illusion. The government regularly does things that violate the letter and spirit of their own laws and the courts go right along with it. The government has violated every one of the bill of rights. We do not need central planners in legislation.
You mention all the objectionable things that occur in other places. I agree that these are terrible. If the bulk of society feels that human sacrifice is a good thing I'm not sure how you solve that. You sure as hell are not going to stop it by instituting a majority rule democracy. In my society the minority of right thinking people have a chance to exist on their own outside of the system. If human sacrifice is a problem the last thing I would want is some government going around and enforcing that I be a part of it.
It seems to me like you have a very naïve view of how government actually works. Politicians are whores and liars. They are sociopathic in many cases, and they have a single goal: Maintain and expand power. Your challenge of "human sacrifice" suggests you think that the Ted Cruz's and John Kerry's of the world would or even could address a problem like this, I am laughing as I type this. As you are so fond of pointing out, the number of voluntaryist societies is approximately equal to zero. All of the problems you illustrate above have clearly not been solved by government. It doesn't matter if my proposal perfectly solves these issues, yours has already failed to address them---It is also the case that we don't all get superpowers like invisibility when the government goes away but this is also a nonissue since the government has not (yet) given us this power.
Furthermore, the law is absolutely not the same between everyone, even ignoring the fact that the government treats different classes of people differently. When we sign a contract we create a private law that only applies to the two of us. Even public law is different in Las Vegas than it is in Henderson, and it is different still in North Las Vegas. People rarely know exactly where the lines are between various jurisdictions, and absolutely no one thinks about the fact that the rules are a little different here than they are there unless they are trying to start a business. We rely on the non-aggression principle as our guide to appropriate behavior, regardless of the arbitrary political lines and regulations that the people who call themselves politicians impose on us.
Quote: MathExtremistI'll await your reply on Monday, but I'm still concerned that your proposed society requires everyone to share the same political philosophy. We know that's not the case in the US, at least, so to me it's wholly unrealistic. Perhaps anarchy works in a smaller, tighter-knit community where philosophical dissent is non-existent, but you obviously don't live in one of those.
In a sense I suppose you are right. As it stands I am in a very small minority of people who think that theft is immoral even if the thief is Mitch McConnell instead of a hoodlum. We would need to get a big chunk of society on board with the non-aggression principle before it could work. But again, the nice part is that if we could get people to sign on with the nonaggression principle (which we all observe daily in our personal lives) then the world would be open to many ways of organizing society---we could let a million flowers bloom so to speak.
You also brought up the issue of pollution with regards to the NAP. This is a tough question to answer succinctly and there is debate among libertarians about how to address it. It would absolutely be solved by the free market and civil society, but if I gave you pollution control would you be a libertarian on all other issues?
Quote: bigfoot66In a sense I suppose you are right. As it stands I am in a very small minority of people who think that theft is immoral
I don't think you do yourself any favors by playing word games. Every loopy ideology does this.
Radfems. Rape is sex without consent. But can you really give consent if you are oppressed? And we say marriage is an oppressive institution so having "consensual sex" with your wife is rape.
And, nothing is as psychopathic as a corporation. Was papa Friedman who wrote "a corporations only moral duty is profit" or something, which is actually a pretty reasonable position so long as the company is restrained by regulation to force it towards ends we decide are moral.
I still don't understand what happens when SuperCO buys up the roads, or hires Blackwater to convince people to do as they wish. It's all good because that's not coercion?
Quote: RigondeauxI don't think you do yourself any favors by playing word games. Every loopy ideology does this.
Thanks.
Quote: RigondeauxI still don't understand what happens when SuperCO buys up the roads, or hires Blackwater to convince people to do as they wish. It's all good because that's not coercion?
Walter Block has a very good book on ending road socialism, available for free from Mises.org, and your fear is unfounded.
Blackwater is clearly coercive. Who do they typically work for, by the way?
Quote: bigfoot66It is simply impossible for me to reinvent the wheel here .
Just thought I'd highlight this for a moment.
