Is Taxation Theft?

[Thino]

They have a monopoly in that they're the only ones who can force you to pay for their service whether you want it or not. No one else can do that. I can't choose to use body guards or private security instead of the police. At best, I can choose them in addition to the police. I'm still forced to pay for the police.

Imagine if we all had to buy burgers from McDonald's. We could still choose to buy them from other places, but we have to buy from McDonald's no matter what. Most people are just going to eat McDonald's burgers, even if they don't necessarily think McDonald's has the best burgers, because they have to pay for them anyway. Because of this, there isn't going to be much of a market for other burger places, and so this will disinsentivise other places from even bothering to sell burgers. So there won't be as many alternative options as there would be if McDonald's didn't have a forced monopoly over burgers.

of course the government is the only one who can do that , since it has been chosen democratically therefore everyone agrees with its authority over everyone.

if you have private bodyguards and that at the same time you still pay taxes for the police , it doesn't change anything since in case of need, you still benefit of both services.

the same authority argument applies if the government had monopoly for burger places and that they choose that McDonalds is the best burger for you regardless of your will , opinions , and tastes.

Because I would be agreeing to it before hand.

the moment you accept the concept of democracy , you agree that no matter who you voted for , the government will stand as a higher authority and has the right to decide which services are the best for you.

Yes. There is a tremendous difference. It's the difference between you having to pay someone that you hired to paint your house, and someone just painting your house without you asking them to and then forcing you to pay them. I'd say it's a pretty big difference.

except in that case you agreed that someone else decides when its suitable to send someone to paint your house.
if you delegate the decision to paint your house to a higher authority , the difference between you hiring someone to paint your house and the higher authority deciding to send someone painting , the difference isnt as trememdous as you seem to make it look.

the agreement exists.

That's because the state basically points to things and decides that it belongs to them automatically. Property rights were originally determined by whoever took a piece of unused land and made it usable. The government basically made everything theirs by default. It's like if Neil Armstrong would have decided that the entire moon was his just because he walked on part of it.

And then they steal money from people in order to build roads and stuff on property that they just decided was theirs. And even when you buy your own property, they still decide that it's their property. Can I walk around my front yard naked on "my property"? Can I have sex for money on "my property"? Can I shoot heroin on "my property"? Of course not. Because it's not really my property, and, to the extent that I do have any freedom over it, it's only what they allow me to have.

So of course I use government property, but that's because they decided, by way of force, that everything is their property.

to compare stepping on the moon to a government that is elected on relative or absolute majority is a bit inaccurate if you ask me.

by agreeing with the democratic system , and being elected , you agree already on them deciding to make whatever they want theirs , therefore taking money from people in order to build roads and stuff cannot be considered stealing until you disagree with the concept of democracy itself.

I still believe walking naked in your yard is an offense to public property since people using public property can see you , Im very confident that you can walk naked inside your house and that you can have sex for money inside your house ,shoot heroin inside your house , the reason you would get arrested for either of those things has nothing to do with the fact that its your property or not , but most probably because you infringe laws.

the freedom of property you have , just like any type of freedom , stops where other people's freedom or infriging law starts.

It's not for everyone's own good. How is a library for the good of anyone other than the people who use it? And, if something was for the good of everyone, then they wouldn't have to take our money to pay for it. We'd all have incentive to voluntarily help pay for it, since it would be to our own benefit to do so.

You cannot claim out of nowhere that it isnt for everyone's own good , simply because you cannot tell or predict who is gonna uses these services and who is not.

the library is no exception to that : there might be nobody using it as well as everyone using it , you decided that the decision to choose what is for the good of everyone is the government , so you are actually voluntarily helping pay for it , as indirect as it looks.

Because I'm choosing to pay in one scenario, and I'm not in the other. The difference seems pretty obvious to me.
.

you're choosing to pay in both scenarios , the similarity is indeed not obvious in the second case , I'll give you that.

1) Just because a majority believes something doesn't make it right. See Nazis, etc.

2) What if I never wanted hot dogs in the first place? I should have the CHOICE to buy hot dogs if I want them. It is still wrong for someone to TAKE my money and then give me a hot dog, because it is involuntary.

3) Additionally, the goal of government theft is NOT to make my life better. It is to keep the government in power and give handouts to the powerful.

1) the context is not the same , we're talking about democracy here , not Nazis

2) what if you told them to decide what is good for you in first place and that they decided that hot dogs would be? the choice is when you decide that its right for a government to choose for you that hotdogs are good therefore you agree on them taking your money to give you a hotdog.

it is entirely voluntary.

