Maby when people no longer tolerate things like monarchy and theocracy there will be a piont in denouncing democracy. Until then chilax because they dont give 2 shits that the goverment is based on arbitrary violence and theft.
P1: If you agree that the state does not have the right to take from you involuntarily by taxation, then they also do not have the right to give anything to you on behalf of those so taxed.
P2: To take property not freely given or exchanged is stealing (consistent with the way that you use stealing in the video).
P3: The ability to post and make a video (or almost anything else) is dependent to some degree on government resources (such as roads, etc.)
So only direct theft counts? If I take money from Susie, that's theft, yet if John gives me money that he took from Susie (and I know all this), that isn't theft?
Assume I am for the building of roads in my town but only for people in my town. I would have voluntarily funded road-building, but since I would have only done so for town people, your usage of them is theft. If not, why not?
Of course not. Instead of actually attempting a defense of anarchocapitalism, you choose to redefine what stealing means and hope that by doing so you can apply the emotional and moral connotations of the word to taxation. Even when it is shown that by such a definition, most reasonable people would have to agree that almost any activity involves theft. (Not surprisingly, when the shoe is on the other foot, you attempt to use a narrower definition for theft.)
And that's why your argument in your video fails. Generally, when you attempt to make an argument, you are required to use standard definitions, not personal ones.
@RationalRat If you have information showing that there's a widespread belief that the purchase of a thing who's production was funded by theft, is itself an act of theft, I'm all ears.
@RationalRat Fencing looks to be buying stolen goods with the aim of reselling them.
I still didn't see anything that extends the definition of theft to include buying products produced using stolen money, knowingly or otherwise.
I do agree that if a person does this knowingly, when there are accessible alternatives available, they are morally culpable for indirectly supporting theft. But this is far removed from the situation we're in.
I wouldn't say that the state always demands money for projects they don't support. This can and does happen but often it also demands money to help problems in society that the vast majority of people want fixed (communicated by voting, the indirectness of which I acknowledge) but will not take individual responsibility for if left as a voluntary contribution.
I'm not saying all this is ok, but statement 1 is stretching it a little.
@GirlyVoice "I wouldn't say that the state always demands money for projects they don't support."
I think we will always be able to find tax payers who don't support social welfare schemes. So any state that uses such a scheme is demanding money from people for projects that they don't support. Would you agree?
Well bitbutter, I've read through your comments section and I must say I am neither impressed nor suprised. Justifications rest on cirucular reasoning (its not stealing because you consent, but if you dont consent the state can still do whatever it deems because you've consented, and its actions against you are not crimes) They have double standards for every term, so as to avoid answering your questions so they can aviod the conclusions that naturally follow.
And there's the rub. What you consider stealing, and what I consider stealing are different.
I don't see how you consider it stealing when a group of people form a union, and agree, implicitly, or tacitly by availing themselves of the services/infrastructure provided by said union, to contribute to a communal fund to pay for those services.
It's a voluntary system which you have the option of changing through voting, or opting out of at any time by physically leaving said union.
If union LEADERS takes money away from your paycheck without your consent, and leaves the only option available to you to quit your job, that IS stealing.
If I said that, as long as you worked where you are, I'm going to steal $100 a month from you, but you don't have to "pay" this if you quit your job and work for somebody else, how is that not stealing? Just because you offer somebody an ALTERNATIVE to the theft doesn't mean it isn't theft. Even a mugger says "your money OR you life".
You agree to the contract so yes, it is valid. Force is required for the foundation of all contracts. It is the only ultimate guarantor of any contractual agreement. If you do not agree with the social contract you are free to leave at any time. Please do.
We agreed to the contract? By being alive and not moving to a boat on the ocean? That's like saying that the Jews in Germany agreed to a contract to not be Jewish.
The Glibertarian cry of "men with guns gonna take mah stuff!" is a false canard. They are not initiating violence, they are enforcing a contract. YOU initiated violence when you freely chose to violate the contract. The use of force is essential to any complete social system. It is the only way to enforce or punish noncompliance.
"YOU initiated violence when you freely chose to violate the contract."
You need to look up the word "violence". Any LACK of action can never been seen as violent. To say otherwise is to completely deny all reason and logic.
A full treatment of violence is not possible in this short space. But basically, failure to adhere to the conditions of a contract is grounds for enforcement of it's terms. Up to and including the use of physical force. I am sure you wouldn't have it any other way.
This is a non-voluntary contract. The "contract" you are supposedly under was DICTATED to you at birth. To say that you agree to the terms of the contract by your INACTION is ridiculous, and YOU KNOW IT.
This "contract" is the same kind of "contract" that the mob has for collecting protection money - you are under the contract simply because you live in a certain geographical location.
@somecomputergeek -- No, it is not like the Mob. The Mafia does not own anything. It's power is illegitimate. The power of the state IS legitimate as previously explained.
No, your statements are not factually correct. The underlying assumptions on which they are based are false. States derive their legitimacy through the consent of the governed. You indicate your consent by your continued residence here. You are free to leave, violate the social contract, amend it or revolt at any time you wish.
@1noen1 "You indicate your consent by your continued residence here."
Nopes. In saying that you're relying on the unjustified assumption that the state has a legitimate claim to the territory (and all in it) in the first place.
To use brainpolice's analogy: just as a slave doesn't implicitly consent to his slavery just because he doesn't run away. I don't implicitly consent to the majority in an arbitrarily delineated territory coercing me in any way they see fit, just because i don't leave.
A slave does not consent to slavery, that's sort of the whole point. Neither do a child's slave parents consent. Your exercise of your free choice by not leaving DOES indicate your acceptance of the social contract. By not vacating your apartment you indicate your agreement to the terms of the lease.