Personally I prefer our system to evolve as it actually has since the Constitution was formed. Most political systems not under dictatorships are still evolving. In many ways we have both long term and short term experiments going on. For instance Social Security is a long term experiment, which could fail completely, could be modified in some way, or be replaced even. Some things are just getting out of the gate like glbt rights. Some of this may end up different than where it started. For all I know, in a year we could be building a wall on our southern border and deporting illegal aliens by the truckload. That will also be an experiment.
People could start pushing for less security and more freedom in greater numbers which could bring about changes you would prefer. Looking at other countries who remain stable, they also are evolving. No one could claim China is not operating somewhat like hybrid communist/capitalist system. It certainly not doing things exactly like it did 50 years ago. They are certainly undergoing changes.
What I'm not interested in, is ripping things out by the roots in an untested grand experiment, unless you want to do that on your own with like minded people.
Quote: rxwineJust thought I'd highlight this for a moment.
You completely missed what I was saying. ME is asking very good questions but Libertarian theorists smarter than myself have already answered them, therefore I will link to their answer rather than try to answer myself.
That said I have already stated that I do not want to abolish all government overnight, this would cause a lot of short term problems and we need to change a lot of minds first anyway.
Quote: bigfoot66Everything you said here is incorrect. Society can absolutely be based on informal rules that evolve and are open to interpretation. Are you at all familiar with the history of the common law? This is exactly how it worked. As long as the incentive structure is right the judges will have every reason to make fair and reasonable findings. Specifically, if you and I have dispute over, let's say, a property line between our homes. You say that this "lead to violence", that is not at all obvious to me. Violence is extremely expensive, wouldn't we prefer to let an arbitrator resolve our dispute? We would both have to agree on which mediation service to use, and we would probably only be able to agree on one who had a reputation for being fair, right? If you are black and I am white, would you agree to go to the racist court? This market process means that unreasonable or unfair judges would go out of business and the fair ones would attract a lot of business. We would both agree to be bound by the mutually chosen arbitrator's decision.
You have yet to answer some VERY basic questions -- Who are these judges? Can anyone be a judge? Do people vote for them? What if the supposed wrong-doer says, "Screw you! I'm not gonna have some judge/jury settle our case!"? What incentive does he have for letting a judge/jury decide if he's wrong....as he can only lose? You're also making a huge assumption that people tend to "do the right thing" or, rather, that everyone will always "do the right/smart thing".
That's a cop-out, and if that's your approach then it's no longer a debate between us, it's now a debate between me and those libertarian theorists with you simply acting as a reference librarian. If I wanted to have *that* debate, I could write to them directly.Quote: bigfoot66You completely missed what I was saying. ME is asking very good questions but Libertarian theorists smarter than myself have already answered them, therefore I will link to their answer rather than try to answer myself.
And if I follow suit by linking to a bunch of critiques of any of your notions (taxation is theft and extortion; everyone follows the non-aggression principle all the time; government is equivalent to slavery; capitalism is not coercive; the free market doesn't ever need regulation; laws never need enforcement) written by people who are smarter political theorists than I, and then we've both designated proxies and now there's no point in having this discussion at all.
So no, you don't get to foist your role in this debate onto someone else. You accused me earlier of not debating like a gentleman? Now I'm accusing you of not debating at all. Withdraw if you like, but you certainly haven't convinced me that the political structure you advocate is even remotely feasible. Moreover, I find it short-sighted, naively idealistic, and frankly, insulting. By denying the moral validity of the U.S. government, even while you benefit from it in ways you conveniently ignore (or worse, unwittingly ignore), you are essentially accusing me -- and everyone else -- of being complicit in the moral evils of theft and slavery.
If you don't like America, stop consuming its resources and leave. If you do like America but you want it to change, we're fortunate here that our government has built-in ways for that change to happen. And it has happened over the years as the country dealt with issues like real slavery, prohibition, women's suffrage, equal rights, gay marriage, etc. The question of taxation being theft, or of government being slavery, has never been seriously considered in the same way, and that's because only a tiny minority of people hold that view. You'll need to do a lot better than that tiny minority in order to lend any legitimacy to your crusade. Rejecting majority rule in favor of "us anarchists know better and you majority statists are all evil" isn't ever going to be a winning argument.