3) first off its not a theft , secondly , we do not have the same definition of what the goal of the government is , so please explain how the goal of the government is to keep the government in power and give handouts to the powerful.

 

[freeman123]

Thino
of course the government is the only one who can do that , since it has been chosen democratically therefore everyone agrees with its authority over everyone.

No, everyone doesn't agree. Democratic governments aren't elected unanimously.

Thino
if you have private bodyguards and that at the same time you still pay taxes for the police , it doesn't change anything since in case of need, you still benefit of both services.

I'm not benefiting from both services if I only use one of them.

Thino
the same authority argument applies if the government had monopoly for burger places and that they choose that McDonalds is the best burger for you regardless of your will , opinions , and tastes.

What?

Thino
the moment you accept the concept of democracy , you agree that no matter who you voted for , the government will stand as a higher authority and has the right to decide which services are the best for you.

When did I accept any of that?

Thino
except in that case you agreed that someone else decides when its suitable to send someone to paint your house.
if you delegate the decision to paint your house to a higher authority , the difference between you hiring someone to paint your house and the higher authority deciding to send someone painting , the difference isnt as trememdous as you seem to make it look.

I don't know what you're talking about. When did I agree to let someone else decide when to paint my house, and how is that the same as someone forcing me to pay them to paint my house when I didn't ask them to?

Thino
to compare stepping on the moon to a government that is elected on relative or absolute majority is a bit inaccurate if you ask me.

It's exactly the same thing. Do you think the US government has a right to claim the entire moon as US property just because we were the first to walk on it?

Thino
by agreeing with the democratic system , and being elected , you agree already on them deciding to make whatever they want theirs , therefore taking money from people in order to build roads and stuff cannot be considered stealing until you disagree with the concept of democracy itself.

When did I ever say that I agree with democracy? I don't know why you keep using that as an argument, because I never said that.

Thino
I still believe walking naked in your yard is an offense to public property since people using public property can see you

Okay, well I don't want to have to look at peoples' faces. So should I have the right to tell people they can't stand outside on their own property without covering their faces, because I find it offensive?

Thino
Im very confident that you can walk naked inside your house and that you can have sex for money inside your house ,shoot heroin inside your house , the reason you would get arrested for either of those things has nothing to do with the fact that its your property or not , but most probably because you infringe laws.

Why can the government tell me that I can't engage in a victimless "crime" on my own property, unless I don't really have a right to my own property?

Thino
the freedom of property you have , just like any type of freedom , stops where other people's freedom or infriging law starts.

I'm not violating anyone's freedom by engaging in drugs or prostitution. And arguing that some is against the law because it's against the law is not an argument.

Thino
You cannot claim out of nowhere that it isnt for everyone's own good , simply because you cannot tell or predict who is gonna uses these services and who is not.

Then, by that same logic, you can't claim that anything is for everyone's own good either, because you can't predict who is going to use it.

Thino
you decided that the decision to choose what is for the good of everyone is the government

When did I decide that?

Thino
you're choosing to pay in both scenarios , the similarity is indeed not obvious in the second case , I'll give you that.

If you're saying that I'm choosing to pay when I'm being taxed, you're going to have to explain how.

 

[Thino]

When did I ever say that I agree with democracy? I don't know why you keep using that as an argument, because I never said that.

my bad then.

I mentioned everything I said assuming you agreee with the democratic system

if you dont , then everything I said is irrelevant

 

[Aesir]

I don't see what the "issue" is. This guy wasn't a victim. He chose not to pay. It's like saying that less people would have cavities if the government forced people to brush their teeth. That's probably true, but does it justify the government forcing you to brush your teeth? You're capable of brushing your teeth on your own, and, if you choose not to, you have to accept the consequences that come with making that choice.

No it's not. We all benefit from a taxed based fire department.

It's funny how you bring up property rights, when, as I said before, it's the government that limits your rights on your own property.

When did I say property rights? I said this arcana system would lower everyone's property value. Sure your rights are being limited to some degree, but this idea of absolute liberty only exists in Utopian societies that would never exist anyway. The benefits and freedoms granted from taxed based services out weigh the grievances on your rights.

Also, your property is the product of your labor. Your money is also the product of your labor, meaning that a person's money is their property. So I can tell you who doesn't care about property rights, and that's the government. They're more than happy to just take your property from you through taxation.

