NationStates Jolt Archive

Politics is violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell. If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.

If I were to do that to someone it would be called violence, specifically kidnapping, assault or murder. I don't see how it can be justified just because the guy had a uniform and some thugs calling themselves a "government" said it was okay.

"Justified" only expresses a personal preference so the quesion isn't deeply meaningful but for what it's worth I find violence for any reason other than defence of people or property rights (since to confiscate the fruits of someone's labour is equivalent to slavery) to be uncivilized. If, like me, you believe violence should only be used defensively you are saying you disapprove of laws against drugs, prostitution, posession of firearms as well as all taxation, since taxes are collected through threats of jail and are thus a form of armed robbery (specifically, extortion). If you don't agree just imagine if Microsoft were to force people to buy windows under threat of kidnapping, this would be violence, surely. Well, this is how the state pays for schools and hospitals.

It is of course perfectly consistent to believe that all these things are all fine and dandy, so long as you are aware that you are advocating threats of extreme violence against all your neighbours, friends and family.

Incidently, this is why it is almost comical to listen to lefties complaining about the violence of war for profit, when all the while they advocate violently confiscating the property of others to pay for *their* pet projects. The right wing are retarded too since they complain about terrorism saying that "violence has no place in politics". Terrorists are just free-lance politicians.

Clausewitz said that war is a continuation of politics by other means.

But he forgot that politics is a continuation of economics by other means.

Blarg

thats all i have to say for now

Violence is a method of government, not its defining concept. Politics is not violence, politics is the business of power. To claim that "politics is violence" would be like claming "music is guitar." It's an oversimplification.

I agree with your third paragraph to an extent, though "Justification," as you put it, is a cut and dry concept without much grounding in personal opinion or beliefs. It's not a preference, it's an absolute. I agree in that I reject the initiation of violence and that it should only be used if another party tries to use it on you or someone you love.

It is of course perfectly consistent to believe that all these things are all fine and dandy, so long as you are aware that you are advocating threats of extreme violence against all your neighbours, friends and family.

It's not consistent at all. To endorse the things you mentioned one has to ignore several basic facts about humanity and the universe in order to accept them as "right" or "correct" concepts. If you're going to say it's OK to lock up potheads, for example [which I know you're not], you're ignoring the fact that use of such a substance has absolutely no bearing on your physical condition or moral circumstance, and you're preferring to solve other peoples' problems for them. This is not a tendancy that we should be encouraging. The logical extension of such a compulsion, therefore, is to regulate all substances taken in by $INDIVIDUAL. Since I don't have a second brain in my head [at least I hope not] telling me that what I'm doing is wrong, I shouldn't have one outside my head either.

Someone might counter then "well what about your conscience? How can you say you don't have a compulsion to analyze or second guess your beliefs?" I would answer that that question answers itself: the presence of a conscience allows me to second guess my decisions and beliefs. The presence of a conscience does not logically allow for the presence of an entirely different entity altogether telling me what to do. If this were the case, one's conscience would always tell us to seek another human opinion. Sometimes it does, but this is hardly an absolute truth.

Violence is a method of government, not its defining concept. Politics is not violence, politics is the business of power. To claim that "politics is violence" would be like claming "music is guitar." It's an oversimplification.
When I say "politics" I'm referring to government. You can use a different definition of the word "politics" if you want, there's nothing sacred about a definition. Read what I wrote as "government is violence" if you like.

I agree with your third paragraph to an extent, though "Justification," as you put it, is a cut and dry concept without much grounding in personal opinion or beliefs. It's not a preference, it's an absolute. I agree in that I reject the initiation of violence and that it should only be used if another party tries to use it on you or someone you love.
It's a preference. What would it even mean for justification to be an absolute? It doesn't make sense.


It's not consistent at all. To endorse the things you mentioned one has to ignore several basic facts about humanity and the universe in order to accept them as "right" or "correct" concepts. If you're going to say it's OK to lock up potheads, for example [which I know you're not], you're ignoring the fact that use of such a substance has absolutely no bearing on your physical condition or moral circumstance, and you're preferring to solve other peoples' problems for them.
That fact doesn't make it inconsistent to lock up stoners, nor does any other fact, although I would regard it as uncivilized to do so.

If I were to do that to someone it would be called violence, specifically kidnapping, assault or murder. I don't see how it can be justified just because the guy had a uniform and some thugs calling themselves a "government" said it was okay.
<snip>
If, like me, you believe violence should only be used defensively

You just answered your own question. It is the job of the government to defend the functioning of society as a whole, to ensure the system keeps working. As such, the use of force against criminals is acceptable since it in essence defends everyone in the nation.

Of course, if governments really are doing their job in practice is another question.

You just answered your own question. It is the job of the government to defend the functioning of society as a whole, to ensure the system keeps working. As such, the use of force against criminals is acceptable since it in essence defends everyone in the nation.

Of course, if governments really are doing their job in practice is another question.
But a "criminal" is just whatever the government says it is. The use of force in retaliation I have no problem with. Thieves and violent criminals? Lock 'em up. (better yet, make them pay restitution to their victims). But what about using violence agressively to force people to pay for government stuff? What about using violence agressively against drug users? Furthermore, why should Peter be agressively forced to pay to defend Paul? The point I was making is that both taxation and laws against victimless crimes rely on agressive violence. Thus one cannot simultaneously support only defensive violence AND taxation and other government agression. It isn't just a case that government isn't defending us because government cannot possibly defend us without itself being the agressor. Government is a protection racket, just like the mafia except slicker.

Politics is violence.

Reminds me of the time the president of the school chess club was bludgeoned to death with his own Harry Potter chess set for for leading a motion to prevent rooking in interschool matches.

The horror of chess club politics.

We could escape to the highlands of Papua New Guinae (just you and me) to get away from the politics and the attendant violence, except people there have a tendency to spear and kill each other there. Must be all the tribal politics. We'll have to go to a deserted island all by ourselves to get away from violence. I'm sure that I won't end up annoying you so much you'll want to beat in my head with a conch shell.

P.S. My nickname is Piggy, but don't tell anyone.

Ha.


Politics is never justified. We must outlaw it.


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

P.S. My nickname is Piggy, but don't tell anyone.

:) Good post! I just watched the old movie version of that a few days ago.

This is just another Libertarian "S33!!!!1! I told j00!!!1! thread.
I don't believe government should exist at all, and that all private property rights should be banned. Personal property is OK though.

I come from a Poli-Sci perspective, and ideally, government is supposed to further the prosperity of its own citizens.

Politics is violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell. If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.
Or perhaps you'll get a fine.

We have governments because we want them. It makes things easier for us - govts handle many of the tasks that we would prefer not to handle ourselves. Not that I support current levels of government power. I just don't see anarchism working, communist or capitalist.

EDIT: I haven't chosen an option for the poll. It's not worth it.

Bull S*%t. Politics is used as a means to violence by some governments.
Its all part of the social contract. In return for the protection of liberty and security there are some freedoms ppl must give up. NO society is ever capable of being able to sustain itself with out a form of political system.


Violence is justified in some cases(just and unjust wars by Micheal Walzer)

Or perhaps you'll get a fine.
Which is enforced by the threat of violence.

We have governments because we want them.
Sadly, this is true. Or, at least, most people want them. That doesn't effect that they, by nature, rely on agressive violence.

It makes things easier for us - govts handle many of the tasks that we would prefer not to handle ourselves. Not that I support current levels of government power.
Govt officials act mostly in their self interest, same as everyone else. Politicians want reelected, bureaucrats want promotions, everyone wants their salary. There's nothing more to it. Unfortunately the incentive structure of government agencies leads them to destructive and violent behaviour.

I just don't see anarchism working, communist or capitalist.
This thread isn't about whether it would work or not. I'm just pointing out that government means agressive violence and wondering how people feel about that. Most people say violence is only justified in defence and I'm just pointing out that this is irreconcilable with a belief that there ought to be a State.

EDIT: I haven't chosen an option for the poll. It's not worth it.
Perhaps you don't want to admit that you approve of aggressive violence. Why not? Just come to terms with it.

Bull S*%t. Politics is used as a means to violence by some governments.
Government relies on agressive violence for its existence. People don't pay taxes or go to jail because they were askied nicely.

Its all part of the social contract. In return for the protection of liberty and security there are some freedoms ppl must give up. NO society is ever capable of being able to sustain itself with out a form of political system.
There is no social contract. It's an intellectual smokescreen to excuse agressive violence and thuggery. If you think govt is necessary to prevent futher violence then that's fine. I don't agree but it's an honest disagreement and I understand why you'd feel that way. Just admit that you approve of agressive violence in order to gather taxes and whatever other acts of agression you think are necessary, and don't pretend that we all somehow agreed via a "social contract". Many people don't believe in government and probably most don't want the particular govt they have. Given this plain fact it is ridiculous to talk about a social contract.

(BTW, the voluntary/private govt ideas put forward by Libertarians actually would be a social contract in that you'd literally sign a contract to abide by that govts laws and the laws they make between them and the other voluntary govts as a condition for your them to protect you.)

Violence is justified in some cases(just and unjust wars by Micheal Walzer)
I see.

Politics is violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell. If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.

If I were to do that to someone it would be called violence, specifically kidnapping, assault or murder. I don't see how it can be justified just because the guy had a uniform and some thugs calling themselves a "government" said it was okay.

"Justified" only expresses a personal preference so the quesion isn't deeply meaningful but for what it's worth I find violence for any reason other than defence of people or property rights (since to confiscate the fruits of someone's labour is equivalent to slavery) to be uncivilized. If, like me, you believe violence should only be used defensively you are saying you disapprove of laws against drugs, prostitution, posession of firearms as well as all taxation, since taxes are collected through threats of jail and are thus a form of armed robbery (specifically, extortion). If you don't agree just imagine if Microsoft were to force people to buy windows under threat of kidnapping, this would be violence, surely. Well, this is how the state pays for schools and hospitals.