In the meanwhile, it is outrageous hypocrisy for you to deny the legitimacy of the government while enjoying the benefits of that government. It should be cathartic for you to purge your lifestyle of all remnants of the US government, so I recommend sending me any piece of paper in your possession that has the word America on it. I'll pay for private postage so you don't have to use the USPS.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's a cop-out, and if that's your approach then it's no longer a debate between us, it's now a debate between me and those libertarian theorists with you simply acting as a reference librarian. If I wanted to have *that* debate, I could write to them directly.
And if I follow suit by linking to a bunch of critiques of any of your notions (taxation is theft and extortion; everyone follows the non-aggression principle all the time; government is equivalent to slavery; capitalism is not coercive; the free market doesn't ever need regulation; laws never need enforcement) written by people who are smarter political theorists than I, and then we've both designated proxies and now there's no point in having this discussion at all.
So no, you don't get to foist your role in this debate onto someone else. You accused me earlier of not debating like a gentleman? Now I'm accusing you of not debating at all. Withdraw if you like, but you certainly haven't convinced me that the political structure you advocate is even remotely feasible. Moreover, I find it short-sighted, naively idealistic, and frankly, insulting. By denying the moral validity of the U.S. government, even while you benefit from it in ways you conveniently ignore (or worse, unwittingly ignore), you are essentially accusing me -- and everyone else -- of being complicit in the moral evils of theft and slavery.
If you don't like America, stop consuming its resources and leave. If you do like America but you want it to change, we're fortunate here that our government has built-in ways for that change to happen. And it has happened over the years as the country dealt with issues like real slavery, prohibition, women's suffrage, equal rights, gay marriage, etc. The question of taxation being theft, or of government being slavery, has never been seriously considered in the same way, and that's because only a tiny minority of people hold that view. You'll need to do a lot better than that tiny minority in order to lend any legitimacy to your crusade. Rejecting majority rule in favor of "us anarchists know better and you majority statists are all evil" isn't ever going to be a winning argument.
In the meanwhile, it is outrageous hypocrisy for you to deny the legitimacy of the government while enjoying the benefits of that government. It should be cathartic for you to purge your lifestyle of all remnants of the US government, so I recommend sending me any piece of paper in your possession that has the word America on it. I'll pay for private postage so you don't have to use the USPS.
You ask questions, I point you to the answers, and your response is that I am immoral for pointing out the truth that taxation is theft and still have the gall to...drive on the roads? And then you demand that I surrender my passport? I don't get what your outrage is.
I think you may have a great deal more time on your hands then I do, or you are more interested in defeating me than the ideas. I have minimal ego in this, I am more concerned about the ideas. It is impossible for me to adequately answer these huge questions you are asking without spending hours upon hours crafting lengthy essays. Your demand that I re-write the ideas I did not come up with in the first place is designed to end the debate, you know it is impossible. If you want to rebuke my sources by citing sources of your own that is fine--I have no problem with that.
Your outrage that I dare criticize the US government confirms what I have long thought, that patriotism and statism are indeed the modern religion. It's fine to be a republican or democrat, or even a green. But if I question the legitimacy of the government people get pissed, though they never have a good defense of the state. Every criticism is "without government x would happen and society would break down". No one ever talks about the beauty, efficiency, or productivity of the government process, and no one believes the government is any of these things. They will meekly say that it is a "necessary evil". It is not, it is an unecessary evil, and every area where you think government adds stability they actually do the opposite. Government programs always achieve the opposite of their stated goals. Taxation is theft, war is organized mass murder, and government officials have the same moral standing the heads of any other criminal organization.
Go ahead, defend Madeline Albright. I'm sure you are one of those wonderful patriots who says "we are the government," so you are part of this. Tell me about how wonderful it is that she was willing to kill 500,000 children in a failed attempt to achieve a political goal. Tell me about your glorious, virtuous governments. How critical to life their wars are, their ethnic cleansings, their holocausts. Defend the war on drugs which destroys the lives of peaceful people for daring to cultivate or even just hold in their hands plant material. Tell me about our wise overlords have promised hundreds of trillions of dollars in future Medicare benefits that they cannot pay for. Explain why the pentagon cannot be subject to an audit because they are just too complicated an organization. Would any of this fly in the non-violent sector?