You keep calling it theft, but in reality how did you earn your money? it's from the opportunities granted to you by the Government. Taxes are dues to live in a country that won't oppress you, or tell you how to live your life. as i said before the small grievances on your liberty is a small price to pay for the bigger picture. If you wanna call it theft go ahead, but taxation is the only way for government to function.

Who has more incentive to care about property value? The government, or civilians? People don't want their property values to go down, so they aren't going to voluntarily give money to a fire department that would do anything that could lower their property values. So, if fire departments wanted to make money, they'd have to put out all fires; which is why that was what happened back when we had free market fire protection

When we had free market fire protection more homes burned down, because you had multiple companies fighting over the same fire.

I don't really get what you're saying here. The fire department that watched the house burn down was a government fire department.

The Government is good at running a fire department. I didn't say all governments are, this one is pretty abysmal at serving the goal of fire protection.

You could have a centralized fire department assigned to a particular area without taxing people. People would have incentive to pay for it because they'd want to live in a community that had fire protection. Also, having fire protection would increase property values, and so people in real estate would include costs of fire protection in contracts when selling property.

Taxes are the most effective way to get it done. How would the fire department be funded? voluntarily? So we're still putting other home owners at risk? What if it's a fire late at night and the family dies? that's perfectly fine?

What I said is absolutely true. What you're arguing has nothing to do with whether or not taxation is theft(which is what I thought the topic was). You're arguing that it's necessary for the government to steal, which is a much different argument than arguing that they aren't stealing.

I'm saying whether or not it's theft is completely irrelevant. (If say tax money was spent for personal things by the government I would agree.) Taxes are necessary because they provide for the common welfare. Fire, police, military, ect.. All are funded through tax dollars. Hiring private contractors for all of those services would provide a lot of unnecessary grief. For instance the fire department, that's why it was centralized, the public felt safer knowing that the fire department was handled by one centralized source this was to promote fairness and alleviate confusion.

Sure it's a novel idea everyone worries about them selves, I pay for mine you pay for yours. However there are some services that are just so essential to the general welfare that leaving it up to the market is insane. The can fail and produce inefficiencies.

 

[freeman123]

Aesir
No it's not. We all benefit from a taxed based fire department.

No what's not? I'm not really sure what you're referring to here. And everyone benefited back when they had voluntary fire protection and the government wasn't involved.

Aesir
When did I say property rights?

Aesir
It's also nice to know everyone property value is now going to go down because of this arcana system, but hey who cares about that right?

You said that people have a right to the value of their property. That's a property right.

Aesir
I said this arcana system would lower everyone's property value.

I explained how it wouldn't, and you completely ignored my explanation.

Aesir
You keep calling it theft

Because it is theft.

Aesir
but in reality how did you earn your money? it's from the opportunities granted to you by the Government.

No, it isn't. Money is simply a representation of time and labor. People would still desire the labor and products of other people even without a government; so some form of currency would exist without the government.

What about people who make their money outside of the country?

Aesir
Taxes are dues to live in a country that won't oppress you

That's like saying that paying the Mafia is the price for them not breaking your legs. It's very nice of the Mafia to not break your legs.

Aesir
or tell you how to live your life.

The government does tell us how to live our lives. They tell us what substances we can or can't put in our bodies, they tell us we can't prostitute ourselves, they tell us that being straight is better than being gay, and they tell us that we should trust in the Judeo-Christian god.

Aesir
as i said before the small grievances on your liberty is a small price to pay for the bigger picture.

Why do you get to decide what's a "small price" for me to pay? Shouldn't I be the one to decide for myself if my benefits outway my costs?

Aesir
If you wanna call it theft go ahead, but taxation is the only way for government to function.

If something can't exist without forcing people to fund it, then that means that people don't want it to exist.

Aesir
When we had free market fire protection more homes burned down, because you had multiple companies fighting over the same fire.

That isn't true. All fire departments would go to a fire, but only the one whose fire mark was on the building would put it out. If there were multiple fires, they'd each go to the one nearest them.

And, as I explained already, you could have a system were certain fire departments only put out fires in a certain area without them having to be government funded.

I don't follow your logic of "Multiple fire departments tried to put out fires. So we have to steal from people to pay for fire protection." That doesn't make any sense at all.

And it's ridiculous to think that fire fighters stood in front of burning buildings arguing over who got to put out the fire. If anything, why wouldn't they just all put out the fire?

Aesir
Taxes are the most effective way to get it done. How would the fire department be funded? voluntarily? So we're still putting other home owners at risk? What if it's a fire late at night and the family dies? that's perfectly fine?