It is of course perfectly consistent to believe that all these things are all fine and dandy, so long as you are aware that you are advocating threats of extreme violence against all your neighbours, friends and family.

Incidently, this is why it is almost comical to listen to lefties complaining about the violence of war for profit, when all the while they advocate violently confiscating the property of others to pay for *their* pet projects. The right wing are retarded too since they complain about terrorism saying that "violence has no place in politics". Terrorists are just free-lance politicians.
Politics aren't violence, violence is a result of disagreements, some political. It's like saying sex is birth. :p

Politics aren't violence, violence is a result of disagreements, some political. It's like saying sex is birth. :p
Government utilises agressive violence, otherwise it isn't a government. Therefore, you can believe violence should always or nearly always be limited to defencive purposes, or you can believe there should be a government which puts people in jail for not paying taxes or for doing other non-agressive things. You cannot consistently hold both these beliefs. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. Most people claim to hold both these beliefs and I'd like them to know they are inconsistent and get them to see government as what it really is, an agency of agressive violence.

politics is just who gets what, when and how. . . a lecturer told me that the best deffinition apart from this one is that adopted by the German Nazi party: the business of drawing the line between enemy and friend. When you think about it, of course this topic is going to involve violence. :sniper:

Politics is violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell. If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.

This is clearly true, in fact, tautologically so.

Read Heinlen's Starship Troopers for a very clear and enjoyable presentation of this idea.

To paraphrase "Politics is the exercise of force. All exercises of force derive from the basic force, violence."

Violence is ALWAYS justified when the result of using violence is better than what would have happened if violence weren't used.

End of story.

Government (and therefore politics and the "violence" you're talking about, although this violence is rarely actually used) draws its legitimate power from the social contract: An agreement between free human beings, who decide to organize their society according to certain laws. Those who disagree with these laws are free to leave the society in question. If they choose to remain in that society but refuse to abide by its laws, they are to be punished. The organization which enforces laws and punishes those who break them is called the government.

In other words, if you don't like taxes or drug laws or whatever, you are free to leave the society which enforces them. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you wish to live in a certain society, you must abide by its laws.

Politics is violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell.
I wasn't aware that there were any chains in jail cells these days. Perhaps you've just arrived from the 19th century? That would explain your political views.

And yes, criminals should be tracked down, arrested and put in jail. If you have a problem with that, go visit some of the wonderful places that don't have a government, like Somalia.

If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.
Since "resisting" means beating or killing police officers, I don't see the problem.

If I were to do that to someone it would be called violence, specifically kidnapping, assault or murder. I don't see how it can be justified just because the guy had a uniform and some thugs calling themselves a "government" said it was okay.
See my post above this one. It's not the government who says it's okay - it's the people who do. And if you don't agree with those people, why are you living among them in the first place?

"Justified" only expresses a personal preference so the quesion isn't deeply meaningful but for what it's worth I find violence for any reason other than defence of people or property rights (since to confiscate the fruits of someone's labour is equivalent to slavery) to be uncivilized.
Slavery IS A FORM OF PROPERTY. Specifically, property over another human being.

And property was created through violence, so, if you hate violence so much, it makes absolutely no sense to support private property. Think about it: How did private property first appear? Back in the dawn of civilization, some powerful armed thugs pointed to a piece of land and said "this is ours". Then they beat the crap out of anyone who disagreed. Through their ownership of land, they came to own all the objects produced using natural resources that were taken from that land, and modern forms of property developed.

Property is theft, violence, injustice.

If, like me, you believe violence should only be used defensively you are saying you disapprove of laws against drugs, prostitution, posession of firearms as well as all taxation, since taxes are collected through threats of jail and are thus a form of armed robbery (specifically, extortion).
Capitalism is extortion. A company owner says to his workers: "work for me, under my conditions, or starve". If they don't like it, they can go to another company owner... who says exactly the same thing. The only difference between slavery and capitalism is that in capitalism you get to choose your master.

[QUOTE=Libertovania]It is of course perfectly consistent to believe that all these things are all fine and dandy, so long as you are aware that you are advocating threats of extreme violence against all your neighbours, friends and family.
None of my neighbours, friends or family is a criminal. If yours are, that explains a lot...

Incidently, this is why it is almost comical to listen to lefties complaining about the violence of war for profit, when all the while they advocate violently confiscating the property of others to pay for *their* pet projects.
Property was created through confiscation. See above.

This is clearly true, in fact, tautologically so.

Read Heinlen's Starship Troopers for a very clear and enjoyable presentation of this idea.

To paraphrase "Politics is the exercise of force. All exercises of force derive from the basic force, violence."
The film was a shameful parody of a very good book. I'm a big fan of Heinlein, especially Stranger in a Strange Land.

Government (and therefore politics and the "violence" you're talking about, although this violence is rarely actually used) draws its legitimate power from the social contract: An agreement between free human beings, who decide to organize their society according to certain laws. Those who disagree with these laws are free to leave the society in question. If they choose to remain in that society but refuse to abide by its laws, they are to be punished. The organization which enforces laws and punishes those who break them is called the government.
In other words, if you don't like taxes or drug laws or whatever, you are free to leave the society which enforces them. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you wish to live in a certain society, you must abide by its laws.
The "social contract" is a philosopher's fiction. I'm not interested in the smoke and mirrors you use to justify your approval of agressive violence. I'm just pointing out that government is an agent of agressive violence. If you're okay with that then I can't "prove" that you are wrong. I just think it's pretty uncivilized.

The "social contract" is a philosopher's fiction.
No it isn't. In a democracy, the power of government is derived from the consent of the people, is it not? If you disagree with your country's laws (in other words, if you disagree with its social contract), you are free to leave, are you not?

I'm not interested in the smoke and mirrors you use to justify your approval of agressive violence. I'm just pointing out that government is an agent of agressive violence. If you're okay with that then I can't "prove" that you are wrong. I just think it's pretty uncivilized.
I'd say lack of government, such as what you may see in Somalia, is far more uncivilized than government.

And, as I said above, violence is ALWAYS justified when the result of using violence is better than what would have happened if violence weren't used.

I wasn't aware that there were any chains in jail cells these days. Perhaps you've just arrived from the 19th century? That would explain your political views.
They're called handcuffs, silly.

And yes, criminals should be tracked down, arrested and put in jail. If you have a problem with that, go visit some of the wonderful places that don't have a government, like Somalia.
What, anyone who breaks any law? Don't you recognise the idea of an unjust law? Should Ann Frank have been tracked down and arrested? Gandhi? Jesus?

Incidently, Somalia's better off now than it was when it HAD a government, which is all you can ask really.

Since "resisting" means beating or killing police officers, I don't see the problem.
Do you think it's always bad to fight against kidnappers, or just the ones with shiny badges?

See my post above this one. It's not the government who says it's okay - it's the people who do. And if you don't agree with those people, why are you living among them in the first place?
So "the people" (all of them?) approve of aggressive violence. That's reassuring. What's your point?

Slavery IS A FORM OF PROPERTY. Specifically, property over another human being.

"Involuntary servitude" is another common definition of slavery.

And property was created through violence, so, if you hate violence so much, it makes absolutely no sense to support private property. Think about it: How did private property first appear? Back in the dawn of civilization, some powerful armed thugs pointed to a piece of land and said "this is ours". Then they beat the crap out of anyone who disagreed. Through their ownership of land, they came to own all the objects produced using natural resources that were taken from that land, and modern forms of property developed.

Imagine if someone went into your bedroom whenever you were sleeping and played loud rock music. Imagine if someone snatched the food from your hands whenever you were about to eat. Imagine if someone burned down your house, car, place of work and everything else you use. Would you not violently restrain him? I approve of violence to enforce property rights even when the perpetrator isn't acting violently. I'm open and honest about this. I consider it an act of defence. I respect that you have the courage to question the legitimacy of property because you should. I happen to disagree with your conclusions. I'd like you to question the legitimacy of govt agression with as much courage.


Property is theft, violence, injustice.

So you won't mind if I take all yours?


Capitalism is extortion. A company owner says to his workers: "work for me, under my conditions, or starve". If they don't like it, they can go to another company owner... who says exactly the same thing. The only difference between slavery and capitalism is that in capitalism you get to choose your master.
A man says to his wife, "have sex with me under my conditions or get divorced". If they don't like it they can get another husband... who says exactly the same thing. The only difference between marriage and rape is that in marriage you get to choose your rapist.

Don't you agree that company owners should have as much choice in whether to hire someone as the worker has in whether to work there? It's about freedom of association.

None of my neighbours, friends or family is a criminal. If yours are, that explains a lot...

None of your neighbours, friends or family smoke pot or lie about their taxes or drive too quickly or violate any obscure business regulations they didn't even know existed ever ever ever? Do you live in a 1950s film?

Property was created through confiscation. See above.
Most of the things people own they aquired through voluntary means. Having said that I'd rather have property arbitrarily assigned than not exist at all, even if I didn't get any, because I understand the consequences of a propertyless society. I'm not pretending that this isn't violence because it is.