Your argument that I must avoid the government is as morally vacuous as the rest of your claims. The fact that the place I was born is occupied by a criminal gang does not place any moral burdens on me. Your argument seems to be that it is not enough that I merely pay taxes, I must always LOVE FATHER GOVERNMENT in order to be entitled to recieve his blessings---I am reminded of 1984. Let's say I was running a business and the mafia regularly demanded protection money from me but they would give me back, say, 10% of the money they extorted in December as a gesture of goodwill. Am I morally obligated to refuse this money? Of course not.
You want to focus on the possible difficulties associated with human liberty because you know that the governments are wildly inefficient and morally outrageous. If you had the guts to lay your own positions out (you haven't yet) this would be a very different argument. Of course I don't blame you for being ashamed of promoting the state, I would be too.
Why you decided a group of people is less legitimate than a single person makes no difference to me. It's just another contract I had nothing to do with.
Quote: rxwineOne thing I picked up from your arguments BigFoot, is contracts which have been put into place without my direct consent I can ignore. Just like you do.
Why you decided a group of people is less legitimate than a single person makes no difference to me. It's just another contract I had nothing to do with.
What contracts are you talking about? Be specific.
Nor would your system.Quote: bigfoot66if I question the legitimacy of the government people get pissed, though they never have a good defense of the state. Every criticism is "without government x would happen and society would break down". No one ever talks about the beauty, efficiency, or productivity of the government process, and no one believes the government is any of these things.
And that would presumably and erroneously include endeavors national security, financial affairs and the administration of justice.Quote:They will meekly say that it is a "necessary evil". It is not, it is an unecessary evil, and every area where you think government adds stability they actually do the opposite.
So you would have had the Allies succumb to the Axis. Europe's short but painful experience makes the clear and forceful point that people wanted their way of life defended -- at all costs.Quote:Government programs always achieve the opposite of their stated goals. Taxation is theft, war is organized mass murder, and government officials have the same moral standing the heads of any other criminal organization.
At least the second instance of your offering this totally specious statistic without the slightest hint of source. Especially when credible sources like this three give radically different totals for the entire population.Quote:Go ahead, defend Madeline Albright. I'm sure you are one of those wonderful patriots who says "we are the government," so you are part of this. Tell me about how wonderful it is that she was willing to kill 500,000 children in a failed attempt to achieve a political goal.
Associated Press
110,600 violent deaths
March 2003 to April 2009
Iraq Body Count project
112,667–123,284 civilian deaths from violence. 174,000 civilian and combatant deaths[4][5][6][7]
March 2003 to March 2013
Classified Iraq War Logs[4][8][9][10]
109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[11][12]
January 2004 to December 2009
You think this is about roads? No, this is about your ignorance of the foundations upon which your lifestyle is built, and upon which your parents' lifestyle was built, and their parents, and back to your first-generation ancestors who moved to the United States seeking the very freedoms you belittle -- and the fact that you are unwilling to keep up your end of the bargain that built that foundation. You decry all government as immoral, but in the same breath you suggest that free people may organize how they deem fit. That is a blatant contradiction laid bare by the fact that, over and over throughout the past several centuries, people who have become newly free from tyranny have organized into democratic governments, forming the social contract that provides far more than roads in exchange for taxes.Quote: bigfoot66You ask questions, I point you to the answers, and your response is that I am immoral for pointing out the truth that taxation is theft and still have the gall to...drive on the roads? And then you demand that I surrender my passport? I don't get what your outrage is.
You want to consume the benefits of the government without paying for it. That makes you the thief, friend. Your actions are no different than eating at a restaurant and deciding not to pay when presented with the bill. If you choose to eat at the restaurant, you're committing to paying the bill. If you choose to live as an American citizen, you're committing to paying the bill. Skipping out on that bill is theft. It's that simple.
Again, that's a cop-out. Answering a ten-word question with someone else's ten-page essay, because you are unwilling or incapable of crafting a ten-word or even 100-word reply, is a rhetorical failure on your part. Don't attempt to recast that failure as mine. If it is truly the case that one of my simple questions cannot be answered without a lengthy essay, your philosophy is not yet up to the task of convincing anyone of anything.Quote:It is impossible for me to adequately answer these huge questions you are asking without spending hours upon hours crafting lengthy essays. Your demand that I re-write the ideas I did not come up with in the first place is designed to end the debate, you know it is impossible. If you want to rebuke my sources by citing sources of your own that is fine--I have no problem with that.