Fire protection could be paid for through your insurance company. When you buy insurance for a building, the cost of fire protection would be included in the insurance cost.

Everyone who owns a home or building buys insurance for it anyway, and only property owners pay fire taxes as it is, so I don't see how this way would be any different except that it wouldn't involve stealing and the government wouldn't have a forced monopoly over fire protection. There would actually be competition, as competing insurance companies would try to have the best fire departments, and this would insure the best service at the lowest cost.

Aesir
I'm saying whether or not it's theft is completely irrelevant.

Do you at least acknowledge that it is theft?

Aesir
If say tax money was spent for personal things by the government I would agree.

They do. There are politicians who spend tax money on luxury cars for themselves. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/06/1516036/florida-congressmen-spend-tax.html

 

[Aesir]

No what's not? I'm not really sure what you're referring to here. And everyone benefited back when they had voluntary fire protection and the government wasn't involved.

Tell that to the people who lost their property because different companies were fighting for the same fire. Letting many homes burn down. Maybe you'd like that, but many Americans back then didn't and the system was changed.

You said that people have a right to the value of their property. That's a property right.

Lol try reading things within context next time, "Right" was a satirical way of agreeing with you.

I explained how it wouldn't, and you completely ignored my explanation.

I didn't ignore it. I responded to it.

Because it is theft.

That's nice.

No, it isn't. Money is simply a representation of time and labor. People would still desire the labor and products of other people even without a government; so some form of currency would exist without the government.

Multiple currencies would exist. Government creates a free trade system so we can have simple and easier flow of capital. Otherwise you'll just have a barter system, which does not produce strong economies.

What about people who make their money outside of the country?

That's like saying that paying the Mafia is the price for them not breaking your legs. It's very nice of the Mafia to not break your legs.

You don't' democratically elect the mafia.

The government does tell us how to live our lives. They tell us what substances we can or can't put in our bodies, they tell us we can't prostitute ourselves, they tell us that being straight is better than being gay, and they tell us that we should trust in the Judeo-Christian god.

That depends on who's running the Government.

Why do you get to decide what's a "small price" for me to pay? Shouldn't I be the one to decide for myself if my benefits outway my costs?

Because despite what your individualism is telling you, the decisions you make effect the people around you. If you're negligent, it will negatively effect your neighbors family and so on. So your cost benefit analysis could ever well lead to unnecessary harm. That's why the government steps in.

If something can't exist without forcing people to fund it, then that means that people don't want it to exist.

Which is why people make stupid decisions.

That isn't true. All fire departments would go to a fire, but only the one whose fire mark was on the building would put it out. If there were multiple fires, they'd each go to the one nearest them.

I suggest you read that link I offered a few days ago, it explains this much better than I feel like explaining it. It was a known problem back then that multiple companies would be fighting over the same fire. The system works much better with one department and all fires in that area are handled by that department. Letting the Free Market handle it is irresponsible and leads to unnecessary loss.

And, as I explained already, you could have a system were certain fire departments only put out fires in a certain area without them having to be government funded.

And as I said, who would fund it?

I don't follow your logic of "Multiple fire departments tried to put out fires. So we have to steal from people to pay for fire protection." That doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't follow your logic that everything should be privatized, because we tried that in America before. it didn't work.

And it's ridiculous to think that fire fighters stood in front of burning buildings arguing over who got to put out the fire. If anything, why wouldn't they just all put out the fire?

Just like it's ridiculous that firefighters watched a house burn down.

Fire protection could be paid for through your insurance company. When you buy insurance for a building, the cost of fire protection would be included in the insurance cost.

So what happens when your home burns down and the fire department that is insured by your insurance can't get there in time? Yet another department can get there twice as fast but chose not to come because they're not insured? This sounds like a good idea? don't scuff this off either this is the type of **** that happens with our health care system.

It's a novel idea, but leaving something so vital up to the markets is nothing more than an exercise in irresponsibility.

Everyone who owns a home or building buys insurance for it anyway, and only property owners pay fire taxes as it is, so I don't see how this way would be any different except that it wouldn't involve stealing and the government wouldn't have a forced monopoly over fire protection. There would actually be competition, as competing insurance companies would try to have the best fire departments, and this would insure the best service at the lowest cost.

Because there are some goods and services so vital to our well being that leaving it up to the Market isn't a ethical decision.

Do you at least acknowledge that it is theft?

