NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an honest question I have. Lets say I do not use a service that my tax money provides, and I do not want to pay. For example, Medicaid. What the government is doing is taking my money and giving it to someone else against my will, and if I resist I am labeled as a tax evader and thrown in prison. That sounds like a clear cut case of extortion if I've ever heard one. I understand a service that I use; i.e. roads. I like roads; in this instance the government is just a means of citizens pooling their money to better their lives, while medicaid is taking my money and bettering someone else's life with it. In principal, it's extortion even if legally it isn't.

Whether I personally am for or against medicaid is irrelevant, you understand my point. This could be applied to lots of things, like the government bailing Freddie Mac or Fanny May or the Iraq War.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will? I know what most people will say, that they have less than I do and I should help them out. Sure, I should, but who are you to make me? Or that a government has an obligation to its citizens. Ok, but I don't have an obligation to my fellow citizens.

I'm not trying start a big argument, I just want a satisfactory answer to my question.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will?

The fact that they have the ability to back up their demands for your money with the threat of force.


In short, because they have the guns.

This is an honest question I have. Lets say I do not use a service that my tax money provides, and I do not want to pay. For example, Medicaid. What the government is doing is taking my money and giving it to someone else against my will, and if I resist I am labeled as a tax evader and thrown in prison. That sounds like a clear cut case of extortion if I've ever heard one. I understand a service that I use; i.e. roads. I like roads; in this instance the government is just a means of citizens pooling their money to better their lives, while medicaid is taking my money and bettering someone else's life with it. In principal, it's extortion even if legally it isn't.

Whether I personally am for or against medicaid is irrelevant, you understand my point. This could be applied to lots of things, like the government bailing Freddie Mac or Fanny May or the Iraq War.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will? I know what most people will say, that they have less than I do and I should help them out. Sure, I should, but who are you to make me? Or that a government has an obligation to its citizens. Ok, but I don't have an obligation to my fellow citizens.

I'm not trying start a big argument, I just want a satisfactory answer to my question.

How you treat others reflects on how you yourself would like to be treated when in need. Just because you're not in need right now doesn't mean you won't be in future.

I honestly don't understand the mindset of those who don't want to contribute to the very society that sustains them.

The short answer is that you live in the country. You have reached an age of majority in that country so therefore you have agreed to 'live by the rules'; rules which, by the way, have been drawn up and agreed to by whatever government system has been put in place by the people (assuming of course you live in a non-couped state). If you don't like it, leave.

Simple as that.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will?
The fact that it makes your life convenient and easy. Which is essentially the point of civilisation in general.

How you treat others reflects on how you yourself would like to be treated when in need. Just because you're not in need right now doesn't mean you won't be in future.

I honestly don't understand the mindset of those who don't want to contribute to the very society that sustains them.

We have a word for that.


Its called selfish.

You've signed on to the social contract, buddy-boo. Whether you like it or not, you've issued your tacit acceptance of what society does, by participating in society, and the benefits it provides. Living on defended land, benefiting from guaranteed property rights, utilizing state services, all of these sign you up. If you don't like it, change it, but as it is, the Contract is in full force.

The fact that they have the ability to back up their demands for your money with the threat of force.


In short, because they have the guns.

So, extortion?

What makes you so sure that it is yours?

How you treat others reflects on how you yourself would like to be treated when in need. Just because you're not in need right now doesn't mean you won't be in future.

I honestly don't understand the mindset of those who don't want to contribute to the very society that sustains them.

I think most people would be more than happy to help out their fellow man if they were actually given a choice rather than to be forced to give.

Let's take schools for an example. If someone doesn't have any children, why does one have to pay taxes toward education? Well, because there is benefit received from educating other people's children. Other people's children will be your doctors when you're old. They will be the scientists of tomorrow. The not so bright ones will cook your french fries. Same thing can be said of medicare/medicaid. There is benefit to providing preventative medicine to the poor and elderly as it prevents excessive emergency medical expenses which will eventually get paid by who? Why, you of course, The costs of those who cannot afford to pay are tacked onto your medical insurance. Or your taxes. It behooves you, from a financial standpoint to pay for the ounce of prevention instead of the pound of cure.

I think most people would be more than happy to help out their fellow man if they were actually given a choice rather than to be forced to give.

Reality disagrees with you.

So, extortion?

That is one way to look at it. Thats in essence what the cold reality may be.


Another way to look at it is that it is the responsibility of a society's well off to support its less fortunate members. Its not being a jerk off.

What makes you so sure that it is yours?

Hey, if I worked 10 hours, for a certain amount of money an hour, I want all of that I've earned, not have 30% of it missing.

i think most people would be more than happy to help out their fellow man if they were actually given a choice rather than to be forced to give.

Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You've signed on to the social contract, buddy-boo. Whether you like it or not, you've issued your tacit acceptance of what society does, by participating in society, and the benefits it provides. Living on defended land, benefiting from guaranteed property rights, utilizing state services, all of these sign you up. If you don't like it, change it, but as it is, the Contract is in full force.

So, my choices are being robbed or open rebellion?

I think most people would be more than happy to help out their fellow man if they were actually given a choice rather than to be forced to give.
Oh, of course. Because history has shown that just SO well.

Well, as long as you ignore it I suppose.

Reality disagrees with you.

Back in Undergrad, I was forced to go to cultural events. They wanted me to be a "Well rounded person". I resented it very much, mainly because I was forced to do it. Have I have been given the choice to attend these events, rather than forced. I'd most likely go to the events.

People hate being forced, they'd much rather have a choice.

Back in Undergrad, I was forced to go to cultural events. They wanted me to be a "Well rounded person". I resented it very much, mainly because I was forced to do it. Have I have been given the choice to attend these events, rather than forced. I'd most likely go to the events.

People hate being forced, they'd much rather have a choice.

Well Wilgrove, you're the second coming of the Lord so it's hard to use you as a typical example.

Back in Undergrad, I was forced to go to cultural events. They wanted me to be a "Well rounded person". I resented it very much, mainly because I was forced to do it. Have I have been given the choice to attend these events, rather than forced. I'd most likely go to the events.


See, not only is your anecdotal evidence useless, you have no way of knowing youd have volunteered. And even if you know youd have not, its easy for you to lie to support your "point".

Let's take schools for an example. If someone doesn't have any children, why does one have to pay taxes toward education? Well, because there is benefit received from educating other people's children. Other people's children will be your doctors when you're old. They will be the scientists of tomorrow. The not so bright ones will cook your french fries. Same thing can be said of medicare/medicaid. There is benefit to providing preventative medicine to the poor and elderly as it prevents excessive emergency medical expenses which will eventually get paid by who? Why, you of course, The costs of those who cannot afford to pay are tacked onto your medical insurance. Or your taxes. It behooves you, from a financial standpoint to pay for the ounce of prevention instead of the pound of cure.

This, my friends, is a satisfactory answer.

Although I still disagree with it in principle.

Well I'm glad I could waste 10 minutes of everyone's time.

If people aren't willing to give up their money, then how come we have charities? How come people like Bill Gates start charities? Why do people volunteer at the soup kitchen, or help the homeless?

People are idiots, yes. However, not all of them are cold heartless greedy bastards.

Hey, if I worked 10 hours, for a certain amount of money an hour, I want all of that I've earned, not have 30% of it missing.

and you got all of it that you earned. probably more.

Back in Undergrad, I was forced to go to cultural events. They wanted me to be a "Well rounded person". I resented it very much, mainly because I was forced to do it. Have I have been given the choice to attend these events, rather than forced. I'd most likely go to the events.

People hate being forced, they'd much rather have a choice.

You really, really need to get beyond this projection thing you do. Your personal experiences do not translate to grand, sweeping human truths.

Hey, if I worked 10 hours, for a certain amount of money an hour, I want all of that I've earned, not have 30% of it missing.

Did your parents send you to private school?

Hey, if I worked 10 hours, for a certain amount of money an hour

...you get every cent of it.

Unless you're really stupid, and don't believe taxation exists.

If people aren't willing to give up their money, then how come we have charities? How come people like Bill Gates start charities?

Tax write offs.

Why do people volunteer at the soup kitchen, or help the homeless?

Because not everyones a dousche.

People are idiots, yes. However, not all of them are cold heartless greedy bastards.

Only Republicans and Libertarians.

This is an honest question I have. Lets say I do not use a service that my tax money provides, and I do not want to pay. For example, Medicaid. What the government is doing is taking my money and giving it to someone else against my will, and if I resist I am labeled as a tax evader and thrown in prison. That sounds like a clear cut case of extortion if I've ever heard one. I understand a service that I use; i.e. roads. I like roads; in this instance the government is just a means of citizens pooling their money to better their lives, while medicaid is taking my money and bettering someone else's life with it. In principal, it's extortion even if legally it isn't.

Whether I personally am for or against medicaid is irrelevant, you understand my point. This could be applied to lots of things, like the government bailing Freddie Mac or Fanny May or the Iraq War.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will? I know what most people will say, that they have less than I do and I should help them out. Sure, I should, but who are you to make me? Or that a government has an obligation to its citizens. Ok, but I don't have an obligation to my fellow citizens.

I'm not trying start a big argument, I just want a satisfactory answer to my question.

If you don't want to pay taxes, go to a nation that doesn't collect them or start your own? If you want to be part of a nation, then you've responsibilities along with rights that go along with it.

So, my choices are being robbed or open rebellion?

Or, you know, using the political process to change things. Either that or leaving, hoping to return in better days.

If you don't want to pay taxes, go to a nation that doesn't collect them or start your own? If you want to be part of a nation, then you've responsibilities along with rights that go along with it.

I really dislike the "Deal with it or leave" mentality. I do have responsibilities, but I don't think paying for someone else's life is one. I'll admit I had never thought of the fact that they're health care benefited me, and so I have a responsibility to help pay for it.

I want to say that I am in favor of Medicare for the just reason I stated in the OP, that we should help those less fortunate out. But it's just the idea of being forced to do it I disagree with. But if it helps me, I have a responsibility to help pay for it.

Or, you know, using the political process to change things.

Haha, good one. I have very little faith in the US democratic system; my voice will never be heard over the HMO's and other big companies.

i just want a satisfactory answer to my question.

26 u.s.c. § (a)(1)

Haha, good one. I have very little faith in the US democratic system; my voice will never be heard over the HMO's and other big companies.

Then unfortunately your only real options are to suck it up or leave. We have some pretty good neighbors north of the border or overseas...perhaps you can just wait it out there until things swing in to a more favorable position.

I think most people would be more than happy to help out their fellow man if they were actually given a choice rather than to be forced to give.

`Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge.

`Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down
the pen again.

`And the Union workhouses?' demanded Scrooge.
`Are they still in operation?'

`They are. Still,' returned the gentleman, `I wish
I could say they were not.'

`The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour,
then?' said Scrooge.

`Both very busy, sir.'

`Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first,
that something had occurred to stop them in their
useful course,' said Scrooge. `I'm very glad to
hear it.'

`Under the impression that they scarcely furnish
Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'
returned the gentleman, `a few of us are endeavouring
to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink.
and means of warmth. We choose this time, because
it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt,
and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down
for?'

`Nothing!' Scrooge replied.

`You wish to be anonymous?'

`I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. `Since you
ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer.
I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't
afford to make idle people merry. I help to support
the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost
enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

Back in Undergrad, I was forced to go to cultural events. They wanted me to be a "Well rounded person". I resented it very much, mainly because I was forced to do it. Have I have been given the choice to attend these events, rather than forced. I'd most likely go to the events.

So you resented being told to going to an event that, had you not been told to, you would have gone to anyway?

I call bullshit.

So, my choices are being robbed or open rebellion?

If you live in a non-democratic state...but if you happen to live in a state with functional democratic institutions, a liberal attitude towards political change, and channels through which you might effect change...well...then you can seek to do so without rebellion. Good luck changing enough minds to do it though.

This is an honest question I have. Lets say I do not use a service that my tax money provides, and I do not want to pay. For example, Medicaid. What the government is doing is taking my money and giving it to someone else against my will, and if I resist I am labeled as a tax evader and thrown in prison. That sounds like a clear cut case of extortion if I've ever heard one. I understand a service that I use; i.e. roads. I like roads; in this instance the government is just a means of citizens pooling their money to better their lives, while medicaid is taking my money and bettering someone else's life with it. In principal, it's extortion even if legally it isn't.

Whether I personally am for or against medicaid is irrelevant, you understand my point. This could be applied to lots of things, like the government bailing Freddie Mac or Fanny May or the Iraq War.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will? I know what most people will say, that they have less than I do and I should help them out. Sure, I should, but who are you to make me? Or that a government has an obligation to its citizens. Ok, but I don't have an obligation to my fellow citizens.

I'm not trying start a big argument, I just want a satisfactory answer to my question.
your participation in a system that allows you to make money implies that you must support that system with your taxes.

if you make no money, own no property, make no purchases, use no services, you dont have much of a tax burden eh?

So, extortion?

yes; that's it, exactly. nothing more, nothing less.

everyone who tells you that it has to be that way is only justifying their own failure---individually and collectively---to be more human and creative in response to our individual and collective problems.

then---they tell you that you're being selfish if you don't like being robbed at gunpoint.

they are doing something wrong, suppressing their guilt about it, and then unconsciously projecting it onto you---potentially until they scapegoat you to the point that you have to be 'removed' just for the 'threat' that your living honestly presents to the collective lie of their utterly wretched way of life.

don't buy the farm, brother. the principles are worth it. :wink:

So you resented being told to going to an event that, had you not been told to, you would have gone to anyway?