The State DOES own it's territory. There are signed documents in the public record that prove this.
Because the whole point of slavery is to remove that right. When I enter a restaurant, sit down and place an order my very actions constitute a defcto agreement to pay for my meal. If someone forces me to enter and forces me to place an order then there is no such agreement. The sheer existence of alternate choices is proof that you are not under any coercion. You are free to leave, vote, petition or revolt. You are not enslaved.
"There are signed documents in the public record that prove this."
But noen, that line of reasoning just isn't going to work. Me and Bitbutter can draw up a peice of paper saying we own all the tea in china, AND sign it. The chinese government would react to this in about the same way I view their claim to all the land in China, because they have a peice of paper that says they own it.
If you have a big enough army then I'd say you DO own it. The true root of this whole issue is power and one's relationship to it. One either accepts that others have power over us or not. A great deal flows from that.
However power over others does not equal legitimacy. A state gets it's legitimacy from it's citizens and it retains that legitimacy only so long as it respects their civil and human rights.
The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The EXACT same sources as all other forms of land ownership in the US. Also note that governance rights are merely a subset of the rights that anarcho-libertarians would want landowners to have. For example, insistence on contractual obedience to regulations and acceptance of punishment for violations.
"States derive their legitimacy through the consent of the governed."
States derive their legitimacy through law, which is written and enforced by the state. To say that non-consenting people must accept the legitimacy of the state because the state derives their legitimacy through the consent of the governed is ridiculous circular reasoning.
You don't *have* to accept the legitimacy of the state, you can always leave, vote, petition or revolt. The existence of these alternatives serves to prove that you are not being unfairly coerced.
The argument is not circular, your false formulation of it is. It is the consent of the people that legitimizes the laws but the civil and human rights of the citizens still reside with them as they are inalienable.
I agree. Revolt implies non-compliance. This is exactly what we are talking about.
You say that the government derives power from consent, and then you say that all those that do not consent should leave. If you can't see how this is circular reasoning, you are an idiot.
@somecomputergeek -- The fact that the power of the state derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed does not imply that every single individual must consent or the state must be dissolved. Democratic representation is sufficient for that. You are free to create a better state elsewhere or to amend this one to make it better.
Your baseline questions are not only correct, but also the basis for almost every anarchistic belief. The fact that so many in this comment section seem to be under the thrall of statist indoctrination, is utterly depressing. I simply cannot understand how people can so easily dismiss that ANY action, FORCED upon anybody, by ANYBODY, including government, is a form of violence. Or how they have been conditioned to believe that if the state does it, it is perfectly OK. It's not!
- The fact that so many in this comment section seem to be under the thrall of statist indoctrination, is utterly depressing.
Stop that reverse? it.
The fact that so many anarchists seem to hold to the dogmatic belief that anyone who doesn't see the state as the inherently evil, violent entity they do must be indoctrinated/stupid is utterly depressing. Actually I don't find it depressing, but it is a shame to see otherwise rational minds wasted.
Excellent point NakedAtheist. Merely shouting "its evil!!!" isn't any more persasive comming from anarchists than it is from streetcorner preachers. If taxation is stealing and stealing is wrong, you should be able to say why its wrong. No such answer has been forthcoming.
@randyhelzerman " If taxation is stealing and stealing is wrong, you should be able to say why its wrong."
Maybe you forgot randy, but within the last few hours I already told you that i don't believe that stealing is always wrong. That was _your_ position.
It would be really fascinating to me to know how you determine whether something is morally right or wrong. On what basis do yo make that call? I mean, a rose by any other name, if you and I disagree about the definition of stealing, its just a verbal disagreement. If we are talking about whether it is right or wrong for the government to collect taxes, then that is a substansive disagreement, and I'm interested in how you make that call.
It is "wrong" only to the extent that you accept the principle of self-ownership. If you think that the people are the property of the state, then there is nothing wrong with taxation. That is the fundamental difference between statists and non-statists, who believe that the individual has the right to claim ownership of himself.
Once you have established this principle, the inherent evil of the claim a state makes over the ownership of a the product of your labor becomes evident.
You make a good point, but no one has complete ownership of himself unless he lives on a desert island.
All of his action have consequences (both positive, and negative) for others.The state (except in it's worst form) does not claim complete "ownership" of anyone, but it has been granted by the members of society the right to regulate it's citizens to the extent necessary for society to function in a manner that serves the greater "good" as defined by those citizens.
"You're muddling things up again. Society =/= state."
You're muddying things up by making a distinction between society, and the state. The state, as much as you might want to think it is, is not some monster with a life, and mind of it's own. At it's best it is the embodiment of the consensus of the majority.
- Repeat that three times to yourself so we don't have to.
I think you've repeated it to yourself so many times you've been hypnotized.
society = state. Even when small groups got together, and reached a consensus on what they were going to do with the guy from the neighboring tribe who they caught stealing they were 'the state". The only difference is with size it became more reasonable to elect/assign people to make such decisions on their behalf. It grew from there.
We don't "chose" to be a member of society, as you imply. Most of the time, we choose to reside in the place where are. It is the state that chooses to IMPOSE IT'S will ON society. There are many excuses for this, including the idea that society has given it's consent, even if this "consent" is only manifested in a majority vote for the lessor of two evils and the absence of a violent revolt.
@somecomputergeek -- When you chose to reside in the place that you are you give your defacto consent to the social contract. You are always free to move somewhere more to your liking.
The state is an abstract entity and therefore has no will to impose on anyone. The "will" of the state is merely the aggregate will of it's citizens and ultimately, you.
When an action affects others, self-ownership is no longer the only concern. For instance, if I use the threat of violence against you in order to get money, we would both agree that this is not due to a claim of self-ownership. Quite the opposite, I am violating YOUR rights of self-ownership. When individuals do it, the evil is easily identifiable. When the state does it, people justify this evil out of habit.