No it isn't. In a democracy, the power of government is derived from the consent of the people, is it not? If you disagree with your country's laws (in other words, if you disagree with its social contract), you are free to leave, are you not?
Very little of what goes on in a democracy is scrutinised by the people. You have a massive organisation in which you get a say every few years. One vote every few years to decide what happens in hospitals, schools, police, military, courts, taxes etc. I'm sure you're not naive so you probably know that most government goes on behing closed doors between politicians, bureaucrats, interest groups and businessmen. There is no social contract, just the presence of this large agency of violence. I can of course leave but I'd rather not. You wouldn't say to Ann Frank, "tough luck, love, but if you didn't like it you should've left so you weren't really murdered after all, you criminal scum", would you now? And yes, I know, it wasn't a democracy. But would it've been okay if it was?


I'd say lack of government, such as what you may see in Somalia, is far more uncivilized than government.

Did you see Somalia when it HAD a govt? It was much like Rwanda or Zimbabwe, not the US or the UK. Somalia has no govt becaus it is ungovernable, not because they chose not to have one. If people chose alternative institutions they'd work too. They HAVE worked before so the claim that they wouldn't is a non starter.


And, as I said above, violence is ALWAYS justified when the result of using violence is better than what would have happened if violence weren't used.
Then why the rant about property? Who decides what's better and do the institutions we have accurately reflect that decision?

Politics is violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell. If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.

If I were to do that to someone it would be called violence, specifically kidnapping, assault or murder. I don't see how it can be justified just because the guy had a uniform and some thugs calling themselves a "government" said it was okay.

"Justified" only expresses a personal preference so the quesion isn't deeply meaningful but for what it's worth I find violence for any reason other than defence of people or property rights (since to confiscate the fruits of someone's labour is equivalent to slavery) to be uncivilized. If, like me, you believe violence should only be used defensively you are saying you disapprove of laws against drugs, prostitution, posession of firearms as well as all taxation, since taxes are collected through threats of jail and are thus a form of armed robbery (specifically, extortion). If you don't agree just imagine if Microsoft were to force people to buy windows under threat of kidnapping, this would be violence, surely. Well, this is how the state pays for schools and hospitals.

It is of course perfectly consistent to believe that all these things are all fine and dandy, so long as you are aware that you are advocating threats of extreme violence against all your neighbours, friends and family.


You need to read Foucault - Westerns states and Western politics moved away from violence a long time ago (except in LA apparently). Power is exercised in much more subtle ways now. (Although Foucault assume a move away from the state's ability to take life towards the state's role in protecting health, so I don't know how that would apply in the US. Maybe it's more valid over here)

You need to read Foucault - Westerns states and Western politics moved away from violence a long time ago (except in LA apparently). Power is exercised in much more subtle ways now. (Although Foucault assume a move away from the state's ability to take life towards the state's role in protecting health, so I don't know how that would apply in the US. Maybe it's more valid over here)
Try disobeying any of the states' laws and see how much they've moved away from violence. You will be violently forced into a small room for a long time. I think it's especially ironic that you'd make this post while the American and British armies are prancing across the middle east like a plague of petrol driven locusts. Also, I don't live in America.

What, anyone who breaks any law? Don't you recognise the idea of an unjust law? Should Ann Frank have been tracked down and arrested? Gandhi? Jesus?
Of course there are unjust laws - laws imposed by a government against the will of the people. But there are also miscarriages of justice. Jesus, for example, was sentenced not because of any unjust law, but because he was found guilty of a crime he didn't commit.

Incidently, Somalia's better off now than it was when it HAD a government, which is all you can ask really.
Uh, yeah, right. Go ask some Somalis...

Do you think it's always bad to fight against kidnappers, or just the ones with shiny badges?
"Kidnapping" is when you lock up an innocent man.

So "the people" (all of them?) approve of aggressive violence. That's reassuring. What's your point?
That if you disagree with the people in your country, you're free to leave. If you don't want to leave, you have to abide by their rules. You may not like it, but it sure makes a lot more sense than telling everyone else to abide by YOUR rules.

Imagine if someone went into your bedroom whenever you were sleeping and played loud rock music. Imagine if someone snatched the food from your hands whenever you were about to eat. Imagine if someone burned down your house, car, place of work and everything else you use.
A propertyless society would handle those things like this:

Imagine if someone went into your bedroom whenever you were sleeping and played loud rock music.
Disturbing the peace.

Imagine if someone snatched the food from your hands whenever you were about to eat.
Interfering with another person's right to eat and live.

Imagine if someone burned down your house, car, place of work and everything else you use.
Destruction of public goods.

So you won't mind if I take all yours?
If you want to take someone's property and make it your property, that doesn't really solve the problem of private property in general, does it? I'd be more than happy to give up my property if everyone else had to do the same, and we organized a communist society.

A man says to his wife, "have sex with me under my conditions or get divorced". If they don't like it they can get another husband... who says exactly the same thing. The only difference between marriage and rape is that in marriage you get to choose your rapist.
In most civilized countries, "have sex with me under my conditions or get divorced" falls under the category of sexual abuse...

Don't you agree that company owners should have as much choice in whether to hire someone as the worker has in whether to work there? It's about freedom of association.
Company owners should not exist. All companies should be owned by their workers or by the state.

None of your neighbours, friends or family smoke pot or lie about their taxes or drive too quickly or violate any obscure business regulations they didn't even know existed ever ever ever? Do you live in a 1950s film?
Smoke pot? No. Lie about taxes? No. Is breaking the law a common occurence where you live? Over here we have this crazy notion that breaking the law is not very nice. When we did break the law (for example, drove too quickly), we were punished (fined) for it, and we deserved it. Your point?

Most of the things people own they aquired through voluntary means.
Yes, they acquired them from other people, who acquired them from others... and so on. If you trace back the source of any object, it comes down to the natural resources that were put into that object, and they came from some land. Then you can trace back the ownership of that piece of land, and it comes down to theft and violence.

Having said that I'd rather have property arbitrarily assigned than not exist at all, even if I didn't get any, because I understand the consequences of a propertyless society. I'm not pretending that this isn't violence because it is.
Good. Then don't blame others for supporting aggressive violence when you support it yourself.

I'm not going to reply to all that, there's too much. My only point here was that laws require violence to support them and that people should realise this when they talk about laws. Thus it is inconsistent to support a law unless you believe violence is appropriate in that situation. This is a fact not an opinion. I assume you agree with all this since it is only a bunch of obvious yet widely unrecognised facts, mainly the definition of what a law is.

I also believe a badge and a uniform don't make a man special so that police and soldiers shouldn't use violence in situations it wouldn't be appropriate for you or I to do so but this is only my opinion and it isn't inconsistent, although it seems arbitrary, not to agree. I assume from your posts that you don't agree. That you therefore think the uniform makes a man special and that a man in a uniform should be allowed to use violence in situations it wouldn't be appropriate for you or I to.

I don't understand why you have so much respect for authority. To blindly obey the law no matter what is to absolve your responsibility for your actions. "Following orders" is no excuse in my book. I respect those laws I find respectable. "The Law" is just a codified group of threats, not something mystical or sacred. The possible positions are:

(a) "I believe that you should always obey the law no matter what it is." In this case you would turn Ann Frank over to the Nazis and lock up Gandhi. Blacks should sit at the back of the bus if the law says so and anyone in North Korea who criticises the leader deserves what he gets.

(b) "I believe that you should obey some laws, but there are some laws which are unjust" In this case I ask you how you decide. It doesn't help to say "in a democracy" because surely if a democratic govt behaved like the Chinese one that would be just as wrong.

(c) "I believe that 'legal' and 'moral' are entirely different concepts and that I should do what I think is right rather than what the govt says I must." This is my position.

Please, let me know which one you support because I'm having trouble figuring out your point of view. If (a) or (b) plese also reply to my objections.

BTW, your appeal to the authority and legitimacy of govt suffers the same flaw you accuse the system of property of suffereing from, that it originated from some oppressive upstarts.

Try disobeying any of the states' laws and see how much they've moved away from violence. You will be violently forced into a small room for a long time. I think it's especially ironic that you'd make this post while the American and British armies are prancing across the middle east like a plague of petrol driven locusts. Also, I don't live in America.

Oh well, international politics (outside certain circles like the EU, NATO, etc) is based on violence, but internal politics and internal state power isn't. It's based on systems installing discipline, ideas of rank and position and the creations of heirarchical relationships, etc, etc. The state, in Western Europe has moved on from violence (unless it is absolutely necessery in response to violence, but in this case the aim is the supression of violence, rather than its intentional use) to "biopower" contol of life (national health services) and welfare (social security). The state is no longer immersed in blood - we do not have the death sentence, we do not use torture, etc, etc....

Oh well, international politics (outside certain circles like the EU, NATO, etc) is based on violence, but internal politics and internal state power isn't. It's based on systems installing discipline, ideas of rank and position and the creations of heirarchical relationships, etc, etc. The state, in Western Europe has moved on from violence (unless it is absolutely necessery in response to violence, but in this case the aim is the supression of violence, rather than its intentional use) to "biopower" contol of life (national health services) and welfare (social security). The state is no longer immersed in blood - we do not have the death sentence, we do not use torture, etc, etc....
The government puts people in jail. It doesn't do this by asking them nicely or by leaving a trail of breadcrumbs, it does this through the threat of and if necessary the application of overwhelming violence. If I kidnap someone and lock them up in my cellar that is an act of violence. The state cannot move on from violence because those institutions that don't use violence are not states. It is a simple point I'm trying to make. If you don't get it follow the police around for a day, you'll soon see that it is their job to apply violence on behalf of the state.

The film was a shameful parody of a very good book. I'm a big fan of Heinlein, especially Stranger in a Strange Land.
I'd argue that the film was an extremely amusing spoof of a very good book. I've always thought that Heinlein was a fine author who advocated a bizarre form of libertarian fascism.

