Continuing the philosophical discussion started in the "The ushers have gone TOO far" thread...

[Rosey]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote krose]But the inability or unwillingness to pay is only one of the two key issues here.  The other half is that theft is always wrong.  And taxation is morally equivalent to theft (among other things).  Just because you need something doesn't mean that I am morally obligated to pay for it, and yet I am forced to because the government has threatened to throw me in jail if I don't.[/quote]

This is where you're basically going to split with most others here, and where there basically is no particular bridge to compromise or agreement.[/quote]
There was never any question in my mind that this was the source of the conflict, because I run into this all the time when arguing Austrian economics and anti-government positions with people.

My ultimate point in arguing with people about these things is very simple: I want to make it as clear as possible that you need to commit an immoral act---robbery (in retrospect, "theft" isn't precise enough)---in order to make socialism work.  If you're okay with that, then fine; you're entitled to your opinion.  But I want you to recognize and admit that you are actively supporting robbery.

It doesn't matter whether the robber is some thug off the street or the thugs armed by a government elected by the majority, robbery is always wrong.  You can couch it in all sorts of flowery euphemisms about social contracts and the responsibility of society, but it is still robbery, which is an immoral act performed under threat of violence.

Cheers,
Kyle

[DeltaOne81]

First, liberalism is not socialism. Please don't play that game. Its one step from calling liberals commies. No one here is suggesting community forced ownership of all business and industry.

What you're talking about is social capitalism. The negative term for which may be welfare state. Or in technical economic terms, redistribution of wealth. None of which are 'socialism.'


My ultimate point in arguing with people about these things is very simple: I want to make it as clear as possible that you need to commit an immoral act---robbery (in retrospect, "theft" isn't precise enough)---in order to make socialism work

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree. I do think its important to realize that its not the government's money - I consider myself economically moderate too. But taxation is the knowing agreement that you enter into by taking part in the benefits of the society. Don't wanna pay US taxes, fine, move somewhere else. Heck, go live on an island and farm for yourself, and barter, and you won't have to pay a dime of tax probably. Its your membership dues. Take it or leave it, but you do have the choice.

I could get technical and say that robbery, by definition, is an illegal activity. And since its legal, it can't be robbery. But that'd be semantics.


Again, unfortunately, your point is entirely impractical. You can't have a government without taxes, and you can't have a reasonable society without a government - sorry, I don't buy it. The price of no taxes would be murder, mayhem, and regular robbery of your possessions by various others. And low taxes has their price too, to a lesser extent.


Anyway, I fundamentally disagree that taxes are robbery - its your membership fee that you pay for your perfectly free choice to participate in that society. And I just can't buy that its anyway possible to have a society that doesn't have taxes, without paying a much greater price in other ways.

[Rosey]

[quote DeltaOne81]First, liberalism is not socialism.[/quote]
It doesn't matter what word you use to describe it, the meaning is perfectly clear: socialism/(modern) liberalism is the use of politically-acquired labor products of one group for the benefit of others.  The meaning of "politically-acquired" in this context comes from Albert Jay Nock:
[quote Nock]There are two general means whereby human beings can satisfy their needs and desires. One is by work -- i.e., by applying labor and capital to natural resources for the production of wealth, or to facilitating the exchange of labor-products. This is called the economic means. The other is by robbery -- i.e., the appropriation of the labor-products of others without compensation. This is called the political means.[/quote]
I use the term "socialism" because "liberalism" means radically different things depending on era.  Nonetheless, my meaning should be clear.  If it isn't, please let me know.

What you're talking about is social capitalism.

I have never heard this term.  A quick Google search indicates that social capitalism actually refers to capitalism as applied to connections between individuals, and has nothing to do with this discussion.

The negative term for which may be welfare state. Or in technical economic terms, redistribution of wealth. None of which are 'socialism.'

"Welfare statism" might be reasonable, except that it's long.  Anyway, as I indicated, my meaning should clear, so regardless of the terms we use, we should both understand precisely what I am talking about.

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree.

