Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

Quag · June 24, 2011

UTF I dont think you are a hypocrite I think you are very very very badly misinformed on the issues. You still refuse to deal with the question of choice. You claim you are forced to pay taxes then completely ignore me when I point out that your choices place you in a position to have to pay.

Shame you can't allow yourself to look beyond molyneux's confused view of the world and see it for how it actually is.

gvg thats quite a brick, will be a while before i have tiem to read it. Bill maher is really not the place to get information he is a comedian with a very definite left leaning, this places him on par with Colbert. Haven't seen all the links but my point wasn't just about is the 14% real it is also what it is based on gross vs net profits etc. So what I'm saying is it isn't just the number but how it is derived. The IRS link I assume will explain that, but again it's a brick and I prefer to read that much on paper rather than the screen.

gvg · June 24, 2011

Quag: Oh i understand, i just picked out that random bit quickly. That thing needs time to be studied. I'm surprised, though, that nobody has summarized it. Whatever.

And I knew that about Bill Maher, it's just that the other stuff he's said (as in facts, obviously his opinions are just that) I've been able to find as true. In fact, the only real videos i see against him are his opinons or those crazy zionist/truther things. His facts aren't disputed.

This isn't Fox News after all =)

Oh, and I love Colbert's show =) And the Daily show, that's another good one.

June 24, 2011

UTF I dont think you are a hypocrite I think you are very very very badly misinformed on the issues. You still refuse to deal with the question of choice. You claim you are forced to pay taxes then completely ignore me when I point out that your choices place you in a position to have to pay.

Shame you can't allow yourself to look beyond molyneux's confused view of the world and see it for how it actually is.

I'm really surprised by this response. To make sure I'm not missing something forget about our entire discussion on this issue for a moment (to avoid any false presumptions that either of us might have about what the other believes) and answer me this:

I pay money to support the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. I claim that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are immoral. Explain the apparent contradiction.

The way I see it, there are only two reasonable explanations: I pay for the wars despite the fact that I consider them immoral because...

1) I'm a hypocrite or

2) I'm coerced into paying for them against my will

Do you think there is another reasonable explanation other than the two above? If so, what is it? If not, which of the two explanations above do you believe to be the true explanation?

(Note: gvg and dawh: I wouldn't mind if you answered this as well as your positions on the subject still are not clear to me. Thanks.)

gvg · June 24, 2011

UtF: Well, Quag seems to be trying to show that you can, in a way, choose how much or if you pay taxes. I'll let him explain, because he obviously knows what he's saying better than i do =)

So to answer you question, I'm pretty sure it's what Quag is trying to say, that it is in a way voluntary. it's either that (which I am pretty sure it is, because as I stated before, many Americans who aren't in poverty don't pay taxes) or if he's wrong (i don't think so though) it's 2. I don't think you are a hypocrite.

gvg · June 24, 2011

Quag: I dunno if this graph has been shown yet (I've lost track honestly), but: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/the-tax-burden-around-the-developed-world/

The US is too low. Now, i dunno if its important that this graph shows it as a % of GDP.

Quag · June 24, 2011

I'm really surprised by this response. To make sure I'm not missing something forget about our entire discussion on this issue for a moment (to avoid any false presumptions that either of us might have about what the other believes) and answer me this:

I pay money to support the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. I claim that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are immoral. Explain the apparent contradiction.

The way I see it, there are only two reasonable explanations: I pay for the wars despite the fact that I consider them immoral because...
1) I'm a hypocrite or
2) I'm coerced into paying for them against my will

Do you think there is another reasonable explanation other than the two above? If so, what is it? If not, which of the two explanations above do you believe to be the true explanation?

yes UTF there is a 3rd option as gvg said it's the one i've been trying to point out. you CAN avoid paying taxes. You just need to make the right choices. I do not think you are a hypocrite I think you don't understand this simple fact. You need not be poor to avoid taxes either. Do you think 50% of americans are living in poverty? The middle class bears the brunt of taxes because they earn their living off of wages. It is very difficult to become rich merely earnign a wage. Stocks/real estate creating a buisness and other vehicules are how significant wealth is created. You pay no taxes on stock value or realestate value or a buisness worth increasing untill you sell it. Up to that time it is only potential profit. The rich learn how ot play around with this without ever making a prfoit but always increasing the value.

gvg graph is interesting but it doesnt necessarily correlate to taxation rates. As has been pointed out 50% dont pay find a way to get them to and you have increased the revenue to the govt without increasing the rate. as i just mentioned to UTF middle class carries the burden i see no point in increasing a rate even on the UBER rich if most of them can avoid paying anyway. I still think it should be under 50% for top rate.

heres a little exercise in math

say 1 rate system at 50% no tax on first 10k

person A makes 100k pays 45k taxes (100k-10k=90k, 90k/2=45k)

person B makes 50k pays 20k taxes (50k-10k=40k, 40k/2=20k)

person C makes 20k pays 5k taxes (20k-10k=10k, 10k/2=5k)

effective rates are:

A 45%

B 40%

C 20%

Person A makes most pays most and also largest percentage more person A makes closer they come to a true 50%, I know is a simple example but add a graduated 2,3,200 tier tax rate and same holds true.

June 24, 2011

Do I think that you are a hypocrite? Yes. But then, I think that I'm a hypocrite and probably Quag and gvg are hypocrites as well. Maybe not on this particular subject, but if you live in this world, chances are, you are a hypocrite about something. When you live in a world as large and complex as ours, you have to compromise your principles (a.k.a. be hypocritical) some of the time if you don't want your brain to explode. As to whether I think that you are a hypocrite on this issue, I don't really care enough to form an opinion.

This is more or less what I think curr3nt was saying with this post:

Or you could be like most of us and pretend the government uses the taxes we pay for what we want. The wars are being funded by the crazy taxpapers.

I only see three types of people who manage to live completely within their principles:

1) Miserable people who exist in the real world and complain bitterly about their predicament.

2) People who create their own bubbles of existence (e.g. the Amish, monastic orders, etc.).

3) People who have no principles* (i.e. sociopaths and psychopaths).

So if you want to be happy, as I see it, you have find some small bubble-world that adheres to your specific principles (not usually practical), have no principles (not a controllable variable), or figure out when and how to compromise your principles. If you have principles and and you don't live in a bubble, you have to deal with sub-optimal conditions and accept that some of the time, you can't get what you want. Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, if you always compromise your principles, you'll be just as miserable as if you never compromised them. Maturity (in my view) is learning when and how to compromise. And of course, you'll continue learning and changing this skill throughout your life.

As an example, I'm not a big fan of killing creatures. I would rather live and let live. But if I see a black widow in my house, I'd probably make an exception, since I also don't want to die a painful death. In that instance, I have to compromise my "Don't harm other creatures" principle to make way for the "I want to live" principle. Also, I eat animals, but I've never killed an animal that I've eaten. I don't think that I could, but because we are omnivores, I feel that we do need certain amounts of proteins (often found in animals), so I accept that allowing someone else to grow and kill an animal for me to eat is within my acceptable behaviors.

Taxation is a long way down my list of principles in terms of where I draw the line. As long as the taxes aren't driving people into mass poverty and indentured servitude (or worse), taxes aren't going to get my dander up. I'm quite happy to have the government "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" for the populace. If someone instead gave me my portion of that money and told me, "Here, you get to spend this on the common defense and the general welfare how you see fit," I probably wouldn't have a clue how to spend it. I'd have to give it to someone else, more well informed to make that decision for me. Ostensibly, that's what the State's already doing and they aren't making a profit off of it, so I'm contented to let it keep happening in the general sense.

Do I disagree with how the government spends some of the money it collects? Yes. But as it stands, I don't feel that they misspend it badly enough to warrant overruling my desire to live a comfortable life. I will endeavor to lobby the government to change its policies with which I disagree, but I accept that to live in a country of 330 million people, sometimes, I'm just not going to get what I want. :mellow: That's the price we pay for civilization.

