Anarchism

[waksibra]

This is ridiculous. Are you suggesting that paying taxes is voluntary? People might have agreed to maintain the system, but not all who are included in that system agreed to keep it. They are forced to pay by the threat of violence. Violence is no good basis for a ethical society.

No, it means a social contract with a government beholden to the people is the foundation of modern society and we like it that way.

I don't remember signing any contract. This "contract" was forced upon me and others and is therefore illegitimate and unethical.

 

[RichardMNixon]

This is ridiculous. Are you suggesting that paying taxes is voluntary? People might have agreed to maintain the system, but not all who are included in that system agreed to keep it. They are forced to pay by the threat of violence. Violence is no good basis for a ethical society.

No, I'm suggesting that a country without a central government supported by tax revenue would be a terrible place to live.

The alternative to the threat of violence by an entity you have a say in is actual violence by entities you don't. You keep complaining that you don't have ALLLLLLL the answers to our questions but it seems to me you haven't answered the first.

How does your libertarian utopia suppress homicide?

So far the only answer I've seen from you is "well someone will do it." So one guy will fund the police for everyone? Out of the goodness of his heart?

 

[aMarshall]

I don't remember signing any contract. This "contract" was forced upon me and others and is therefore illegitimate and unethical.

I suppose the technical reason is that until the age of maturity, the social contract is inherited from parents as another thing that they control as part of a child's life, and that at maturity one can decide to leave the country. Course this isn't reasonable since there's not that many significantly varied government choices of where to go if you value average living conditions.

Your implementation of anarchy is purely unconvincing speculation, which I don't buy.

Yours is speculation as well, and I see it as unreasonable because we view human nature different ways. Human nature being largely dictated by a societal rules and customs, I could see your proposal of an anarchic society functioning as well or better than our current one. But the problem is I don't think there's a good way to transition well into anarchy from current USA society. I see many local entities that compete with other nearby areas, which can be good for business, but for a privatized police dealing with deaths and issues that rile the emotions of its inhabitants, I see a lot of potential for small things escalating into conflict. :| well anyways...

 

[waksibra]

No, I'm suggesting that a country without a central government supported by tax revenue would be a terrible place to live.

Any particulrar perticular part you want me to read? Or should I link you North-Korea and we can call it even?

The alternative to the threat of violence by an entity you have a say in is actual violence by entities you don't. You keep complaining that you don't have ALLLLLLL the answers to our questions but it seems to me you haven't answered the first.

How do you know this? What about the alternative of a peaceful society in which all forms of aggression is fought?

How does your libertarian utopia suppress homicide?

So far the only answer I've seen from you is "well someone will do it." So one guy will fund the police for everyone? Out of the goodness of his heart?

With police founded by people who want to be protected.

 

[Aught3]

This is ridiculous. Are you suggesting that paying taxes is voluntary? People might have agreed to maintain the system, but not all who are included in that system agreed to keep it. They are forced to pay by the threat of violence.

I think part of the argument needs to be justified. If it's not true that taxes violate the non-aggression principle then the rest of it doesn't really matter at this point.

I've asked several times for clarification on why taxes are considered violent. The only response I got was that if you don't pay your taxes the police will come and use force on you to make you face judgement. But the same thing happens if you don't pay any other bill. Is it really the case that in the libertarian dream state you don't have to pay your bills? What I want to know is how long the credit market will last under such conditions.

 

[waksibra]

This is ridiculous. Are you suggesting that paying taxes is voluntary? People might have agreed to maintain the system, but not all who are included in that system agreed to keep it. They are forced to pay by the threat of violence.

I think part of the argument needs to be justified. If it's not true that taxes violate the non-aggression principle then the rest of it doesn't really matter at this point.

I've asked several times for clarification on why taxes are considered violent. The only response I got was that if you don't pay your taxes the police will come and use force on you to make you face judgement. But the same thing happens if you don't pay any other bill. Is it really the case that in the libertarian dream state you don't have to pay your bills? What I want to know is how long the credit market will last under such conditions.

I'll answer.
It seems that you already understand that taxes are violate the NA-principle (?), so I'll jump to the bill-problem.

One can not break the non-aggression principle no matter what. But the enforcement of bills-problem can be solved by agreeing to singn a contract that says if you don't pay the bill, you will be used force against. Very simple and elegant solution. So when I buy a car, I also sign a contract that says if I don't pay my bills, the people I bought the car from have a right to either take back the car or other property to make up for the car. If I don't have any property, perhaps I should be made to work for them, or somewhere else to make up for the unplayed bills. This is one suggestion. Other peaceful methods are probably also possible. Good enough answer?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Any particulrar perticular part you want me to read? Or should I link you North-Korea and we can call it even?