So, you disagree that taking my property without my explicit permission under the threat of force is not robbery?  I don't recall signing a contract saying the US government is entitled to 30% of what I make, and in return they will give me really shitty protection, a few other services that would be better handled privately, a tiny amount that is actually useful and maybe even more efficiently handled publicly, and throw the rest of my money at special interests or straight down the toilet; and despite this lack of contract, it is still understood that if I don't pay this ransom, I will be thrown in prison.

As I said in my previous message, you can put all the euphemisms on it that you want.  In fact, you covered:

taxation is the knowing agreement

taking part in the benefits of the society

membership dues

and like most people who fail to tell me why exactly taxation isn't robbery, you fall back on the usual "go off and live by yourself" response:

Don't wanna pay US taxes, fine, move somewhere else. Heck, go live on an island and farm for yourself, and barter, and you won't have to pay a dime of tax probably.

as if I actually wanted to do such a thing, or would be permitted to do so without having to continue paying taxes to the IRS.  I'd rather fix what we have here than abandon it: I'm simply unwilling to say that all is lost and give up all my positive private arrangements in the process (i.e., baby and bathwater).

You go on to claim that

your point is entirely impractical. You can't have a government without taxes, and you can't have a reasonable society without a government - sorry, I don't buy it.  

but you fail to show why.  In fact, many people much smarter than you or I have shown that

The price of no taxes would be murder, mayhem, and regular robbery of your possessions by various others

is simply not a supportable assertion.  You can claim it all you want, but you have presented zero evidence that this is the case.  And even were it true, you have yet to show how such a notion makes robbery any less immoral.

But I think we are going in circles here.

Cheers,
Kyle

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Nock]There are two general means whereby human beings can satisfy their needs and desires. One is by work -- i.e., by applying labor and capital to natural resources for the production of wealth, or to facilitating the exchange of labor-products. This is called the economic means. The other is by robbery -- i.e., the appropriation of the labor-products of others without compensation. This is called the political means.[/quote]

I dunno, this quote seems to me to be as much a conclusion hidden in a definition as anything else - i.e. political spin. Its fine to have an opinion, but its not really proof of anything.

Some people feel that if the work of numerous others still leaves them poor, hungry, and unable to get ahead... oh well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Others believe that we have an obligation to more than just our own personal wealth.

What you're talking about is social capitalism.

I have never heard this term.  A quick Google search indicates that social capitalism actually refers to capitalism as applied to connections between individuals, and has nothing to do with this discussion.

Not sure what Google search you did:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22social+capitalism%22

4 of the top 6 unique sites on these results talk about what I'm talking about. 1 is kinda related (corporations tackling social issues). And the last is about social connections in the economy.

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree.

So, you disagree that taking my property without my explicit permission under the threat of force is not robbery?

Actually no, I *agree* that its not robbery .

You go on to claim that

your point is entirely impractical. You can't have a government without taxes, and you can't have a reasonable society without a government - sorry, I don't buy it.  

but you fail to show why.  In fact, many people much smarter than you or I have shown that

The price of no taxes would be murder, mayhem, and regular robbery of your possessions by various others

is simply not a supportable assertion.  You can claim it all you want, but you have presented zero evidence that this is the case.  And even were it true, you have yet to show how such a notion makes robbery any less immoral.

And you have provided zero evidence on how you could have a society without laws, without rules, without law enforcement, without worker or consumer protections of any kind, without any common social protections, that wouldn't be riddled with violence, revenge, theft, disease, a etc.

I will do a little bit to 'show why'. If you had no taxes, you couldn't have law enforcement that had any substantial resources to combat crime effectively. Theft and violent crime would cause substantial problems. Even if you had volunteer law enforcement, they would not be accountable to anyone - no need for fair justice when they can just take justice in their own hands.

You couldn't have roads that were kept at appropriate levels of repair to facilitate a good economy, or responsible, trained fire departments and equipment to protect against neighborhoods going down in flames.

And if someone did have bad situations, be it fire or job loss or disability, there would be no protection of employment insurance or workers comp to prevent them from plunging into a cycle of poverty. When you have substantial populations who have no home or possessions, you increase the risk or crime, and disease by creating such an underclass. Especially since you have no viable, accountable police force.

This is but the beginning of the problems that I would be inherent in such  scenario. It would only work in an utopian world, or in small groups where you can filter who is allowed and have close enough relationships to trust everyone. Much like a commune. Nice idea at heart, but totally impractical.