I'm not outraged that you criticized the US government. Go right ahead. In this country, you have the right to do that. In North Korea you'd be killed.Quote:Your outrage that I dare criticize the US government confirms what I have long thought, that patriotism and statism are indeed the modern religion. It's fine to be a republican or democrat, or even a green. But if I question the legitimacy of the government people get pissed, though they never have a good defense of the state.
My defense of the legitimacy of this particular state is simple: We The People agreed to it. There is no greater legitimacy than consent of the governed. You think We The People got it wrong, and you want to overturn the will of that majority with your personal and self-righteous definition of morality. Why are you right and everyone else is wrong?
Turn Nozick on his head for a moment. A bunch of people moved here on boats, originally under English colonial rule, then they threw off the yolk of the Crown and became free people and organized themselves as they deemed fit. You know the history of the United States. Between then and now, when did those free people become slaves?
Not when you were born, no. But then you realized that the criminal gang actually did a lot of good things for you and your family, enabled you to carry on your business without interference from looters from neighboring cities, provided a financial system that enabled you to succeed, a judicial system that enabled you to resolve conflicts (or avoid them), and generally kept things running. And you stayed because you looked at other places and saw that their "criminals" were worse, didn't do as much, or charged more for their services.Quote:Your argument that I must avoid the government is as morally vacuous as the rest of your claims. The fact that the place I was born is occupied by a criminal gang does not place any moral burdens on me.
Why again are they criminals? And why didn't you leave and go to a place where you weren't living among any criminals? Perhaps it's because your definition of "criminal" is itself morally vacuous and, instead, your choice to benefit from the acts of those so-called criminals legitimizes them and means they're not criminals at all.
Prove to me that you and the rest of the "taxes are theft" crowd aren't just cheapskates trying to weasel out of the bar tab while camouflaging your stinginess in faux moral outrage.
Quote: SanchoPanza
At least the second instance of your offering this totally specious statistic without the slightest hint of source. Especially when credible sources like this three give radically different totals for the entire population.
Associated Press
110,600 violent deaths
March 2003 to April 2009
Iraq Body Count project
112,667–123,284 civilian deaths from violence. 174,000 civilian and combatant deaths[4][5][6][7]
March 2003 to March 2013
Classified Iraq War Logs[4][8][9][10]
109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[11][12]
January 2004 to December 2009
If you either knew who Albright was or had read my earlier comments where I directly addressed this you would not have embarrassed yourself with this comment. Albright was part of the Clinton administration so your comments about the war are not directly pertinent. The source of the estimate was the United Nations and iit doesn't matter if it is accurate or not because Albright' did not contest the figure, she accepted the figure and said it was worth it. Invest 12 seconds into educating yourself by watching her say it here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
Seeing the lack of even a hint about referring to which one of maybe a dozen different U.S. actions in Iraq and the continued lack of a specific source, the reference to the Clinton sanctions has been clarified. But the essence of the point about the degree of the number has remained subject to more scrutiny and has remained under a cloud:Quote: bigfoot66If you either knew who Albright was or had read my earlier comments where I directly addressed this you would not have embarrassed yourself with this comment. Albright was part of the Clinton administration so your comments about the war are not directly pertinent. The source of the estimate was the United Nations and iit doesn't matter if it is accurate or not because Albright' did not contest the figure.
"It’s worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl–a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. In general, the response from government officials about the sanctions’ toll has been rather different: a barrage of equivocations, denigration of U.N. sources and implications that questioners have some ideological axe to grind (Extra!, 3-4/00).
There has also been an attempt to seize on the lowest possible numbers. In early 1998, Columbia University’s Richard Garfield published a dramatically lower estimate of 106,000 to 227,000 children under five dead due to sanctions, which was reported in many papers (e.g. New Orleans Times-Picayune, 2/15/98)." --fair.org
But it is good to see the other points proceed unchallenged.