I call bullshit.

I'll concede that to him. I know I've found myself in situations where I'm being made to do something that I've freely chosen to do before, but because the decision is in someone else's hands, I'm resentful.

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

Because like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, It's Been Done.

So, my choices are being robbed or open rebellion?

Robbed of what?

I still want an answer to my earlier question: why are you so sure it is yours?

I say you can only be sure of this within the framework of the social contract, by the social legitimation of your ownership... but then, that only applies to what society says actually is yours, that is, your income minus tax.

your participation in a system that allows you to make money implies that you must support that system with your taxes.


the right to make money is inalienable. a human being who is creative enough can make money out in the middle of the desert, if he also has occasional contact with---say---some nomads; all the while, he has no interface with any nation-state. what has the state down to earn some of his money? nothing.

it's like saying that the state has the right to my blood because it "allows" me to breathe. it's both fallacious and patently absurd.

yes; that's it, exactly. nothing more, nothing less.

everyone who tells you that it has to be that way is only justifying their own failure---individually and collectively---to be more human and creative in response to our individual and collective problems.

then---they tell you that you're being selfish if you don't like being robbed at gunpoint.

they are doing something wrong, suppressing their guilt about it, and then unconsciously projecting it onto you---potentially until they scapegoat you to the point that you have to be 'removed' just for the 'threat' that your living honestly presents to the collective lie of their utterly wretched way of life.

don't buy the farm, brother. the principles are worth it. :wink:


:rolleyes:

the right to make money is inalienable. a human being who is creative enough can make money out in the middle of the desert, if he also has occasional contact with---say---some nomads; all the while, he has no interface with any nation-state. what has the state down to earn some of his money? nothing.

it's like saying that the state has the right to my blood because it "allows" me to breathe. it's both fallacious and patently absurd.

Even from an evolutionary perspective, there's advantage to cooperation, benefits in working together to be more than the sum of the parts.

As humans, we should be above even that, we've rational thought that means we should be able to overcome our selfish instincts to achieve even more.

You were born into a nation that allowed great access to self-determination while still providing the infrastructure to educate, maintain health, create efficient distribution systems and protect you. All that is asked is that you contribute back.

There's 300 million people in America, it takes administration to ensure that as many have the opportunities you have enjoyed, roads, sewage systems, schools, national parks and more.

Yet some people feel they shouldn't reciprocate in any way, the 'I'm alright Jacks' even though they're alright because of the infrastructure provided by the taxes of others.

It's quite sad to see.

Bears don't need money.
Game. Set. Match.

the right to make money is inalienable.

says whom?

No, wait, lemme guess. Ayn Rand

the right to make money is inalienable. a human being who is creative enough can make money out in the middle of the desert, if he also has occasional contact with---say---some nomads; all the while, he has no interface with any nation-state. what has the state down to earn some of his money? nothing.

it's like saying that the state has the right to my blood because it "allows" me to breathe. it's both fallacious and patently absurd.

What are these inalienable rights you speak of?

the right to make money is inalienable. a human being who is creative enough can make money out in the middle of the desert, if he also has occasional contact with---say---some nomads; all the while, he has no interface with any nation-state. what has the state down to earn some of his money? nothing.

it's like saying that the state has the right to my blood because it "allows" me to breathe. it's both fallacious and patently absurd.

money only exists because there is a system that makes it. if you want money, you need to support that system.

if you can find a spot in the desert where you have no government to bother you you can (perhaps) live by your own means but you will not make any money.

plus you will not have any security in your property. if you run into trouble you will have to get yourself out of that trouble or die in the effort.

the right to make money is inalienable. a human being who is creative enough can make money out in the middle of the desert, if he also has occasional contact with---say---some nomads; all the while, he has no interface with any nation-state. what has the state down to earn some of his money? nothing.

it's like saying that the state has the right to my blood because it "allows" me to breathe. it's both fallacious and patently absurd.

Nomads that could freely kill you and take all of that valuable currency you're making out in the desert.

Nomads that could freely kill you and take all of that valuable currency you're making out in the desert.

don't be stupid. John Galt will save him.

the right to make money is inalienable. a human being who is creative enough can make money out in the middle of the desert, if he also has occasional contact with---say---some nomads; all the while, he has no interface with any nation-state. what has the state down to earn some of his money? nothing.

it's like saying that the state has the right to my blood because it "allows" me to breathe. it's both fallacious and patently absurd.

There is no money without nation states.
Without Australia backing its dollar with a value, it would be just a pretty piece of paper.

Try again? [y] [n]

don't be stupid. John Galt will save him.

Are you kidding? John Galt would probably rob and kill him on the basis of rational individualism.

don't be stupid. John Galt will save him.

Who is John Galt?

This is an honest question I have. Lets say I do not use a service that my tax money provides, and I do not want to pay. For example, Medicaid. What the government is doing is taking my money and giving it to someone else against my will, and if I resist I am labeled as a tax evader and thrown in prison. That sounds like a clear cut case of extortion if I've ever heard one. I understand a service that I use; i.e. roads. I like roads; in this instance the government is just a means of citizens pooling their money to better their lives, while medicaid is taking my money and bettering someone else's life with it. In principal, it's extortion even if legally it isn't.

Whether I personally am for or against medicaid is irrelevant, you understand my point. This could be applied to lots of things, like the government bailing Freddie Mac or Fanny May or the Iraq War.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will? I know what most people will say, that they have less than I do and I should help them out. Sure, I should, but who are you to make me? Or that a government has an obligation to its citizens. Ok, but I don't have an obligation to my fellow citizens.

I'm not trying start a big argument, I just want a satisfactory answer to my question.

The only justification the government has is that you have money, it needs money, and it's stronger than you are. Just like the mob; they take your money because they can, regardless of the fact that it's immoral.

Who is John Galt?

*chuckles*

There is no money without nation states.
Without Australia backing its dollar with a value, it would be just a pretty piece of paper.

Try again? [y] [n]

Curency always boils down to whatever is most desired by people as a whole.

In developed nationstates, it'll usually be digital, metal or paper money.

In prisons, cigarettes.

In a small communal group, bartering is usually the norm.

In post-apocalyptic films, food, water and gasoline.

So on and so forth.

Right -- the government that prints that money, that values that money, and that provides roads, police/fire/emergency medical technicians/schools/welfare/grants/food stamps/tax incentives/potable drinking water/infrastructure.... that nasty mean old government stealing from you.

Who is John Galt?

i think i met him once, out in idaho

Curency always boils down to whatever is most desired by people as a whole.

In developed nationstates, it'll usually be digital, metal or paper money.

In prisons, cigarettes.

In a small communal group, bartering is usually the norm.

In post-apocalyptic films, food, water and gasoline.

So on and so forth.

Barter is something else.
The post I responded to spoke of MONEY, which is an artificial "value-holder" created by a government.
Individuals or even small groups can agree on x being worth y, but that certainly is not what the poster was referring to.

Right -- the government that prints that money, that values that money, and that provides roads, police/fire/emergency medical technicians/schools/welfare/grants/food stamps/tax incentives/potable drinking water/infrastructure.... that nasty mean old government stealing from you.

The government is using its vast power to take your money against your will by force of threat. Yes, it's stealing your money, or at least extorting it. Once you have given fair compensation for your pay, that money is your property, and no person or organization has a moral right to your property. Since the government confiscates that property by force, it has stolen it from you.

The government is using its vast power to take your money against your will by force of threat. Yes, it's stealing your money, or at least extorting it. Once you have given fair compensation for your pay, that money is your property, and no person or organization has a moral right to your property. Since the government confiscates that property by force, it has stolen it from you.
it is no more stealing from me than the bank is when it requires that i pay my house mortgage.

if you participate in the system, you must participate in the whole thing not just the parts that benefit you.

The government is using its vast power to take your money against your will by force of threat.

The government also uses its vast power to stop you from breaking into people's homes, shooting them in the face, and taking their stuff. yet you don't bitch about that.

Curious.

And yet you can avoid this by not being a member of the society and reaping none of the benefits thereof.

If you use any of the benefits of the society and do not pay your fair share, it is you who are the thief.

It is not thievery to insist you pay for the goods and services you consume.

the right to make money is inalienable. a human being who is creative enough can make money out in the middle of the desert, if he also has occasional contact with---say---some nomads; all the while, he has no interface with any nation-state. what has the state down to earn some of his money? nothing.

and did you in fact earn any money out in the desert with no contact with society?

it is no more stealing from me than the bank is when it requires that i pay my house mortgage.

if you participate in the system, you must participate in the whole thing not just the parts that benefit you.

I voluntarily entered into the mortgage at the bank, exchanging my property for its. I did no such thing with the government. Rather, the government steals my money, then uses it to create a bunch of unnecessary institutions it generously allows me to partake in. Regardless of what use the government puts the stolen money to, it still remains immoral to steal it in the first place.

i think i met him once, out in idaho

Wasn't he the one at Ruby Ridge?

The government also uses its vast power to stop you from breaking into people's homes, shooting them in the face, and taking their stuff. yet you don't bitch about that.

Curious.

Protection of people from bodily harm by another is a legitimate power of the government, possibly the only one.

I voluntarily entered into the mortgage at the bank, exchanging my property for its. I did no such thing with the government. Rather, the government steals my money, then uses it to create a bunch of unnecessary institutions it generously allows me to partake in. Regardless of what use the government puts the stolen money to, it still remains immoral to steal it in the first place.
guess you should have thought of that before you started kindergarten. you have a lifetime of mooching off the system--the very system that makes it possible for you to make this money you are so proud of. you have to pay your way.

just like i have to pay my house mortgage even to the lien holder that i did not make the agreement with.

And yet you can avoid this by not being a member of the society and reaping none of the benefits thereof.

If you use any of the benefits of the society and do not pay your fair share, it is you who are the thief.

It is not thievery to insist you pay for the goods and services you consume.
What about the services I don't consume? Do I have to pay for them too?

I think most people would be more than happy to help out their fellow man if they were actually given a choice rather than to be forced to give.

I dearly, truly wish that was true.

But that's not true, as we see from history. Besides, I want you to take a look at your own probable actions. Look at what you do typically. You constantly talk about your disdain for a large number of people, intentionally fly your airplane to spite people who would complain about its pollution, etc, and you're generally an ass.

Would you give any money if you weren't taxed? Somehow, I doubt it.

Protection of people from bodily harm by another is a legitimate power of the government, possibly the only one.

says....whom? You? Who gave you the authority to decide what is, and is not, a legitimate purpose of the government? You've already conceded that the use, or threat of use, of force by the government to compel certain conduct is acceptable in certain circumstances. At that point, you've pretty much lost, and try to fall back on some arbitrary argument that certain justifications are "legitimate".

Legitimate, apparently, according to you, and, as I said, I see no reason to accept your authority on the subject. But thanks for conceding that your argument is bull.

What about the services I don't consume? Do I have to pay for them too?
yes

...

guess you should have thought of that before you started kindergarten. you have a lifetime of mooching off the system--the very system that makes it possible for you to make this money you are so proud of. you have to pay your way.

just like i have to pay my house mortgage even to the lien holder that i did not make the agreement with.

This kind of social contract claptrap falls apart at first glance. The claim is essentially that, because the government has stolen money from all the people before you, and uses these ill-gotten funds to provide programs you have benefited from, you have thereby given the government the right to steal your money.
In reality, the theft is logically prior to the services; the services would not exist without the theft. Stop the theft, and there are no services to enter into: your logic is circular. Should the government announce its intentions to generate a pay-for-use program, and fund these programs only through donated monies and usage costs, this would be acceptable, but this is not what currently exists today.

says....whom? You? Who gave you the authority to decide what is, and is not, a legitimate purpose of the government? You've already conceded that the use, or threat of use, of force by the government to compel certain conduct is acceptable in certain circumstances. At that point, you've pretty much lost, and try to fall back on some arbitrary argument that certain justifications are "legitimate".

Legitimate, apparently, according to you, and, as I said, I see no reason to accept your authority on the subject. But thanks for conceding that your argument is bull.

The function of prevention of bodily harm to its citizens is the minimum activity for a government; if it does not do this, the government ceases to exist. It was assumed that total anarchy was undesirable, so the next step up would be a minimalist government which exists solely to protect its people from bodily harm, and nothing else. Such an action has no immoral component, as does theft-taxation. The problem is not the power of the government being exercised; the problem is to what ends and by what means that power is exercised.

This kind of social contract claptrap falls apart at first glance. The claim is essentially that, because the government has stolen money from all the people before you, and uses these ill-gotten funds to provide programs you have benefited from, you have thereby given the government the right to steal your money.
In reality, the theft is logically prior to the services; the services would not exist without the theft. Stop the theft, and there are no services to enter into: your logic is circular. Should the government announce its intentions to generate a pay-for-use program, and fund these programs only through donated monies and usage costs, this would be acceptable, but this is not what currently exists today.
i dont know where you live but in the united states a bunch of people got together and decided the rules. those rules have been passed down (and been modified and expanded by representative vote) for 230+ years.

there is no theft, there is only a system that has been agreed on and continues to be agreed on. your only option is to opt completely out of the system by moving out of any country that assesses taxes that you are unwilling to pay.

good luck finding one.