It is not the "citizens" you are talking about, but the tyranny of the majority.
Hi somecomputergeek, I don't think you own yourself, because I don't think people are the kinds of things which can be owned. I don't know a single statist who justifies taxation on the basis that the state owns people, that is a strawman.
Do YOU own yourself? "ownership" is an important concept here and I don't think we agree on it's definition. YOU are the only that has that opinion, right? You HAVE an opinion. You OWN that opinion. THAT is self-ownership. It is a basic concept that must first be addressed before we can go any further.
If a slave owner decided to let the slave keep a portion of the product of it's labor, that slave is still a slave, even if he lets that slave keep 80%.
The concept of ownership cannot be established independently of the concept of buying and selling. You do not have the right to sell yourself into slavery, because nobody has the right to buy you as a slave. You are autonomous and at liberty; these are distinct from self-ownership.
Your formulation is false. People are not the property of the state. The state only exists as a social contract between it's citizens. Taxation is payment for services and therefore derives it's (taxes) legitimacy from the state.
You are not a solitary individual and therefore cannot "own" yourself. The concept itself is absurd. You are part of a community and have both individual and collective rights, duties and responsibilities. The state does not own your labor, it contracts with you for it
@1noen1 "The state does not own your labor, it contracts with you for it"
orly!
"Yes we have a contract. Don't you remember? Oh no, you never _signed_ it. No, you didn't verbally agree to it either. What? No no no I never told you what the terms were. No you can't look the terms up either because they're not written anywhere! It's a very _special_ contract you see? Glad we cleared that up"
@bitbutter -- yes there is a social contract but no, you don't need to physically sign it. Your presence is your defacto consent. Your presence and continued social benefit from the state creates debt. The terms are in the constitution and the laws of the land. Glad we cleared that up
"Your presence and continued social benefit from the state creates debt."
My presence does not create debt. The STATE buying things that it can not afford, and that I did not approve of that creates the debt. The wars, big digs, bridges to nowhere, war on plants, entitlement programs, bailouts, stimulus, pork, and $800 hammers is what creates the debt, NOT my existence.
Don't forget that the terms can change without your approval at any time, and those terms could be the inclusion of the ability to murder, steal, torture, kidnap and harass you if you question the "contract" that you never actually signed or agreed to.
"The state only exists as a social contract between it's citizens."
The idea of a social contract is ridiculous. If I said that you were under a contract to pay me $3000 for services that I gave you, even though you did not explicitly agree to it, and claimed that you are obligated to this because of where you lived, you would rightly call me crazy and the contract null and void. However, this is this VERY SAME CONTRACT as the state. The only difference is the one claiming it is valid.
If I come into your restaurant and eat $3000 worth of food even though I did not explicitly sign any contract I still owe you the money. The contractual agreement was implied when I entered, sat down and ate your food.
I am perfectly free to go to any other restaurant (or state) and partake of their services if they are more to my liking. I can also bargain with you for a better price (or laws) or I can organize a boycott or even fight with you over your prices.
I'm not going to the "restaurant" of the state. The state is coming to me and delivering the food, and threatening to come back and violently kidnap me if I don't pay for it.
Why don't you try to open up a restaurant that works like that -- like the state. Deliver food to everyone in your neighborhood and send them a check. The fact that some of them like the food an pay you doesn't give you the right to threaten me with violence because I think your food is horrible.
@somecomputergeek -- It is an analogy hun. "The State" does not exist outside of me. I participated in it's creation and continue to do so. It only exists at "my" (collective) whim. You have contracted with the state for it's services and if you fail to hold to the contract it (we) have the right to use force to ensure your compliance.
Your restaurant example is falsely construed as I have repeatedly explained. We the people chose to create the "restaurant", if you don't like it then leave.
"I participated in it's creation and continue to do so."
The state was created before you were born. You currently accept it's legitimacy, but the existence of a state does not inherently mean that the state is legitimate. You have NOT contracted with the state in any way. The state DICTATES this "contract" and you ACCEPT this INVOLUNTARY CONTRACT in the same way that a slave can accept his slavery.
If somebody doesn't like the mob shaking him down, he can go to another neighborhood.
@somecomputergeek - The state is continually created and maintained by the collective participation of myself and others. Were we to stop it would cease to exist. You are correct that not every state is legitimate. *This* state derives it's legitimacy from my consent.
Your example of the state as the mob has been refuted. Your example of the state as slavery has been refuted. Your charge of an involuntary contract has been refuted. Please come up with new arguments. These are all used up.
You keep repeating CLAIMS, but you haven't refuted anything. CLAIMING that the state is based on the consent of the governed is NOT a refutation to the argument that it is not because it is involuntary. It reminds me of Monty Python's "argument clinic". Contradiction is NOT an argument.
The examples of the mob and slavery illustrated OTHER involuntary "contracts".
All your "arguments" amount to is this: "The tyranny of the majority is legitimate because it is the majority".
Your claim that the state is like the mob is refuted by the fact that the mob does not own property and is an illegitimate organization
Your claim that the social contract is like slavery is refuted by the fact that you give your consent to it and have the freedom to chose. Things that slaves lack.
You are under no tyranny of the majority because there are checks and balances to ensure your rights. If you think they are inadequate you are free to petition or vote for changes.
I'm DEMONSTRATING that the state is illegitimate by showing BEHAVIOR similar to an ILLEGITIMATE organization, and you refute that by saying the analogy is flawed because I'm comparing it with an illegitimate institution?