I'm not advocating a totalitarian state; you are advocating a lawless one. We have many examples of states with laws that aren't North Korea. Can you give me an example of a successful state without government?

What about the alternative of a peaceful society in which all forms of aggression is fought?

By whom?

With police founded by people who want to be protected.

And if Joe Example doesn't want to fund it? Is he not protected or is he protected for free? The former is extortion, the latter would bring down the whole system.

 

[lrkun]

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/sct.htm

Social contract theory (SCT): "morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior, that rational people would accept, on the condition that others accept them as well."

(Rachels, p. 145)

 

[Aught3]

I'll answer.
It seems that you already understand that taxes are violate the NA-principle (?), so I'll jump to the bill-problem.

One can not break the non-aggression principle no matter what. But the enforcement of bills-problem can be solved by agreeing to sing a contract that says if you don't pay the bill, you will be used force against. Very simple and elegant solution. So when I buy a car, I also sign a contract that says if I don't pay my bills, the people I bought the car from have a right to either take back the car or other property to make up for the car. If I don't have any property, perhaps I should be made to work for them, or somewhere else to make up for the unplayed bills. This is one suggestion. Other peaceful methods are probably also possible. Good enough answer?

So slavery? But anyway the same could be said for taxes. Say for income tax you might need an extra clause in your contract that says failure to pay the tax will result in force being used (this still violates the NA principle) to collect the money. I already think it's pretty obvious from the various laws we have what will happen if you don't pay your taxes, but if you want to be slightly clearer then okay. Once we've added these clauses taxes are now justified on your view?

 

[RichardMNixon]

But the enforcement of bills-problem can be solved by agreeing to singn a contract that says if you don't pay the bill, you will be used force against. Very simple and elegant solution.

:facepalm:

Here's a simpler one:
In exchange for the use of the roads, sanitation, and protection services of my community, I agree to abide by the laws thereof.
x RichardMNixon

 

[waksibra]

So slavery? But anyway the same could be said for taxes. Say for income tax you might need an extra clause in your contract that says failure to pay the tax will result in force being used (this still violates the NA principle) to collect the money. I already think it's pretty obvious from the various laws we have what will happen if you don't pay your taxes, but if you want to be slightly clearer then okay. Once we've added these clauses taxes are now justified on your view?

Slavery is not voluntary. Slaves do not sign contracts agreeing to work if they can't pay something. Yes, all the same consequences that we have today will probably happen, but it will be based on voluntarism, and not forced upon people.

Taxes are justified if people freely sign a contract to pay them and to suffer the consequences when they don't.

 

[waksibra]

Any particulrar perticular part you want me to read? Or should I link you North-Korea and we can call it even?

I'm not advocating a totalitarian state; you are advocating a lawless one. We have many examples of states with laws that aren't North Korea. Can you give me an example of a successful state without government?

What about the alternative of a peaceful society in which all forms of aggression is fought?

By whom?

With police founded by people who want to be protected.

And if Joe Example doesn't want to fund it? Is he not protected or is he protected for free? The former is extortion, the latter would bring down the whole system.

No, I can't give you an example of a successful state without a government because it hasn't as fare as I know been tried, except as a result of Chaos and not by choice. Can you give me an example of a successful peaceful sate with a government? No, you can't, because that's an oxymoron.

Aggression can be fought by anyone. But it would probably be fought by police. I'm not sure how to pay for Joe, but STEALING IS NOT A VALID ALTERNATIVE. Perhaps some sort of community insurance?

We really need to stop this addiction to violence.

 

[Aught3]

Taxes are justified if people freely sign a contract to pay them and to suffer the consequences when they don't.

Okay, a slight tweak to the way things are done now and this eliminates your objection to taxation. Can we dispense with all the anarchist BS now?

 

[waksibra]

Taxes are justified if people freely sign a contract to pay them and to suffer the consequences when they don't.

Okay, a slight tweak to the way things are done now and this eliminates your objection to taxation. Can we dispense with all the anarchist BS now?

No.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

First:

I'm not advocating a totalitarian state; you are advocating a lawless one. We have many examples of states with laws that aren't North Korea. Can you give me an example of a successful state without government?

Pax Romana.

Second:
A nice summary on taxes and the stupidity of those who call them theft involving a major kicking of ass by Joe and Myself over Worldquest.

A final note:

Seriously, in my experience it is pretty well useless to engage with people who claim that taxation is theft. Their viewpoint on the issue is so far from rational and useful that communication is impossible. Whether they admit it or not, they are rejecting modern Western civilization, and it is hard to have a conversation when the two positions are so distant from one another.