I think that the best way to affect real change is to educate the public. Give them the tools to think for themselves and reason about their decisions (and the decisions made on their behalf). Which I why I support more money for public schooling. If everyone is receiving a quality education, then chances are, everyone will be making better decisions, and there will be less need for the more draconian government measures. The best way to eliminate the need for government is to make government work effectively. People have accused me of being a big government aficionado, but I don't care how big it is, I want it to be effective. As it stands, I feel that it needs to be fairly large to be effective. If I felt that government could be small enough for Grover Norquist to drown in his bathtub and still be effective, then I would support that form of government.

But as it stands, I don't. I feel that we need a bigger government which supports schooling for everyone. That way we can educate future generations to learn from our mistakes and endeavor to create a more perfect union, perhaps one that doesn't require such a large government.

* Note: using non-Aristotelian logic. Aristotle rejected the idea of evaluating the empty set as true. In Aristotelian logic, a person who has no principles cannot live within their principles. But I feel that the empty set is a valid set and therefore it should be considered in such discussions.

June 25, 2011

So to answer you question, I'm pretty sure it's what Quag is trying to say, that it is in a way voluntary. it's either that (which I am pretty sure it is, because as I stated before, many Americans who aren't in poverty don't pay taxes) or if he's wrong (i don't think so though) it's 2. I don't think you are a hypocrite.

yes UTF there is a 3rd option as gvg said it's the one i've been trying to point out. you CAN avoid paying taxes. You just need to make the right choices. I do not think you are a hypocrite I think you don't understand this simple fact. You need not be poor to avoid taxes either.

Okay, so you all seem to be in the same boat (Dawh included).

So I said either that:

1) I am voluntarily (i.e. free from coercion) funding that which I deem immoral and this makes me a hypocrite or

2) I am funding that which I deem immoral against my will (i.e. not voluntarily) because I am being coerced into funding it

Quag, gvg, and dawh added:

3) I voluntarily (i.e. free from coercion) funding that which I deem immoral and yet this does not make me a hypocrite

Of course this is absurd. The only reason why I would voluntarily support that which I don't support is because I'm a hypocrite or because I'm ignorant of the fact that my money is supporting things that I claim not to support. As I knowingly give my money to the government with full knowledge that my money is helping to fund the immoral wars that I am so strongly opposed to, this certainly isn't the case.

One or more of you may say that there is another reason why I might voluntarily pay for something that I don't support other than the ignorance reason, which is that it is for the "greater good." For example, if Mr. Koch said, "Hey gvg (or Quag, or dawh), if you take this gun and shoot this random innocent person who doesn't want you to shoot him despite my deal, I'll give $100,000,000 to the charitable organizations of your choice." You could certainly argue from a utilitarian perspective that you should kill the person for the "greater good" of society. Despite how strongly opposed you might be to killing this person, you might argue that it's good anyways because of the $100,000,000 that will go to charity and will perhaps save many peoples lives. Now I certainly wouldn't take this deal even if I was allowed to subcontract the job of shooting the innocent person to someone else so I didn't have to be the person to directly be the murderer. But, some of you (dawh most likely) who may support this notion of the "greater good" would be willing to kill an innocent person against their will in order to help a bunch of other people.

Dawh said, "Do I disagree with how the government spends some of the money it collects? Yes. But as it stands, I don't feel that they misspend it badly enough to warrant overruling my desire to live a comfortable life." If "my desire to live a comfortable life" is close enough in meaning to "the greater good" then I think dawh at the very least is one of the people who would support murdering the random person for Mr. Koch's $100,000,000 to charity in the above example.

If dawh or any of you support the government despite the government's immoral wars because of this "greater good" idea, please say so.

As for the issue at hand though, I do NOT think that the government is a "greater good" so even if I was one of those crazy utilitarians who would murder an innocent person to receive Mr. Koch's $100,000,000 for charity I still wouldn't support the government with all of its goodness because I don't think (unlike Dawh apparently) that the goods of the government outweigh the bads of the government. So even if I was a utilitarian I would still choose to NOT pay my taxes (if the choice was really free from coercion as you all say it is).

So the "greater good" utilitarian reason (a reason that I disagree with) still wouldn't explain why I would voluntarily pay my taxes due to the fact that even if I was a utilitarian, I still don't consider the government a "great good" institution--i.e. I think the government hurts society more than it helps society. So while this might explain why some of you (e.g. Dawh) support the government despite the fact that you don't support how it spends some of its money on immoral wars, this still doesn't work as an explanation for why I would voluntarily pay my money to the government.

So I pay my taxes to to the government despite the things that the government does that I consider immoral not because of ignorance and not because of this utilitarian idea of the "greater good," so what's left? Coercion? Yet you all still maintain that I pay my money to the government voluntarily.

To deal with what I think Quag's confusion is now:

So quag says that by choosing to have a different income or by choosing not to buy food at a restaurant in a state with a sales tax on meals or by choosing not to sell meals in a state with a sales tax on meals, etc, I can avoid paying taxes. I agree with you--you're absolutely right.

You're still missing the point though that the government still initiates force against me. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that by choosing to live where I live and make the income that I make and sell food at a restaurant in a geographic area where a state imposes a sale tax on meals, etc, I am receiving the government's benefits and thus must pay the government my taxes in the same way that if I eat a meal at a restaurant I must pay the restaurant what they charge me because I am receiving the benefits of the restaurant's meal that they served me (Correct me if this is a wrong interpretation of your position).

If I go eat at a restaurant and then don't pay, you would say that when the restaurant manager forcefully holds me back and forces me to pay anyways, that is a fine thing to do. In fact I would agree with you that the restaurant manager would not be initiating force against me despite the fact that he is using force against me. This is because I would be eating his property without buying it from him on the agreed upon menu price. (Note: In a stateless society I would of course still support non-violent ways of dealing with these petty criminals... i.e. if someone didn't pay for the meal that he ate at my restaurant, I wouldn't use force against him to make him pay, but rather would report him to my DRO). The government taxation thing differs from this restaurant meal bill thing though, because the government does not own my land (property taxes) or the wealth I make by trading with others (income/sales taxes) whereas the restaurant does own the food that it sells me. So of course I should have to pay for the meal that I eat because the person serving the meal owns the meal until I buy it from him. I shouldn't have to pay the government any money though because the government doesn't own my land that my house is on and doesn't own a portion of the meal that I buy at a restaurant (sales tax on meals reference). So it's certainly not the same thing. By saying I'm choosing to live how I live and saying that gives the government the right to tax me with force is not the same as saying that I choose to eat a restaurant giving the restaurant owner the right to collect the payment of my meal bill with force.

June 27, 2011

Dawh said, "Do I disagree with how the government spends some of the money it collects? Yes. But as it stands, I don't feel that they misspend it badly enough to warrant overruling my desire to live a comfortable life." If "my desire to live a comfortable life" is close enough in meaning to "the greater good" then I think dawh at the very least is one of the people who would support murdering the random person for Mr. Koch's $100,000,000 to charity in the above example.

I don't particularly like to have words put in my mouth... :rolleyes: I'm also not quite sure how "live a comfortable life" translates into "greater good." In the context, they seem to be presenting opposite views. :wacko: This is part of the inherent contradictions in life. I've been arguing for a more pure ideology than I actually follow. My goal is to care for my needs, while keeping an eye on the bigger picture as well. Your goal seems to be simply to care for your needs, everyone else be damned. Society only works with compromise and you have to learn how to deal with situations as they arise. In practice, I'm as utilitarian as I need to be without being as utilitarian as I could be. The ability to adapt to changing circumstances is the most important attribute for living in society, as I see it.

To deal with what I think Quag's confusion is now:

So quag says that by choosing to have a different income or by choosing not to buy food at a restaurant in a state with a sales tax on meals or by choosing not to sell meals in a state with a sales tax on meals, etc, I can avoid paying taxes. I agree with you--you're absolutely right.

You're still missing the point though that the government still initiates force against me. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that by choosing to live where I live and make the income that I make and sell food at a restaurant in a geographic area where a state imposes a sale tax on meals, etc, I am receiving the government's benefits and thus must pay the government my taxes in the same way that if I eat a meal at a restaurant I must pay the restaurant what they charge me because I am receiving the benefits of the restaurant's meal that they served me (Correct me if this is a wrong interpretation of your position).