I do NOT give my consent to the social contract. If I GAVE my consent, it would NOT be a "social contract". Your claim that consent is implied because I don't move is RIDICULOUS.
watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU
It's not the tyranny of the majority because I can vote? Seriously?
Your claim that the state is no better than the mob because it's behavior is similar is false. Rape is not the same as making love even though the behavior in both is identical. Consent makes all the difference.
You DO give your implicit consent to the social contract by your continued presence and use of government services as the restaurant example shows.
Rape is a PERFECT analogy. IN THIS ANALOGY, making love would be VOLUNTARY. THIS is the critical difference. The mob is "raping" people and the state is "raping" people. Yes, there is a difference, but that difference has NOTHING to do with it being VOLUNTARY. Getting raped by someone in uniform and has the "right paperwork" is STILL RAPE.
You're "implicit contract" is that, since the woman was walking down a street that you claim as your "turf", she has given her consent.
Yes, the Mob rapes the store owner when it demands protection money. The state does not because it has the consent of the owner who then enters into a contract with the state for services. If the store owner doesn't like it he can vote, petition the state for redress, run for office, lobby for favorable legislation or even revolt. Or... move his business to another country.
I see nothing immoral in the above. You have once again failed to make your case.
"because it has the consent of the owner who then enters into a contract with the state for services."
But the owner DOESN'T enter into a contract with the state in any way UNLESS you say that he ALSO entered into a contract with the Mob because it is the EXACT SAME JUSTIFICATION (presence in geographical location) that you are using as the measure of "consent".
You can petition the Godfather for some mercy, too. Would you consider the Mob legitimate you could vote for the Godfather?
"CLAIMING that the state is based on the consent of the governed is NOT a refutation to the argument that it is not because it is involuntary."
Your consent is not involuntary. You are free to chose among several alternatives. When you have freedom of choice your consent is by definition not coerced.
There is no fundamental right to property. There is no moral obligation for me to respect your property. The use of force is what creates the conditions for rights, including those of property, to exist.
You don't posses the right to make that contract without my consent. No, this does not conflict with the state as consent of the governed because the state exists prior (not in a temporal sense) to your right to make and enforce contracts.
YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that the state is legitimate because of the acceptance or it's legitimacy by the majority. If there is no fundamental right to self-ownership, then NONE of the individuals who make up the majority have any rights that they can transmit to the state.
Force is used to DEFEND property as well as ACQUIRE property. The fact that violence is also to defend property doesn't justify using it to acquire property.
"You don't posses the right to make that contract without my consent."
Exactly. This would not be the case, however, if you were not obligated to anything in the contract. In that case, it would not be your concern.
"the state exists prior to your right to make and enforce contracts."
This is a post-facto justification. Do you think violence is the only way to manage contracts? If I don't do a good job at work, I get fired, but nobody kidnaps me and throws me in a room with a rapist.
Yes, you're right. Please stop threatening me with violence if I don't pay for things I don't want to, and in some cases, like war and torture, think are highly unethical.
"Your restaurant example is falsely construed as I have repeatedly explained"
You haven't explained anything. You've simply repeated yourself claiming that the state is legitimate and if I don't like it I can leave. You haven't explained WHY the state is legitimate outside of confusion between "society" and the majority.
Your position holds that ALL majority rule is legitimate, which is OBVIOUSLY FALSE, and countless examples, such as slavery, war and racism, can attest.
States derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The social group constructs the apparatus of the state in order to do those things collectively that we cannot do alone.
The root of your objection is your false belief that you are not a part of the social order. Humans cannot exist as solitary animals. We can survive ONLY as a group.
"States derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed."
If I consented to the state's governance of me, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You are talking about the MAJORITY, not the "governed". IF states TRULY derived their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, then taxes would be VOLUNTARY rather than collected under the threat of force.
Social constructs exist independently of ideology OR a state. Are you denying the existence of VOLUNTARY social constructs?
But you DO consent to the state's governance over you, not explicitly but as I have explained, by your implicit consent. Your consent is not involuntary because you are free at any time to chose among different alternatives. Including changing the terms of the social contract. If you want taxes to be voluntary then you are free to vote accordingly or run for office or any other choice.
This isn't about my being accountable for MY actions. This is about me being accountable for the actions of the STATE. If anything, I PROMOTE the idea of consequences of MY actions, including the product of MY labor.
The ACTION in question is the action of the STATE -- the INITIATION OF VIOLENCE. I think that the state should be accountable for ITS actions, not me. I also don't think the state has the right to force ARBITRARY consequences on NON-ACTIONS or NON-VIOLENT actions.
That's just it -- I am NOT the state. WE are not the state. The state is a small group of people that have a monopoly on the legal initiation of violence. Having some influence over an institution doesn't mean I consent to being robbed by that institution, any more than a woman trying to talk a man out of raping her is giving her consent because she could try and talk him out of it. You're basically saying that, if she doesn't convince him, she's giving her consent.
No, they just enforce a "contract" nobody signed or explicitly agreed to (though they implicitly agree to by existing and not moving out of the country) that demands 1/4 of the product of their labor under the threat of violence. To say this is "slavery" would be irrational, as it is not COMPLETE slavery, and the slaves are free to move to another plantation.
Any person, entity, or institution that would use force, or the threat of force, to make anyone capitulate to the will of that person, entity, or institution, IS inherently evil. That is the epitome of the term "evil". This does not by any means indicate that those things are completely evil, just necessarily so, or "allowed" by societal standards.
That understanding is merely a statement of factual reality, that is neither dogmatic or stupid, and to label it so is the real dogmatism of statists
Actually, I don't believe in god, as religion, or belief in the supernatural, is just as corrupt an idea as the belief that the state is all good. A premise you are obviously willing to not only accept, but endorse. This in my opinion, makes you a moron, and I find that interaction with morons is a waste of time.