I'd argue that the film was an extremely amusing spoof of a very good book. I've always thought that Heinlein was a fine author who advocated a bizarre form of libertarian fascism.
I'd rather they'd made it true to the book to get people thinking. Not sure it would've been successful though, people don't go to movies to engage their brains. Still, most of his books that I've read don't talk about the fascist side of his views and the ones that don't are amongst my favourite books. He's also a really good writer. Technically much better than Arthur C Clark and other sci-fi authors.

Yes, though I consider property to be based on violence.

I'm not going to reply to all that, there's too much. My only point here was that laws require violence to support them and that people should realise this when they talk about laws. Thus it is inconsistent to support a law unless you believe violence is appropriate in that situation. This is a fact not an opinion. I assume you agree with all this since it is only a bunch of obvious yet widely unrecognised facts, mainly the definition of what a law is.
It's a matter of common sense that when you say "X should be illegal" you imply that people who do X should be punished in some way. This punishment may not necessarily involve violence, but, naturally, violence has to be used if the guilty person resists arrest and tries to fight back against the police. I don't see why you make such a big deal about it.

I also believe a badge and a uniform don't make a man special...
They don't. The mandate from the people is what makes a police officer special. His role is "to serve and protect".

I don't understand why you have so much respect for authority.
I don't. I have respect for the society I live in and the people who live around me. I recognize only one authority: Humanity - or, in practice, the particular subset of humanity that lives in the same country I do (generally referred to as "the people"). If the government acts for the benefit of Humanity or in accordance with its wishes, I respect it. If not... you know what us communists do best: revolutions! ;)

To blindly obey the law no matter what is to absolve your responsibility for your actions. "Following orders" is no excuse in my book.
When did I ever say that following orders absolves one of responsibility? Sometimes the right thing to do is to protect your country from your government...

I respect those laws I find respectable.
So do I. We just disagree on what qualifies as "respectable".

"The Law" is just a codified group of threats, not something mystical or sacred. The possible positions are:

(a) "I believe that you should always obey the law no matter what it is." In this case you would turn Ann Frank over to the Nazis and lock up Gandhi. Blacks should sit at the back of the bus if the law says so and anyone in North Korea who criticises the leader deserves what he gets.

(b) "I believe that you should obey some laws, but there are some laws which are unjust" In this case I ask you how you decide. It doesn't help to say "in a democracy" because surely if a democratic govt behaved like the Chinese one that would be just as wrong.

(c) "I believe that 'legal' and 'moral' are entirely different concepts and that I should do what I think is right rather than what the govt says I must." This is my position.

Please, let me know which one you support because I'm having trouble figuring out your point of view. If (a) or (b) plese also reply to my objections.[/quote]
My position is a combination of (b) and (c). 'Legal' and 'moral' are entirely different concepts. However, they can coexist. Some laws are good (and therefore should be obeyed), while some are bad, and should be changed.

Perhaps it will help you understand my position if I tell you that I am a utilitarian. Utilitarianism - "the philosophy of common sense" - states that an action (or a law, in our case) is good if it produces net happiness (in other words, if it produces more happiness than suffering) and evil if it produces net suffering (in other words, more suffering than happiness). How can you know if the people are happy? Easy: You ask them. Hence the reason why democracy is essential to the practical application of utilitarianism. Democracy asks the people if they are happy with the current government and laws.

BTW, your appeal to the authority and legitimacy of govt suffers the same flaw you accuse the system of property of suffereing from, that it originated from some oppressive upstarts.
I thought I made it clear that government authority is only legitimate as long as it is derived from the will of the governed. In other words, only democratic governments are legitimate. Non-democratic governments (which, by the way, are the ones who originated from oppressive upstarts) have absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever, and are little more than a glorified version of the mafia.

Perhaps it will help you understand my position if I tell you that I am a utilitarian. Utilitarianism - "the philosophy of common sense" - states that an action (or a law, in our case) is good if it produces net happiness (in other words, if it produces more happiness than suffering) and evil if it produces net suffering (in other words, more suffering than happiness). How can you know if the people are happy? Easy: You ask them.

So if you've got a majority who oppresses a minority it is good? E.g.: black people in USA a few decades ago. Oppressing them made happy a large proportion of white people, while the black minority suffered.

Happy white majority > Suffering black minority = Oppression of black people is a good thing, as opposed to evil?

Government utilises agressive violence, otherwise it isn't a government. Therefore, you can believe violence should always or nearly always be limited to defencive purposes, or you can believe there should be a government which puts people in jail for not paying taxes or for doing other non-agressive things. You cannot consistently hold both these beliefs. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. Most people claim to hold both these beliefs and I'd like them to know they are inconsistent and get them to see government as what it really is, an agency of agressive violence.
It's not going to be always be so black and white just because you say it should be. People's points of view differ.

So if you've got a majority who oppresses a minority it is good? E.g.: black people in USA a few decades ago. Oppressing them made happy a large proportion of white people, while the black minority suffered.

Happy white majority > Suffering black minority = Oppression of black people is a good thing, as opposed to evil?It's not going to be always be so black and white just because you say it should be. People's points of view differ.Sorry, I just thought those two posts in such close proximity were really funny.

Now onto the real topic: is politics equivalent to violence? No. Something leading to something else is not equivalent to that. For example, if you go to a movie and eat popcorn, then do movies = popcorn?

Politics, however, is not justified for other reasons. Namely, because it leads to the establishment of a government. A government that serves a purpose other than law enforcement is bad in my opinion; everything else can and should be undertaken by the people. Therefore politics is not violence, nor is it justified.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

If governments don't enforce their laws then people will not abide them as they have nothing to fear. You must enforce the laws to make sure the population on a whole stay well within the boundries you create for them. Of coruse you must do this without the reaslisation dawning that they have little freedom. Remember though no system is perfect and any law can be broken and not found out about

It's a matter of common sense that when you say "X should be illegal" you imply that people who do X should be punished in some way. This punishment may not necessarily involve violence, but, naturally, violence has to be used if the guilty person resists arrest and tries to fight back against the police. I don't see why you make such a big deal about it.
You're still trying to disguise and conceptualise the issue rather than state the facts plainly and without judgement. I'm only stating the fact that enforcing the law involves the threat and use of violence. The threat of violence is a necessary part of the definition of a law. I'm emphasizing the point because it is not widely recognised and those who do recognise it often try to obscure it.

They don't. The mandate from the people is what makes a police officer special. His role is "to serve and protect".
The "mandate" doesn't make him special. It is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION that he is special, although you may or may not base your opinion on the ability of his superiors to extract votes and status from "the people".

I don't. I have respect for the society I live in and the people who live around me. I recognize only one authority: Humanity - or, in practice, the particular subset of humanity that lives in the same country I do (generally referred to as "the people"). If the government acts for the benefit of Humanity or in accordance with its wishes, I respect it. If not... you know what us communists do best: revolutions! ;)
The only authority I recognise is my own and anything else seems a denial of responsibility. The "respect" I have for the law comes either from the illegal activity being something I wouldn't do anyway, or from fear of imprisonment. I believe I have more respect for my fellow humans than you do since I don't use violence against them other than in defence against violence and theft (which I haven't found necessary to do since I was a small boy), and neither do I encourage or approve of agents of the state using violence against them in situations I wouldn't myself.

I respect people enough not to force them to contribute to my well being, my goals, my happiness and my pet "social projects" against their will, because I respect that they have their own problems and goals which may not overlap with mine, and I only ask that they show me the same respect by not using violence against me or destroying or confiscating the fruits of my labour.

When did I ever say that following orders absolves one of responsibility? Sometimes the right thing to do is to protect your country from your government...
The "right" thing to do is meaningless, or at most is a matter of personal preference. But I'm glad you accept that there is no duty to obey respect government threats of violence per se, and that you even accept that one may respond in kind, even if it is only in some situations.
do I encourage or approve of agents of the state using violence against them.

So do I. We just disagree on what qualifies as "respectable".

Excellent!

My position is a combination of (b) and (c). 'Legal' and 'moral' are entirely different concepts. However, they can coexist. Some laws are good (and therefore should be obeyed), while some are bad, and should be changed.
But you must decide for yourself which are good and which are bad. You are using YOUR OWN moral agency in forming this judgement, even if you CHOOSE to base it on utilitarian considerations. Thus you are in fact squarely in camp (c). Great!

But you realise now that this makes nonsense of a "mandate from the people", since you would (presumably) oppose those laws that you disagree with - that you don't find "respiectable" - regardless of mandate or not. You are waking up to the idea that your own moral faculties are the only possible way of deciding what is good and bad, you are beginning to take responsibility for your beliefs. Now you need to ditch those ideas which contradict or obscure this necessary fact, such as the metaphor of the social contract bestowing some sort of "legitimacy" on govt. Legitimacy isn't even an objective concept, it is an opinion you must form for yourself.

It can be scary realising that you have to take responsibility, especially when there are so many out there that would gladly try to relieve you of it, but it is well worth doing.

Perhaps it will help you understand my position if I tell you that I am a utilitarian. Utilitarianism - "the philosophy of common sense" - states that an action (or a law, in our case) is good if it produces net happiness (in other words, if it produces more happiness than suffering) and evil if it produces net suffering (in other words, more suffering than happiness). How can you know if the people are happy? Easy: You ask them. Hence the reason why democracy is essential to the practical application of utilitarianism. Democracy asks the people if they are happy with the current government and laws.
The obvious problem with utilitarianism is that you cannot compare happiness between individuals. The concepts upon which the theory is defined do not make sense, and thus make nonsense of the whole theory. I would argue that the market reflects the diverse tastes and preferences of consumers more efficiently and effectively than democracy, but most people don't understand the market and find the ideas counter-intuitive, often misconstruing it as "capitalism: rule by capitalists". I would also point out that, since each individual knows best for himrself what will most increase his happiness, better than you or I or the central planning committe or a majority of his neighbours, then he will find it most easy to maximise his happiness when he is allowed to persue his own goals, by himself or by agreement with his fellows, without being forced to contribute towards those of anyone else.