If I go eat at a restaurant and then don't pay, you would say that when the restaurant manager forcefully holds me back and forces me to pay anyways, that is a fine thing to do. In fact I would agree with you that the restaurant manager would not be initiating force against me despite the fact that he is using force against me. This is because I would be eating his property without buying it from him on the agreed upon menu price. (Note: In a stateless society I would of course still support non-violent ways of dealing with these petty criminals... i.e. if someone didn't pay for the meal that he ate at my restaurant, I wouldn't use force against him to make him pay, but rather would report him to my DRO). The government taxation thing differs from this restaurant meal bill thing though, because the government does not own my land (property taxes) or the wealth I make by trading with others (income/sales taxes) whereas the restaurant does own the food that it sells me. So of course I should have to pay for the meal that I eat because the person serving the meal owns the meal until I buy it from him. I shouldn't have to pay the government any money though because the government doesn't own my land that my house is on and doesn't own a portion of the meal that I buy at a restaurant (sales tax on meals reference). So it's certainly not the same thing. By saying I'm choosing to live how I live and saying that gives the government the right to tax me with force is not the same as saying that I choose to eat a restaurant giving the restaurant owner the right to collect the payment of my meal bill with force.

Who owned your land before you did? :huh: You aren't omnipresent (at least I don't think that you are :unsure: ), so someone owned the land you "own" before you did. How did they get the land? If you trace the deed back to its origin, it was probably issued by the government, so you only truly control the land you "own" because the government says that you can. Without government, how would land deeds be decided? There's nothing intrinsic to humanity that says that we must own property. The Native Americans (and most indigenous tribes) had no concept of ownership before the Europeans invaded. So ownership isn't guaranteed. It's only an abstract concept that we've developed for ease of interaction with other people.

Ownership can't exist outside of societal grounds because there is no basis for it in nature. Animals may control territory, but I wouldn't call that "ownership," would you? Ownership is a human construct and is therefore under the jurisdiction of whatever regulatory entity we create. In America, you only own property because you bought it from the government (how ever far removed you were from the original purchase is unimportant). If you lived on an island by yourself, with no knowledge of any other human being, would you "own" the island and everything on it? If there is no one to take the island from you, what purpose would the word "property" have? Property can only exist when there is more than one person.

And regarding the restaurant sales tax, for one thing, the restaurant has an agreement with the government (at some level) regarding its right to sell food to the populace, so they are dependent on the government for permission to sell. That's a gross oversimplification of how the system works (and possibly inaccurate as I'm posting extemporaneously ), but that's one view of how I see it. And even if it isn't entirely accurate, chances are that getting the food from the farm to your table used public resources somewhere along the way. If the truck that delivered the goods drove on public roads, then the government subsidized your meal and you should pay for that subsidization.

Quag · June 27, 2011

So quag says that by choosing to have a different income or by choosing not to buy food at a restaurant in a state with a sales tax on meals or by choosing not to sell meals in a state with a sales tax on meals, etc, I can avoid paying taxes. I agree with you--you're absolutely right.

So you admit that you are not FORCED to pay taxes, that you in fact CHOOSE to pay them?

June 27, 2011

One thing that I want to address is the ridiculous notion that because a person makes more money than someone else (or they are wealthier), then they are "more productive." The middle class is by far the most productive part of society and it's shrinking fast because the people at the top are swallowing a larger and larger piece of the economic pie. I don't see how a CEO that makes $5 million a year in stock options is productive. Most of the largest companies are so big that one CEO really can't change the company's success without serious effort. It wouldn't matter if the Waltons ran Wal-Mart and Sam's Club or if Mickey Mouse ran it. Wal-Mart and Sam's Club would continue to be profitable just the same because the economics of their situation favors them.

In particular, the Koch brothers and the Waltons inherited their wealth for their "productive" fathers, so they really aren't part of the "productive class" anyway. They continue to rake in money from their fathers' success. They could survive off their current fortunes for many generations without working a day in their lives if they wanted to do so. Considering that they were all born into opulence, it's difficult to gauge their actual productivity simply based upon their personal wealth. :dry:

Going back to one of UtF's quotes:

"When you say that I want to 'leave everyone to fend for themselves in the State of Nature' you again sound like you don't think anyone is charitable. The 'State of Nature' isn't a bad place at all; it's just a place where less-productive people can't threaten more-productive people with violence if the more-productive people don't give them health care and other goods and services. This doesn't mean that the more-productive people can't be charitable by voluntarily giving the less-productive people health care."

The implication of the quote is that the people who make (or have) more money are somehow more productive than the "less-productive," who are somehow mooching on the system. In my view, the amount of money you make has very little to do in relation to your actual productivity in society. People who are forced to work multiple jobs just to keep their families afloat are the most productive people in society, but because their work is generally not valued as highly (though society couldn't function without it), they are "less-productive" and they are worthy of scorn. :angry: That's more or less what the utopian, anarcho-libertarian argument boils down to. The moneyed classes deserve their money and they can charitably support the working class, if they feel like it, but they have no obligation to the working class upon whose backs they likely gained their status. I find that argument to be wholly specious.

From the article I linked above:

The enormity of this increase in executive compensation is reinforced by a new study that examines the proxy statements and financial filings of the companies that make up the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. Issued by the independent research firm R.G. Associates and titled "S. & P. 500 Executive Pay: Bigger Than… Whatever You Think It is," the report finds that among the 483 companies they were able to analyze, the pay of 2591 executives was up 13.9 percent in 2010. Total, before taxes: $14.3 billion, almost equal to the GDP of Tajikistan, population: more than seven million.

When you have such a small portion of the population taking so much of the world's wealth (greater than the entire GDP of many nations), you need some entity to balance that amount of power. There's no denying that money and power are proportionally linked, but the goal of society (and government) should be lower that proportionality constant to help those at the bottom (upon whom all the rest of society depends) coexist peacefully with those at that top.

/end rant

June 29, 2011

Me: "So quag says that by choosing to have a different income or by choosing not to buy food at a restaurant in a state with a sales tax on meals or by choosing not to sell meals in a state with a sales tax on meals, etc, I can avoid paying taxes. I agree with you--you're absolutely right."

So you admit that you are not FORCED to pay taxes, that you in fact CHOOSE to pay them?

No! Didn't you read my next few sentences?

If I hold a gun to your head and say, "Give me all of your money or else I'll shoot you," do you admit that you are not FORCED to give me your money, that you in fact CHOOSE to give me your money? This is exactly what you're saying and it's complete nonsense. If you really can't understand the difference between someone doing something voluntarily and someone doing something because they were forced to or were threatened with force to, then you really need to get checked out.

June 29, 2011

Your goal seems to be simply to care for your needs, everyone else be damned.

Other way around. I don't particularly like to have words put in my mouth either. I'm the one advocating the non-aggression principle whereas you seem to not mind damning other people by threatening them with violent force to take their money against their will. If anything I'd say you're the one who seems to only care for your own needs, everyone else who you threaten with violence be damned.

Who owned your land before you did? You aren't omnipresent (at least I don't think that you are ), so someone owned the land you "own" before you did. How did they get the land? If you trace the deed back to its origin, it was probably issued by the government, so you only truly control the land you "own" because the government says that you can. Without government, how would land deeds be decided? There's nothing intrinsic to humanity that says that we must own property. The Native Americans (and most indigenous tribes) had no concept of ownership before the Europeans invaded. So ownership isn't guaranteed. It's only an abstract concept that we've developed for ease of interaction with other people.

Ownership can't exist outside of societal grounds because there is no basis for it in nature. Animals may control territory, but I wouldn't call that "ownership," would you? Ownership is a human construct and is therefore under the jurisdiction of whatever regulatory entity we create. In America, you only own property because you bought it from the government (how ever far removed you were from the original purchase is unimportant). If you lived on an island by yourself, with no knowledge of any other human being, would you "own" the island and everything on it? If there is no one to take the island from you, what purpose would the word "property" have? Property can only exist when there is more than one person.