And I never said the state was all bad, just pointing out the factual reality that some portions are inherently evil. Something that your ilk are all to eager to dismiss. So who's strawmaning who?
Perhaps you should change your username, for it appears you have replaced "god" with the state, as you argue for it as vehemently as any christian or muslim does for their deity.
"you have replaced "god" with the state, as you argue for it as vehemently as any christian"
Why would I need to argue for the state? Unlike anarchy the state actually exists. I only argue against dogmatic beliefs like "the state is inherently evil" when "evil" doesn't even exist.
Your level of cognitive dissonance is utterly astounding. You truly are a moron among morons, as all one has to do is read a newspaper or watch the news on TV, to see examples of evil in the world.
As to your not needing to argue for the state, that appears to be ALL you have been doing in this comment section. You are the states own cheerleader. You remind me of a spoiled and insolent child, who insists they are right, in the face of overwhelming contrary facts.
Of Wait! I get it now. You're pretending to be an anarchist to make them look stupid. I'm afraid you failed no one who can string semi coherent sentences together could be as dense as you appear unless it's an act.
Let me get this straight...you deny reality, ignore history, and argue for an entity that you say needs no one to argue for...and you have the audacity to consider me "stupid"?? (Facepalm) un-fucking-believable!!
Oh wait...I get it now...you're a troll!! Or a liberal democrat, not much difference there, as all you left-wing nutjobs think the same way.
Well, now that I know what I'm dealing with, I'll be able to ignore your blatant moronic bullshit.
Here's my problem with your question - or at least part of the problem. I really think you need to be able to satisfactorily answer the question of my video before even *going here*. The reason I say that is that showing me the state is bad (even potentially *evil*) means very little if the alternative is truly unattainable, which I fear is the case - and none of the videos or comments have shown me otherwise yet. (continued)
I know what you want to get to - the moral superiority of the anarchist position. I used the following comparison in another comment.
It is quite possible that pacifism is morally superior to the use of violence. Yet pacifists will quickly be destroyed by those who are *not*, making moot the point of moral superiority.
I don't concede that anarchy is the morally superior position, but even if it is, what is the point if it *can not* succeed in the real world. It becomes academic.
@AncientAtheist Acceptance of these statements are my conditions for _starting_ debate (they are not an attempt to validate anarchism). You're free to take or leave them.
Note that this is obviously a gross oversimplification of how things work in the real world, but then again, so is every single anarchist argument I've ever heard.
"You're starting from the wrong assumption that it is YOUR money. It's not."
The pertinent point is that I'm being forced to hand over the product of my labour under duress. Now can you acknowledge the truth of the two statements?
My point is that it is not the product of your labor alone, but the product of many factors that come with living in the modern society.
And I'm not sure that what the money is used for (in your example: for projects you don't support) has anything to do with whether or not it is justified to take it away from you.
I had to correct my position on your 2. statement (the deleted comment above).
I only agree that the state will enforce the law with violence (and I'm perfectly fine with that as long as the state (and by extension it's laws) is legitimate, that is: of the people, by the people and for the people).
But the problem is the state claims that what it takes from you rightfully belongs to the state so it is not stealing.
@Pylo01 "legitimate, that is: of the people, by the people and for the people"
What does 'the people' mean here exactly? Because it obviously doesn't mean all the people living in the territory claimed by the state. Does it just mean that the majority get to decide on the rules, no matter how unjust?
@Pylo01 I see. So the antisemitic Nuremberg laws of Germany were in fact legitimate on your view, and you believe that the use of violence to enforce them was legitimate too.
I'm afraid we lack enough common ground for a discussion about the moral legitimacy of the state.
And what if there was no Germany (the state)? If what you say is true, and the majority of people on that territory hated the Jews they could (and most probably would) still discriminate against them. The sate has no morality of its own, it's the people you need too judge if they granted state the power too do things you consider immoral.
"You're starting from the wrong assumption that it is YOUR money."
We're starting from the assumption that it is OUR labor. Money is simply a means of exchange. Simply because the state controls that particular means of exchange (and violently opposes competing currency, like the liberty dollar, for instance), DOES NOT mean that the LABOR or the VALUE PRODUCED by that labor belongs to the state.
Since the type of state is relevant, I'll assume you're referring to a state where the citizens have the right (directly, or indirectly by voting) to chose what taxes everyone will be required to pay. And that the citizens are free to leave the state, and give up their citizenship if they so desire.
In fact to expand on number two. If you violently opposed that right, YOU (not the state) would essentially be the one using violence by proxy against those who have freely chosen to organize under that state, and would be violating their rights.
How do I cancel said citizenship and at what point in my life did I choose to be a citizen of the state I'm living under? Please think about your answer, I don't like having to point out obvious flaws.
Search Google for - how to give up my citizenship.
I think a compelling argument could be made that no one under 18, or whatever age is considered a legitimate age of consent should be required to pay taxes, but in such a case the parent should be responsible to reimburse the state for the services you had used until such time. If it exceeded what they had already contributed in taxes. (public education etc)
So you believe that a local mafia, who'd taken over all the bakeries (which you continued to buy bread from, preferring not to starve), would not be stealing from you when it extracted protection money?
If you imagine it makes a difference, pretend this is an unusual mafia who allows its victims to vote for which don will get to threaten the villagers (but all dons will threaten them).
@TheNakedAtheist I notice that you didn't answer whether or not you think the (democratic) mafia is stealing (despite you using their services, and not leaving their territory). I think it is, and I think that's clear to everyone.
Such a mafia would not be democratic. The "victims" would have to be able to elect a don who wouldn't extract protection money, and they would have (at some point) had to voted to have the mafia take over the bakeries.