 

[borrofburi]

I don't understand how you missed the part where attempted implementation of your silly absolutist black and white fantasy world leads to far more breaks of the NA principle than actually having a government. What I find most fascinating is how you think everythign is crystal clear and easy to categorize (every action is either right or wrong (Aught's already brought up problems with this view)).

Your implementation of anarchy is purely unconvincing speculation, which I don't buy. Also you seem to think that you can decide what other people can do and that you can decide that WE should break the NA principle because you think it would lead to less violence. This is absurd. You don't get to tell me what to do, and you don't get to use violence against me. It is not in any way ok to say that we should use violence (as in aggression, not self defence) to fight violence. That is, use violence on group A to get the money to fight the aggression coming from group B.

Bullshit. (1) You are the unconvincing speculator, I am merely being skeptical of your utopia. (2) Of course we get to and have to decide what others do, even you do not deny this: for example you do not deny that we can force murders to do things (via aggression). (3) Moreover we don't force you, you are certainly free to go to somewhere else if you don't want to partake in the social contract.

I find it funny that your entire system relies on the benevolence of humanity. The entire reason we need social contracts and systems of law is because there is, at the very least, a significant element of humanity that is very much a set of leaching bastards who would love to rape and pillage if they had a chance (and the reason we don't see this anymore (at least in the first world) is that we have governments with big sticks). That you can ignore the vast majority of history and the current activity in Africa and Iraq to suggest your fantasy as a solution (for whatever ills) is quite telling.

My system doesn't rely on the benevolence of humanity. I don't get why you say that. As I have said several times, it is fully possible to have the exact same system (probably even better) in an anarchy.

About the mob rule: No it is not necessarily that simple. Preferably there will be contracts for living in an area of some sort and systems to protect people for violence. At least that's one option. There are several options and ways to fight crime that does not involve becoming a criminal.

"the exact same system"... Who funds it? What if I don't volunteer to pay for theft punishment and my neighbor robs me? What if I don't have enough money to pay for assault punishment and someone cuts off my arm? What stops the voluntary payments from becoming mandatory? What happens when I'm accused of stealing by a rich person who pays very handsomely to a certain private police group (i.e., what guarantees any sort of fair trial)? Indeed what even guarantees a trial at all? How, precisely, are private police different from warlords?

"preferably there will be contracts..." So what? I don't have time for "preferably". Preferably everyone would only use as much as they need and continue to produce as much as they possibly can (and donate anything they don't need). Yet that's not how human nature actually works. Ironically we already have contracts for living in an area: the social contract of living in the USA includes paying federal taxes and the like... Is your objection, as Aught asked, simply that it's not explicit enough for you? Because as you try to solve the problem of homicide you consistently end up closer and closer to an actual government, the only difference (especially in the paragraph I'm responding to) is that it's every so slightly more explicit.

You never answered my question about whether or not it's immoral to kill someone through inaction (i.e., no aggression involved).

P.S. drunk posting... I apologize for any spelling or grammar errors. Yes I probably shouldn't... But oh well.

 

[RichardMNixon]

ALTERNATIVE. Perhaps some sort of community insurance?

And if Joe Example doesn't pay into it?

 

[kenandkids]

Anarchism is nothing more than a desperately faith-filled desire to believe that humanity will rise above all of the things that it is known for, just because you think they should.

 

[kenandkids]

P.S. drunk posting... I apologize for any spelling or grammar errors. Yes I probably shouldn't... But oh well.

I must say, you drunk post better than most people sober post... lol.

 

[JTB]

There is no reason that firefighting can't be a privatized enterprise.

Yes, there is. Ask any historian how that worked out for New York City in the past.

The highway was meant for moving the military around. Enabling modern commerce was a by-product.

If you doubt the need for an effective food-safety authority, google 'muckraker'

Anarchism is only possible when you are alone.

When two men interact, they form a dictatorship or a democracy.

No. Two men interacting does not make a transition from non-state to state. [/quote]

I didn't say it did. Try addressing what I actually said. While you're at it, define 'State'

A state establishes violently enforced decrees over large areas of land

So Twin Oaks becomes a State at the moment its members act collectively to punish someone among their member who commits a crime against another?

. This statement would be more correct if it were modified to say "When two men interact, they declare a set of rules over a large area of inhabited land and fund the enforcement of the rules by demanding the payments of arbitrary fees".

No, it wouldn't. When i meet a man, the social contract need not be formalized or even spoken aloud. It usually isn't. Nor do we necessarily have to agree to any rules applicable outside the small space and time in which we interact. Nor do two men or two tribes have to put in place any system of taxation to agree/understand not to kill eachother or steal the fish the other has caught and set on his own stick.