This is an important issue, but before we get off track, may I ask what does this have to do with the need for a coercive state? More specifically, why do you think we need a coercive state to forcibly tax me to violently enforce my land ownership? I'm aware that the idea of property and ownership isn't intrinsic in nature, or anything like that, but we of course both acknowledge that it's a useful concept to have. Where we disagree though apparently is whether or not a coercive state is necessary to enforce peoples' property. Do we need a state to violently enforce the idea that I own X, Y, and Z and you own A, B, and C? If there's a disagreement as to what I own and what I don't own, do we need a state to violently enforce the idea that I own it or don't? I don't think we do, especially if that state has to initiate coercion against me to collect money from me against my will to fund it's property enforcement services.

And regarding the restaurant sales tax, for one thing, the restaurant has an agreement with the government (at some level) regarding its right to sell food to the populace, so they are dependent on the government for permission to sell.

What??? No. Just no. If I make some food and want to sell it to someone else I don't have to go ask for the permission of a group of people with guns. If you think I do we're really still living in two completely different worlds and I don't see how we're going to make any more progress on this stuff if we disagree on such fundamental things. Seriously: I own A and you own B. If I wish to give you my A for your B and you wish to give me your B for my A then we can trade freely and voluntarily. We do not have to get any other person's permission for us to make the trade, no matter how many guns they have. If they demand a certain percentage of your B that I receive when I give you my A (a meal, say), I do not have to give it to them. They can threaten me with all the force in the world, but their initiation of violence is still wrong. The only reasonable way that I can conceive of you saying it isn't wrong would be if you dispute the fact I actually own A or that you own B. If A is a lovely meal that I've prepared for you with food that I've grown myself or honestly obtained by trading with others who got the food honestly, and B is money that you honestly made or some other good or service that you own honestly, however, then I don't see how you could reasonably dispute that I own A or that you own B. I know that property rights aren't intrinsic, but if you think that the state owns a portion of the things that I claim I own 100% (such as the meal A that I produced for you) then we'll just have to leave this discussion in disagreement because there's no way that I would ever be swayed to such an absurd position. The government has no claim of ownership to the things that I produce. I own A and you own B. We do not have to get the permission of a group of people claiming the legal right to initiate violence to trade them voluntarily. The state has no right to tax my restaurant.

June 29, 2011

One thing that I want to address is the ridiculous notion that because a person makes more money than someone else (or they are wealthier), then they are "more productive." The middle class is by far the most productive part of society and it's shrinking fast because the people at the top are swallowing a larger and larger piece of the economic pie. I don't see how a CEO that makes $5 million a year in stock options is productive. Most of the largest companies are so big that one CEO really can't change the company's success without serious effort. It wouldn't matter if the Waltons ran Wal-Mart and Sam's Club or if Mickey Mouse ran it. Wal-Mart and Sam's Club would continue to be profitable just the same because the economics of their situation favors them.

In particular, the Koch brothers and the Waltons inherited their wealth for their "productive" fathers, so they really aren't part of the "productive class" anyway. They continue to rake in money from their fathers' success. They could survive off their current fortunes for many generations without working a day in their lives if they wanted to do so. Considering that they were all born into opulence, it's difficult to gauge their actual productivity simply based upon their personal wealth.

It was just a generalization. If I make something, for example, and sell it to someone for money, I have more money than I would if I didn't make that thing. If I offer to snap my fingers for anyone willing to give me a million dollars and then someone takes me up on the offer by giving me a million dollars, have I been "productive"? All I did was snap my fingers, but the million dollars I made for it is a measure of productivity.

Going back to one of UtF's quotes:

"When you say that I want to 'leave everyone to fend for themselves in the State of Nature' you again sound like you don't think anyone is charitable. The 'State of Nature' isn't a bad place at all; it's just a place where less-productive people can't threaten more-productive people with violence if the more-productive people don't give them health care and other goods and services. This doesn't mean that the more-productive people can't be charitable by voluntarily giving the less-productive people health care."

The implication of the quote is that the people who make (or have) more money are somehow more productive than the "less-productive," who are somehow mooching on the system. In my view, the amount of money you make has very little to do in relation to your actual productivity in society. People who are forced to work multiple jobs just to keep their families afloat are the most productive people in society, but because their work is generally not valued as highly (though society couldn't function without it), they are "less-productive" and they are worthy of scorn. That's more or less what the utopian, anarcho-libertarian argument boils down to. The moneyed classes deserve their money and they can charitably support the working class, if they feel like it, but they have no obligation to the working class upon whose backs they likely gained their status. I find that argument to be wholly specious.

Just to clarify, the "more-productive" and "less-productive" in my quote were just generalizations of the fact that the government tends to tax rich people a lot and poor people little to not at all. In reality the government claims the right to initiate violence against anyone, even the poor, not just the wealthy, to collect money from them.

"The implication of the quote is that the people who make (or have) more money are somehow more productive than the "less-productive," who are somehow mooching on the system."

Certainly due to the fact that the interactions are voluntary. If I snap my fingers for you for the price of $1,000,000 and you voluntarily give me that money for my finger-snapping service, then yes, I, with my $1,000,000, am $1,000,000 more productive than someone else who made only $10,000 by working long hard days every day working at McDonald's or something. The value of things that people produce is subjective so the only way that I can see for how we can objectively measure it is by using the monetary value that they obtain for what they produce in voluntary trades with other people. So now, to continue with your correctly stated implication, if the McDonald's worker votes to have the state point a gun at me to give up some of my million dollars to redistribute it to the poor McDonald's worker, then yes, the less-productive McDonald's worker is mooching off the system (where the system is the violent coercive state).

"In my view, the amount of money you make has very little to do in relation to your actual productivity in society."

I'm sure we would both agree that the McDonald's worker is more "productive" than the person who snaps their fingers once for a million dollars, but the amount of value that we give to the McDonald's worker's production vs the finger-snapper's production is subjective and so while subjectively we may both think the McDonald's worker is more productive, for the sake of my generalized statement of who the government seizes wealth from and who it redistributes that wealth to ("It's just a place where less-productive people can't threaten more-productive people with violence if the more-productive people don't give them health care and other goods and services"), I was going by the more objective measure of the value of what people produce that we have, which is how much money they make by selling what they produce.

"People who are forced to work multiple jobs just to keep their families afloat are the most productive people in society, but because their work is generally not valued as highly (though society couldn't function without it), they are "less-productive" and they are worthy of scorn."

I disagree. A person working multiple jobs at McDonald's and Burger King, for example, barely making enough money to support their family isn't more productive than another person making $100,000 a year as an engineer or doctor, for example. I agree with you that people living in poverty are more likely to voluntarily accept lower wages for a job because of their desperate situations, but I don't think that the way to get them out of accepting those low wages is by pointing guns at the people who hire them for the low wages forcing them to give some of the money that they make back to the poor people working for "low" wages. It's important to note that while the poor person did accept the low wage only because they desperately wanted a job, they did accept it voluntarily and so using force against the wealthier employer to take some of the money that the employer makes is still completely unacceptable.

"That's more or less what the utopian, anarcho-libertarian argument boils down to. The moneyed classes deserve their money and they can charitably support the working class, if they feel like it, but they have no obligation to the working class upon whose backs they likely gained their status."

So what are you suggesting? That we point guns at the employer-class to redistribute some of their wealth back to the poor working class that unfortunately voluntarily agreed to work for the employer for an agreed-upon wage? I certainly would disagree with doing that.

From the article I linked above:
"The enormity of this increase in executive compensation is reinforced by a new study that examines the proxy statements and financial filings of the companies that make up the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. Issued by the independent research firm R.G. Associates and titled "S. & P. 500 Executive Pay: Bigger Than… Whatever You Think It is," the report finds that among the 483 companies they were able to analyze, the pay of 2591 executives was up 13.9 percent in 2010. Total, before taxes: $14.3 billion, almost equal to the GDP of Tajikistan, population: more than seven million."

When you have such a small portion of the population taking so much of the world's wealth (greater than the entire GDP of many nations), you need some entity to balance that amount of power. There's no denying that money and power are proportionally linked, but the goal of society (and government) should be lower that proportionality constant to help those at the bottom (upon whom all the rest of society depends) coexist peacefully with those at that top.