I thought I made it clear that government authority is only legitimate as long as it is derived from the will of the governed. In other words, only democratic governments are legitimate. Non-democratic governments (which, by the way, are the ones who originated from oppressive upstarts) have absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever, and are little more than a glorified version of the mafia.
Most democratic govts originated form upstarts who seized power. No, in fact, all did. George Washinton was a heroic anti-imperialist who turned, along with the other "founding fathers", into an upstart who seized control of the nation. They considered themselves worthy to frame a constitution telling the people how they were to be ruled. Such arrogance is disgusting to me. Such thirst for power always corrupts, such as when he violently put down a tax revolt, actually embracing the same tyranny he fought to overthrow. (you're probably going to ask me for a source, so here's the first one I found on google.)

http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/whiskey.html

Edit - I forgot to add. The notion of legitimacy is, as I said, only a personal opinion. Remove the illusory concept from your mind and you are left with the fact that ALL states are just glorified versions of the mafia, differing only in popularity.

It's not going to be always be so black and white just because you say it should be. People's points of view differ.
I wasn't expressing a point of view, I was stating a fact. The fact that laws require the threat and if necessary us of violence is cannot be denied since it is part of the definition of what a law is.

Yes, though I consider property to be based on violence.
Well of course it is. Of course, socialists would violently protect their communal property from bandits and raiders just as libertarians would, other than a few pacifists.

Politics is violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell. If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.

If I were to do that to someone it would be called violence, specifically kidnapping, assault or murder. I don't see how it can be justified just because the guy had a uniform and some thugs calling themselves a "government" said it was okay.

"Justified" only expresses a personal preference so the quesion isn't deeply meaningful but for what it's worth I find violence for any reason other than defence of people or property rights (since to confiscate the fruits of someone's labour is equivalent to slavery) to be uncivilized. If, like me, you believe violence should only be used defensively you are saying you disapprove of laws against drugs, prostitution, posession of firearms as well as all taxation, since taxes are collected through threats of jail and are thus a form of armed robbery (specifically, extortion). If you don't agree just imagine if Microsoft were to force people to buy windows under threat of kidnapping, this would be violence, surely. Well, this is how the state pays for schools and hospitals.

It is of course perfectly consistent to believe that all these things are all fine and dandy, so long as you are aware that you are advocating threats of extreme violence against all your neighbours, friends and family.

Incidently, this is why it is almost comical to listen to lefties complaining about the violence of war for profit, when all the while they advocate violently confiscating the property of others to pay for *their* pet projects. The right wing are retarded too since they complain about terrorism saying that "violence has no place in politics". Terrorists are just free-lance politicians.
You start out with too many incorrect assumptions, rendering your entire line of reasoning invalid. Try again. :)

You start out with too many incorrect assumptions, rendering your entire line of reasoning invalid. Try again. :)
All my factual assumptions are correct. I assumed was that the definition of a law includes that it is enforced via threats and uses of violence. If something isn't backed ultimately by the threat of jail or death in what sense would it be a law? (this includes fines since you go to jail if you don't pay them.) I pointed out that it is contradictory to oppose war for oil (say) on the grounds that it involves using violence to seize property but to favour taxation which is the same - this is a fact whether you accept it or not - and that saying "violence has no place in politics" is contradictory since politics IS violence (by politics I'm referring to the activities of govt rather than the act of negotiation per se. If you disagree with my definition it doesn't matter, just translate the idea in language you're more comfortable with and it will remain true.)

Any preferences I state or fail to mention are just preferences and thus are not incorrect unless I'm lying about them.

All my factual assumptions are correct. I assumed was that the definition of a law includes that it is enforced via threats and uses of violence. If something isn't backed ultimately by the threat of jail or death in what sense would it be a law? (this includes fines since you go to jail if you don't pay them.) I pointed out that it is contradictory to oppose war for oil (say) on the grounds that it involves using violence to seize property but to favour taxation which is the same - this is a fact whether you accept it or not - and that saying "violence has no place in politics" is contradictory since politics IS violence (by politics I'm referring to the activities of govt rather than the act of negotiation per se. If you disagree with my definition it doesn't matter, just translate the idea in language you're more comfortable with and it will remain true.)

Any preferences I state or fail to mention are just preferences and thus are not incorrect unless I'm lying about them.
"Factual assumption" is an oxymoron.

One of the most significant problems with your post is that you have expanded the definition of "violence" to include such things as taxation, arrest, incarceration, and lord knows what all else. Politics does not equate to violence unless you change the definitiion of violence, which is what you have done. This is what I mean when I say that your assumptions are incorrect.

"Factual assumption" is an oxymoron.
I see what you mean. I wasn't entirely clear in what I meant. "All the facts which I have used here are in fact true", is what I meant.

One of the most significant problems with your post is that you have expanded the definition of "violence" to include such things as taxation, arrest, incarceration, and lord knows what all else. Politics does not equate to violence unless you change the definitiion of violence, which is what you have done. This is what I mean when I say that your assumptions are incorrect.
My first stab (no pun intended) at a definition of violence would be something like "X applies violence to Y if X physically harms or forcefully restrains Y either directly or through the use of a weapon". If you have a sensible definition of violence by which me putting you in handcuffs, throwing you in the back of a van and then locking you up in my basement is not an act of violence I'd like to hear it. If you accept that this is an act of violence then why would it not still be so if I were a policeman? Your opinion as to whether it is justified or not might change but it would still be violence.

If for some reason you don't want to call this "violence" simply use my definition to translate what I said into language you're more comfortable with, for instance....

"Enforcing laws requires the application of physical harm and forceful restraint, thus the belief that physical harm and forceful restraint be limited to defending people and property is incompatible with a belief in compulsory taxation and victimless crime laws"

Sheesh! I've never had to work so hard to state such a simple fact. I'm in Cøpenhagen and can't speak a word of Danish, yet I find it easier to make myself understood here than on a forum of native English speakers!

I see what you mean. I wasn't entirely clear in what I meant. "All the facts which I have used here are in fact true", is what I meant.

My first stab (no pun intended) at a definition of violence would be something like "X applies violence to Y if X physically harms or forcefully restrains Y either directly or through the use of a weapon". If you have a sensible definition of violence by which me putting you in handcuffs, throwing you in the back of a van and then locking you up in my basement is not an act of violence I'd like to hear it. If you accept that this is an act of violence then why would it not still be so if I were a policeman? Your opinion as to whether it is justified or not might change but it would still be violence.

If for some reason you don't want to call this "violence" simply use my definition to translate what I said into language you're more comfortable with, for instance....

"Enforcing laws requires the application of physical harm and forceful restraint, thus the belief that physical harm and forceful restraint be limited to defending people and property is incompatible with a belief in compulsory taxation and victimless crime laws"

Sheesh! I've never had to work so hard to state such a simple fact. I'm in Cøpenhagen and can't speak a word of Danish, yet I find it easier to make myself understood here than on a forum of native English speakers!
The applicable definitions for "violence" are: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Abusive or unjust exercise of power.

I suspect that what you are saying is that any use of violence by the state is an "abusive or unjust exercise of power." That is a political position, not a "fact." You would need to make reference to a specific state or nation before a determination could be made as to whether that particular nation exercised "abusive or unjust" applications of power. It would also depend upon who you asked.

I don't happen to believe that there is such a thing as a "victimless crime." Every crime has victims, even if the "victim" is second or third hand, or even society itself.

"Enforcing laws requires the application of physical harm and forceful restraint, thus the belief that physical harm and forceful restraint be limited to defending people and property is incompatible with a belief in compulsory taxation and victimless crime laws"

Sheesh! I've never had to work so hard to state such a simple fact. I'm in Cøpenhagen and can't speak a word of Danish, yet I find it easier to make myself understood here than on a forum of native English speakers!

Perhaps the reason you cannot get your point across is because people understand the nature of authority. It is not violence, but it has violence as a possible outcome if you defy it. Taxation itself is not violent, but if you don't pay your taxes, you will be jailed, restrained against your will.

But we live in a society where authority is given to others, just as teachers have authority over students when they are at school, we recognize that there are those with authority over us in our nation. Would you say that Parenting is violence?

Your analysis of taxation seems a bit interesting to me, we are compelled to pay taxes to the state. If we do not, we owe the state money; after all, we're using roads, services, goods, all furnished or protected by the state. The state is thus an entity that is providing a service to all people living inside it; if you refuse to pay for the state's goods you're stealing.

Thus if the state jails someone for tax evasion, its not some kind of crime, its punishment for a crime. The crime of taking something and not paying for it. Perhaps that's "violent" but its the same violence we would use to defend our own goods and services.

The applicable definitions for "violence" are: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
"Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging or abusing" clearly would include incarceration. "The act or an instance of violent action or behaviour" is doesn't tell us anything ("violence is violent", well duh!)
"Abusive or unjust exercise of power" is an invalid definition since it relies on a personal judgement of what is "just".

If you don't agree with my definition just substitute in the full form of my definition whenever I wrote the word "violence". There's nothing sacred in a definition and the words I used were just a representation of the idea. Let's talk about the idea, not the representation.

I suspect that what you are saying is that any use of violence by the state is an "abusive or unjust exercise of power." That is a political position, not a "fact." You would need to make reference to a specific state or nation before a determination could be made as to whether that particular nation exercised "abusive or unjust" applications of power. It would also depend upon who you asked.
That's not what I'm saying, I told you EXACTLY what I meant when I gave my definition. Violence is violence whether "just" or not, whether "legitimate" or not, whatever those words mean. When someone is arrested for murder that is a violent act, it has nothing to do with whether he "deserved" it or not, that is a seperate issue.