Sure if it makes you feel better, even though theft implies it's unlawful, but hey who cares about details.

They do. There are politicians who spend tax money on luxury cars for themselves. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/06/1516036/florida-congressmen-spend-tax.html

Yeah because that's all tax dollars ever get used for. Give me a break.

 

[freeman123]

Aesir
Tell that to the people who lost their property because different companies were fighting for the same fire. Letting many homes burn down. Maybe you'd like that, but many Americans back then didn't and the system was changed.

Why couldn't you have a centralized system without having to steal to pay for it?

Aesir
Lol try reading things within context next time, "Right" was a satirical way of agreeing with you.

I didn't misread what you said. You forgot to put a comma.

Aesir
I didn't ignore it. I responded to it.

Show me where you responded to my explanation of how you could have non government run fire protection without lowering property values, because I apparently missed you explanation.

Aesir
Multiple currencies would exist. Government creates a free trade system so we can have simple and easier flow of capital. Otherwise you'll just have a barter system, which does not produce strong economies.

People want to be able to trade with one another, so they would naturally come to an agreement on a currency. It happens that way in MMOs. I don't know if you've ever played Diablo 2. Gold is pretty much worthless in that game, because there's a cap on how much you can have. Runes have become the unofficial currency in that game, and people basically use Runes to buy items from other players.

The government doesn't require businesses to take credit cards, but most places take them because they have an invested interest in being able to do business with as many people as possible. Societies will naturally come to agreements on certain forms of currency, because it's in everyone's best interest to do so. Even species of monkeys have been shown to use things like nuts as currency; they actually trade the nuts in exchange for other items from other monkeys.

Aesir
You don't' democratically elect the mafia.

What if you did? Would it matter? Would the Mafia be okay if people got to vote on who the Godfather was?

Aesir
That depends on who's running the Government.

No, it doesn't depend on who's running the government. The government always tells us how to live our lives, no matter who's running them. That's what governments do.

Aesir
Because despite what your individualism is telling you, the decisions you make effect the people around you. If you're negligent, it will negatively effect your neighbors family and so on. So your cost benefit analysis could ever well lead to unnecessary harm. That's why the government steps in.

The decisions that the government makes effects even more people. Your argument is that I can't make certain decisions because they might effect other people, so I should leave those decisions to the government, which undoubtedly effects way more people than I ever could?

Aesir
I suggest you read that link I offered a few days ago, it explains this much better than I feel like explaining it. It was a known problem back then that multiple companies would be fighting over the same fire. The system works much better with one department and all fires in that area are handled by that department. Letting the Free Market handle it is irresponsible and leads to unnecessary loss.

That's not true. The one whose fire mark was on the building would put out the fire. That doesn't even make sense from a practical standpoint. What benefit could they possibly have by fighting over who puts out a fire? They didn't get paid by the fire. That doesn't make sense at all.

Aesir
I don't follow your logic that everything should be privatized, because we tried that in America before. it didn't work.

You just completely ignored my point. Why couldn't you have a system where different fire departments are assigned to specific areas without stealing from people? What does stealing have to do with anything?

Aesir
Just like it's ridiculous that firefighters watched a house burn down.

I don't know why you keep bringing that up. That was a government fire department. That's not helping your argument that the government has to be in charge of fire protection.

Aesir
So what happens when your home burns down and the fire department that is insured by your insurance can't get there in time?

The same thing that happens now when government fire departments can't get to a fire on time.

Aesir
Yet another department can get there twice as fast but chose not to come because they're not insured?

There's no reason to think that the system would have to work this way, but, even if it did, why would anyone buy insurance from a company whose fire department is further from their house than another fire department?

Aesir
This sounds like a good idea? don't scuff this off either this is the type of **** that happens with our health care system.

What? Our health care can't get to our house on time?

Aesir
Sure if it makes you feel better, even though theft implies it's unlawful, but hey who cares about details.

No, it doesn't. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft

Aesir
Yeah because that's all tax dollars ever get used for. Give me a break.

Should we excuse Jeffrey Dahmer's murders because that's 'not all he ever did?' Doesn't that sound like a pretty lousy defense?

 

[Ballistics]

whoops wrong thread

 

[ballin4life]

Defenders of democracy:

What's your opinion of the Nazis being democratically elected?

 

[Thino]

@freeman123 : to address your points in a global way , the only reason you see taxation as theft because you disagree with the democratic system in first place.

so in a sense , you seem to be disagreeing more that a government should be elected unanimously before having a right to interfere with people's lifes and rights than the taxation system itself.