[billhoward]

I bet the majority of those who picked up on the "yep, it's the lending student's responsibility for the cretin who mouthed off and get tossed" side of the argument are some years removed from Cornell. That's the way the legal system works.

You're responsble for what others do when you lend them your car or your hockey ticket.

You can't duck handing them in by saying the JA never notified you. No more than you can say the parking ticket blew off your windshield. You can duck the jury summons that comes in the mail but not the one that comes registered mail.

... by the way, I bet the student who lost the tickets can, by groveling sufficiently, get them reinstated for second semester.

[ftyuv]

I was fine when the thread drift went towards a topic I was interested in.  But your boring debate about libertarianism goes too far!  ;-)  Keep it up, and I may have to print it out and use this page instead of newspapers next time I come up to a hockey game.  Hehe.

[mttgrmm]

The other half is that theft is always wrong. And taxation is morally equivalent to theft (among other things). Just because you need something doesn't mean that I am morally obligated to pay for it, and yet I am forced to because the government has threatened to throw me in jail if I don't.

You'll find many people to disagree with that claim.  First, do you not use public highways?  What about traffic lights? What about the agency that makes you pass a skills test to qualify for your drivers license?

Those are just existing uses of public money for very obviously public benefits.  We all benefit from driving on paved roads with traffic lights with tested drivers.

That's just one of the examples of the government collecting taxes and redistributing that money for the public good, which by and large I think it aims to do with the rest of its collected money.  Collect it, spend it on projects which will help the public the best.

What about the safety classes that were proposed to be a requirement to own a private firearm?  Who will teach those classes, who will keep these records. Some effort will have to go into compilig those records so that records are accurate for the next time someone wants to buy a Tec-9 or a Streetsweeper or whatever gun they want, they'll have it noted that you already took your safety course. Who will pay for those classes?  Who will maintain that database?  How will it communicate with the other 49 states and their databases?  Someone has to pay for it.

All of these questions are valid and raise my point: the goverment esists (in a small part of the total goal of government) to provide common services for the public's benefit; of which transportation methods (highways, traffic signage, etc) and this firearm safety class that's been proposed.  Should the government get involved in this?  It would obviously benefit the public to have every gun owner taught proper handling and safety training.  Sounds like it would fit under "public's benefits."

How about Fire Departments and EMS?  We're not even going to get into schooling.... that's a clusterfuck any way it goes.  What about tunnels and bridges and damns?  All of these services are provided to everyone, and thus you pay taxes.  That seems to me what the "dues" are, the cover charge if you will.

By benefitting from all of these public services (I be you'd lose count at how many times the goverment has provided you a service in a single day of life), can you still claim that taxes are robbery?  I have more to say but it's getting late... we can banter tomorrow.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote mttgrmm]can you still claim that taxes are robbery?  I have more to say but it's getting late... we can banter tomorrow.[/quote]

Of course he can, because he's made it into an axiom basically. Its true because its true.

Nevermind that it still seems completely unfathomable how you could possibly have a safe, functional society without a government, and the inevitable tax collection associated with it. Even the father of the 'natural rights' argument that forms the base of much of what Kyle has shared said as much.


[quote mttgrmm](I bet you'd lose count at how many times the government has provided you a service in a single day of life)[/quote]

Which reminds me of this (second post):
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/archives/2005_10_09_interestingtimes_archive.html

[Beeeej]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote mttgrmm](I bet you'd lose count at how many times the government has provided you a service in a single day of life)[/quote]

Which reminds me of this (second post):
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/archives/2005_10_09_interestingtimes_archive.html[/quote]

Cute, if overly simplistic.

[Rosey]

[quote DeltaOne81]I dunno, this quote seems to me to be as much a conclusion hidden in a definition as anything else - i.e. political spin. Its fine to have an opinion, but its not really proof of anything.[/quote]
Do you disagree with his definition?

Some people feel that if the work of numerous others still leaves them poor, hungry, and unable to get ahead... oh well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Others believe that we have an obligation to more than just our own personal wealth.