Again, those very wealthy people obtained their money through voluntary trades. Even if you think that they got so rich because they exploited poor people's unfortunate circumstances, I still strongly condemn you for initiating force against them to take some of their money. There are many non-violent ways of dealing with the fact that many poor working class people voluntarily accept wages that you deem unfairly low that I would look at before raising the gun at the employers to demand some of their money.

Quag · June 29, 2011

Me: "So quag says that by choosing to have a different income or by choosing not to buy food at a restaurant in a state with a sales tax on meals or by choosing not to sell meals in a state with a sales tax on meals, etc, I can avoid paying taxes. I agree with you--you're absolutely right."

Quag, on 27 June 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

So you admit that you are not FORCED to pay taxes, that you in fact CHOOSE to pay them?

No! Didn't you read my next few sentences?

If I hold a gun to your head and say, "Give me all of your money or else I'll shoot you," do you admit that you are not FORCED to give me your money, that you in fact CHOOSE to give me your money? This is exactly what you're saying and it's complete nonsense. If you really can't understand the difference between someone doing something voluntarily and someone doing something because they were forced to or were threatened with force to, then you really need to get checked out.

Again UTF you refuse to see that your CHOICES put yuu in a position that forces you to pay taxes. IT is EXACTLTY like the Walmart analogy. You want to avoid taxes then make the choices that exclude you from paying them. No one has a gun at your head saying live hear and work at this job. the only gun is the one you are pointing at yourself. Untill you realize that I will continue to point out to everyone that your premise is completely based on you WANTING all the advantages of scoiety while you deny any OBLIGATION to that society. Again you are the one who wishes to partake in theft not the govt.

Stop pretending there is a gun to your head YOU put it there not me, not the govt, YOU

Everything else you say is irrelevant as your premise is so far off base, though like I said before every part of your program will lead only to dictatorship of some kind.

Quag · June 29, 2011

I'll try again the bar anaology, as it really is best,

There is a bar, 2 drink minimum.

the bar is society. the 2 drinks rule, taxes. drinks are active services, music, lighting etc are passive services. Just so you know what the anaolgy means.

You say you don't want a drink, it is theft to make you buy it, because if you dont I will threaten violence against you. really why the rules are clear you can leave if you like. the bar requires money to pay the Dj, entertainment staff why should you not have to pay?

You claim you dont want to listen to the music that I force you to? really? why? you can leave?

You wish to stay at the bar becaue it is fun and people are there, you don't want the music, drinks. Fair enough, but most people are there for the music, drinks etc. If you take away the building, bar, music, lights, heating/cooling. etc you just have an empty field where no one goes. You want to live in a field go ahead but don't claim I am forcing you to live there or that I am forcing you to buy the 2 drinks. The CHOICE is yours and yours alone.

June 29, 2011

Again UTF you refuse to see that your CHOICES put yuu in a position that forces you to pay taxes. IT is EXACTLTY like the Walmart analogy. You want to avoid taxes then make the choices that exclude you from paying them. No one has a gun at your head saying live hear and work at this job. the only gun is the one you are pointing at yourself.

The group of people with guns that is the state doesn't own the land that my house is on--I do. Walmart owns the products in its stores. Therefore, when the government threatens me with violence if I don't pay property taxes for the land that my house is on, that is NOT at all equivalent to Walmart threatening me with violence if I walk out of the store with a bunch of their products without paying for them (because I own my land, not the government and Walmart owns their products, not me).

If you think that it's okay for tax-collecting / "law" enforcement people to use violence against you for choosing to live on your property as the government does, then similarly I can demand that you give me some of your money for choosing to live on your property and threaten you with violence if you refuse. I own your land no less than the government owns it--neither me nor the government owns it: you own it. It's wrong for me or the government to threaten you with violence to collect money from you simply because you choose to live on your property.

Stop pretending there is a gun to your head YOU put it there not me, not the govt, YOU

So if I threaten you with violence if you don't pay me some money, how would you respond? For clarification, YOU CHOSE to live on your property, NOT me, so it's entirely you're fault that I'm threatening you with violence right now if you don't pay me some money. It's your CHOICE that I'm threatening you with violence if you don't pay me, not mine (note: I'm not actually threatening you with violence; it's just for the sake of the argument).

So for summary of this whole post: If I were to do the same thing to you as the government does to you (collect property taxes at gun point) would you still blame yourself for me taxing you because you chose to live on your property or would you now say that I was initiating force against you, unlike the government? If you would say that I would be initiating force against you, unlike the government, please explain what the difference is. I don't see a difference as I believe that you own your property, not the government and not me so either me or the government trying to collect property taxes from you with force would be immoral in my view.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Use the Force

Quag · June 30, 2011

What flavor is the Kool Aid you drink?

Seriously there is no point in trying to make you see reason, none of your arguemnts have had anything to do with logic only dogma. You are like the bible thumpers who claim the world is 6k years old because it says so in the bible. they can't tell you exactly where but they are 100% sure of this.

If you dont like living in society leave. If you wish to stay then expect to pay. You recieve govt services both active and passive you recieve them because you choose to to live in society. If you wish to not pay then you have no right to any of the advantages society offers.

June 30, 2011

It appears that at last I was clear and concise enough in my argument that Quag could no longer put together a decent attempt at a rebuttal.

Originally Quag claimed:

Again UTF you refuse to see that your CHOICES put yuu in a position that forces you to pay taxes. IT is EXACTLTY like the Walmart analogy. You want to avoid taxes then make the choices that exclude you from paying them.

If my government owned my property then it would be reasonable for the government to use force to collect property taxes from me in the same sense that it would be reasonable for Walmart to use force to make me pay for the goods that I take from their store because Walmart owns those goods. Quag's argument would stand.

However, the government does not own my property--I do--and so I countered Quag's claim by pointing this out as the reason why the government cannot morally use force against me to collect property taxes from me.

As this is such a blatant distinction between the government using force to collect property taxes (I own my property) from me and Walmart using force to collect payment for their goods that I take from their store (I do not own Walmart's goods), my guess is that Quag couldn't find a way to deny this without blatantly contradicting himself and so he chose to just avoid it by instead saying:

Seriously there is no point in trying to make you see reason, none of your arguemnts have had anything to do with logic only dogma.

Okay then, Quag, whatever you say.

A side note: By the way, for all reading this, I have finally realized that the main mistake I have made in this whole thread is that I have been arguing to try to change the positions of my opponents rather than arguing for the sake of the spectators observing the discussion. A lot of what I said in this thread is indeed rubbish largely because I was just trying to persuade my opponents rather than present my arguments to stand for themselves, to support the positions that I advocate and to point out the errors in the positions that others were advocating. I should never for a moment have tried to persuade any of you to change your views. I should have just presented my arguments and let others present theirs and then allow any onlookers to see all the arguments and decide for themselves what positions made the most sense. Even if there are no spectators, I think taking this approach would have made me produce far better arguments that would have made for a better discussion.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Use the Force

June 30, 2011

If you dont like living in society leave. If you wish to stay then expect to pay. You recieve govt services both active and passive you recieve them because you choose to to live in society. If you wish to not pay then you have no right to any of the advantages society offers.

A flaw with this reasoning is that "society" is made out to be one big single clump of things that the government owns. If you wish to live in the government's "society" then surely you should have to pay the government's price to live in "society," right? It would make sense, except that the government owns no "society." In other words, the group of people with guns calling themselves a state claim ownership of a "society" spanning the geographic United States, but in reality they don't actually own any "society." They claim the right to tax me for living in their "society" when really it is I who owns my land, not them. Because I own the land that my house is on, not the people with guns calling themselves a state, their attempts to collect property taxes from me are illegitimate.