Why do these people get to grant the government power over other people? Again, things arn't too different to a mafia; they are granted power by a few people too (with the majority having no say whatsoever) how is the government any different? Did either you or me grant it power? No. In the case of most states it was people who lived hundreds of years ago who cannot possibly have acted on my behalf.
"Last time i checked, voting doesn't allow me not to pay tax."
lol No, the fact that you have the right to vote does not mean you can choose not to pay taxes. It means you have the right directly, or indirectly to vote to increase, decrease, or repeal tax laws.
Hi bittbutter, I'm interested in who you think determines what "theft" is. Presumably this isn't any sort of God. I think the state determines what theft is, and therefore has the right to define it such that taxation isn't. If you think the individual can define theft, then why can't I define theft such that its ok for me to enslave you, as that isn't theft?
I think my position will be clarified if i ask you the same question as veryevilpetting zoo:
You're a survivor from a crash onto a desert island (no state lays claim to this island). You manage to catch a fish, but one of the other survivors snatches it out of your hand and runs off.
Have they stolen the fish? I say they have, state or no state.
Well bitbutter, lets ask them. they say I am an inferior animal, and they no more stole the fish from me than I stole the fish from a bigger fish which was trying to eat it. Its just Darwinian natural selection at work if they outcompete me for scare resources. If he's wrong what makes him wrong? If its not theft for me to take the fish from a bigger fish, why is it theft for him to take the fish from me? Just vatically stating ex cathedra that it is theft isn't really an answer.
I'm more interested in _your_ reply :) Because it's relevant to the idea that theft is a concept that depends on the state. I don't believe you really believe that.
If a person on the island snatches a fish out of your hands, without your permission and runs away with it, do you think that is stealing or don't you? I think it obviously is.
(NB: i'm not asking if this action can be justified, i'm just asking if it qualifies as stealing/theft).
I think it would be stealing, but only because--even tho I was on the island--I would still consider myself a member of a community consisting of people still alive and dead and we all agree that it would be stealing. If we had made a different choice, it would not be stealing. And as we have made a different choice vis-a-vis taxation, that is not stealing.
At this generality, I don't accept the first statement at all. That's because the concept of stealing presumes:
1) well defined notions of property and ownership
2) well defined notion of legitimate/just transfer of property ownership
But those basically presume the state.
This illustrates my usual disagreement with hyper-libertarianism/anarchy - assuming everything "basically just stays the same" when you remove the state (only the bad stuff goes away). With that, I couldn't disagree more
Do you catch your fish one their property - their claimed beachfront? Did you use one of their sharpened sticks for a spear? Did you use one of their sharped rocks to make your spear? If yes to any of these, what's the fair partial compensation? 15% of the fish? 25%? 100%? A knife in the back?
Lets say that everyone has been fishing in all waters, using sharpened sticks they made themselves. Someone snatches a fish out of your hand and runs off.
I don't believe that you can honestly deny that they've stolon that fish. Can you?
I'll admit that it's a place where anarchy might work, if:
1) less than couple dozen people
2) virtually all the people are very reasonable
3) natural abundance sufficient for all of them to survive independently
When you reduce ownership to its most simple - "I caught that fish myself" - the state doesn't seem to be involved, I agree. But you've achieved that by creating a simple example that has basically nothing to do with the human social world as it actually is.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I'd like us to try to stick to the topic of the vid, which is the nature of taxation, not the practicality of anarchy.
If, on the island, someone snatching a fish from your hands is an example of theft, then it's not the case that a state is required in order for the concept of stealing to have meaning. Do you agree?
I agree that "I caught the fish completely on my own, so it's mine" works and doesn't require the state. But it takes only a hint of real world complexity before property and legitimate ownership become problematic.
Suppose there's only one fertile stretch of land on an island with poor fishing. One guy clears it and cultivates it. By your fish example, all the harvest is his. But can he morally monopolize the only reliable food source, simply because he got to that land and worked it first?
Suppose there's a lone leopard on the island. Instead of fishing, one guy risks his life to hunt it down before it kills anyone. If he then takes a bit of "their" fish, is it stealing?
Suppose the fresh water is drying up, and 7 people dig a well. A lazy 8th person doesn't participate. Is it theft if he takes water? What if he isn't lazy, but rather willing though injured? Suppose 4 of the 7 say he can't use the well, but 3 of the 7 say he can. Is it theft if he uses the well?
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Suppose 4 of the 7 say he can't use the well, but 3 of the 7 say he can. Is it theft if he uses the well?"
It is theft if he uses force to take the first 4's ownership portion of the well. In other words, the other three can each charitably give him part of their 1/7th stake in the well water. You are implying a moral/ethical question about helping the needy when the real question here is this: assuming someone is an ass, is it therefore moral to steal things from them?
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Suppose there's a lone leopard on the island. Instead of fishing, one guy risks his life to hunt it down before it kills anyone. If he then takes a bit of "their" fish, is it stealing?"
So you're sitting in traffic and there is some dirt on your windshield. A man runs up and washes it off without asking you if it was OK. He then knocks on your window demands $30 or he'll shoot you. Who died and made your "guy" the official leopard hunter entitled to all benefits thereof?
Your windshield example isn't parallel; it's acting in order to claim a justification for robbery. Would anyone risk their life to solo hunt a leopard just to claim a justification for robbery? When they could've just gone fishing instead? I think not.
The specific hypotheticals aren't the point. The point is that when reality's messiness intrudes on anarchist property scenarios (& other anarchists claims), the anarchist's simplisitc assumptions are revealed as completely naive
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Would anyone risk their life to solo hunt a leopard just to claim a justification for robbery? When they could've just gone fishing instead? I think not."