Quote: MathExtremistYou think this is about roads? No, this is about your ignorance of the foundations upon which your lifestyle is built, and upon which your parents' lifestyle was built, and their parents, and back to your first-generation ancestors who moved to the United States seeking the very freedoms you belittle -- and the fact that you are unwilling to keep up your end of the bargain that built that foundation. You decry all government as immoral, but in the same breath you suggest that free people may organize how they deem fit. That is a blatant contradiction laid bare by the fact that, over and over throughout the past several centuries, people who have become newly free from tyranny have organized into democratic governments, forming the social contract that provides far more than roads in exchange for taxes.
You want to consume the benefits of the government without paying for it. That makes you the thief, friend. Your actions are no different than eating at a restaurant and deciding not to pay when presented with the bill. If you choose to eat at the restaurant, you're committing to paying the bill. If you choose to live as an American citizen, you're committing to paying the bill. Skipping out on that bill is theft. It's that simple.
Again, that's a cop-out. Answering a ten-word question with someone else's ten-page essay, because you are unwilling or incapable of crafting a ten-word or even 100-word reply, is a rhetorical failure on your part. Don't attempt to recast that failure as mine. If it is truly the case that one of my simple questions cannot be answered without a lengthy essay, your philosophy is not yet up to the task of convincing anyone of anything.
I'm not outraged that you criticized the US government. Go right ahead. In this country, you have the right to do that. In North Korea you'd be killed.
My defense of the legitimacy of this particular state is simple: We The People agreed to it. There is no greater legitimacy than consent of the governed. You think We The People got it wrong, and you want to overturn the will of that majority with your personal and self-righteous definition of morality. Why are you right and everyone else is wrong?
Turn Nozick on his head for a moment. A bunch of people moved here on boats, originally under English colonial rule, then they threw off the yolk of the Crown and became free people and organized themselves as they deemed fit. You know the history of the United States. Between then and now, when did those free people become slaves?
Not when you were born, no. But then you realized that the criminal gang actually did a lot of good things for you and your family, enabled you to carry on your business without interference from looters from neighboring cities, provided a financial system that enabled you to succeed, a judicial system that enabled you to resolve conflicts (or avoid them), and generally kept things running. And you stayed because you looked at other places and saw that their "criminals" were worse, didn't do as much, or charged more for their services.
Why again are they criminals? And why didn't you leave and go to a place where you weren't living among any criminals? Perhaps it's because your definition of "criminal" is itself morally vacuous and, instead, your choice to benefit from the acts of those so-called criminals legitimizes them and means they're not criminals at all.
Prove to me that you and the rest of the "taxes are theft" crowd aren't just cheapskates trying to weasel out of the bar tab while camouflaging your stinginess in faux moral outrage.
If I had the option of opting out of government, taking no benefits and paying no taxes, I would gladly take it. Again your argument seems to be that I am a thief because I don't like the taxes I must pay? I pay the same in taxes as any statist in my position would, why does my mindset affect what services I should recieve? It seems that you are accusing me of thoughtcrime.
You were wise not to try to defend what governments actually do, like kill people and break things, make promises that they cannot keep, etc as I pointed out above. You are also wise not to try to defend politicians who are almost universally liars and sociopaths.
Governments provide some good things, I have never disputed that. I've made the modest claim that these things can be provided nonviolently. I am not ashamed of the fact that my schedule does not allow me to make a full time job of rewriting the words of wise men, which is what you are demanding. You are asking how extremely complicated social institutions would arise in the free market. I can offer some plausible outlines of how it might work but I'm probably wrong. The answer is that if I could tell you exactly what these institutions would Look like, then the market would be unnecessary and a central planning model would be just as good. The market process is critical to amassing the information needed to create these institutions. If there is demand for something an entrepreneur will create it and the choices of consumers will shape how that product is delivered.
Why don't you have the guts to lay your cards on the table about when you specifically support using a gun to take money from your neighbors to achieve your desired ends?