The government is using its vast power to take your money against your will by force of threat. Yes, it's stealing your money, or at least extorting it. Once you have given fair compensation for your pay, that money is your property, and no person or organization has a moral right to your property. Since the government confiscates that property by force, it has stolen it from you.

Private property exists because the State defines it. Without the existence of the State, private property cannot exist in any meaningful way. In order for an orderly system of property to exist, there must be a universal record of title to property. And the body that keeps the record of title must also have the power to enforce that title.

You've got it exactly backwards. You can make money and hold "private property" because the State has defined it and will protect it from usurpers. It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the state to protect your property, but you don't want to give it a piece of the pie.

i dont know where you live but in the united states a bunch of people got together and decided the rules. those rules have been passed down (and been modified and expanded by representative vote) for 230+ years.

there is no theft, there is only a system that has been agreed on and continues to be agreed on. your only option is to opt completely out of the system by moving out of any country that assesses taxes that you are unwilling to pay.

good luck finding one.

And the Don, surrounded by his muscle, says to the struggling businessman: "We rule this area. You don't like paying your protection money, you're free to move your business out of our area."
The fact that others agreed to allow an entity steal money from everyone does not give that entity the moral authority to do so from those who did not directly authorize it. Further, I never agreed to allow the government to steal my money.
The fact that a system of theft has been codified into law and entrenched in history does not change the basic immorality of theft.

Private property exists because the State defines it. Without the existence of the State, private property cannot exist in any meaningful way. In order for an orderly system of property to exist, there must be a universal record of title to property. And the body that keeps the record of title must also have the power to enforce that title.

You've got it exactly backwards. You can make money and hold "private property" because the State has defined it and will protect it from usurpers. It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the state to protect your property, but you don't want to give it a piece of the pie.

You place far too little trust in individuals and far too much in the State. I have no place for such socialist myths.

And the Don, surrounded by his muscle, says to the struggling businessman: "We rule this area. You don't like paying your protection money, you're free to move your business out of our area."
The fact that others agreed to allow an entity steal money from everyone does not give that entity the moral authority to do so from those who did not directly authorize it. Further, I never agreed to allow the government to steal my money.
The fact that a system of theft has been codified into law and entrenched in history does not change the basic immorality of theft.
yeah it does.

and if you find yourself in the midst of a system that you didnt realize you have to pay for your only ethical choice is pay up or move out of the system.

The function of prevention of bodily harm to its citizens is the minimum activity for a government; if it does not do this, the government ceases to exist. It was assumed that total anarchy was undesirable, so the next step up would be a minimalist government which exists solely to protect its people from bodily harm, and nothing else. Such an action has no immoral component, as does theft-taxation. The problem is not the power of the government being exercised; the problem is to what ends and by what means that power is exercised.

and even if that were true, who says a minimalist government is more desireable than a non minimalist government?

For that matter, who says that those actions have no immoral components? I'll ask again, says whom?

A minimalist government is the prefered type? Says whom? A minimalist government conduct is amoral? Says whom?

As far as I can see, you're making shit up, for the sole purpose of trying to justify your own immature argument that, essentially, boils down to "mean government makes me do things I don't want to do, poor me." Well boo fucking hoo.

You place far too little trust in individuals and far too much in the State. I have no place for such socialist myths.

If you really have a problem with the State, then come form an anarcho-syndicalist collective with me. If not, then stop trying to have it both ways. Either you have private property and a state, or you abolish both. It's a package deal.

Just because my nation name is "Trotskylvania" doesn't mean I am a Marxist-Leninist.

Even if a non-minimalist government were desired, the means the government is funded must be examined. Non-minimalist governments that rely on taxation are inherently immoral, since they rely on a codified institution of theft.
Protection of one person from harm by another, the end, is not immoral. As long as the means are moral, not, for instance, torturing suspected criminals, the institution is moral.
Of the two of us, you are the one who has resorted to ad hominem and inflammatory language. Perhaps you should re-examine your definition of immature.

You place far too little trust in individuals and far too much in the State. I have no place for such socialist myths.

I see people in the private sector stealing anything that isn't tied down and doing all manner of terrible things to their customers and the only thing that stopped them was the work of whistleblowers that had a government agency to turn to.

I have no idea why you trust them any more. The pursuit of profit is no more noble or desirable than anything else.

If you really have a problem with the State, then come form an anarcho-syndicalist collective with me. If not, then stop trying to have it both ways. Either you have private property and a state, or you abolish both. It's a package deal.

Just because my nation name is "Trotskylvania" doesn't mean I am a Marxist-Leninist.
ya but where would you locate such a community?

Even if a non-minimalist government were desired, the means the government is funded must be examined. Non-minimalist governments that rely on taxation are inherently immoral, since they rely on a codified institution of theft.
Protection of one person from harm by another, the end, is not immoral. As long as the means are moral, not, for instance, torturing suspected criminals, the institution is moral.

How do you intend to have the government protect people from harm without taxation?

If you really have a problem with the State, then come form an anarcho-syndicalist collective with me. If not, then stop trying to have it both ways. Either you have private property and a state, or you abolish both. It's a package deal.

Just because my nation name is "Trotskylvania" doesn't mean I am a Marxist-Leninist.

I did not call you a Marxist or a Leninist; I called your view socialist. Do not attribute the comment targeted at an idea to be targeted also at the origin of the idea. Your name does not enter into the computation: your assertion that the State is necessary for private property is a socialist idea, regardless of its origin.

How do you intend to have the government protect people from harm without taxation?

Nozickian Protection Associations would, I think, suffice.

I did not call you a Marxist or a Leninist; I called your view socialist. Do not attribute the comment targeted at an idea to be targeted also at the origin of the idea. Your name does not enter into the computation: your assertion that the State is necessary for private property is a socialist idea, regardless of its origin.

Don't get me wrong here. I don't deny being a socialist, or using a socialist analysis. I deny being a state socialist. I'm a socialist anarchist, so naturally I get a little touchy when someone suggests that I trust the state.

Non-minimalist governments that rely on taxation are inherently immoral,

I'll ask you again...says whom? See, here's your problem. You're not actually making any argument. you haven't laid out what system of morality you're referencing, you haven't elaborated upon whether this is an objectivist or subjectivist system, you haven't attempted to explain where this system of morality derives from. In fact, you haven't even done the basic step of defining your terms. You haven't done anything, other than make proclamations. Well here's the thing, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your unsupported, unfounded, unsubstantiated claims as to what is ethical versus unethical, what is moral versus immoral, and what is legitimate versus what is illegitimate is worth exactly dick.

And yes, making unfouded and unsupported proclamations as if we should consider your words as at all carrying authority is far, far more immature than me calling your bullshit bullshit.

Because while me calling your bullshit bullshit may be rude, condescending and mean, it's still true.

Don't get me wrong here. I don't deny being a socialist, or using a socialist analysis. I deny being a state socialist. I'm a socialist anarchist, so naturally I get a little touchy when someone suggests that I trust the state.

Then do not claim that a State is necessary for private property. It isn't.

Then do not claim that a State is necessary for private property. It isn't.

The very definition of "private" is a legal construction, and I'm curious how you will continue such a legal construct without a legal system. Without a legal system defining your property as yours, the idea of "private property" exists only insofar as your ability to hold on to it.

Which makes it in no way private at all

I'll ask you again...says whom? See, here's your problem. You're not actually making any argument. you haven't laid out what system of morality you're referencing, you haven't elaborated upon whether this is an objectivist or subjectivist system, you haven't attempted to explain where this system of morality derives from. In fact, you haven't even done the basic step of defining your terms. You haven't done anything, other than make proclamations. Well here's the thing, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your unsupported, unfounded, unsubstantiated claims as to what is ethical versus unethical, what is moral versus immoral, and what is legitimate versus what is illegitimate is worth exactly dick.

And yes, making unfouded and unsupported proclamations as if we should consider your words as at all carrying authority is far, far more immature than me calling your bullshit bullshit.

Because while me calling your bullshit bullshit may be rude, condescending and mean, it's still true.

The system of morality can be any system which claims that theft is immoral. This may be Virtue Ethics, Kantian Categorical Imperative, or even Rule-Utilitarianism.
I find your immature attitude and continuing use of profanity annoying, and am ceasing any discussion with you. At least until you learn to debate like an adult.

Nozickian Protection Associations would, I think, suffice.

until the guy who wants your stuff hires them to take it from you, and pays them more than you can?

ya but where would you locate such a community?

Wyoming

The system of morality can be any system which claims that theft is immoral. This may be Virtue Ethics, Kantian Categorical Imperative, or even Rule-Utilitarianism.
I find your immature attitude and continuing use of profanity annoying, and am ceasing any discussion with you. At least until you learn to debate like an adult.

So, now you need to defend how taxation is theft, because Im prepared to argue it isnt.

The system of morality can be any system which claims that theft is immoral.

so the systems that support your views, conveniently without any discussion of competing theories, or why they are incorrect. Leading once again to you being correct...because you say you are. Well, can't say I expected anything more substantial out of you.


am ceasing any discussion with you.

Of course you are. Can't say I'm surprised really. Frankly I'm vaguely shocked you put up the fight as long as you did before tucking tail and running. Most posers only last half as long before suddenly "having to go"

So, now you need to defend how taxation is theft, because Im prepared to argue it isnt.

An individual or organization is forcibly taking my property without my consent.

An individual or organization is forcibly taking my property without my consent.

and this is different from an individual or organization forcibly constraining your action because ........?

The system of morality can be any system which claims that theft is immoral. This may be Virtue Ethics, Kantian Categorical Imperative, or even Rule-Utilitarianism.
I find your immature attitude and continuing use of profanity annoying, and am ceasing any discussion with you. At least until you learn to debate like an adult.

Hi there sweetums! I'm just a tad confused by this conversation...I was hoping you could help me out, since you seem to be the most mature, polite, and knowledgeable poster here...

If 'theft is immoral', under a variety of systems... well...how do you deal with the culturally-dependent definition of 'theft'? I mean...what is obviously theft to you or I is not necessarily theft according to other cultural paradigms. For example...say you've crafted some tools for working wood, and you leave them out. Someone else comes along, needs them, takes them, and completes a project with them. Under one cultural paradigm, this is theft. Under another, it's completely reasonable that the person who needs said tools, uses them, regardless of who crafted them originally.

So I suppose I'd like to know what paradigm you're working from, because you seem to be speaking in absolutes. Is something 'theft' if you declare it is...even if that supposed 'theft' isn't any such thing under MY cultural paradigm?

Thanks in advance for helping me understand such a complicated topic!

Wyoming
jackson hole?

Nozickian Protection Associations would, I think, suffice.

Nozick didn't think so.

Then do not claim that a State is necessary for private property. It isn't.

I'm still not hearing a reason why private property can exist without a state, only an unsupported assertion. The only argument you've offered is that my analysis is socialist in nature, and must therefore be wrong.

That's a nice non sequitor you've constructed for yourself. So, let's get back to where we started. What makes you so sure it is yours?

Hi there sweetums! I'm just a tad confused by this conversation...I was hoping you could help me out, since you seem to be the most mature, polite, and knowledgeable poster here...

If 'theft is immoral', under a variety of systems... well...how do you deal with the culturally-dependent definition of 'theft'? I mean...what is obviously theft to you or I is not necessarily theft according to other cultural paradigms. For example...say you've crafted some tools for working wood, and you leave them out. Someone else comes along, needs them, takes them, and completes a project with them. Under one cultural paradigm, this is theft. Under another, it's completely reasonable that the person who needs said tools, uses them, regardless of who crafted them originally.

So I suppose I'd like to know what paradigm you're working from, because you seem to be speaking in absolutes. Is something 'theft' if you declare it is...even if that supposed 'theft' isn't any such thing under MY cultural paradigm?

Thanks in advance for helping me understand such a complicated topic!

HEY! We didn't steal your peoples land. You were living on ours! :p

Guess your Nozickian Protection Association wasn't as big as ours! ;)

The system of morality can be any system which claims that theft is immoral. This may be Virtue Ethics, Kantian Categorical Imperative, or even Rule-Utilitarianism.
I find your immature attitude and continuing use of profanity annoying, and am ceasing any discussion with you. At least until you learn to debate like an adult.

Profanity is part of the debating culture here in NSG. You're going to have to get used to it.

An individual or organization is forcibly taking my property without my consent.

By living in this society, you are consenting. Social contract and all that.

The government provides infastructural beurocracies, a justice system, law enforcement etc, as well as enforces your right to private property.

In return they take your shit. Your choices are simple. Obey the social contract, break the social contract by refusing to live up to your end and going to jail or by leaving the country and joining a NEW social contract, or change the "contract" via the democratic process.

Its not theft.

Profanity is part of the debating culture here in NSG. You're going to have to get used to it.

shut the hell up.

Hi there sweetums! I'm just a tad confused by this conversation...I was hoping you could help me out, since you seem to be the most mature, polite, and knowledgeable poster here...