You can feel you have an obligation to more than just your own personal wealth and not violate my right to property at the same time: it's called charity.  No one is stopping you or me from giving to those in need, but I am saying that you are not entitled to violate my rights by giving away my money, whether you are a lone Robin Hood or an elected welfare state.

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree.

So, you disagree that taking my property without my explicit permission under the threat of force is not robbery?

Actually no, I *agree* that its not robbery .

Good catch.  But seriously...

Note the dictionary definition of robbery: "The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation."

You think that "unlawfully" provides an exception for elected bodies to take your property by the use of violence or intimidation, but I ask you: If 51% of the people want to strip you of X% of your income or possessions, at what X does the legislation enacted to allow this suddenly become unlawful?  And at that point are you not admitting that "lawful" doesn't simply mean "what the majority wants"?  Or would you simply say, "The people have spoken"?  Please, pin down an X at which taxation suddenly qualifies as robbery.

I say that all takings are unlawful because I do not recognize the legitimacy of governments to violate my natural right to property.  Until recently, "law" was understood to be equivalent to "natural law," and laws were discovered not "passed".  Nowadays, "law" seems to mean "positive law" or "legislation," and these "laws" are whatever we decide they are, because people want to be lawful yet natural law does not permit the sorts of rights violations we routinely accept.

And you have provided zero evidence on how you could have a society without laws, without rules, without law enforcement, without worker or consumer protections of any kind, without any common social protections, that wouldn't be riddled with violence, revenge, theft, disease, a etc.

This is where reading Hoppe's book would be helpful, because I simply can't adequately summarize it into a few paragraphs.  (I have plenty of perspective about how a democratic society works, but you have zero on how an anarchic society would work, which I consider a failure of the education system... but that's another story.)

What services does government provide that people cannot provide for themselves through private contracts?

Certainly not roads: there's no reason roads cannot be privately owned and maintained.

Certainly not local security: lots of people contract for security through private security companies.  Gated communities are a good example of this.

Certainly not insurance: all forms of insurance---SS (insurance against living too long), short-term unemployment insurance, welfare (long-term unemployment insurance), health insurance---can be provided privately.

The only interesting category comprises non-exclusionary services, like national defense, because here it's simply harder to see how it would work.

... Unfortunately at this point I need to go to work, so I'll try to continue this later.  Just a few additional brief replies:

I will do a little bit to 'show why'. If you had no taxes, you couldn't have law enforcement that had any substantial resources to combat crime effectively.

False.  People can contract for security privately.  Why are publicly-funded police irreplaceable?

Even if you had volunteer law enforcement, they would not be accountable to anyone - no need for fair justice when they can just take justice in their own hands.

False dichotomy: there are more options than paid, public police and unpaid police unaccountable to anyone.

You couldn't have roads that were kept at appropriate levels of repair to facilitate a good economy,

LOL... wow, I can't believe you really believe this.  Ever notice that only government expects us to put up with inconvenience and inefficiency and still pay a premium for it?  Public roads are terribly run: consumers don't get what they want (e.g., higher or lower speeds, more safety, less congestion, peak pricing, the ability to safely drive home drunk at 2am), the maintainers don't care about inconveniencing people (e.g., traffic caused by rush-hour construction, toll booths every 2 miles, poor designs leading to congestion), yet you are conditioned to believe that there is no better way to run the roads.

Tell me why roads cannot be paid for privately.

or responsible, trained fire departments and equipment to protect against neighborhoods going down in flames.

See "insurance."

And if someone did have bad situations, be it fire or job loss or disability, there would be no protection of employment insurance or workers comp to prevent them from plunging into a cycle of poverty.

See "insurance."

When you have substantial populations who have no home or possessions, you increase the risk or crime, and disease by creating such an underclass. Especially since you have no viable, accountable police force.

Everything you said here is based on faulty assumptions I noted above.  First, imagine that all property---that means everything, including the roads---are privately owned and that private owners had access to privately-contracted security of a more or less unlimited degree through local insurers and reinsurers acting as private security contractors.  Play devil's advocate for a moment and tell me how petty crime would be less of an issue.