Quote: SanchoPanzaSeeing the lack of even a hint about referring to which one of maybe a dozen different U.S. actions in Iraq and the continued lack of a specific source, the reference to the Clinton sanctions has been clarified. But the essence of the point about the degree of the number has remained subject to more scrutiny and has remained under a cloud:
"It’s worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl–a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. In general, the response from government officials about the sanctions’ toll has been rather different: a barrage of equivocations, denigration of U.N. sources and implications that questioners have some ideological axe to grind (Extra!, 3-4/00).
There has also been an attempt to seize on the lowest possible numbers. In early 1998, Columbia University’s Richard Garfield published a dramatically lower estimate of 106,000 to 227,000 children under five dead due to sanctions, which was reported in many papers (e.g. New Orleans Times-Picayune, 2/15/98)." --fair.org
But it is good to see the other points proceed unchallenged.
You make a very powerful argument. Only a quarter million children were killed by the government's stupid and failed policy. I must admit that this changes everything. I stand corrected.
You do have that option yet you haven't taken it, so your protestations ring hollow. You want to live in a community whose members have chosen to self-organize under a social contract that pays for enforceable rights with taxes, and you want the enforceable rights but you don't want to pay the taxes that cover the cost of that enforcement. That's greedy, selfish, and hypocritically immoral for someone who couches his ire in false moral self-righteousness. If you pay your taxes, I'm not accusing you of anything. I don't care about what's in your head, just whether you play by the rules that you and your parents agreed to. Either you deny your participation in the social contract, which makes you a mooch for sponging off society, or you deny the validity of the social contract in the first place, which makes you a hypocrite for arguing that people can organize how they wish. Pick your poison.Quote: bigfoot66If I had the option of opting out of government, taking no benefits and paying no taxes, I would gladly take it. Again your argument seems to be that I am a thief because I don't like the taxes I must pay? I pay the same in taxes as any statist in my position would, why does my mindset affect what services I should recieve? It seems that you are accusing me of thoughtcrime.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you devolve into lunatic rants like "almost all politicians are liars and sociopaths?" Do you actually know any politicians? Do you know any sociopaths?Quote:You were wise not to try to defend what governments actually do, like kill people and break things, make promises that they cannot keep, etc as I pointed out above. You are also wise not to try to defend politicians who are almost universally liars and sociopaths.
For someone who claims to have studied political theory, you're shamefully blind to the macroeconomic truth that the market process has already created those institutions. Do you think there's been some central planning organization in charge of the evolution of nations for the past 5000 years? Of course not, that all happened in precisely the anarcho-capitalist setting you think is ideal. And guess what? The output of that anarcho-capitalist process was the political structure of the nations around the world as you see it today. Governments arose anyway, despite there being no central planning. There is variance in their forms, to be sure, but virtually every human society on earth has a government -- even the indigenous peoples outside the reach of the modern world. You seem to think you can press the reset button on history and things will be different the next time around, but I've seen absolutely no evidence to support that contention. Do you have any? Point to a stable, anarcho-capitalist/libertarian regime anywhere on the planet. If you can, why aren't you living there? If you can't, why don't you see that as evidence that your theories aren't as practical as you believe?Quote:The answer is that if I could tell you exactly what these institutions would Look like, then the market would be unnecessary and a central planning model would be just as good. The market process is critical to amassing the information needed to create these institutions. If there is demand for something an entrepreneur will create it and the choices of consumers will shape how that product is delivered.
When less violent means of coercion have failed during the course of enforcement of breached contractual obligations. "Force" is literally central to the word "enforcement." If you think it's okay for a society to allow cheaters and thieves to simply get away with their crimes because you abhor all use of force, even for enforcement of contract, we'll just have to agree to disagree.Quote:Why don't you have the guts to lay your cards on the table about when you specifically support using a gun to take money from your neighbors to achieve your desired ends?
Neither you nor Albright nor the U.N. nor anybody or anything else has been able even to offer much of an explanation as to just how those supposed deaths were caused, by whom and how they were recorded to come up with any totals. Until anything approaching credible reportage is seen, this alleged calamity will have to continue to be regarded as extremely questionable in many aspects.Quote: bigfoot66Btw sancho the way you edited my comment in the quote is telling. You left off the part where I was pointing out that her attitude is the most important part. She said 500,000 dead children was worth it. That is the governments position and you must accept that this is the moral atrocity that you apparently support.