If 'theft is immoral', under a variety of systems... well...how do you deal with the culturally-dependent definition of 'theft'? I mean...what is obviously theft to you or I is not necessarily theft according to other cultural paradigms. For example...say you've crafted some tools for working wood, and you leave them out. Someone else comes along, needs them, takes them, and completes a project with them. Under one cultural paradigm, this is theft. Under another, it's completely reasonable that the person who needs said tools, uses them, regardless of who crafted them originally.

So I suppose I'd like to know what paradigm you're working from, because you seem to be speaking in absolutes. Is something 'theft' if you declare it is...even if that supposed 'theft' isn't any such thing under MY cultural paradigm?

Thanks in advance for helping me understand such a complicated topic!



So....much....sarcasm....

the government steals my money, then uses it to create a bunch of unnecessary institutions it generously allows me to partake in. Regardless of what use the government puts the stolen money to, it still remains immoral to steal it in the first place.
unnecessary institutions like:
kindergartern
primary school
high school
college
water works
sewerage
police departments
fire departments
emergency services
hospitals
roading
public transport
libraries
national parks
national guard
army
navy
airforce

all of them totally unnecessary, right?

Hi there sweetums! I'm just a tad confused by this conversation...I was hoping you could help me out, since you seem to be the most mature, polite, and knowledgeable poster here...

If 'theft is immoral', under a variety of systems... well...how do you deal with the culturally-dependent definition of 'theft'? I mean...what is obviously theft to you or I is not necessarily theft according to other cultural paradigms. For example...say you've crafted some tools for working wood, and you leave them out. Someone else comes along, needs them, takes them, and completes a project with them. Under one cultural paradigm, this is theft. Under another, it's completely reasonable that the person who needs said tools, uses them, regardless of who crafted them originally.

So I suppose I'd like to know what paradigm you're working from, because you seem to be speaking in absolutes. Is something 'theft' if you declare it is...even if that supposed 'theft' isn't any such thing under MY cultural paradigm?

Thanks in advance for helping me understand such a complicated topic!

Of course, such a culture could theoretically exist, where no concept of personal property is extant. While I generally consider Ethical Relativism to be discredited, for the purposes of argument, I would say that, given that moral construction, and in that society, taxation would not be theft, since all items would be held in common anyway.
Even if it were allowed that Ethical Relativism were operable, in any society which acknowledges personal property and the immorality of theft, such as ours and most of the Western world, taxation would still be immoral. In such a society, that values personal property and claims that taking personal property from another by force is immoral, taxation could only be justified by some form of the statement "Taking another's personal property by force is immoral, except in the case of taxation." This social construction would technically allow for the morality, within that culture, of taxation while still prohibiting theft, but the problem is that the appellation except in the case of taxation is ad hoc and seems to exist only to justify would would otherwise be a convenient evil.

yeah it does.

and if you find yourself in the midst of a system that you didnt realize you have to pay for your only ethical choice is pay up or move out of the system.

so: changing the system---which would almost certainly involve criticizing it at some point---is not an ethical choice?

By living in this society, you are consenting. Social contract and all that.

The government provides infastructural beurocracies, a justice system, law enforcement etc, as well as enforces your right to private property.

In return they take your shit. Your choices are simple. Obey the social contract, break the social contract by refusing to live up to your end and going to jail or by leaving the country and joining a NEW social contract, or change the "contract" via the democratic process.

Its not theft.

See prior comments re: social contract claptrap

While I generally consider Ethical Relativism to be discredited, for the purposes of argument


So, since you dont agree with it, it is discredited?


Ok, well I dont agree with ethical absolutes, so I discredit them. Looks like you have no arguement now!

I find your immature attitude and continuing use of profanity annoying, and am ceasing any discussion with you. At least until you learn to debate like an adult.
and if you keep swearing I'm gonna tell my mummy!
so there. sucks to you Neo!

unnecessary institutions like:
kindergartern
primary school
high school
college
water works
sewerage
police departments
fire departments
emergency services
hospitals
roading
public transport
libraries
national parks
national guard
army
navy
airforce

all of them totally unnecessary, right?

Under the minimalist government structure I spoke of earlier, the armed forces and police would remain. The rest of them would, as they should be, be provided by the private sector. In both cases, this would be accomplished without theft.

so: changing the system---which would almost certainly involve criticizing it at some point---is not an ethical choice?
changing the system of 300million people to one that has no taxation is not a realistic option.

This may be Virtue Ethics,

A virtue ethicist is concerned with human character, and might easily make any variety of distinctions in that framework between the theft of private individuals and the "theft" of a political authority through taxation.

Kantian Categorical Imperative,

The Kantian answer to your argument is very simple: there is no genuinely rightful property prior to the social contract. Thus, rightful property is attained as a result of the creation of a political order... and rightful owners consequently have certain obligations to that political order. (Not least, obedience to the rules regarding what is and is not rightfully owned by them.)

or even Rule-Utilitarianism.

Taxation probably quite easily passes the rule-utilitarian test. The only even vaguely plausible way to make your argument is from the perspective of a moral theory that does not let ends justify means.

So, since you dont agree with it, it is discredited?


Ok, well I dont agree with ethical absolutes, so I discredit them. Looks like you have no arguement now!

I'm curious; do you read the posts, or just snippets of them? The portion of the sentence you quoted was immediately followed by my assuming that Ethical Relativism was operable for the sake of argument.

shut the hell up.

Eat me dickwad. :p

See prior comments re: social contract
claptrap

Nothing circuler about it. The government enforces your right to private property. Without the government enforcing that right, anyone can take it from you, thus it is no longer private.

Your contract is simple. If you want to government to enforce your rights to private property, you have to scratch their back.

Under the minimalist government structure I spoke of earlier, the armed forces and police would remain. The rest of them would, as they should be, be provided by the private sector. In both cases, this would be accomplished without theft.



So only the wealthy can afford them.

I love libertarians. There is no single political idiology more selfish.

A virtue ethicist is concerned with human character, and might easily make any variety of distinctions in that framework between the theft of private individuals and the "theft" of a political authority through taxation.

The Kantian answer to your argument is very simple: there is no genuinely rightful property prior to the social contract. Thus, rightful property is attained as a result of the creation of a political order... and rightful owners thus have certain obligations to that political order.

Taxation probably quite easily passes the rule-utilitarian test. The only even vaguely plausible way to make your argument is from the perspective of a moral theory that does not let ends justify means.

A Virtue Ethicist would not allow for a thief to be called virtuous.
You seriously misunderstand Kant. Theft is treating people as a means only, rather than an end in themselves.
Theft does not pass Rule-Utilitarianism. The way to allow taxation is the same ad hoc appelation except in the case of taxation tacked on to the anti-theft rule.

I'm curious; do you read the posts, or just snippets of them? The portion of the sentence you quoted was immediately followed by my assuming that Ethical Relativism was operable for the sake of argument.

Im aware of that, its just that that comment I quoted was so stupid I had to point it out.

Nothing circuler about it. The government enforces your right to private property. Without the government enforcing that right, anyone can take it from you, thus it is no longer private.

Your contract is simple. If you want to government to enforce your rights to private property, you have to scratch their back.


So only the wealthy can afford them.

I love libertarians. There is no single political idiology more selfish.

As previously stated, the State is not necessary to ensure private property. Even if it were, the "contract" you describe is analogous to the mafia's protection racket, as I described above, and the immorality of the latter applies also to the former.
There is no single political ideology more concerned with freedom.

As previously stated, the State is not necessary to ensure private property. Even if it were, the "contract" you describe is analogous to the mafia's protection racket, as I described above, and the immorality of the latter applies also to the former.
There is no single political ideology more concerned with freedom.

You previously stated it, but you didn't support that statement. Still waiting...

You obviously haven't been hanging out with the anarchist crowd if you think you have the monopoly on freedom

Under the minimalist government structure I spoke of earlier, the armed forces and police would remain. The rest of them would, as they should be, be provided by the private sector. In both cases, this would be accomplished without theft.
except why would the private sector want to engage in any of these? Most make no profit, but are necessary for the well-being and continuation of society.
What profit can be made from a fire dept?
Would they charge people to put out their fires? What if the person is too poor to pay or the fire is on public property?
Maybe you think they'd charge fire insurance but then how would that work? They wouldn't attend a house fire unless the owner is fully paid up? They'd stand around and watch the place burn? Insurance with the threat that without, any subsequent fire will not be extinguished. That's better than what we have now? How exactly?

The problem is no one's lived in this fantasy land portrayed by Nicea Sancta, we already have state infrastructure.

I could successfully argue that everyone would be better off if they were all addicted to heroin and no one can absolutely refute me because there's simply no response to 'I say so' while completely disregarding reality.

As previously stated, the State is not necessary to ensure private property.

Disagree. Private property is a legal term, and as Neo Art pointed out, one cannot enforce legality without a justice system.

So, back up this claim.

Even if it were, the "contract" you describe is analogous to the mafia's protection racket, as I described above, and the immorality of the latter applies also to the former.
There is no single political ideology more concerned with freedom.

I am not concerned with what you consider "immoral", as moral absolutes are simply the desire of the philosopher to justify his own prejudices.


Ill argue from a different angle. Why does the government take your money? What gives them the right? Because they have the means to back it up. There is no "morallity" involved, just the cold reality.

except why would the private sector want to engage in any of these? Most make no profit, but are necessary for the well-being and continuation of society.
What profit can be made from a fire dept?
Would they charge people to put out their fires? What if the person is too poor to pay or the fire is on public property?
Maybe you think they'd charge fire insurance but then how would that work? They wouldn't attend a house fire unless the owner is fully paid up? They'd stand around and watch the place burn? Insurance with the threat that without, any subsequent fire will not be extinguished. That's better than what we have now? How exactly?

Under the state I described, they would be profitable, because the companies would charge for their services.
There would be no public property, and yes, people would be charged to have their fires put out. They would pay regularly into a private-sector firefighting business. Any fire at a participating household would be responded to.
It's better in that no one steals one person's money to operate an organization.

Disagree. Private property is a legal term, and as Neo Art pointed out, one cannot enforce legality without a justice system.

So, back up this claim.



I am not concerned with what you consider "immoral", as moral absolutes are simply the desire of the philosopher to justify his own prejudices.


Ill argue from a different angle. Why does the government take your money? What gives them the right? Because they have the means to back it up. There is no "morallity" involved, just the cold reality.

Re: Nozickian Protection Associations.
Your answer to why the government takes your money and my answer are exactly the same. The only difference is that I view an organization which uses force to take my property against my will immoral. If you don't believe in morality, that's your issue. For those of us that do, morality does become a factor.

The problem is no one's lived in this fantasy land portrayed by Nicea Sancta, we already have state infrastructure.

I could successfully argue that everyone would be better off if they were all addicted to heroin and no one can absolutely refute me because there's simply no response to 'I say so' while completely disregarding reality.

I never claimed such a place actually exists; only that it would be more moral than our current system.

Re: Nozickian Protection Associations.
Your answer to why the government takes your money and my answer are exactly the same. The only difference is that I view an organization which uses force to take my property against my will immoral. If you don't believe in morality, that's your issue. For those of us that do, morality does become a factor.

To quote King Arthur from Holy Grail:

"Erm, how does it work?"

changing the system of 300million people to one that has no taxation is not a realistic option.

sez you.

i'm sure people used to say something similar about slavery.

I never claimed such a place actually exists; only that it would be more moral than our current system.

According to you.

According to me, your system would effectively end up as a feudal system, exploitation of the landless by the landowners to the extreme.

How do you compensate for land difference, some land being more valuable than others either in resources or location.

I say your morals are bankrupt.

Essentially, private police forces one buys into for protection. Espoused in Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia. While he thinks the individual PAs would eventually merge into a solitary Dominant Protection Association, I'm more optimistic that choice would remain viable.

Here's the problem. Let's take public transportation for example. For public transportion to exist in a tax-less (or "pay as you go" taxation scheme which is essentially the same) it must generate revenue to cover costs. It must be able to, at least, break even. In order to do that it must charge less than what it would cost to maintain your own private transportation. The second public transport costs as much as owning a car, public transport ceases to exist because nobody uses it.

Thus for public transportation to exist in a "pay as you go" system it must charge users anywhere from $0 to equal to what it costs to have a car. Now, the public transport system in and around boston is the MBTA, massachussets bay transport authority. Economists agree, the MBTA can not raise a profit. The infrastructure costs, the repair costs, the salaries necessary, all factored together, the MBTA can not charge any price and still retain a profit. It is a losing system. it can not exist without taxpayers supporting it.

You think taxation is immoral? I think leaving the tens of thousands of people who rely on the MBTA every single day stranded and unable to support themselves because they can't get to work once the system shuts down because it can not be run at cost to be far far more immoral.

And that's just public transportation, let's not even get started on the millions of people nationwide who would be left without police, hospital, or firefighting converage because they can't afford it.

You think taxation is immoral? I think the alternative is a far greater evil, and to argue for that evil not only is incredibly selfish, it's also incredibly naive, because it presupposes that you'd be one of the blessed few who makes it out ok.

and did you in fact earn any money out in the desert with no contact with society?

did you read the whole example that you just quoted?---or are you trying to be absurd? :confused:

According to you.

According to me, your system would effectively end up as a feudal system, exploitation of the landless by the landowners to the extreme.