Defenders of democracy:

What's your opinion of the Nazis being democratically elected?

I would be totally alright with it.

because that is what the population will have decided.

 

[1048576]

So you want to solve the problem of monopoly by forcibly instituting a huge, inefficient, coercive monopoly?

If monopolies abuse their pricing power, other firms have an incentive to enter the market, increasing competition and reducing prices. The reason that this doesn't work with the government is that the government will violently halt any competitors (some, like the Mafia, still survive).

Also given the proper system of law, negative externalities like pollution can be internalized into the market through lawsuits etc.

FFS you do realize that law <=> government, law if and only if government, law is necessary and sufficient for government, etc... right?

Learn what entry barriers are. I'm not talking about market conditions conducive to other firms entering the market. Things like power (one wiring route) or water (very low marginal cost/ high economies of scale, one firm can most efficiently supply entire demand for a region.) have natural monopolies. The only way to avoid the deadweight loss is to legally fix the price or the output, which is what the govt. does. Have you ever taken economics? If not, I'm really not sure I have the patience to have this debate with you.

 

[ballin4life]

FFS you do realize that law <=> government, law if and only if government, law is necessary and sufficient for government, etc... right?

Learn what entry barriers are. I'm not talking about market conditions conducive to other firms entering the market. Things like power (one wiring route) or water (very low marginal cost/ high economies of scale, one firm can most efficiently supply entire demand for a region.) have natural monopolies. The only way to avoid the deadweight loss is to legally fix the price or the output, which is what the govt. does. Have you ever taken economics? If not, I'm really not sure I have the patience to have this debate with you.

Way to assert your conclusion. I obviously disagree that law <=> government.

And the government itself is a monopoly with massive deadweight loss. I support allowing competition among "governments", reducing the threat of monopoly power. These competing governments could more efficiently provide services.

Furthermore, you don't know for certain that problems of monopoly would not be solved by the market. It is entirely possible that an entrepreneur will find some ingenious way to outcompete the monopoly firm (perhaps with in home generators? And that's just an idea off the top of my head). Also, people could come to some sort of group agreement together to negotiate a better price with the supplier, without coercively forcing this agreement on everyone (perhaps through an assurance contract).

And worst comes to worst, I would much rather have a few nonviolent utility monopolies than a gigantic, violent monopoly.

 

[1048576]

The market is causing the problems in the first place, gaaaah. You do realize that there are reasons for the invisible hand to guide a free-market industry toward monopoly, right? I've listed a few of them. If you want to debate this point further, I'll be happy to focus on it.

The idea is that the govt. is not a profit maximizing firm, so it can and does produce at the socially optimal level.

Alright fine, I'll bite. How do you have a "proper system of law" without a government? Alternatively, how do you have a government without laws?

Why do you keep calling govt. violent while treating actual monopolies like some kind of angelic paragon of all that is right?

 

[freeman123]

@freeman123 : to address your points in a global way , the only reason you see taxation as theft because you disagree with the democratic system in first place.

so in a sense , you seem to be disagreeing more that a government should be elected unanimously before having a right to interfere with people's lifes and rights than the taxation system itself.

I'm not saying that the government should be elected unanimously. Obviously, that would never work. I'm somewhere in between minarchist libertarian and anarcho capitalist.

I acknowledge that some government maybe a necessary evil, because it maybe the case that an anarchist society would never work. But a necessary evil is still evil, and I don't have to like it. I think that all forms of government and taxation are evil, whether they're necessary or not, and we should look for alternative solutions in every situation possible.

I'm also open to the possibility that maybe no government is necessary, and a day may come when civilization finds a way to function without any form of government.

In any case, people need to acknowledge that taxation is stealing, and that the only time taxation should ever be used to pay for anything is if it's something so important that it's worth robbing people at gunpoint for, because that's basically what the government does.

If you don't pay your taxes, a man with a gun will come to your house and take you away to be locked in a cage. If you resist, he will use violence and, if you resist enough, he will eventually shoot you. So every single thing that's paid for through taxation should be something so important that it's worth possibly shooting people or locking them in cages over. You should think about that every time you support anything being funded through taxation. Is a library really worth shooting someone over? Are public schools worth locking people in cages over?

 

[ballin4life]

The market is causing the problems in the first place, gaaaah. You do realize that there are reasons for the invisible hand to guide a free-market industry toward monopoly, right? I've listed a few of them. If you want to debate this point further, I'll be happy to focus on it.