Also, any claim by the people with guns calling themselves a state that I have to pay them because I benefit from the wars and other "services" that they provide is similarly illegitimate. Just because I benefit from their services doesn't mean I have to pay for the services. To see why this is true, imagine that some other people declare themselves a state and provide you with services. Even though you would benefit from their services, would you have to pay for them? For example, if I were to declare myself a state (with a 100 mile radius, say) and then went on to give welfare to the poor people in my state and fight wars with people that I claim are a threat to the safety of the people living in my 200-mile diameter state, etc, this would not give me a right to forcefully collect money from the people living in my state despite the fact that they benefit from my services. In other words, it would be an illegitimate justification of my forceful collection of money from them to say that they they have to pay me to live in my state because they benefit from my services both actively and passively. I could even argue that they were free to leave my state, but because they chose to stay and benefit from my services then they have to pay me and that would still not be a legitimate justification of my forceful collection of money from them. The reason why this is so is, once again, because the people in my state own the land that they live on, not me. Also, any benefits that they may receive from my services is my fault, not theirs. They didn't say, "Hey, UtF State, if you go fight a war against those people to defend us from possible terrorist attacks we'll pay you such and such amount of money." Rather, I would have just gone and fought the war to try to defend them without first giving them a price or even asking them if they wanted the war and then would have gone up to them afterwards and demanded payment for something that they never even asked for. Clearly they would not have to pay me for fighting such a war, even a war in the name of their safety. A similar analogy to explain this would be if you cleaned up your mother's whole house for her birthday and then pulled a gun on her afterwards, demanding she pay you for your services. Your mother wouldn't have stolen your cleaning services, but rather you would have thrust your beneficial cleaning services upon her either against her will or at a price that she was not willing to pay for. You would have no argument that "But, mother, you benefited from my services so you have to pay me my price!" So similarly I would not be able to argue that the people living in my state had to pay me for the welfare and wars (etc) that I provide for them, even if they benefited from them actively or passively.

June 30, 2011

A government is not a person and a person is not a government.

Modern government is an agreement. It's a social contract written up and duly agreed upon by its citizens to provide services and take actions beyond the ability of individuals. Even though not everyone in this country has signed the Constitution, the government was formed to encompass all people living within its borders (note: its borders). Upon becoming an adult, you have the self-determination to remain in this state and continue to abide by its laws, or you can choose to find a place more hospitable to your views. It's your choice.

The United States government owns the land in this country and you "own" "your" land because you bought a government-issued deed to it (even if you didn't buy the deed directly from the government, someone did). So the US government owns the land in this country and you lease it from them (more or less). That's the reality of the situation which is what I've been arguing for the last page. I'm not talking hypothetically here. I'm talking about what actually happens in this society in which you and I live. If you don't like it, you can leave. That's your option: Love it or leave it (or change it*).

And if we really want to talk about choice, even when someone puts a gun to your head, you have a choice. You can choose to be coerced, or you can choose to get shot. By your definition of voluntary, unless someone goes and directly mind-controls your actions, anything you do will be entirely voluntary. If a poor person has the choice of starving at the brutal, violent hands of Mother Nature or buying cheap crap from Wal-Mart, they can choose to starve, or they can choose to live. By your arguments, choosing to live is a voluntary action on their part. So why isn't it voluntary when someone holds a gun to your head? :huh:

* But you won't change it by whining that it's illegitimate. It's considered legitimate by 100s of millions of people (if not billions), so your (and Molyneux's) objections don't carry much weight. Come back to me when you've convinced a billion people that the US government is illegitimate. Then we'll talk. :rolleyes:

July 3, 2011

A government is not a person and a person is not a government.

Actually, governments are just groups of people as are mafias, companies, families, etc. If it's wrong for an individual to initiate violence against anyone then it's wrong for a family to initiate violence against anyone and if it's wrong for a company to initiate violence against someone and if it's wrong for a mafia to initiate violence against anyone and its wrong for governments to initiate violence against someone. A group of people doesn't get any moral privileges whether it be a family, company, mafia, or state. All of these groups of people are still just collections of individuals and therefore it's still wrong for any individual in any of the groups to initiate violence against anyone.

Modern government is an agreement. It's a social contract written up and duly agreed upon by its citizens to provide services and take actions beyond the ability of individuals. Even though not everyone in this country has signed the Constitution, the government was formed to encompass all people living within its borders (note: its borders).

There is no such social contract. It seems hypocritical of you to acknowledge that the government doesn't have the consent of many people and yet pretend that it does anyways by saying there is a "social contract" between them and these people representing the peoples' consent. There is no such contract. I never expressed any consent for the government to use violence against me so if an individual in the government does initiate violence against me (as they do regularly whenever they threaten me to pay taxes) then they're breaking the NAP. It doesn't matter that they hail from a group of people called the state that claim the legal right to use violence against people in a geographic region--they're still individuals initiating violence against me.

"Even though not everyone in this country has signed the Constitution, the government was formed to encompass all people living within its borders (note: its borders)."

If I and my family and friends come together and write up and sign a document giving ourselves the legal right to use violence against people in a geographic region around where we live, I could say the exact same thing to you. Even though not everyone in the region recognizes our government or gives us their consent to use violent force against them to seize their property, we would have formed our state to encompass all the people living near us within the new country's borders.

Your reasoning is fallacious--just because a group of people in a geographic declare themselves a state and claim the legal right to use violence against people in their state (including the people who don't recognize the state or give their consent to the state to allow the state to use force against them) doesn't suddenly make it moral for any of these people to initiate force against other people.

Upon becoming an adult, you have the self-determination to remain in this state and continue to abide by its laws, or you can choose to find a place more hospitable to your views. It's your choice.

The same goes for you regarding the hypothetical state that my friends, family, and I might declare exists covering a geographic region that includes you and your house. If you're not okay with us initiating violence against you then you can choose to move out and find a place more hospitable to your views. It's your choice.

So again, your attempted justification of your/the state's use of violence/coercion/force against people is erroneous. It's still wrong to initiate violence against people, even if you and some other people declare yourselves a state and claim the right to initiate force against others living near you.

The United States government owns the land in this country and you "own" "your" land because you bought a government-issued deed to it (even if you didn't buy the deed directly from the government, someone did). So the US government owns the land in this country and you lease it from them (more or less). That's the reality of the situation which is what I've been arguing for the last page. I'm not talking hypothetically here. I'm talking about what actually happens in this society in which you and I live. If you don't like it, you can leave. That's your option: Love it or leave it (or change it*).

Aha! So you finally admit that you think the group of people with guns who call themselves the state own the land that I live on! Well I certainly disagree--I own my land and all of my other property. I can't imagine what makes you think that you and the other statists living in the geographic United States own my land or any of my other property.

A similarly absurd view would be the view that the mafia owns the land in the cities that they terrorize or that a stranger owns the land that your house is on simply because the stranger declares that he owns it. If you really think it's okay for the mafia to point their guns at the people living in the cities that they terrorize and say, "Give us your money because we own the land that you live on," or if you really think that it's okay for a stranger to point a gun at you and say, "Give me your money because I and the 'state' I represent own the land that you live on," then you really ought to rework your idea of ownership.

If someone owns some land (private property) (with an apartment on it, say), they can rent their land out to others. They can legitimately say, "Hey, you have to pay me the rent fee because you agreed to the fee and because I own the land/apartment that you live on/in." But, people hailing from so-called states claiming the legal right to initiate violence CANNOT legitimately say, "Hey, apartment owner, now you have to pay us some of your money," because 1) the government-thieves do NOT own the apartment-owners' land or apartment and 2) the apartment-owner never agreed to a price of rent from the government.

Now, I suppose that if you and the other statists in the geographic United States really did own all of the land in the United States collectively (which would of course be absurd) then you could argue that by being born onto your "government" property or by immigrating onto it, someone would have implicitly agreed to your government's price of rent. But, of course, you and the other statists who live in the geographic United States do not own everyone's land--you only own your own land. So when you collect taxes from someone with force claiming that you own the land that they live on you are really like the mafia collecting money from people claiming that the mafia owns the land that the people live on. You are NOT like the apartment-owner charging his tenant with rent because unlike the apartment-owner you do NOT own the land that the people whom you are trying to tax live on.

And if we really want to talk about choice, even when someone puts a gun to your head, you have a choice. You can choose to be coerced, or you can choose to get shot.