I'm not speaking of the actions of individual people here: standards of morality would still apply to them. I'm only speaking of the government as an agency. In this context, the government would, in fact, be more moral, because it would not be stealing from people. In order to preserve morality, individuals would have to promote and practice individual morality as well.

I never claimed such a place actually exists; only that it would be more moral than our current system.

The problem is people make your system impossible. They will always cheat to further their gains. That is why laws and regulations happen.

I see no reason why such a place would be impossible.

Essentially, private police forces one buys into for protection. Espoused in Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia. While he thinks the individual PAs would eventually merge into a solitary Dominant Protection Association, I'm more optimistic that choice would remain viable.

What happens if these defense associations, while remaining in competition, manage to claim sovereignty in a geographical area? Wouldn't they then become a State unto themselves?

How long will your libertarian society last if the competition between these associations turns violent?

I'm not speaking of the actions of individual people here: standards of morality would still apply to them. I'm only speaking of the government as an agency. In this context, the government would, in fact, be more moral, because it would not be stealing from people.

I'd added...

How do you compensate for land difference, some land being more valuable than others either in resources or location.

I say your morals are bankrupt.

In order to preserve morality, individuals would have to promote and practice individual morality as well.

Ha ha, only takes a few to upset the many, again, the feudal system worked wonders really.

I never claimed such a place actually exists; only that it would be more moral than our current system.
Actually, such places do exist. There is little to no taxation in places like Somalia and Darfur. Not much in the way of "moral" systems, either. And the indigenous peoples of the Amazon region pay little to no taxes, but their property, which was guaranteed to them by the state, which swore to leave them alone, is frequently taken away from them by private companies burning and clear cutting forest and strip mining for their own profit. So...not much ability to enforce private property without government intervention, either.

I agree with those who say you have no idea what you're talking about.

says whom?

No, wait, lemme guess. Ayn Rand

says me.

and does ayn rand agree with me? you can tell me, if you like.

but, i'll give you a hint: i don't care.

A Virtue Ethicist would not allow for a thief to be called virtuous.

Why not? Virtue ethics, being concerned with character rather than (directly) with acts, is much more flexible than a strict deontological theory... why couldn't a person who steals to feed her family be virtuous? Why couldn't a politician who steals to provide basic political stability be virtuous?

And you're still begging (part of) the question by assuming your definition of "theft" is universal. What a virtue ethicist finds objectionable about theft may not correlate precisely with what your absolutist natural rights view does.

You seriously misunderstand Kant. Theft is treating people as a meansonly, rather than an end in themselves.

Yes, theft is. Your error is assuming that taxation, within a Kantian framework, is theft. It is not.

Out of curiosity, have you bothered to read any of Kant's political works? Or do you just have a rough familiarity with his moral theory, to invoke when convenient?

Theft does not pass Rule-Utilitarianism. The way to allow taxation is the same ad hoc appelation except in the case of taxation tacked on to the anti-theft rule.

So? There's absolutely nothing contrary to rule-utilitarianism in that.

What happens if these defense associations, while remaining in competition, manage to claim sovereignty in a geographical area? Wouldn't they then become a State unto themselves?

How long will your libertarian society last if the competition between these associations turns violent?

Remember that these are voluntary associations, not compulsory. Individuals who no longer wish to participate in a PA can opt out of it, and join in with a rival PA at any time, or establish one. Since the PAs would be private companies, concerned primarily with making money, they would serve their customers in such a way as to keep their business.

As previously stated, the State is not necessary to ensure private property. Even if it were, the "contract" you describe is analogous to the mafia's protection racket, as I described above, and the immorality of the latter applies also to the former.
There is no single political ideology more concerned with freedom.

Private property is backed by force. Your Nozickian PA's are as coercive as any state or mafia. I don't believe in their particular set of property rights and they come to my door with guns and steal my legitimate property.

says me.

That's nice. Who the fuck are you and why should I give a damn what you say?

I'd added...

How do you compensate for land difference, some land being more valuable than others either in resources or location.

I say your morals are bankrupt.



Ha ha, only takes a few to upset the many, again, the feudal system worked wonders really.

All land would be privately owned, the government would have no part.
I'm not really sure where you get the feudal analogy, as all feudal organization was derived from the monarch, a supreme governmental authority which would not exist in the situation I described.

I see no reason why such a place would be impossible.

and that is precisely the problem. You can't see the glaringly obvious.

All land would be privately owned, the government would have no part.
I'm not really sure where you get the feudal analogy, as all feudal organization was derived from the monarch, a supreme governmental authority which would not exist in the situation I described.

In feudalism all property was privately owned. The king is a private individual.

Private property is backed by force. Your Nozickian PA's are as coercive as any state or mafia. I don't believe in their particular set of property rights and they come to my door with guns and steal my legitimate property.

Wrong, PAs are private companies which exist to make money. You gain their protection by paying into them. If you no longer wish this protection, you don't pay them.

Since the PAs would be private companies, concerned primarily with making money, they would serve their customers in such a way as to keep their business.

until such a customer is unable to pay for the services in a way that provides the PA with a profit. At which point they're abandoned.

If you really think that taking of property without consent in all circumstances to be so immoral, why you'd advocate a system that would result in just that, with far greater frequency than our current one is quite beyond me, and I'm left with the nicest possible conclusion being that you really haven't though it through.

Leaving people unprotected simply because they can't afford protection doesn't seem like a very moral thing to do to me.

Wrong, PAs are private companies which exist to make money. You gain their protection by paying into them. If you no longer wish this protection, you don't pay them.

And if I have a problem the a PA they will use force now that I have no one who can stop them.

In feudalism all property was privately owned. The king is a private individual.

All property was privately managed in feudalism. It was owned by the King, who gave management over it to his subordinates. Each level of the feudal hierarchy was dependent upon the authority of the next level, all the way up to the supreme authority of government, the King.
My description would allow for all property to be privately owned; a person could do with it what he or she willed.

What are these inalienable rights you speak of?

anything that i can do, by native human capacity, that does not directly interfere with the exercise of such native human capacities by others.

breathing, eating, sleeping, sexing, discoursing with others, associating with others, enquiring/learning, studying, meditating, worshiping, doing work, exchanging the fruit of my labor for that of others, etc., etc.

Wrong, PAs are private companies which exist to make money. You gain their protection by paying into them. If you no longer wish this protection, you don't pay them.

and what happens when you want protection, but you can't afford it?

Nicea Sancta, have you read "The Zigzag of Politics"?

All land would be privately owned, the government would have no part.
I'm not really sure where you get the feudal analogy, as all feudal organization was derived from the monarch, a supreme governmental authority which would not exist in the situation I described.

...because say I"m living on a nice piece of land, I naturally gain greater advantage. I can then buy out other people in an increasing vortex and there's nothing to help those people once they've been paid.

This is essentially what happened in Russia, everyone was given equal shares in where they worked and the oligarchs came and paid some money, enough to be enticing as a lump sum and now those oligarchs own something like 97% of the country, among about 50 people.

So then what, you're paying rent and more to that oligarch who has no obligation to provide you with anything at all, no roads, no education, no health.

Essentially it's a feudal system, complete with tithes, poverty and servitude.

Best conjure up some religion to keep them distracted while you prepare your lavish 50th birthday party.

A strong government is pretty much essential and to be part of that stable society, pay your taxes if you know what's good for you.

And if I have a problem the a PA they will use force now that I have no one who can stop them.

As a private company, in competition with other private companies, providing a service for its customers, your PA would not do so because it would make its customers less likely to do business with them, and would drive them into the arms of the competition. It is the same way that Wal*Mart does not use the rifles it sells to force you to shop there: the corporate ownership realizes that to do so would simply drive more customers to Target, thus hurting the bottom line.
In PAs, authoritarian tactics are not good for business.

Wrong, PAs are private companies which exist to make money. You gain their protection by paying into them. If you no longer wish this protection, you don't pay them.


Ahh private armies!

I think our British cousins here can tell you it didn't work in their history and it will not work now.

As a private company, in competition with other private companies, providing a service for its customers, your PA would not do so because it would make its customers less likely to do business with them, and would drive them into the arms of the competition. It is the same way that Wal*Mart does not use the rifles it sells to force you to shop there: the corporate ownership realizes that to do so would simply drive more customers to Target, thus hurting the bottom line.
In PAs, authoritarian tactics are not good for business.

you really want to use Wal Mart as an example of why free market is a good thing? Tell that to the employees of wal mart.

...because say I"m living on a nice piece of land, I naturally gain greater advantage. I can then buy out other people in an increasing vortex and there's nothing to help those people once they've been paid.

This is essentially what happened in Russia, everyone was given equal shares in where they worked and the oligarchs came and paid some money, enough to be enticing as a lump sum and now those oligarchs own something like 97% of the country, among about 50 people.

So then what, you're paying rent and more to that oligarch who has no obligation to provide you with anything at all, no roads, no education, no health.

Essentially it's a feudal system, complete with tithes, poverty and servitude.

Best conjure up some religion to keep them distracted while you prepare your lavish 50th birthday party.

A strong government is pretty much essential and to be part of that stable society, pay your taxes if you know what's good for you.

First, they are under no obligation to sell to you, so your scenario is moot.
Russia was controlled by a strong government which divvied out the land. Not so under my description.

Remember that these are voluntary associations, not compulsory. Individuals who no longer wish to participate in a PA can opt out of it, and join in with a rival PA at any time, or establish one. Since the PAs would be private companies, concerned primarily with making money, they would serve their customers in such a way as to keep their business.

Fair enough. But here's a large issue that I'm sensing. If a major employer or landlord were to contract with, let's say for contemporary relevance, the "Black Water" private defense agency, would they not, through the legitimate exercise of their property rights, require that their employees/tenants also sign on with Black Water.

Or, even worse. Let's say this large employer, "Halliburton" scrapes up enough capital to buy a controlling interest in Black Water. Wouldn't this combination start looking an awful lot like a State? Let's take this a step further. Let's say its subsidiary, "Fannie Mae", is the mortgage company that holds title on the homes and businesses of a large number local residents. And another subsidiary, "Enron", owns the utility systems of the area.

Wouldn't this combination look, organizationally, exactly like the very Stalinist state that you so loathe? Why would it behave any different in practice?

This is a very critical issue that I've never heard addressed. Will you pass the muster?

Ahh private armies!

I think our British cousins here can tell you it didn't work in their history and it will not work now.

Not quite armies, but similar. Private police forces.
We are not the British, and would not, under this system, have a strong government in control of the actions of the PAs. They would be self-regulating, based on the principles of the free market.

First, they are under no obligation to sell to you, so your scenario is moot.
Russia was controlled by a strong government which divvied out the land. Not so under my description.

Yet they do sell, against their long term interests, it's called reality and it's where your entire argument fails due to ignoring it. They especially sell where their land is not good enough to sustain them.

If all land was equal, your plan might work, however...

...your scenario is moot because it never happens.

As a private company, in competition with other private companies, providing a service for its customers, your PA would not do so because it would make its customers less likely to do business with them, and would drive them into the arms of the competition. It is the same way that Wal*Mart does not use the rifles it sells to force you to shop there: the corporate ownership realizes that to do so would simply drive more customers to Target, thus hurting the bottom line.
In PAs, authoritarian tactics are not good for business.

Walmart does not have the power to use force to enhance its profitability. PAs would given the state does not exist. There power may have some limits but as groups merge authoritarian tactics would become more and more viable and thus profitable.

This is apart from the fact that property rights are never mutually agreed upon by everyone in society and that property rights are backed up by force.

why is it when these anti tax arguments prop up, those who are so vehement in their opposition to a tax system propose such ludicrous, asinine, and totally disconnected from the real world arguments that it leaves me wondering whether they're actually old enough to have paid taxes?

Fair enough. But here's a large issue that I'm sensing. If a major employer or landlord were to contract with, let's say for contemporary relevance, the "Black Water" private defense agency, would they not, through the legitimate exercise of their property rights, require that their employees/tenants also sign on with Black Water.

Or, even worse. Let's say this large employer, "Halliburton" scrapes up enough capital to buy a controlling interest in Black Water. Wouldn't this combination start looking an awful lot like a State? Let's take this a step further. Let's say its subsidiary, "Fannie Mae", is the mortgage company that holds title on the homes and businesses of a large number local residents. And another subsidiary, "Enron", owns the utility systems of the area.

Wouldn't this combination look, organizationally, exactly like the very Stalinist state that you so loathe? Why would it behave any different in practice?

This is a very critical issue that I've never heard addressed. Will you pass the muster?

As the owner of the property, the tenants would not sign into a PA, they would be covered by the property owner's PA. He could then charge them for his costs, but they would be members of the PA by virtue of the property they live in.
No. These are all private companies, paid for by the people who buy into them. This is their sole source of income: there is no controlling interest to purchase.

That's nice. Who the fuck are you and why should I give a damn what you say?

who i am is my business.

and you don't have to give a damn what i say; that's entirely your decision.


you've implied, however, that we should all give a damn whether or not i'm taking a position that agrees with rand on this point.

i could be fecetious and snide and ask why the fuck i should give a damn about whether or not you want to make me out to be a rand-parroter.

but why would i do that?---i already know that i shouldn't care.


you're just being a jerk.

As the owner of the property, the tenants would not sign into a PA, they would be covered by the property owner's PA. He could then charge them for his costs, but they would be members of the PA by virtue of the property they live in.
No. These are all private companies, paid for by the people who buy into them. This is their sole source of income: there is no controlling interest to purchase.