I don't happen to believe that there is such a thing as a "victimless crime." Every crime has victims, even if the "victim" is second or third hand, or even society itself.
Who is the victim when a moslem woman leaves her house without covering her left wrist properly? Who is the victim when a game of chess is played? (Bobby Fisher was recently jailed for 10 years for playing a game of chess in Yugoslavia in violation of a UN trade embargo) If you think the law is always right then you deny your own moral responsibility.

Society is only a group of individuals. Why even mention the word society? There is no extra thing added to the group that is called a society. Whch individuals are the victims? (How much will anyone bet me that he misreads this in some way)

Perhaps the reason you cannot get your point across is because people understand the nature of authority. It is not violence, but it has violence as a possible outcome if you defy it. Taxation itself is not violent, but if you don't pay your taxes, you will be jailed, restrained against your will.
If I said "Violence is only a possible outcome of rape. Violence will only be used if she resists", would that be a sensible statement? Taxation relies on violence.

But we live in a society where authority is given to others, just as teachers have authority over students when they are at school, we recognize that there are those with authority over us in our nation. Would you say that Parenting is violence?
Only you can give authority over yourself. If you take responsibility for your own beliefs and actions then there is no such thing as "authority", only threats. If parents threaten their children with violence then that is a violent threat, obviously.

Your analysis of taxation seems a bit interesting to me, we are compelled to pay taxes to the state. If we do not, we owe the state money; after all, we're using roads, services, goods, all furnished or protected by the state. The state is thus an entity that is providing a service to all people living inside it; if you refuse to pay for the state's goods you're stealing.
If anyone else did this it would be called "extortion". Lets say microsoft were to fund windows the way the state funds roads. Everyone's forced to pay and if you don't you're incarcerated, whether you use windows or not. But my own preference for non taxation is not the issue. It takes violence to enforce it whether you approve or not.

Thus if the state jails someone for tax evasion, its not some kind of crime, its punishment for a crime. The crime of taking something and not paying for it. Perhaps that's "violent" but its the same violence we would use to defend our own goods and services.
Stripping it of any judgement you or I have on it's "legitimacy", a law is just a threat of violence. A crime is just one of those things you are threatened with violence for doing. Stripped of all preconceptions there is no difference between the state forcing you to pay taxes and the mafia forcing you to pay for "protection". The only difference is your personal approval of one and disapproval of the other.

The difference between compulsory taxes and expecting to be paid for delivering goods and services is that people agree to buy things from you - it is voluntary - and you are simply making them abide by their promise to pay which they gave to you as a condition of the transfer of goods, while taxation is more like the above example of microsoft forcing you to buy windows or the mafia forcing you to pay "protection money". If this difference doesn't change your opinion of it then that's up to you, it's just a matter of personal taste, but it makes all the difference in the world to me. It's the difference between lovemaking and rape, the difference between theft and trade.

I mean, the original author is probably right, even though we may disagree on whether it's a good thing or not (I think the state's ability to do violence is good, and justified).

How was an apparatus of state control established? People didn't come together and say, oh, let's create a government. That would imply that democracy was the first form of government, which historically we're pretty sure is not the case. Therefore, the first form of government was a violent dictatorship in which someone used force to establish their ability to control the society they participated in.

Additionally, how many people would pay their taxes if the government couldn't jail them as a result? How many people would respect the government's wishes if they disagreed and the government didn't have the ability to enforce its will? Probably very few people.

However, a forceful government with the ability to do violence is good. Why? Because if we accept the assumption that the state's existance is predicated on violence, then in order to have a state, it must be able to do violence. Therefore, as long as you think the state's existance causes less violence (in the word's broad sense, including starvation and disease) than anarchy, then the state is good.

I mean, the original author is probably right, even though we disagree on whether it's a good thing or not (I think).

How was an apparatus of state control established? People didn't come together and say, oh, let's create a government. That would imply that democracy was the first form of government, which historically we're pretty sure is not the case. Therefore, the first form of government was a violent dictatorship in which someone used force to establish their ability to control the society they participated in.

Additionally, how many people would pay their taxes if the government couldn't jail them as a result? How many people would respect the government's wishes if they disagreed and the government didn't have the ability to enforce its will? Probably very few people.
Thank you! I can't tell you what a relief it is for me to finally have someone understand what I've been saying.

However, a forceful government with the ability to do violence is good. Why? Because if we accept the assumption that the state's existance is predicated on violence, then in order to have a state, it must be able to do violence. Therefore, as long as you think the state's existance causes less violence (in the word's broad sense, including starvation and disease) than anarchy, then the state is good.
I disagree with 2 things here, one major one minor.

The major one is that getting rid of the state would cause more violence (including starvation and disease). However, a few years ago I would have agreed with you and it took months of research into free market economics and the history and theory of non-state legal systems (which have been both common and successful) to convince me otherwise. It is a counter-intuitive proposition and I don't blame anyone for not believing in it. (unless they do the research I've done and still disagree, in which case I'd think they were stoopid.) I'd encourage anyone who's interested to look it up. Search google for "molinari institute" for extensive sources on private law.

The minor one is that less violence is a definition of good. Good is a value judgement, not an objectively measureable thing. Nor do I always prefer less violence. Somalians used to have to pay taxes and they were too weak to resist the govt so they had to pay. Now there are smaller gangs of thugs who try to extort money from them at roadblocks and people sometimes resist violently. I see this as an improvement. They are no worse off since they can still pay and be left in peace, but if they want they can fight back and sometimes, often, win. Lack of violence can mean people have lost the ability or the will to defend themselves, not a good thing in my opinion.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying Somaia is a good place to live, just that it is in many, but not all, ways superior (in my opinion) to comparable countries like Ethiopia. And especially compared to Rwanda or Zimbabwe. I think it'd be better to fix build upon and improve the private law system they have now (which works well in much of the country) rather than help a bunch of corrupt warlords form a govt to more efficiently terrorise the population.

Thank you! I can't tell you what a relief it is for me to finally have someone understand what I've been saying.

I disagree with 2 things here, one major one minor.

The major one is that getting rid of the state would cause more violence (including starvation and disease). However, a few years ago I would have agreed with you and it took months of research into free market economics and the history and theory of non-state legal systems (which have been both common and successful) to convince me otherwise. It is a counter-intuitive proposition and I don't blame anyone for not believing in it. (unless they do the research I've done and still disagree, in which case I'd think they were stoopid.) I'd encourage anyone who's interested to look it up. Search google for "molinari institute" for extensive sources on private law.

The minor one is that less violence is a definition of good. Good is a value judgement, not an objectively measureable thing. Nor do I always prefer less violence. Somalians used to have to pay taxes and they were too weak to resist the govt so they had to pay. Now there are smaller gangs of thugs who try to extort money from them at roadblocks and people sometimes resist violently. I see this as an improvement. They are no worse off since they can still pay and be left in peace, but if they want they can fight back and sometimes, often, win. Lack of violence can mean people have lost the ability or the will to defend themselves, not a good thing in my opinion.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying Somaia is a good place to live, just that it is in many, but not all, ways superior (in my opinion) to comparable countries like Ethiopia. And especially compared to Rwanda or Zimbabwe. I think it'd be better to fix build upon and improve the private law system they have now (which works well in much of the country) rather than help a bunch of corrupt warlords form a govt to more efficiently terrorise the population.
Tag for future notice. This will be replaced by a response as soon as I have time.

"Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging or abusing" clearly would include incarceration. "The act or an instance of violent action or behaviour" is doesn't tell us anything ("violence is violent", well duh!)
"Abusive or unjust exercise of power" is an invalid definition since it relies on a personal judgement of what is "just".

If you don't agree with my definition just substitute in the full form of my definition whenever I wrote the word "violence". There's nothing sacred in a definition and the words I used were just a representation of the idea. Let's talk about the idea, not the representation.

That's not what I'm saying, I told you EXACTLY what I meant when I gave my definition. Violence is violence whether "just" or not, whether "legitimate" or not, whatever those words mean. When someone is arrested for murder that is a violent act, it has nothing to do with whether he "deserved" it or not, that is a seperate issue.

Who is the victim when a moslem woman leaves her house without covering her left wrist properly? Who is the victim when a game of chess is played? (Bobby Fisher was recently jailed for 10 years for playing a game of chess in Yugoslavia in violation of a UN trade embargo) If you think the law is always right then you deny your own moral responsibility.

Society is only a group of individuals. Why even mention the word society? There is no extra thing added to the group that is called a society. Whch individuals are the victims? (How much will anyone bet me that he misreads this in some way)
Where did I ever say "the law is always right?" :confused:

Society is far, far more than the sum of its parts ( individuals ).

EDIT: I'm not "misreading" you, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

Where did I ever say "the law is always right?" :confused:
You didn't, sorry. When you said there is no such thing as a victimless crime and that society itself is the victime I read more into it than was justified. You must decide for yourself whether you approve of a law and recognising that laws are violent acts will help you make your decision, if you think the use of violence is a serious matter as I do. I read your remarks to be in the spirit of those who say you should respect the law no matter what, I realise now that I misread you.

Society is far, far more than the sum of its parts ( individuals ).
Ha ha. That's what I thought you'd say. Nobody took the bet though. Okay. What more is there to society than the individuals who comprise it. Does a society think? Does it have an opinion? A will? Is there any thought, action, viewpoint, purpose, culture or nature to it other than those of the individuals in the society? Tell me what this extra thing is. I think it's important not to use confusing concepts like society because they lead to errors, specifically errors arising from treating a "society" as if it were a unified entity with unity of purpose and action. For example, the 2 ways of describing the invasion of Iraq.....