Ah, so if the person's internal motivations are selfless enough in your eyes, they can take from others without asking permission? So you will send me a check the next time I volunteer at a soup kitchen then, yes? You are confusing your subjective notion of quid-pro-quo with what people actually have a right to take.
@TheBullionBull Allow me to elaborate on that last point. I am a Christian and hence believe there is moral duty to help the poor. However, no where in the Bible or any other religion (or any rational secular set of ethics for that matter) is there a rule that says, "If someone doesn't give to the poor as much as you, go to their house and threaten to arrest or kill them unless they give more." So there is a difference between having a duty, and forcing people to obey that duty.
@TheBullionBull On this difference of having a duty and being forced to obey it: Most people would agree than a man has a duty to love his wife. But does anyone advocate going around with police to force men who are jerks to be more loving? It would be insane. The same goes for all kinds of moral questions. You can PREVENT people from doing openly bad behavior (killing, stealing, arson, etc) but you can't FORCE good behavior (charity, love, empathy, etc) because good comes from the heart.
Re: "You can PREVENT people from doing openly bad behavior (killing, stealing, arson, etc) but you can't FORCE good behavior (charity, love, empathy, etc) because good comes from the heart"
I agree. However, you're comparing bad ACTS with good INTENTS. Force can't effectively change intent (well, there's forced brainwashing I suppose - whatever). Force is about controlling actions.
And this has little to do with property being a transparently obvious in a complex social world
14 people thumsdowned this?
its a QUESTion. wtf?
and a good one, IMfO.
TERb8 10 months ago
Maby when people no longer tolerate things like monarchy and theocracy there will be a piont in denouncing democracy. Until then chilax because they dont give 2 shits that the goverment is based on arbitrary violence and theft.
JordanViewer 1 year ago
P1: If you agree that the state does not have the right to take from you involuntarily by taxation, then they also do not have the right to give anything to you on behalf of those so taxed.
P2: To take property not freely given or exchanged is stealing (consistent with the way that you use stealing in the video).
P3: The ability to post and make a video (or almost anything else) is dependent to some degree on government resources (such as roads, etc.)
C: Posting your video was theft.
RationalRat 2 years ago
As i understand your argument, premise 2 can be more precisely worded as:
P2: The purchase of a thing who's production was funded by theft, is itself an act of theft.
I don't accept that premise.
bitbutter 2 years ago
So only direct theft counts? If I take money from Susie, that's theft, yet if John gives me money that he took from Susie (and I know all this), that isn't theft?
Assume I am for the building of roads in my town but only for people in my town. I would have voluntarily funded road-building, but since I would have only done so for town people, your usage of them is theft. If not, why not?
RationalRat 2 years ago
"So only direct theft counts?"
There is only 'direct theft'.
Can you agree to the premises in the video?
bitbutter 2 years ago
Of course not. Instead of actually attempting a defense of anarchocapitalism, you choose to redefine what stealing means and hope that by doing so you can apply the emotional and moral connotations of the word to taxation. Even when it is shown that by such a definition, most reasonable people would have to agree that almost any activity involves theft. (Not surprisingly, when the shoe is on the other foot, you attempt to use a narrower definition for theft.)
RationalRat 2 years ago
@RationalRat No redefinition is necessary. As I said, your second premise is false as far as i'm concerned. That's why your argument fails.
bitbutter 2 years ago
"... as far as i'm concerned ..."
And that's why your argument in your video fails. Generally, when you attempt to make an argument, you are required to use standard definitions, not personal ones.
RationalRat 2 years ago
@RationalRat If you have information showing that there's a widespread belief that the purchase of a thing who's production was funded by theft, is itself an act of theft, I'm all ears.
bitbutter 2 years ago
The key component is knowingly. It's a form of fencing.
RationalRat 2 years ago
@RationalRat Fencing looks to be buying stolen goods with the aim of reselling them.
I still didn't see anything that extends the definition of theft to include buying products produced using stolen money, knowingly or otherwise.
I do agree that if a person does this knowingly, when there are accessible alternatives available, they are morally culpable for indirectly supporting theft. But this is far removed from the situation we're in.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Youre an idiot. Government has NO RESOURCES except what they have taken from the people.
labartic 1 year ago
I wouldn't say that the state always demands money for projects they don't support. This can and does happen but often it also demands money to help problems in society that the vast majority of people want fixed (communicated by voting, the indirectness of which I acknowledge) but will not take individual responsibility for if left as a voluntary contribution.
I'm not saying all this is ok, but statement 1 is stretching it a little.
GirlyVoice 2 years ago
@GirlyVoice "I wouldn't say that the state always demands money for projects they don't support."
I think we will always be able to find tax payers who don't support social welfare schemes. So any state that uses such a scheme is demanding money from people for projects that they don't support. Would you agree?
bitbutter 2 years ago
Yes I would. The statement sounded like the government takes money from people for projects they ALL don't support which isn't true.
GirlyVoice 2 years ago
Well bitbutter, I've read through your comments section and I must say I am neither impressed nor suprised. Justifications rest on cirucular reasoning (its not stealing because you consent, but if you dont consent the state can still do whatever it deems because you've consented, and its actions against you are not crimes) They have double standards for every term, so as to avoid answering your questions so they can aviod the conclusions that naturally follow.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago 2
@lengthyounarther Hi. I guess i'm not surprised either. But I was hoping for better.
bitbutter 2 years ago
God exists because people pray for him. People can be forced to pray for god, because he exists.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Does anyone know how/if i can disable the 'spam' links for comments? Lots of comments getting marked as spam on this thread (on both sides).
To those doing the spam flag abuse: cut it out please.
kthx.
bitbutter 2 years ago
@silentbob36
And there's the rub. What you consider stealing, and what I consider stealing are different.