Well certainly that is one definition of "choice" or "voluntary." For example, one might say, "My brother voluntarily chose not to give the thief his money when the thief put a gun to his head, which resulted in the thief shooting and murdering my brother" or perhaps one might say "My brother voluntarily chose to give the thief his money to avoid being murdered."

But, that certainly isn't the definition of voluntary that I have been using throughout this thread...

By your definition of voluntary, unless someone goes and directly mind-controls your actions, anything you do will be entirely voluntary.

No... where have you been? When a thief points a gun at me and says, "Give me your taxes," I have been saying that my submission to the thief's threat of violence (i.e. my decision to give the thief my money) is involuntary as it is a result of the thief's coercion.

My definition of voluntary that I have been using throughout this thread has always been that if the thief is putting a gun to your head and demands your wallet, then if you "choose" to give the thief your wallet, then that choice is involuntary as it is due to the thief's coercion. Even though you do "choose" to give the thief your money, it clearly isn't a "voluntary choice" by the definition that I have been using throughout our whole discussion of voluntarism, non-aggression, etc, in this thread.

If a poor person has the choice of starving at the brutal, violent hands of Mother Nature or buying cheap crap from Wal-Mart, they can choose to starve, or they can choose to live.

That's a false dilemma--the pauper has other ways of prolonging his life other than buying stuff from Walmart.

By your arguments, choosing to live is a voluntary action on their part. So why isn't it voluntary when someone holds a gun to your head?

"Mother Nature" is NOT a person threatening to murder you if you refuse to eat food. The fact that you'll die within a matter of days if you don't eat any food is a fact of nature. "A thief" IS a person threatening to murder you if you refuse to give him your money. Surely you agree that it is "wrong" for the thief to murder you if you don't give him your money. But, would you similarly say that it is "wrong" of "Mother Nature" to "murder" you if you don't eat food? Of course not. Nature doesn't "murder" people and nature isn't held morally accountable for your death. Morality is a concept that we have come up with to deal with interactions between humans.

You're missing the point of the voluntary vs involuntary due to coercion thing though by focusing on the "voluntary" part rather than the "coercive" part. Instead of looking at whether or not someone is doing something voluntarily, look at whether or not someone is initiating force against someone else and I doubt you will be confused.

For example:

People need to eat food to prolong their lives. Certainly I would say that people voluntarily obtain food all the time by voluntarily growing food themselves or voluntarily trading with other people to get food. Is anyone initiating force here? No. If someone points a gun at someone else though to force that person to give them food against their will, then clearly the person with the gun to his head isn't voluntarily (by the definition I have been using the whole time, defined above) giving the person with the gun food, but rather is involuntarily giving the person food. Why? Because of the coercion part: because the person is threatening them with violence. Surely you could conceive of people not pointing guns at each other forcing each other to give each other things like money and food against their wills? Can you conceive of nature not causing someone to die when that person refuses to eat food? Of course not, which is why our concept of morality deals with interactions among people, not with interactions between a human and nature. So that's why a person's choice to eat food is voluntarily despite nature's death threats whereas a person's choice to give a thief their money is involuntary because of the thief's threat of murder. The thief doesn't have to threaten the person with murder whereas nature is bound to cause people to die if they don't eat. Is the difference clear now?

Now, dealing with just human interactions, it should be very clear when someone does something voluntarily (e.g. gives someone food as charity or for a price) vs when someone does something involuntarily as the result of being coerced/threatened with violence (e.g. gives someone food because that someone is holding a gun to their head). If you want to ignore this very significant distinction between voluntary things and coercive things then I would say you're crazy and we're done with this discussion, for sure. Somehow though I highly doubt that you want to erase this distinction despite how you said, "So why isn't it voluntary when someone holds a gun to your head? :huh: "

* But you won't change it by whining that it's illegitimate. It's considered legitimate by 100s of millions of people (if not billions), so your (and Molyneux's) objections don't carry much weight. Come back to me when you've convinced a billion people that the US government is illegitimate. Then we'll talk.

Sorry, but what is this "it" that I won't change by whining that "it's" illegitimate? The state? Because I assure you that as a voluntarist/anarchist/philosophical libertarian/follower of the Non-Aggression Principle the state is illegitimate as it necessarily initiates violence by definition. A rational person who isn't greatly confused about reality must except this or else they simply aren't being rational. From your perspective, the perspective that its sometimes okay to initiate violence against others, however then you can say that the state is "legitimate" because it is "in accordance with [your] established rules, principles, or standards" (dictionary.com definition). From the perspective of the Non-Aggression Principle, however, the state is undeniably illegitimate.

Note:

Wikipedia: "The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force, or NAP, for short) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a moral stance."

States necessarily violate the NAP by definition of what they are. If they didn't violate the NAP then necessarily they wouldn't tax people, they wouldn't regulate people, and they wouldn't criminalize non-aggressors, so by any current definition of a state they wouldn't be one. None of the current "states" in the world that I know of abide by the NAP and any "state" that I can hypothetically conceive of that doesn't violate the NAP I wouldn't call a state.

Quag · July 3, 2011

Ok first off UTF you do not OWN all the land. The town owns a percentage of it. The setback varies from town to town but in my town it is 12 feet. that means the first 12' (setback from the road) belongs to them. I can grow grass, park my car etc. but they own it, a tree on it belongs to them. etc. I maintain the land and have the right to use it, claim it as mine when i buy/sell etc. But the town owns it. Check with your town I have no doubt the results will surprise you. Still in any case the town owns the roads that are the only means to get to or from your house (unless you live on municipal boundry then you can use rear entrance. In fact without the public road you would not even have a house. As all the material/equipment/workers used the road to get to the site to build the house. Again you dont want the roads etc MOVE! Lets face it the roads were there before you. To be continue along such lines you would find that very few jobs or industries would even exist without govt infrastructure. I knwo you dont liek taxes, well neither do I but I am adult enough to admit that If i get somethign I shoudl have to pay and if i dotn want it i dont take it. You dont want roads water garbage remouval, food regulations, health/safety regulations etc just leave no one is stopping you.

as to the social contract well its an ambiguous thing that doesnt exist in actual written form but then neither does your NAP. The NAP is an idea that you believe in but that doesnt make it exist. However there is at least an unwritten consent from you for the social contract as you continue to live in society. It is not the same as a slave eating the masters food as the slave is not permitted to leave so dont bother bringing that up you are free to leave. Now you can leave and have your dystopia but how you think you can force Dawh or myself to live in it is beyond me. The world existed in such a way when you were born, you can move and live under different (non existant) rules if you want but you seem to want to force us to let you live among us without accept the rules that are in place when you got here (ie born)

But lets just move past your blindness as to taxation. let me see if I can sum up our non taxation arguments to this point.

Ok we have DRO's i see no reason why anyone would pay any attention as they have no enforcement. you say private security firms. Ok i say justice goes to rich poor are screwed. Nono you say. why i say. because you say. oh okay then. Hmm private security seems just liek warlords or mafia i say. No you say there will be competition. Oh really why would not these Private secuity firms (ill use mafia for short) not get together and divide the areas geographically, makes good buisness sense to avoid competition, ie have a monopoly. Ah you say monopolies create competiton. what i say? since when? Since it makes my ideals have some sense. Oh i say, so despite the fact monopolies have 100% of the time been odious and killed competition you think it will be different? Yes you say. Ok what about corruption? What about it? without govt there is no corruption you say. Hmm seems Somalia is a perfect example of warlords and corruption and an anarchistic dystopia. NoNo you say Somalis is the exact opposite of a perfect example if we take a few generations to change human nature there will be no corruption/crime. Ahh and how will we change human nature it has never been changed before. yes yes you say it has been changed look the USA got rid of slavery? hmm I say but there is still slavery in the USA. Yes you say but it is no longer accepted. Ahh I say so you wish to change human social values that is not the same thing as human nature. Taxation is theft/violence/slavery you say. And we start over again.