Cheers,
Kyle

[ftyuv]

The problem is, Kyle, that your system much more strongly favors those with means.  They'll get more means, at a faster rate than they currently do and without any checks.  Poor people simply will not be able to afford things like a private fire department, and so when their house burns down, nobody will stop it.  This system has been tried before, and that was the result.  If your response to that is "tough cookies for them, at least everyone's property rights are intact" I'd say you're being too cold.  If your response is that private charities will provide these people with all the things they need -- transportation, fire departments, police departments, insurances of the various kind you mentioned, etc etc etc -- I'd say you're giving individuals' altruism much too much credit.

Those at the top end of society will always be taken care of.  Governments help make sure that the rest don't get trampled too badly.  They're not perfect, but they're better than not having that safety net at all.

[Ben Rocky '04]

[quote krose]
Everything you said here is based on faulty assumptions I noted above.  First, imagine that all property---that means everything, including the roads---are privately owned and that private owners had access to privately-contracted security of a more or less unlimited degree through local insurers and reinsurers acting as private security contractors.  Play devil's advocate for a moment and tell me how petty crime would be less of an issue.
[/quote]

Kyle, have you read Snowcrash?  Because thats what your proposal reminds me me of.

[Rosey]

[quote ftyuv]The problem is, Kyle, that your system much more strongly favors those with means.[/quote]
Any system favors those with means over those without them: this is basic economics.  All you can do is decide where you want to pin the tradeoff between liberty and equality of outcome, and I take the stance that robbery is always wrong, so it should never be done even if it *might* (dubiously) achieve a higher global maximum.

They'll get more means, at a faster rate than they currently do and without any checks.

I fail to see how this is a problem.  My creating wealth doesn't make you poorer.  My acquiring wealth from you doesn't make you poorer either: if you choose to give me money directly in exchange for something, clearly you feel what you get is worth more to you than the money.

Poor people simply will not be able to afford things like a private fire department, and so when their house burns down, nobody will stop it.  This system has been tried before, and that was the result.

I think you may be confusing the advance of technology and market efficiency with a failure of privately-funded security.  Just when was a non-public system of fire insurance tried with modern firefighting technology and global markets backing it up?

Those at the top end of society will always be taken care of.  Governments help make sure that the rest don't get trampled too badly.  They're not perfect, but they're better than not having that safety net at all.

That's all fine and good, but I still do not consent to be robbed.  That is the bottom line: no one else has a right to the fruits of my labor.

Under natural law, anyone caught robbing me can be detained by me or my designee until the value is returned.  Unfortunately, the government is too large and too powerful for me to detain so I am forced to keep giving it money under coercion.  Nonetheless, I do not consent.

So if you are telling me that's too bad and I need to live with it because I have no choice other than changing my name, laundering a bunch of money, going Face/Off, and moving to a foreign country, then you are an accessory to robbery.  You can gloss over it any way you'd like, but this system of wealth transfer can exist only when there is the threat of force making people comply.

Cheers,
Kyle

[Rosey]

[quote Ben Rocky 04]Kyle, have you read Snowcrash?  Because thats what your proposal reminds me me of.[/quote]
I'm glad you mentioned that: that is exactly the sort of world I imagine would exist in the early stages of private property anarchy.  The Diamond Age is set later in the same universe, when things had matured quite a bit.  I think that universe is pretty much ideal.  I also think it's inevitable, but I still try to do my part in helping it along in whatever way I can.

Neal Stephenson is among my favorite authors.  Vernor Vinge and Greg Benford are others.

Cheers,
Kyle

[ftyuv]

Ok, well I guess I'm an accessory to robbery, then.  If you're defining robbery as any instance where one entity forces another to surrender its property, then yes, taxes are robberies, governments are robbers, and anyone who supports them is an accessory.

Of course, in that you consort with all of these robbers and accomplices, and in fact benefit off of the benefits they provide, you're also an accomplice.

There are many evils in the world.  I'll take the evil of your narrowly-defined robbery over the evils of the wealthy being completely unchecked and subjugating the poor relentlessly.

And you're right, as far as I know there hasn't been an attempt in a developed country to have privately-funded fire depts (et al.) in ages.  That's cause most people recognize that the last time that method was tried, it was horrendous.  If you really think a shiny new fire truck will make all the difference, well, I don't know what to say except that I'm not willing to take the (very substantial, imo) risk that you're completely wrong.