The idea is that the govt. is not a profit maximizing firm, so it can and does produce at the socially optimal level.

Alright fine, I'll bite. How do you have a "proper system of law" without a government? Alternatively, how do you have a government without laws?

Why do you keep calling govt. violent while treating actual monopolies like some kind of angelic paragon of all that is right?

Not sure how free markets in general produce monopolies. The only way to obtain such a monopoly in a competitive industry is to out compete everyone else, which is a good thing for consumers. So called "natural monopolies" are definitely not the norm. Competition is a powerful force.

The government ironically is an even less efficient monopoly because it has no profit based incentives. Profit maximizers would have little need to start wars for example.

I support having multiple competing governments. That way there are incentives to be efficient. Together, they will also maintain law, in the same way that the countries of the world maintain international law. Obviously I'm leaving out a bunch here, and I cannot guarantee that that solution is what the market would work out.

 

[El Nino]

I think the implication is that Anarchies have no way of protecting us. While a strong centralized Government does.

Centralized governments can protect against outside threats. But he said "dictatorship," which is an oppressive centralized government. A "free" society that is already under a centralized government can become a dictatorship. The infrastructure is already in place, and a takeover from within would be easier than in an anarchist society.

America has always struggled with Democracy.

I guess. I don't know. For some reason everyone likes to bring up America when democracy becomes the topic, but then I understand there are a lot of Americans on these boards, so maybe that's why. I just find other societies (particularly new democracies or governments in transition) more interesting to use as examples.

How does that explain why I have to pay for roads, school, parks, and libraries that I don't use?

It doesn't. It just explains why you'd have to move out to the middle of nowhere in order to say you aren't benefitting from government protection paid for through taxes.

Taxation is not theft as much as a kid getting a vaccine is not physical agression :

the kid may NEVER catch the disease he's being vaccinated for.
its done without his consent because it hurts , why would a kid want to get hurt?
yet its done for his security.
and its something parents have decided for his own good.

Big Brother takes care of all.

 

[Thino]

I'm not saying that the government should be elected unanimously. Obviously, that would never work. I'm somewhere in between minarchist libertarian and anarcho capitalist.

I acknowledge that some government maybe a necessary evil, because it maybe the case that an anarchist society would never work. But a necessary evil is still evil, and I don't have to like it. I think that all forms of government and taxation are evil, whether they're necessary or not, and we should look for alternative solutions in every situation possible.

I'm also open to the possibility that maybe no government is necessary, and a day may come when civilization finds a way to function without any form of government.

In any case, people need to acknowledge that taxation is stealing, and that the only time taxation should ever be used to pay for anything is if it's something so important that it's worth robbing people at gunpoint for, because that's basically what the government does.

If you don't pay your taxes, a man with a gun will come to your house and take you away to be locked in a cage. If you resist, he will use violence and, if you resist enough, he will eventually shoot you. So every single thing that's paid for through taxation should be something so important that it's worth possibly shooting people or locking them in cages over. You should think about that every time you support anything being funded through taxation. Is a library really worth shooting someone over? Are public schools worth locking people in cages over?

before I can reply and continue arguing with I need to know something :

Do you agree with the concept of law and law enforcement?

you've already hinted it but I want to make sure , so I don't base myself off assumptions

 

[ballin4life]

You should probably define "law" a little better. It seems that he doesn't agree with government enforcement of tax law, for example, but I doubt that he is against people intervening to prevent a murder.

 

[Thino]

You should probably define "law" a little better. It seems that he doesn't agree with government enforcement of tax law, for example, but I doubt that he is against people intervening to prevent a murder.

Im talking about the concept of law , legislation in general , not specific laws.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes, but it is not clear what constitutes law.

Social prohibitions on murder, violence, theft etc I would agree with.

Pieces of paper concocted on by some group of people that contain rules that they intend to force on everyone else ... not so much.

 

[Nicholas1024]

As a Christian, my answer would be that the only laws needed would be the ones in the Bible. Of course, I can't expect society to agree with me on that. (A good summary would be what Jesus called the most important commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.)

As a citizen, I would say that there are two really fundamental laws that need to be enforced.

1) Do everything you've promised to do.
2) Do not do anything to another person without their consent.

The second covers stuff like murder, theft, etc. The first covers stuff like adultery (violates the vows of marriage), contracts, ownership of property etc. Between the two, that's really the basis of most necessary laws.