Basically UTF you are too invested in this insane idea to see any reason. I will still participate but only to point out that you are so far off the mark in a historical/political/economic/psychological/rational perspective that there is no point in others to waste their time listening to you

Edited July 3, 2011 by Quag

July 3, 2011

Still in any case the town owns the roads that are the only means to get to or from your house (unless you live on municipal boundry then you can use rear entrance. In fact without the public road you would not even have a house. As all the material/equipment/workers used the road to get to the site to build the house. Again you dont want the roads etc MOVE! Lets face it the roads were there before you. To be continue along such lines you would find that very few jobs or industries would even exist without govt infrastructure. I knwo you dont liek taxes, well neither do I but I am adult enough to admit that If i get somethign I shoudl have to pay and if i dotn want it i dont take it. You dont want roads water garbage remouval, food regulations, health/safety regulations etc just leave no one is stopping you.

So here quag wants a monopoly on roads whereas I would like to privatize them.

Then a few lines later:

Oh i say, so despite the fact monopolies have 100% of the time been odious and killed competition you think it will be different?

So on one hand quag supports the government's monopoly on roads and is opposed to privatizing them to eliminate the monopoly while on the other hand he says that "monopolies have 100% of the time been odius and killed competition." :wacko:

"The overwhelming majority of roads in the United States are owned and maintained by state and local governments" (Wikipedia). These governments forcefully tax people just for living in the United States to pay for these roads. It doesn't matter how much I use the roads, if I drive on them or just walk on them, or if I stay home all day to avoid trespassing on them. Quag claims that the governments have the right to forcefully take my money from me just for living next to the roads because at the very least I passively benefit from them. I wonder, does quaq support the right of the private highway owners in Canada to tax people living near their highway? If not, why not? Is it because the private highway owners can only charge people for their roads if those people actually use their roads? Doesn't everybody living near the private road owner's roads use their private roads though? No? How not? Of yeah, you're right, because the private road owners don't have a monopoly on roads whereas the government does so clearly the people living near the private roads can avoid using them. Thus only the government has the right to forcefully seize people's money in the name of funding their roads because only the government has a monopoly on roads.

By the way, quag, name a monopoly in existence (or that would be in existence in your view if it wasn't for tyrannical governments) and tell me, do you support these monopolies' right to forcefully collect money from people just for the fact that they benefit from their monopoly services either actively or passively?

Hmm seems Somalia is a perfect example of warlords and corruption and an anarchistic dystopia. NoNo you say Somalis is the exact opposite of a perfect example if we take a few generations to change human nature there will be no corruption/crime.

Besides the fact that you have chosen to ignore the countless times that I have clearly and explicitly corrected you on my view that there will certainly still be violence, crime, corruption, etc, in a stateless society (thus why anarchy is not a utopia for the umpteenth time), you now express your ignorance of history in that after thoroughly researching Somalia in the past few weeks I have learned that Somalia has actually done better after the collapse of its state in 1991 than it was going before. Of course you can't expect such an impoverished country to flourish once it's tyrannical state fails, but I would say the improvements that Somalia has seen since the state's collapse is strong historical evidence in support of the view that societies certainly don't need states to function and can sometimes even function better without states. I suggest you do some research on Somalia, not just to correct your view that Somalia has been in chaos ever since its state collapsed, but also to learn more about how international efforts by the UN and others to help Somalia and other poor countries can actually hurt the countries rather than help them. Also, when researching Somalia I bumped into quite a bit of information regarding how Somalis still have currency and methods of governing themselves without a state, including how individuals privately organized themselves in Somalia to provide security to allow economic activity to continue. The fact that very poor people in Somalia can provide security for themselves without a state (as they can, have, and continue to do now), then your statement in the post I'm quoting that "you say private security firms. Ok i say justice goes to rich poor are screwed" is surely false. The very poor in Somalia aren't screwed, but rather are providing their own security quite well. Perhaps they're screwed compared to a utopia, but if you want to go on continuing to commit the nirvana fallacy then your reasoning will continue to be fallacious. If you compare the poor Somalis to what they used to have under a state, then you will see that while they aren't doing perfectly, they are doing better than they were doing before their state collapsed.

And I suppose your misreports to me about the happenings in Somalia on this thread is reason for me to be highly skeptical about any facts of history that you have mentioned or will that I don't already have a lot of knowledge about.

Ahh and how will we change human nature it has never been changed before. yes yes you say it has been changed look the USA got rid of slavery? hmm I say but there is still slavery in the USA. Yes you say but it is no longer accepted. Ahh I say so you wish to change human social values that is not the same thing as human nature.

:duh: I've face-palmed myself many times throughout replying to this last post of yours, but this is the first time I'm mentioning it just because your attempted summary of our discussion is so blatantly far off from what was actually said. Seriously, take a look at what you just said... You're literally claiming that I argued the opposite of what I argued; is your memory really that bad? Take a look at my signature even. In my signature I said that it's not a matter of human nature, but a matter of social change. Now, why did I write that in my signature? Because you and others kept claiming that I was trying to change human nature when in fact I was arguing the whole time for social change. And yet my clarification in my signature apparently didn't work as you STILL (in the quote above) claimed that I was trying to argue to change human nature rather than social change. Of course you can't change human nature; of course the fact that if I declared ownership of a person with black skin then the reason why people would reject my claim today vs 200 years ago is because of social change, NOT a change in human nature. But, you seemed to be determined to argue with a straw man.

Taxation is theft/violence/slavery you say. And we start over again.

So I guess you're one of the people who 200 years ago would have argued that enslavement of Africans was moral because black people aren't people? Well guess what, black people are people and I do own my property including the the land that my house is on, my house, and the things that I produce.

Basically UTF you are too invested in this insane idea to see any reason. I will still participate but only to point out that you are so far off the mark in a historical/political/economic/psychological/rational perspective that there is no point in others to waste their time listening to you

Great argument, but unfortunately I'm not going to rebut it as it's not worth my time.

July 3, 2011

A government is not a person and a person is not a government.

Modern government is an agreement. It's a social contract written up and duly agreed upon by its citizens to provide services and take actions beyond the ability of individuals. Even though not everyone in this country has signed the Constitution, the government was formed to encompass all people living within its borders (note: its borders). Upon becoming an adult, you have the self-determination to remain in this state and continue to abide by its laws, or you can choose to find a place more hospitable to your views. It's your choice.

The United States government owns the land in this country and you "own" "your" land because you bought a government-issued deed to it (even if you didn't buy the deed directly from the government, someone did). So the US government owns the land in this country and you lease it from them (more or less). That's the reality of the situation which is what I've been arguing for the last page. I'm not talking hypothetically here. I'm talking about what actually happens in this society in which you and I live. If you don't like it, you can leave. That's your option: Love it or leave it (or change it*).

And if we really want to talk about choice, even when someone puts a gun to your head, you have a choice. You can choose to be coerced, or you can choose to get shot. By your definition of voluntary, unless someone goes and directly mind-controls your actions, anything you do will be entirely voluntary. If a poor person has the choice of starving at the brutal, violent hands of Mother Nature or buying cheap crap from Wal-Mart, they can choose to starve, or they can choose to live. By your arguments, choosing to live is a voluntary action on their part. So why isn't it voluntary when someone holds a gun to your head?

* But you won't change it by whining that it's illegitimate. It's considered legitimate by 100s of millions of people (if not billions), so your (and Molyneux's) objections don't carry much weight. Come back to me when you've convinced a billion people that the US government is illegitimate. Then we'll talk.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli62.1.html

I just found this article and thought it was funny how much it fits our discussion. Please excuse the term "idiot" though if it makes you miss the points presented.

Some relevant points from the article:

"It is in the context of discussing fundamental political questions involving the government’s legitimacy that the idiot believes the phrase "love it or leave it" constitutes a powerful argument. If the debate turns to the question of whether taxation is morally and legally synonymous with robbery, for example, the idiot thinks that anyone who doubts the government’s legitimacy should simply leave. It completely escapes the notice of the idiot that the question of what dissenters can or should do is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the government is legitimate."

Actually, every point is relevant except for the point that "'Since they haven’t left,' the idiot blusters, 'they must love it'" as I know that this doesn't apply to you since you know that I don't love the government. Although I do find it odd that you're telling me to "love it or leave it"--why can't I stay and try to fix your delusion that the government is legitimate?

Sign In

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members