"America invaded Iraq"

"A quarter of a million soldiers from the United States of America attacked and dispersed some armed forces in Iraq."

One of these confuses us and encourages every Iraqi citizen to view every American as an invader, an object of anger and hatred. The other enlightens us and leads to further questions. Who were these men? Who decided they should attack the armed forces of Iraq and why? Why did they obey? Was it popular in the US?


EDIT: I'm not "misreading" you, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
Okay. I'm glad we're having a civil debate, most people get as stroppy as children when they discuss politics. I prefer discussions to arguments.

What more is there to society than the individuals who comprise it. Does a society think? Does it have an opinion? A will? Is there any thought, action, viewpoint, purpose, culture or nature to it other than those of the individuals in the society? Tell me what this extra thing is. I think it's important not to use confusing concepts like society because they lead to errors, specifically errors arising from treating a "society" as if it were a unified entity with unity of purpose and action.
As John Donne once said, "No man is an island." Each individual, even those who delude themselves by striving to be hermits, is an inextricable part of the community in which he or she lives, the culture and society to which the community belongs, and indeed, of the entire human race itself. The society has a history which influences its present. Folkways, mores, strictures, law, culture, language, knowledge, are all much greater than the sum of the individuals currently living in the society in question.

We can no more divorce ourselves and what we believe from the culture in which we were raised than we can become something other than a human being. Indeed, humanity is an inextricable strand in the Web of Life ( or biosphere ), which is anchored in the geosphere, which is compsed of quanta which are correlated with all other quanta in the universe.

The very concepts I use to think are grounded in the language I speak, which has evolved ( in the case of the English language ) over millenia.

I have a limited capacity for independent action, but every action I take influences the culture in which I live, no matter how small that influence is. It causes a ripple effect which never really ends. The same holds true for all other individuals in my culture ... their actions have an impact on me.

John Donne got it right. None of us are "islands;" we all swim in the larger oceans which surround us: community, society, species, biosphere, geosphere, universe.

What? No comments? :(

What? No comments? :(

Some of us have other things to do ;)

Your comments seem fine. I've heard this same "all government is violence" argument used by others many a time before, the coversations always end up in similar ways (though I am impressed how civil this one stayed). They've defined themselves into a corner; their definitions of words define the argument and make them right by default. All conversations begin and end with their opening argument; after that its talking to a wall.

I really don't know why I bothered to comment on this topic myself...perhaps just a pervasive sense of wishful thinking. I believe that there is some way to explain the nature of society to someone so that they understand despite themselves. So far, I have not found that method.

i agree with you, libertovania.

governments hold power through coercion and indoctrination. its so effective that it seldom has to resort to violence except for those people who have criminal intent. (and some drug users)

dont pay your taxes and sooner or later you will be in prison. manufacture, market, posses or injest certain substances and you are liable to be arrested and imprisoned for a good long time.

i dont have a problem with it. we have benefitted from government since the beginning of human history.

non-defensive taxes have existed from the beginning of human history (think the pharoah paid for his pyramid with his own labor??) the ruling and religious classes lived off the labors of others. the laborers were not asked their permission or consulted on what they felt the taxes should go for.

today at least we have input on what our taxes will go for. if the majority of US citizens felt that the inheritance tax was unfair,for example, it would be done away with. if enough people were disgusted with the grants given out by the NEA, the NEA would cease to exist.

so yes, there are taxes and government expenditures that you and i despise. it might irk us to realize that we have no choice in paying taxes (well except for the choice to go to prison instead). we both think that most drug laws should be repealed.

the majority of citizens think that this is the best system and that most taxes, expenditures, and laws are fair. so they persist. we can work to change people's minds. we might even succeed. but we wont do away with taxes, we wont make them voluntary, we wont ever get a perfect federal budget. we wont get ALL drugs to be legal and unregulated.

*shrug*

i guess you should have been born 200 years ago so you could have wandered out to the wilderness and become a mountain man.

you would still have to worry about violence from bears however.

As John Donne once said, "No man is an island." Each individual, even those who delude themselves by striving to be hermits, is an inextricable part of the community in which he or she lives, the culture and society to which the community belongs, and indeed, of the entire human race itself. The society has a history which influences its present. Folkways, mores, strictures, law, culture, language, knowledge, are all much greater than the sum of the individuals currently living in the society in question.

We can no more divorce ourselves and what we believe from the culture in which we were raised than we can become something other than a human being. Indeed, humanity is an inextricable strand in the Web of Life ( or biosphere ), which is anchored in the geosphere, which is compsed of quanta which are correlated with all other quanta in the universe.
I am aware that I'm not the only human on the planet! What I'm saying is that there is no such entity as society. There is me, you and some other dudes, but there is no extra thing called a society. What does a "society" have that a group of individuals does not? Nothing. So why use the word when all it does is confuse and obscure by trapping people into making false or misleading statements such as "society decided this" or "France did that". Only individuals think and act, they are influenced by each other but they are not all one thing.

The very concepts I use to think are grounded in the language I speak, which has evolved ( in the case of the English language ) over millenia.
The English language is deeply illogical. It's good enough for day to day purposes but for abstract reasoning you need a formal language with tight definitions and logical structure. English has double meanings for words, same spelling for different words, and a host of empty concepts such as "society", "morality", "legitimate" etc.

I have a limited capacity for independent action, but every action I take influences the culture in which I live, no matter how small that influence is. It causes a ripple effect which never really ends. The same holds true for all other individuals in my culture ... their actions have an impact on me.
Nobody's disputing this.

John Donne got it right. None of us are "islands;" we all swim in the larger oceans which surround us: community, society, species, biosphere, geosphere, universe.
Each person is an individual and to them other people are just part of their environment. Don't read this as saying that I don't care about other people or don't think they exist or any nonsense like that, it just means that my thoughts and feelings are seperate from those of other people. Society has no thoughts, no actions, no will, no purpose and no feelings. Why even use the word?

Some of us have other things to do ;)

Your comments seem fine. I've heard this same "all government is violence" argument used by others many a time before, the coversations always end up in similar ways (though I am impressed how civil this one stayed). They've defined themselves into a corner; their definitions of words define the argument and make them right by default. All conversations begin and end with their opening argument; after that its talking to a wall.

I really don't know why I bothered to comment on this topic myself...perhaps just a pervasive sense of wishful thinking. I believe that there is some way to explain the nature of society to someone so that they understand despite themselves. So far, I have not found that method.
I don't understand why this is difficult for you. Laws take violence to enforce them. This is a simple and obvious truth. The fact that it's true by the definition of the word "laws" and "violence" only makes it more simple and obvious. Every true statement is true by virtue of the meanings of the words it contains. If you have some weird definition of law or violence by which what you call a law doesn't involve what you call violence then you are using these words in a different sense from me, that doesn't change the fact that policemen beat people up, lock them up and occasionally kill people in order to get them to do what they're told. Move over, it's my turn at the wall......

Wait a second, I've just figured out what the problem is. You are unwilling to accept the statement "laws are violence" for emotional reasons. You don't want to admit that "laws", which you approve of and think are "good", involve "violence", which you disapprove of and think is "bad". You don't want to say that you approve of something you disapprove of. It makes you uncomfortable. This is why you stick your fingers in your ears and start humming. Be honest with yourself. Ignore any preconceptions about what you think is "good" or "bad" and try to perceive reality on a purely intellectual observational basis. It is clear and obvious that laws involve violence. Your feelings about the matter may be confused but that's something you just have to deal with. Your reluctance to accept a clear and obvious fact is the real instance of wishful thinking here.

i agree with you, libertovania.

governments hold power through coercion and indoctrination. its so effective that it seldom has to resort to violence except for those people who have criminal intent. (and some drug users)

dont pay your taxes and sooner or later you will be in prison. manufacture, market, posses or injest certain substances and you are liable to be arrested and imprisoned for a good long time.

i dont have a problem with it. we have benefitted from government since the beginning of human history.

non-defensive taxes have existed from the beginning of human history (think the pharoah paid for his pyramid with his own labor??) the ruling and religious classes lived off the labors of others. the laborers were not asked their permission or consulted on what they felt the taxes should go for.

today at least we have input on what our taxes will go for. if the majority of US citizens felt that the inheritance tax was unfair,for example, it would be done away with. if enough people were disgusted with the grants given out by the NEA, the NEA would cease to exist.

so yes, there are taxes and government expenditures that you and i despise. it might irk us to realize that we have no choice in paying taxes (well except for the choice to go to prison instead). we both think that most drug laws should be repealed.

the majority of citizens think that this is the best system and that most taxes, expenditures, and laws are fair. so they persist. we can work to change people's minds. we might even succeed. but we wont do away with taxes, we wont make them voluntary, we wont ever get a perfect federal budget. we wont get ALL drugs to be legal and unregulated.

*shrug*

i guess you should have been born 200 years ago so you could have wandered out to the wilderness and become a mountain man.

you would still have to worry about violence from bears however.
Thank you, again it is good to be understood. I don't expect any big changes but I do think if we would start speaking the same language, recognising things for what they are, we could at least have a debate.

I'm inclined to concede this, Libertovania, though I'd love to see Niccolo Medici persevere. It's been very interesting to read so far.

I get the impression that you would like to eventually move from this debate to a more aggressively anti-state proposition, but I'll hold off on that as it would derail the thread (ditto my qualms about your take on the situation in Somalia).

I'm inclined to concede this, Libertovania, though I'd love to see Niccolo Medici persevere. It's been very interesting to read so far.