A quick example as to how idiotic our current legal system is... Did you know that the Clear water act classifies rock and stone as pollutants? That's right. Skip a stone into a lake? 15 years in prison.

 

[ballin4life]

Pretty good 2 rules. I'd argue that adultery isn't really on the same level as breaking a contract though. In other words, adultery should not be an offense punishable with force, but people might ostracize you for it.

The good part is that you and other Christians might all agree to follow Christian laws in the Bible, but according to rule 2 you can't force that on anyone else.

 

[1048576]

As a Christian, my answer would be that the only laws needed would be the ones in the Bible. Of course, I can't expect society to agree with me on that. (A good summary would be what Jesus called the most important commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.)

As a citizen, I would say that there are two really fundamental laws that need to be enforced.

1) Do everything you've promised to do.
2) Do not do anything to another person without their consent.

The second covers stuff like murder, theft, etc. The first covers stuff like adultery (violates the vows of marriage), contracts, ownership of property etc. Between the two, that's really the basis of most necessary laws.

A quick example as to how idiotic our current legal system is... Did you know that the Clear water act classifies rock and stone as pollutants? That's right. Skip a stone into a lake? 15 years in prison.

I like those two rules, but I'd like to know how you determine consent. Are you allowed to do nice things for a child who is unable to legally/morally consent to things like sexual intercourse? Are you allowed to do nice things for someone who is mute or otherwise incapacitated?

Kids get in the way of my moral philosophy too sometimes and I'm curious how you deal with it.

 

[ballin4life]

Kids can be treated as miniature adults, or we could just consider them to not be "moral agents," and thus say that they are in some sense "owned" by their parents (obviously excluding violence against the children, etc).

 

[1048576]

We'll they aren't miniature adults, since they still have forming brains, so in a very real sense they will be a different person in due time, so it's unfair to ask of them to make decisions which will affect future them, who would not be at fault if life went awry from an incorrect decision.

If we say that they are owned by their parents, then what freedoms do we allow children as basic human rights. It seems unfair that some children have crappier parents than others and there's nothing they can do about it. It also seems unfair to a person, just because a child has been forced upon them (like they're in a public area or something) to have to change their behavior. Like, you should be allowed to get high, because you aren't hurting anyone, but then once wild children appears, your high has put them in danger. It also sucks that people who have dependents through no fault of their own (grandparents with deceased children and living grandchildren) have to have their freedoms reduced.

 

[Thino]

Yes, but it is not clear what constitutes law.

Social prohibitions on murder, violence, theft etc I would agree with.

Pieces of paper concocted on by some group of people that contain rules that they intend to force on everyone else ... not so much.

morals and interests for constitute laws in my opinion.

this is why you agree with some , and believe that some others are just rules that a group of people intend to force on everyone.

but the point I was trying to make and what i'm asking him is : does he agree with laws/legislation standing as higher authority no matter what your opinion are on them

 

[ballin4life]

We'll they aren't miniature adults, since they still have forming brains, so in a very real sense they will be a different person in due time, so it's unfair to ask of them to make decisions which will affect future them, who would not be at fault if life went awry from an incorrect decision.

If we say that they are owned by their parents, then what freedoms do we allow children as basic human rights. It seems unfair that some children have crappier parents than others and there's nothing they can do about it. It also seems unfair to a person, just because a child has been forced upon them (like they're in a public area or something) to have to change their behavior. Like, you should be allowed to get high, because you aren't hurting anyone, but then once wild children appears, your high has put them in danger. It also sucks that people who have dependents through no fault of their own (grandparents with deceased children and living grandchildren) have to have their freedoms reduced.

In the past, children were treated much more like miniature adults. Romeo and Juliet for example are supposed to be like 14 and 12 years old respectively iirc.

Either way, it is true that some children are burdened by having bad parents, but there isn't really a good way to fix this. Obviously we can stop abusive parents, but there are many things that one might consider bad parenting that others might not.

I prefer to treat children more or less like adults, in the sense that they are allowed to make their own choices, but give more leeway to the parents in terms of how they treat their children (and no one will interfere if the parents are "forcing" their children to go to school or whatever).

morals and interests for constitute laws in my opinion.

this is why you agree with some , and believe that some others are just rules that a group of people intend to force on everyone.

but the point I was trying to make and what i'm asking him is : does he agree with laws/legislation standing as higher authority no matter what your opinion are on them

I'm still not sure what you are asking. What do you mean by laws? If you mean pieces of paper agreed on by some other group of people, then no I don't think they are a higher authority.