I really don't think you understand how business works...

Yet they do sell, against their long term interests, it's called reality and it's where your entire argument fails due to ignoring it. They especially sell where their land is not good enough to sustain them.

If all land was equal, your plan might work, however...

...your scenario is moot because it never happens.

If a person willingly chooses to sell his or her property, he has no right to complain about the results of that sale. He owned the land, and had no obligation to sell it; he chose to sell it of his own free will, and now must accept the consequences.

Not quite armies, but similar. Private police forces.
We are not the British, and would not, under this system, have a strong government in control of the actions of the PAs. They would be self-regulating, based on the principles of the free market.

:D :D

The conept of the free market is quixotic at best. Laws and regulations happen because people WILL cheat the system for their own gain. There will be no self-regulating because the people with the most money will enforce their will via their private armies.

Not quite armies, but similar. Private police forces.
We are not the British, and would not, under this system, have a strong government in control of the actions of the PAs. They would be self-regulating, based on the principles of the free market.
Small, self-regulating, private forces that sell protection for money.

OH, I get it! You're talking about street gangs and organized crime!

Yeah, those work great. /sarcasm

i could be fecetious and snide and ask why the fuck i should give a damn about whether or not you want to make me out to be a rand-parroter.

Whether or not you care is entirely your own decision. However most reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest adults do care whether their arguments have any intellectual merit.

i already know that i shouldn't care.

I see I have confused you with a reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest adult.

I shall not do so in the future.

:D :D

The conept of the free market is quixotic at best. Laws and regulations happen because people WILL cheat the system for their own gain. There will be no self-regulating because the people with the most money will enforce their will via their private armies.

Again, since authoritarian policies are bad for business, the PAs will not do so. By engaging in such policies, they merely encourage others to shift their patronage to another PA, or to establish new ones. These are private-sector police forces, not mercenary groups.

As the owner of the property, the tenants would not sign into a PA, they would be covered by the property owner's PA. He could then charge them for his costs, but they would be members of the PA by virtue of the property they live in.
No. These are all private companies, paid for by the people who buy into them. This is their sole source of income: there is no controlling interest to purchase.

There has to be some sort of corporate structure to them, with shares of ownership. They have to have capital in order to function (weapons, equipment, places to store the above). There has to be some sort of shareholding system, since, as you stated, these are run for profit according to free market principles.

You're trying to evade the issue, and doing a poor job of it. These private companies here can all be bought and sold according to their owner's wishes. Indeed, such a combination would be highly advantageous to all the property owners involved. They'd have a monopoly on violence within their domain, a "legal" means of manipulating their employees to accept what little pittance they were offering them.

Wrong, PAs are private companies which exist to make money. You gain their protection by paying into them.

And their "protection" is coercive.

What happens when I move onto land you deem to be your property? You call your mercenary gang and it forcibly expels me.

Even if a non-minimalist government were desired, the means the government is funded must be examined. Non-minimalist governments that rely on taxation are inherently immoral, since they rely on a codified institution of theft.
Protection of one person from harm by another, the end, is not immoral. As long as the means are moral, not, for instance, torturing suspected criminals, the institution is moral.


And since nobody would ever perform a life long service for free, your non-minimalist, "moral", government won't protect you since it doesn't get anything in exchange. Thereby, you are now victim to the nearest dude with desire for your stuff and more firepower than you, or enough resources to pay the private security firm to look the other way.

Or for that matter, being most likely the best armed and equipped organization available, the private security firm will devolve into a warlord group, taking whatever they want, and shooting whoever disagrees.

How you treat others reflects on how you yourself would like to be treated when in need. Just because you're not in need right now doesn't mean you won't be in future.

I honestly don't understand the mindset of those who don't want to contribute to the very society that sustains them.
You may not understand it, but this mind set is common and is the reason a purely communist state is a pipe dream.

What I find amusing is that people who advocate for "free market, unregulated commerce" is pretty much what we had before the existence of the modern state, and the historical development of the state is, in its broad terms, accurately viewed as a ferocious departure from those very systems that are advocated.

Small, self-regulating, private forces that sell protection for money.

OH, I get it! You're talking about street gangs and organized crime!

Yeah, those work great. /sarcasm

Street gangs and organized crime work based off extortion; you pay or we'll cause you harm. Like the government with it's taxation.
These are voluntary, not coercive: If you wish a given company's protection, you may pay into it. If you wish to go it alone, do not pay into it.

and that is precisely the problem. You can't see the glaringly obvious.

it wasn't very long ago that somebody could have responded that way to me if i said something like, "i can't see any reason why a world without institutionalized, government protected chattel slavery is possible."

it's one thing to be a snide jerk, neo art, it's quite another to refuse to consider radically alternative possibilities as a knee-jerk reaction.

And their "protection" is coercive.

What happens when I move onto land you deem to be your property? You call your mercenary gang and it forcibly expels me.

Since PAs would be private companies, their protection is voluntary, not coercive. And any Protection Association business would require some proof that the property was duly paid for and is rightly owned before agreeing to protect it. To do otherwise would hurt the company brand in the public eye, and thus, the bottom line.

These are voluntary, not coercive: If you wish a given company's protection, you may pay into it. If you wish to go it alone, do not pay into it.

Because giving people guns, and no legal restrictions on how to use them, won't result in coercive strong arm manipulation.

No not at all. Really Mur, why would you think something so stupid?

If a person willingly chooses to sell his or her property, he has no right to complain about the results of that sale. He owned the land, and had no obligation to sell it; he chose to sell it of his own free will, and now must accept the consequences.

...and there we have it ladies and gentlemen.

Lovely morals.

Again, since authoritarian policies are bad for business, the PAs will not do so. By engaging in such policies, they merely encourage others to shift their patronage to another PA, or to establish new ones. These are private-sector police forces, not mercenary groups.


:D You assume they will be free to go. As the lord of the estate I can use my private army to keep you in place. Or if need be, take all that you own and kick you off the land.

Since PAs would be private companies, their protection is voluntary, not coercive. And any Protection Association business would require some proof that the property was duly paid for and is rightly owned before agreeing to protect it. To do otherwise would hurt the company brand in the public eye, and thus, the bottom line.

Who determines rightful ownership and what makes their decision legitimate?

Since PAs would be private companies, their protection is voluntary, not coercive. And any Protection Association business would require some proof that the property was duly paid for and is rightly owned before agreeing to protect it. To do otherwise would hurt the company brand in the public eye, and thus, the bottom line.

They are a private army. They will do what they are paid to do.

it's one thing to be a snide jerk, neo art, it's quite another to refuse to consider radically alternative possibilities as a knee-jerk reaction.

You presuppose that I haven't considered your "radically alternative possibilities". Believe me, I have. I have considered them, evaluated them, debated them, contemplated them, and, ultimately, found them wanting.

Thus my snide condescension is not because I have not considered your positions, it is because I have, and found they deserve no greater response then mockery. A degree in international theory with a focus on economics has meant I have done a lot of considering of these "radically alternative possibilities" and that consideration has led me to one conclusion. It is a foolish idea that deserves to be treated as such.

Walmart does not have the power to use force to enhance its profitability. PAs would given the state does not exist. There power may have some limits but as groups merge authoritarian tactics would become more and more viable and thus profitable.

This is apart from the fact that property rights are never mutually agreed upon by everyone in society and that property rights are backed up by force.

Nicea didn't respond to this.

There is no "lord of the estate." If you own the land, you control which PA protects the land. Again, the PAs would protect private property, not serve as mercenary force. The moment one PA, in competition with other PAs, started acting in an authoritarian manner, people would begin to flock to other PAs, perhaps even necessitating protection from a rogue PA. Eventually, a self-regulating free-market equilibrium would result, with PAs gaining more influence directly proportional with the quality of the service they provide in comparison with the prices they charge.

Since PAs would be private companies, their protection is voluntary, not coercive.

Yes, I voluntarily agree to be protected... but I do not voluntarily agree to their "protection" of others.

And any Protection Association business would require some proof that the property was duly paid for and is rightly owned before agreeing to protect it. To do otherwise would hurt the company brand in the public eye, and thus, the bottom line.

This argument is ridiculous, but because I need to go to sleep I'll accept it for the sake of argument.

Even so, your protection agencies are still coercive. I never agreed to the property system they enforce. I never accepted a completely free-market capitalist arrangement of property. When coercive force is used against me to enforce that property system, I am denied autonomy.

Your alleged free society is necessarily predicated on the subordination of anyone who happens to disagree.

There is no "lord of the estate." If you own the land, you control which PA protects the land. Again, the PAs would protect private property, not serve as mercenary force. The moment one PA, in competition with other PAs, started acting in an authoritarian manner, people would begin to flock to other PAs, perhaps even necessitating protection from a rogue PA. Eventually, a self-regulating free-market equilibrium would result, with PAs gaining more influence directly proportional with the quality of the service they provide in comparison with the prices they charge.

because monopolies never ever happen. Nope, never.

because monopolies never ever happen. Nope, never.

And its not like they're profitable.

Yes, I voluntarily agree to be protected... but I do not voluntarily agree to their "protection" of others.



This argument is ridiculous, but because I need to go to sleep I'll accept it for the sake of argument.

Even so, your protection agencies are still coercive. I never agreed to the property system they enforce. I never accepted a completely free-market capitalist arrangement of property. When coercive force is used against me to enforce that property system, I am denied autonomy: I am degraded to a mere object.

If you find a PA with a description of private property you like, buy into it. If you don't, start one.

why is it when these anti tax arguments prop up, those who are so vehement in their opposition to a tax system propose such ludicrous, asinine, and totally disconnected from the real world arguments that it leaves me wondering whether they're actually old enough to have paid taxes?
Well, a lot of the time, they aren't, but a lot of other times, the juvenile notions are just the side effect of an overdose of selfishness. Like the little girl I saw once, who had a piece of candy but wanted the option on all the pieces of candy, and when her dad simply exercised his authority to apportion the candy equally among all the children, screamed at the top of her lungs, "BUT WHAT ABOUT MIIIIIIIINNNNE!!!!???" Her dad laughed at her and said, "You got yours." I laughed at her, too. She was so pissed off. :D

Tax = theft arguments are just like that little girl and the candy. The people who float them always want a world in which they get everything for nothing. Their roads get paved. Their garbage gets hauled. They have doctors. They are protected from crime. And everybody who provides these services works for them. But they don't work for anybody in return.

They try to justify it by saying they are paying for what they take, but let them ask themselves this: If they get sick or hurt and can't work to earn the money to pay for all these services, and can't defend themselves or pave their own roads, then what will they do? Or if nobody is going to pay them for anything -- like if nobody needs whatever goods or services they have to offer their neighbors in their little utopia -- then where will they get the money to pay for their PAs? And if nobody wants to or can afford to pay the PAs for protection, then what will the PAs do to feed themselves -- try to fit into other professions which may not have room for them? Or just use the strength and guns they've already got to take what they need from the people who stopped paying them?

Even the claim that there are no historical examples for their dreamland shows how unrealistic they are being. This sort of bull has been tried on countless times. It doesn't work, and most of us know why.

And its not like they're profitable.

and since we know monopolies never exist, the fact that these industries have free, unrestricted access to guns doesn't in any way make it easier.

If you find a PA with a description of private property you like, buy into it.

Oh, yay, gang war!

That sounds fun.

Street gangs and organized crime work based off extortion; you pay or we'll cause you harm. Like the government with it's taxation.
These are voluntary, not coercive: If you wish a given company's protection, you may pay into it. If you wish to go it alone, do not pay into it.

You are incredibly naive if you think that, these companies, upon having sufficient force to do so, would not implement such protection rackets.

"But it will drive people to competitors," you say. But what if, as would almost certainly happen, one entity gains hegemony in an area? Then, within that area, they can do whatever the hell they want. They can tell people "you have to pay us, or we will shoot you."

But let's say, in any given area, no one company does develop complete hegemony. What would the area be like? Well, for one, you'd have no idea which "laws" to follow.　Any time you do anything somebody doesn't like, they could send hired muscle to try to kill you. And all you could do is hire your own muscle and hope that yours is better.

Your system is inherently unstable. Eventually, whether through force of personality, or through having enough money to hire the most guns, there'd be people who get big enough armies to control small territories, whether they be cities or neighborhoods or whatever.
These rulers would then fight amongst themselves, some gaining dominance over others, until eventually they set up new governments.

Who would stop them? The only people who would have a hope of being able to resist them would have to organize along similar lines-- charging people for "protection," whether they want to pay it or not.

Whether or not you care is entirely your own decision. However most reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest adults do care whether their arguments have any intellectual merit.

and you can reasonably conclude that i don't care whether my arguments have any intellectual merit because i called you out when you engaged in ad hominem attack, through rand-invocation, without actually addressing the idea that i was expressing?

bullshit.

I see I have confused you with a reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest adult.


oh! zing! good one, neo art! well done! :rolleyes:

and you were treating me as "a reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest adult" when you were dismissing my opinion out of hand, by referring to someone else---who has no bearing on this discussion.

if that's what i get while you are treating me as such, i'm not sure your esteem is worth it.

I shall not do so in the future.

please feel free, asshole.