I get the impression that you would like to eventually move from this debate to a more aggressively anti-state proposition, but I'll hold off on that as it would derail the thread (ditto my qualms about your take on the situation in Somalia).
I don't want to move on to that, at least not on this thread. I want this thread to be about facts, not opinions. Once you get in the habit of thinking of laws as threats of violence it changes your perspective. The reason I started this thread was that there was another thread about when you should use violence and virtually everyone thought it should only be used in defence. I thought, "wonderful, look at all these anarchists", but then I realised they hadn't thought through the consequences of a belief like that and I wanted to bring it to their attention.

-snip-

Violence is a method of government, not its defining concept. Politics is not violence, politics is the business of power. To claim that "politics is violence" would be like claming "music is guitar." It's an oversimplification.

-snip-


How about this: Violence is the politics of power.

No, that's not always right... Violence is a politicking of power?

Violence is justified more often through politicizing?

Violence is a means, like politics, to a common end: Power.

The point I am making is that government involves violence. When the politicians bicker they are bickering about when and how much violence their henchmen (police and military) should apply and on what should they spend the money that their henchmen seize.

The standard political science definition of government is "the agency that has a monopoly on legitimate use of violence in a given territory." This definition is faulty in that "legitimate" is a personal opinion, not an objective measureable thing, but if you were to rectify this the definition of a government would still include require its use of violence.

In fact, stripped of all moral notions and personal opinions a government is indistinguishable from a mafia protection racket, in that it extorts money from people via threats of violence and in return protects you from others. Apart from its size and it's formalalising its threats into a legal code, the only difference is that people tend to like governments and not like the mafia. (and don't say that democratic govts are different, if the mafia allowed you to vote for its leader it would still be a protection racket)

Your reluctance to accept a clear and obvious fact is the real instance of wishful thinking here.

Nope, not really. Thanks for trying to explain it though. We simply think about the world in different terms; I flatly don't agree with you on this.

It is possible to see the world in starkly different terms without actually being deluded; its just another way of looking at the same data. Since neither or us is likely to change positions...I think we'd probably be wise to simply agree to disagree on this subject. I look forward to seeing you on other threads ok? :)

I'm glad we're "staying friends", but I still don't understand how being put in handcuffs under the threat of being beaten or shot if you resist, and then locked up in a small room could be not an act of violence. To deny this is not a difference in opinion because I'm not stating an opinion, I'm simply recording a fact about the world.

I am aware that I'm not the only human on the planet! What I'm saying is that there is no such entity as society. There is me, you and some other dudes, but there is no extra thing called a society. What does a "society" have that a group of individuals does not? Nothing. So why use the word when all it does is confuse and obscure by trapping people into making false or misleading statements such as "society decided this" or "France did that". Only individuals think and act, they are influenced by each other but they are not all one thing.

The English language is deeply illogical. It's good enough for day to day purposes but for abstract reasoning you need a formal language with tight definitions and logical structure. English has double meanings for words, same spelling for different words, and a host of empty concepts such as "society", "morality", "legitimate" etc.

Nobody's disputing this.

Each person is an individual and to them other people are just part of their environment. Don't read this as saying that I don't care about other people or don't think they exist or any nonsense like that, it just means that my thoughts and feelings are seperate from those of other people. Society has no thoughts, no actions, no will, no purpose and no feelings. Why even use the word?
You must have had a singularly isolated upbringing then. Talk to a member of any one of thousands of clans, tribes, communities, etc., and you'll get a vastly different view on whether a "society" is an actual entity greater than the sum of its parts.

Politics is violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell. If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.

If I were to do that to someone it would be called violence, specifically kidnapping, assault or murder. I don't see how it can be justified just because the guy had a uniform and some thugs calling themselves a "government" said it was okay.

"Justified" only expresses a personal preference so the quesion isn't deeply meaningful but for what it's worth I find violence for any reason other than defence of people or property rights (since to confiscate the fruits of someone's labour is equivalent to slavery) to be uncivilized. If, like me, you believe violence should only be used defensively you are saying you disapprove of laws against drugs, prostitution, posession of firearms as well as all taxation, since taxes are collected through threats of jail and are thus a form of armed robbery (specifically, extortion). If you don't agree just imagine if Microsoft were to force people to buy windows under threat of kidnapping, this would be violence, surely. Well, this is how the state pays for schools and hospitals.

It is of course perfectly consistent to believe that all these things are all fine and dandy, so long as you are aware that you are advocating threats of extreme violence against all your neighbours, friends and family.

Incidently, this is why it is almost comical to listen to lefties complaining about the violence of war for profit, when all the while they advocate violently confiscating the property of others to pay for *their* pet projects. The right wing are retarded too since they complain about terrorism saying that "violence has no place in politics". Terrorists are just free-lance politicians.
no, politics is boring. you're boring me now.

Thank you, again it is good to be understood. I don't expect any big changes but I do think if we would start speaking the same language, recognising things for what they are, we could at least have a debate.
i think thats because you keep running into the indoctrination aspect of governmental control. we are so used to thinking of our governments as GOOD that its hard to see behind the curtain to the great big stick they have in their hands.

Libertovania:

This is part of the ongoing dilemma: how to recognise where people are truly at ideologically, and determine how to incrementally move them to where we think they should be. My congratulations on maintaining a civil tone, but I don't personally favour using "shock headlines" to try to win people over. Just my preference --- apparently these boards rely on them!

Maybe get 'em to read F. Paul Wilson's LaNague Chronicles (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671721399/ref=pd_sxp_f/002-9354979-2541659?v=glance&s=books) ... that's where I started. For the more philosophically oriented, maybe they could handle Frederic Bastiat's The Law (http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/the-law1.shtml) or A Petition (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph3.html#S.1,%20Ch.7,%20A%20Petition) from Economic Sophisms.

I wrote a bit about this topic awhile back (http://japhthor.com/blog/archives/2004/11/04/why-libertarian-politics-would-lead-to-peace-and-why-non-libertarians-oppose-them-so-violently/).

The arguments tend to be "well, it used to be worse; you should be happy!" and "They oughta make a law against that, because I don't personally like it". My family background was persecuted violently by the government for such radical religious convictions as pacifism and "adult believer's baptism" (the concept that the only valid religious convictions are those ascribed to voluntarily, not those imposed by the State). But not everybody has that perspective, nor cares.

/just my 2&cent;
/end threadjack

Politics is violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell. If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.

If I were to do that to someone it would be called violence, specifically kidnapping, assault or murder. I don't see how it can be justified just because the guy had a uniform and some thugs calling themselves a "government" said it was okay.

"Justified" only expresses a personal preference so the quesion isn't deeply meaningful but for what it's worth I find violence for any reason other than defence of people or property rights (since to confiscate the fruits of someone's labour is equivalent to slavery) to be uncivilized. If, like me, you believe violence should only be used defensively you are saying you disapprove of laws against drugs, prostitution, posession of firearms as well as all taxation, since taxes are collected through threats of jail and are thus a form of armed robbery (specifically, extortion). If you don't agree just imagine if Microsoft were to force people to buy windows under threat of kidnapping, this would be violence, surely. Well, this is how the state pays for schools and hospitals.

It is of course perfectly consistent to believe that all these things are all fine and dandy, so long as you are aware that you are advocating threats of extreme violence against all your neighbours, friends and family.

Incidently, this is why it is almost comical to listen to lefties complaining about the violence of war for profit, when all the while they advocate violently confiscating the property of others to pay for *their* pet projects. The right wing are retarded too since they complain about terrorism saying that "violence has no place in politics". Terrorists are just free-lance politicians.

Well. The goverment demands tax for, say, a new hospital, so the person who pays for it can recover in that hospital. If the taxpayer does not like it, he can leave. And the goverment must have laws. I would say it's not a matter of opinion weather murderer is a crime. The goverment must have stranderds. If they ever get unresonable in thier stranderds, then we must act. So far, they are resonable.

You must have had a singularly isolated upbringing then. Talk to a member of any one of thousands of clans, tribes, communities, etc., and you'll get a vastly different view on whether a "society" is an actual entity greater than the sum of its parts.
What more is it then? What is the extra thing?

...Government is a protection racket...

This thread should have ended here, fore never a series of truer words have been spoken.

Well. The goverment demands tax for, say, a new hospital, so the person who pays for it can recover in that hospital.
"The mafia demand money so that those who pay can benefit from their protection." If Microsoft were to force people to benefit from Windows like the state forces people to benefit from hospitals I'm sure you'd be the first to protest.

If the taxpayer does not like it, he can leave.

I hear this all the time and it is ignorant and insulting. If the govt agents were raping women instead of robbing them anyone who said "if they don't like it they should leave" would be considered an insensitive uncivilized jackass.

And the goverment must have laws. I would say it's not a matter of opinion weather murderer is a crime.
I accept the need for laws. I don't accept that we need to be robbed and kidnapped in order to protect us against robbers and kidnappers. There are better ways of generating and enforcing laws than our current ones. This is all irrelevant to the main point though, I can only assume you got angry and defensive while reading my main point, which was not an opinion but a simple fact about what a law is, and this lead you to misread it and assume I was saying something that I wasn't.

The goverment must have stranderds. If they ever get unresonable in thier stranderds, then we must act. So far, they are resonable.
They are reasonable in how much they kidnap, imprison and beat people. I see.

No offence but you've missed the point. I've put it as clearly as I can so all I can suggest is that you read it again but this time don't try to think about where I might be going with the argument or whether I or you approve of this or that, just read it as a fact about the world. "Laws take violence to enforce", and the corollary, " 'X should be illegal' implies 'violence should be used against those who do X' "