If you find a PA with a description of private property you like, buy into it. If you don't, start one.

How are differences in property rights arbitrated between different PAs? Assume rights are inalienable.

Walmart does not have the power to use force to enhance its profitability. PAs would given the state does not exist. There power may have some limits but as groups merge authoritarian tactics would become more and more viable and thus profitable.

This is apart from the fact that property rights are never mutually agreed upon by everyone in society and that property rights are backed up by force.

Forgive me, there are many posts.
PAs would have the ability, but not the incentive, because authoritarian policies would be bad for business, as they would drive customers to other, rival PAs. Even large PAs would refrain, for fear of a new start-up PA springing up. In this analogy, Wal*Mart can buy up Target and all its other competitors, but can never be free from the risk that another store will spring up and take away its customers.

Nicea didn't respond to this.

To be fair, there's a lot to answer to.

Still, we know what Nicea Sancta's morals are, predicated on the idea that everyone has equal choice, entirely divorced from reality.

There is no "lord of the estate." If you own the land, you control which PA protects the land. Again, the PAs would protect private property, not serve as mercenary force. The moment one PA, in competition with other PAs, started acting in an authoritarian manner, people would begin to flock to other PAs, perhaps even necessitating protection from a rogue PA. Eventually, a self-regulating free-market equilibrium would result, with PAs gaining more influence directly proportional with the quality of the service they provide in comparison with the prices they charge.

Ahh so if Bill Gates decides he want's my little plot of land. The "moral" private army would never take whatever he offers. Nor would they tell me "well if you pay us this,....." or "we noticed you having joined the collective so if you pay this...."

Sorry your "reality" only exists on paper. Human nature makes it impossible....

This sort of bull has been tried on countless times. It doesn't work, and most of us know why.

not only has it NOT worked, but as I said, the growth of the modern state can fairly be described as an attempt to get as far away from that as possible.

I can't understand how people can have such unswerving faith in the free market as to think that a bunch of guys with guns and no regulation other than "market pressures" are going to stay in check. It's worth than an unswerving unquestioning faith in god, at least with god you presuppose that he can do the impossible. This nonsense puts faith squarely in human nature, and assumes something rather unnatural as a result.

Forgive me, there are many posts.
PAs would have the ability, but not the incentive, because authoritarian policies would be bad for business, as they would drive customers to other, rival PAs. Even large PAs would refrain, for fear of a new start-up PA springing up. In this analogy, Wal*Mart can buy up Target and all its other competitors, but can never be free from the risk that another store will spring up and take away its customers.

You know, a PA being extremely aggressive would probably be good for business. "Hey, not only do these guys protect our stuff, but they take stuff from non-members and give a share to us! You gotta join up, man!"

Forgive me, there are many posts.
PAs would have the ability, but not the incentive, because authoritarian policies would be bad for business, as they would drive customers to other, rival PAs. Even large PAs would refrain, for fear of a new start-up PA springing up. In this analogy, Wal*Mart can buy up Target and all its other competitors, but can never be free from the risk that another store will spring up and take away its customers.

because Walmart doesn't have legal access to unregulated firearms, and walmart can't kill everyone who tries to compete. And if they trie, a very large group of men with guns shows up and makes them stop.

Something your "PAs" in this little fantasy land of yours can't say.

It's this ludicrus notion of the free market that presupposed that you can say "no thanks, I'll go to one of your competitors" to the man with the M16 in your face

How are differences in property rights arbitrated between different PAs? Assume rights are inalienable.

Your assumption that property rights are inalienable is, in this instance, not accepted. Each individual PA would have its own definition, albeit likely very similar, of rightful ownership of property. In the event that a conflict arises, where two PAs recognize legitimate ownership of the same property by two different individuals, they would resolve their differences in a manner that would cause as little negative public image as possible. Thus, while possible, armed conflicts between PAs would be unlikely, as this creates an authoritarian image in the public mind, and would thus hurt the bottom line. I find it likely that mutual discussion, possibly with a neutral PA's arbitration, would be the common grounds for resolution of conflicts.

Forgive me, there are many posts.

Forgiven.

PAs would have the ability, but not the incentive, because authoritarian policies would be bad for business, as they would drive customers to other, rival PAs. Even large PAs would refrain, for fear of a new start-up PA springing up. In this analogy, Wal*Mart can buy up Target and all its other competitors, but can never be free from the risk that another store will spring up and take away its customers.

Why are they bad for business? Many states, gangs, mobsters, and the like have existed throughout history. Why have circumstances changed? Why is there a state now if competitive PAs should have outcompeted them?

Street gangs and organized crime work based off extortion; you pay or we'll cause you harm. Like the government with it's taxation.
These are voluntary, not coercive: If you wish a given company's protection, you may pay into it. If you wish to go it alone, do not pay into it.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Street gangs and mobs like the Mafia STARTED OUT working exactly the way you describe your PAs working. They existed solely to protect their own communities against lawlessness or oppressive local governments. Of course, they don't operate that way anymore. Why? Because they don't have to. They have guns.

Forgive me, there are many posts.
PAs would have the ability, but not the incentive, because authoritarian policies would be bad for business, as they would drive customers to other, rival PAs. Even large PAs would refrain, for fear of a new start-up PA springing up. In this analogy, Wal*Mart can buy up Target and all its other competitors, but can never be free from the risk that another store will spring up and take away its customers.

Wal*Mart doesn't trade in violence. Mercenaries like these do. The one with the most guns and gun hands will ultimately win. It seems a little naive to assume that large groups of mercenaries who trade solely in violence would refrain from using that trade in competition with their opponents.

You know, a PA being extremely aggressive would probably be good for business. "Hey, not only do these guys protect our stuff, but they take stuff from non-members and give a share to us! You gotta join up, man!"

Or, "Hey, these guys are starting to get really power-hungry... how long before they start turning it on me? I think I'm getting out while the gettin's good. I'd steer clear of these guys."

Because giving people guns, and no legal restrictions on how to use them, won't result in coercive strong arm manipulation.

No not at all. Really Mur, why would you think something so stupid?
For some silly reason, I compared what he was saying to reality. Honestly, sorry, I have no idea what possessed me.

Your assumption that property rights are inalienable is, in this instance, not accepted. Each individual PA would have its own definition, albeit likely very similar, of rightful ownership of property. In the event that a conflict arises, where two PAs recognize legitimate ownership of the same property by two different individuals, they would resolve their differences in a manner that would cause as little negative public image as possible. Thus, while possible, armed conflicts between PAs would be unlikely, as this creates an authoritarian image in the public mind, and would thus hurt the bottom line. I find it likely that mutual discussion, possibly with a neutral PA's arbitration, would be the common grounds for resolution of conflicts.

On this planet there have been 6000 conflicts in the last 2000 years. Armed conflict is very likely due to human nature.

Everybody would follow the rules just like everybody follows the laws right?

Wal*Mart doesn't trade in violence. Mercenaries like these do. The one with the most guns and gun hands will ultimately win. It seems a little naive to assume that large groups of mercenaries who trade solely in violence would refrain from using that trade in competition with their opponents.

Again, you misunderstand: these are not mercenaries, they are private companies engaged in police force activities. They do not trade in violence, they trade in protection, with the threat of violence in the event of attack. They would refrain from using violence because it would be bad for business. Free market economics makes this system feasible.

Or, "Hey, these guys are starting to get really power-hungry... how long before they start turning it on me? I think I'm getting out while the gettin's good. I'd steer clear of these guys."

so your perfect society is one in which people are turned into roving nomads, who are constantly on the move running from power hungry mercenary groups?

Really?

Frankly, I'd rather just pay my 30% and not have to worry that my local security force won't shoot me one day because I didn't want them "protecting" me.

Or, "Hey, these guys are starting to get really power-hungry... how long before they start turning it on me? I think I'm getting out while the gettin's good. I'd steer clear of these guys."

All the better. Now our forces can take your stuff since you are no longer paying into the organization.

Or, "Hey, these guys are starting to get really power-hungry... how long before they start turning it on me? I think I'm getting out while the gettin's good. I'd steer clear of these guys."

And if they have a good reputation for only taking stuff from non-members, what do members have to fear?

Further, I ask you: how could any new PA start up? As soon as somebody starts one and advertises, the big authoritarian ones, upon hearing about it, just run in and shoot all the employees. Those who are unwilling to do that sort of thing will eventually lose out to the ones who are-- because the ones who are will have shot all of them.

Again, you misunderstand: these are not mercenaries, they are private companies engaged in police force activities.

Fucking sigged for the lunacy.

On this planet there have been 6000 conflicts in the last 2000 years. Armed conflict is very likely due to human nature.

Everybody would follow the rules just like everybody follows the laws right?

That's the beauty: there are no "rules" in PA conflicts, only self interest, the guiding principle of businesses. As savvy businessmen, the PA owners would realize that wanton violence is unlikely to help with profitability, and would operate peacefully to encourage a positive public image.

As savvy businessmen, the PA owners would realize that wanton violence is unlikely to help with profitability, and would operate peacefully to encourage a positive public image.

Exactly, when in the history of our world has turning to violence ever been profitable? I mean, in an essentially lawless society, where men can turn to violence as a means of profit, when has that ever ACTUALLY happened?

Oh...wait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate)....

In the event that a conflict arises, where two PAs recognize legitimate ownership of the same property by two different individuals, they would resolve their differences in a manner that would cause as little negative public image as possible.

Wait, you think taxation is absolutely wrong, but you're willing to let PAs define what does and does not constitute property? This is an obvious contradiction.

Thus, while possible, armed conflicts between PAs would be unlikely, as this creates an authoritarian image in the public mind, and would thus hurt the bottom line.

Then we're back where we started.

The PAs reach some resolution. They agree on some property framework. Whatever this framework is, I don't like it.

What then?

Again, you misunderstand: these are not mercenaries, they are private companies engaged in police force activities. They do not trade in violence, they trade in protection, with the threat of violence in the event of attack. They would refrain from using violence because it would be bad for business. Free market economics makes this system feasible.

Why would "free market" prevent them from using their force except in defense? Again, if there's a strong organization that one day decides "all our members are safe, but any non-members are fair game for being plundered, a share of the profits being divided among our members," and stuck to that? Why would it scare members? Would they not be glad to be getting a share of plunder all the while being protected from pillaging themselves?

That's the beauty: there are no "rules" in PA conflicts, only self interest, the guiding principle of businesses. As savvy businessmen, the PA owners would realize that wanton violence is unlikely to help with profitability, and would operate peacefully to encourage a positive public image.

How many private organizations are involved in Iraq?

Wanton violence is acceptable if I can wipe you out and and take your land. Hmmm just like people have been doing for centuries.....

That's the beauty: there are no "rules" in PA conflicts, only self interest, the guiding principle of businesses. As savvy businessmen, the PA owners would realize that wanton violence is unlikely to help with profitability, and would operate peacefully to encourage a positive public image.

Except population growth, resource allocation and more would create conflict - why would one PA accept being worse off than another if they can go attack, drive away and expropriate that land?

Dude, please, reality, history, anything?

All your assertions are backed by 'would', 'could'...

Well they could all sit down nicely and come to a reasonable conclusion over a cup of tea!

Why certainly Mr. Santa Claus, let's bring the unicorns in to seal the deal!

The PAs reach some resolution. They agree on some property framework. Whatever this framework is, I don't like it.

What then?

Well obviously you go down to the Free Market and buy some wonderful Free Market Magic Beans, which you plant in the ground, and out sprouts your own competing business.

Never mind the men with assault rifles who won't take kindly to competition.

Why certainly Mr. Santa Claus, let's bring the unicorns in to seal the deal!

I'd like a pony...

Again, you misunderstand: these are not mercenaries, they are private companies engaged in police force activities. They do not trade in violence, they trade in protection, with the threat of violence in the event of attack. They would refrain from using violence because it would be bad for business. Free market economics makes this system feasible.

You remind me of my civics teacher when he was trying to explain to the class how the police, in spite of having the monopoly on violence, were somehow our friends and looking out for our interests...

I'm still waiting for a reason why a private defense agency wouldn't combine with other businesses to form a State.

Exactly, when in the history of our world has turning to violence ever been profitable? I mean, in an essentially lawless society, where men can turn to violence as a means of profit, when has that ever ACTUALLY happened?

Oh...wait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate)....

Wait? Didn't the evil oppressive governments deal with them? ;)

You remind me of my civics teacher when he was trying to explain to the class how the police, in spite of having the monopoly on violence, were somehow our friends and looking out for our interests...

You obviously don't buy them coffee and donuts!

And if they have a good reputation for only taking stuff from non-members, what do members have to fear?

Further, I ask you: how could any new PA start up? As soon as somebody starts one and advertises, the big authoritarian ones, upon hearing about it, just run in and shoot all the employees. Those who are unwilling to do that sort of thing will eventually lose out to the ones who are-- because the ones who are will have shot all of them.

The members have to fear the constant that power tends to corrupt. The members' knowledge of this keeps the PAs in line. They know that as a PA begins to act aggressively, it is likely to turn against them, and thus will leave it.
First, you assume that a PA has gained a monopoly already, which, as I mentioned, I find extremely unlikely due to the reason I mentioned above. Even so, even with large PAs, there are many instances of underground movements rising to combat large overbearing organizations. The new PAs could be expansions from another region, perhaps even a group of PAs which, realizing that the members under coercion by the authoritarian PA seek freedom from it, and are likely to be grateful for that freedom, perhaps even in the form of joining up with their PA once that freedom has been secured. Such a group would force the authoritarian PA out of business, aided by the authoritarian PA's own members in their refusal to pay, and the authoritarian PA would be overthrown in short order.
Even if a PA had gained an absolute monopoly, such that NO other PA existed, and if such a PA began authoritarian policies, the public revolt is almost certain. And an organized public revolt is merely one step away from a rival PA. Given short order, the massive revolt against the authoritarian PA would organize itself into a rival PA, with the public on its side. In this instance, monopolies would be self-destructive.

With this, I'm afraid I've got to go to bed. Got work in the morning.

Or, "Hey, these guys are starting to get really power-hungry... how long before they start turning it on me? I think I'm getting out while the gettin's good. I'd steer clear of these guys."
And this works because back in the day when you were paying them for protection, which allowed them to start amassing that power that you're now afraid of, you had the foresight to pay someone else to staple their shoes to the floor so they couldn't follow you when you ran away with all your private property. Right?

It's rather similar to the strategy of my great-great-grandparents. When the "PA's" they had been paying to protect them in Sicily got a little too big for their britches, my ancestors just packed up and ran away to NYC where those Sicilian "PA's" could never follow them.

You know, until they did follow them.

Thus we see the failing of the system. When asked the obvious, what happens when these private armed forces turn to violence, the only response we get is "they won't" But what if they do? They won't, it won't be profitable! But what if it was profitable? It wouldn't be! But what if it was? Ot wouldn't be! But what if it WAS? AREN'T YOU LISTENING TO ME? IT WOULD NEVER BE PROFITABLE TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE, BELIEVE IN THE FREE MARKET!

And thus it falls on its face, in ignorance of history. monopolies have formed, businessess have used coercive and underhanded methods, and bad men have done bad things for money. The claim that some savvy businessman won't turn his police force into an extortion racket because it wouldn't be profitable ignores the fact that monopolies have existed for a reason, and villainy attracts those who would use violence for gain.

The PAs reach some resolution. They agree on some property framework. Whatever this framework is, I don't like it.

What then?

Hopefully you have kids who are using assault rifles to protect the disputed property while the other guy is a single bachelor. Shooting kids is worse for business than shooting a grown man,

I'd like a pony...

Why certainly, we shall all have ponies!

You obviously don't buy them coffee and donuts!

I don't think all the coffee and donuts in the world would help in my home town. Hunting down and harrassing teenagers was their equivalent to Monday Night Football, every day, all week long.

Well obviously you go down to the Free Market and buy some wonderful Free Market Magic Beans, which you plant in the ground, and out sprouts your own competing business.

Let's say I do this. Let's even say that the other protective agencies are nice and don't stop me.

What happens this time when I "trespass" on someone else's property? Let's make another "what can go right will go right" assumption, and assume that our disputing protection agencies agree to talk it out. Any bargain they strike, however, will occur within the context of relative power, relative access to the means of violence: that is, after all, the alternative way the conflict would be decided. I own the weak, start-up company; the wealthy owner is closed tied to one of the established ones, which, of course, is tied closely to the other established ones to minimize potential conflicts.

It's not too hard to see who will win out. I'm still subordinate to the will of others.

The members have to fear the constant that power tends to corrupt. The members' knowledge of this keeps the PAs in line. They know that as a PA begins to act aggressively, it is likely to turn against them, and thus will leave it.
First, you assume that a PA has gained a monopoly already, which, as I mentioned, I find extremely unlikely due to the reason I mentioned above.

Then how do organizations like AT&T, Microsoft, Bar/Bri and a host of others all manage to form monopolies without the aid of firearms? monopolies have and DO exist, and they did it without the means to literally kill the competition.

You just make it easier.

Under the state I described, they would be profitable, because the companies would charge for their services.
There would be no public property, and yes, people would be charged to have their fires put out. They would pay regularly into a private-sector firefighting business. Any fire at a participating household would be responded to.
It's better in that no one steals one person's money to operate an organization.
It's better to let the poor and uninsured burn to death is what you really mean.
So, as I said, the private fire dept would be able to coerce people into buying fire insurance premiums on the basis that not doing so would mean total loss of property and life if a fire did eventuate. This is better than 'theft thru taxation' because now it's a private company threatening the home owner, not the government. cute.
And if the cost of extuinguishing the fire exceeds the insurance premium? Does this mean the fire dept would just not respond?
Would they, upon attending a major apartment fire, only rescue those who have paid up and leave the poor and the unisured to burn to death? This is better than our current system - how?

No public land? So no beaches, no parks, no deserts, no forests?

What if two companies decide to set up business? Would we have fights between them over the best, most profitable, fires? Would the homeowner now be forced to buy fire insurance from both?


Public transport is another issue. How would you work out the cost and profitability of that? Base it just on the actual running costs?
Here's where your little fantasy falls down.
public transport in itself is almost never profitable. So why does the govt continue with it?
Because it saves them billions$ in countless other ways. Think about it.
Example: Over 60,000 people use the free Staten Island ferry every day. Obviously not profitable! Let's go into your little fantasy world: A private company runs it, and finds that it just isn't profitable no matter what price the ticket. Cost of replacing the ferries is just too much. More profitable routes elsewhere. So it ups and leaves. What do those 60,000 ferry goers do now? Drive their 60,000 cars into Manhattan? and they park them where?walk? swim? Maybe you expect them to all move there to live closer to their work?

Public transport saves money in many ways. A few off the top of my head:
Reduced damage to the roads from all those cars not being used. Think your private road company is going to want to pay a premium to the private subway and bus company, cause those trains and buses mean less road repairs? Hell, the private road company would charge them more, as less cars mean less profit for them.

People with cars benefit from less traffic on the road. Faster commutes, less petrol being used. Are you now expecting those people to cough up a few bucks every week to pay towards the cost of the buses and trains they don't use, but benefit from them being there?

It means cities can spread more - urban sprawl does have it's benefits: reduced crime, better health for two.
Will the bus/train company get premiums from the private hospital and police dept for indirectly helping them? Again no, why would they want to pay?

Less strain on the inner-city water and sewerage infrastructure.

less carparks needing to be built.

less pollution - who would pay the bus/train company for the reduction in air pollution? The citizens of the the entire city, as they're the ones who benefit from the air quality improvement?
Hmm...how would we go about enforcing everyone in the city contribute to an infrastructure that not all use, but all gain an indirect benefit from?


Incidently, using big words does not impress nor does it make your argument any less flimsy. It just makes you appear an arrogant popinjay.

Look, Nicea Sancta, you've more or less already acknowledged the essentially monopolistic character of violence in any peaceful society. You've basically re-established the state--a state that is an association of profit-seeking corporations.

Yeah, that would work. :rolleyes:

Look, Nicea Sancta, you've more or less already acknowledged the essentially monopolistic character of violence in any peaceful society. You've basically re-established the state--a state that is an association of profit-seeking corporations.

Yeah, that would work. :rolleyes:

This thread was fun while it lasted, but I think it has basically run its course. With any luck, Nicea will begin a period of introspection and really think about what he's advocating.

You've basically re-established the state--a state that is an association of profit-seeking corporations

at least there won't have to be any of that pesky voting stuff anymore

at least there won't have to be any of that pesky voting stuff anymore

Damn Social Democrats and those infernal Trade Unions: they get in the way of profit!

The members have to fear the constant that power tends to corrupt. The members' knowledge of this keeps the PAs in line. They know that as a PA begins to act aggressively, it is likely to turn against them, and thus will leave it.
First, you assume that a PA has gained a monopoly already, which, as I mentioned, I find extremely unlikely due to the reason I mentioned above. Even so, even with large PAs, there are many instances of underground movements rising to combat large overbearing organizations. The new PAs could be expansions from another region, perhaps even a group of PAs which, realizing that the members under coercion by the authoritarian PA seek freedom from it, and are likely to be grateful for that freedom, perhaps even in the form of joining up with their PA once that freedom has been secured. Such a group would force the authoritarian PA out of business, aided by the authoritarian PA's own members in their refusal to pay, and the authoritarian PA would be overthrown in short order.
Even if a PA had gained an absolute monopoly, such that NO other PA existed, and if such a PA began authoritarian policies, the public revolt is almost certain. And an organized public revolt is merely one step away from a rival PA. Given short order, the massive revolt against the authoritarian PA would organize itself into a rival PA, with the public on its side. In this instance, monopolies would be self-destructive.

With this, I'm afraid I've got to go to bed. Got work in the morning.

1) You contradict yourself. You argue that PAs would always act in their best interests. Then, in this post, you demonstrate that becoming too aggressive (ie, pillaging paying members) would be unprofitable. Therefore, by your own argument, all PAs would work towards pillaging non-members and distributing the share among members, because as long as a company stays at that level, they'd be more profitable than those who did not act this way.

2) In the above situation, some would gain absolute monopolies in their areas, which you argue would be destructive because of rebellion and such. However, were this the case, people would be successfully overthrowing all the governments of the world-- after all, this is essentially would monopolistic PAs would be. You also try to argue expansions of PAs from other regions. You know, that sounds like an already existing concept-- an invasion.

3) An aggressive PA would not need to be internally authoritarian-- at first. All it would need to do would be follow the rule "paid members are safe. Non-paid members are targets. A part of the plunder is divided among paid members" Now, if one achieves a level of monopoly comparable to a government, then it can do whatever a government can do now. If it can't, then businesses should *currently* be able to overthrow the government.

4) Given that business *don't* overthrow the government, they either a) must think that the existence of the government is more profitable to them than its absence would be (which undermines your essential point that we'd be better off with so-called "theft-taxation"), or b) are unable to do so(undermining your point that monopolies of force would be unstable and overthrown by competitors), or both.

Either way, your vision of society is inherently unstable. This can be seen throughout history-- wherever there is lawlessness, some form of government invariably steps up to take charge. It is as inevitable as the sun's rising or the phases of the moon or the changing of the tides.

1 post a minute for four hours isn't to bad, actually.

Street gangs and organized crime work based off extortion; you pay or we'll cause you harm. Like the government with it's taxation.
These are voluntary, not coercive: If you wish a given company's protection, you may pay into it. If you wish to go it alone, do not pay into it.

Give me one good reason why a firm with the leading monopoly on weapons and equipment will refrain from harm or the threat of harm to gain resources from people under its area of influence, discouraging other PAs from interfering in their territory, while maintaining a border that prevents people leaving said territory.

If you find a PA with a description of private property you like, buy into it. If you don't, start one.

This is different from "If you don't like paying tax in one country, go to another that doesn't tax you, or start a new one" how?

If you dont give me your money I wil take your house. I have power. Power is right. PAY YOUR TAXES

You remind me of my civics teacher when he was trying to explain to the class how the police, in spite of having the monopoly on violence, were somehow our friends and looking out for our interests...
Well, you are - in a way - in control of the police through electing the government and people in power (and ultimately by being the policeman or woman him or herself): If the collective opinion of the police is that it isn't behaving well then the police will change.

Unless, of course, the people are apathetic towards politics or upholding percieved law & order... :p

Well, you are - in a way - in control of the police through electing the government and people in power (and ultimately by being the policeman or woman him or herself): If the collective opinion of the police is that it isn't behaving well then the police will change.

About as much in control as you're in a bus by leaning left or right.

neither the existence of hierarchy nor the existence of money is a "right" of anything.

the future isn't a choice between makiavellianism and procustianism, but between ecotopianism and collective mass suicide.

it isn't about anybody owing anybody anything, but about what kind of a world do you want to live in. and do you want one in which the so called human life form, or quite possibly the web of life itself, will even survive, let alone thrive, or one in which we may have a grand time destroying ourselves, a grand time for the fortunate few perhapse, if that, or an infinity of universal and considerably more real, if somewhat less spectacular, gratification, for everybody.

an infrastructure everyone has to indenture themselves to, might get a fresh coat of paint, but that won't keep it from disintigrating.

This is an honest question I have. Lets say I do not use a service that my tax money provides, and I do not want to pay. For example, Medicaid. What the government is doing is taking my money and giving it to someone else against my will, and if I resist I am labeled as a tax evader and thrown in prison. That sounds like a clear cut case of extortion if I've ever heard one. I understand a service that I use; i.e. roads. I like roads; in this instance the government is just a means of citizens pooling their money to better their lives, while medicaid is taking my money and bettering someone else's life with it. In principal, it's extortion even if legally it isn't.

Whether I personally am for or against medicaid is irrelevant, you understand my point. This could be applied to lots of things, like the government bailing Freddie Mac or Fanny May or the Iraq War.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will? I know what most people will say, that they have less than I do and I should help them out. Sure, I should, but who are you to make me? Or that a government has an obligation to its citizens. Ok, but I don't have an obligation to my fellow citizens.

I'm not trying start a big argument, I just want a satisfactory answer to my question.

Becuase you pay your taxes like the rest of us and the goverment deciedes where it goes, that is part of their job. You can of course vote for the people that would spend your taxes as you will, but things like medicaid still needs to be payed for so I guess you'll never be 100% garenteed to only pay for services you use.

So whether you use it or not is of no importance what-so-ever.

On a more personal note though, why be so selfish?