I don't see how you consider it stealing when a group of people form a union, and agree, implicitly, or tacitly by availing themselves of the services/infrastructure provided by said union, to contribute to a communal fund to pay for those services.
It's a voluntary system which you have the option of changing through voting, or opting out of at any time by physically leaving said union.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
If union LEADERS takes money away from your paycheck without your consent, and leaves the only option available to you to quit your job, that IS stealing.
If I said that, as long as you worked where you are, I'm going to steal $100 a month from you, but you don't have to "pay" this if you quit your job and work for somebody else, how is that not stealing? Just because you offer somebody an ALTERNATIVE to the theft doesn't mean it isn't theft. Even a mugger says "your money OR you life".
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
You agree to the contract so yes, it is valid. Force is required for the foundation of all contracts. It is the only ultimate guarantor of any contractual agreement. If you do not agree with the social contract you are free to leave at any time. Please do.
1noen1 2 years ago
We agreed to the contract? By being alive and not moving to a boat on the ocean? That's like saying that the Jews in Germany agreed to a contract to not be Jewish.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
The Glibertarian cry of "men with guns gonna take mah stuff!" is a false canard. They are not initiating violence, they are enforcing a contract. YOU initiated violence when you freely chose to violate the contract. The use of force is essential to any complete social system. It is the only way to enforce or punish noncompliance.
1noen1 2 years ago
"YOU initiated violence when you freely chose to violate the contract."
You need to look up the word "violence". Any LACK of action can never been seen as violent. To say otherwise is to completely deny all reason and logic.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
A full treatment of violence is not possible in this short space. But basically, failure to adhere to the conditions of a contract is grounds for enforcement of it's terms. Up to and including the use of physical force. I am sure you wouldn't have it any other way.
1noen1 2 years ago
This is a non-voluntary contract. The "contract" you are supposedly under was DICTATED to you at birth. To say that you agree to the terms of the contract by your INACTION is ridiculous, and YOU KNOW IT.
This "contract" is the same kind of "contract" that the mob has for collecting protection money - you are under the contract simply because you live in a certain geographical location.
watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@somecomputergeek -- No, it is not like the Mob. The Mafia does not own anything. It's power is illegitimate. The power of the state IS legitimate as previously explained.
1noen1 2 years ago
No, your statements are not factually correct. The underlying assumptions on which they are based are false. States derive their legitimacy through the consent of the governed. You indicate your consent by your continued residence here. You are free to leave, violate the social contract, amend it or revolt at any time you wish.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1 "You indicate your consent by your continued residence here."
Nopes. In saying that you're relying on the unjustified assumption that the state has a legitimate claim to the territory (and all in it) in the first place.
To use brainpolice's analogy: just as a slave doesn't implicitly consent to his slavery just because he doesn't run away. I don't implicitly consent to the majority in an arbitrarily delineated territory coercing me in any way they see fit, just because i don't leave.
bitbutter 2 years ago
A slave does not consent to slavery, that's sort of the whole point. Neither do a child's slave parents consent. Your exercise of your free choice by not leaving DOES indicate your acceptance of the social contract. By not vacating your apartment you indicate your agreement to the terms of the lease.
The State DOES own it's territory. There are signed documents in the public record that prove this.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1 "Your exercise of your free choice by not leaving DOES indicate your acceptance of the social contract."
Then why don't you also believe that a slave express consent by not running away?
bitbutter 2 years ago
Because the whole point of slavery is to remove that right. When I enter a restaurant, sit down and place an order my very actions constitute a defcto agreement to pay for my meal. If someone forces me to enter and forces me to place an order then there is no such agreement. The sheer existence of alternate choices is proof that you are not under any coercion. You are free to leave, vote, petition or revolt. You are not enslaved.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
"There are signed documents in the public record that prove this."
But noen, that line of reasoning just isn't going to work. Me and Bitbutter can draw up a peice of paper saying we own all the tea in china, AND sign it. The chinese government would react to this in about the same way I view their claim to all the land in China, because they have a peice of paper that says they own it.
TheLovePizza 2 years ago
If you have a big enough army then I'd say you DO own it. The true root of this whole issue is power and one's relationship to it. One either accepts that others have power over us or not. A great deal flows from that.
However power over others does not equal legitimacy. A state gets it's legitimacy from it's citizens and it retains that legitimacy only so long as it respects their civil and human rights.
1noen1 2 years ago
The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The EXACT same sources as all other forms of land ownership in the US. Also note that governance rights are merely a subset of the rights that anarcho-libertarians would want landowners to have. For example, insistence on contractual obedience to regulations and acceptance of punishment for violations.
1noen1 2 years ago
"States derive their legitimacy through the consent of the governed."
States derive their legitimacy through law, which is written and enforced by the state. To say that non-consenting people must accept the legitimacy of the state because the state derives their legitimacy through the consent of the governed is ridiculous circular reasoning.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
You don't *have* to accept the legitimacy of the state, you can always leave, vote, petition or revolt. The existence of these alternatives serves to prove that you are not being unfairly coerced.
The argument is not circular, your false formulation of it is. It is the consent of the people that legitimizes the laws but the civil and human rights of the citizens still reside with them as they are inalienable.
1noen1 2 years ago
"you can always leave, vote, petition or revolt"
I agree. Revolt implies non-compliance. This is exactly what we are talking about.
You say that the government derives power from consent, and then you say that all those that do not consent should leave. If you can't see how this is circular reasoning, you are an idiot.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@somecomputergeek -- The fact that the power of the state derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed does not imply that every single individual must consent or the state must be dissolved. Democratic representation is sufficient for that. You are free to create a better state elsewhere or to amend this one to make it better.
1noen1 2 years ago
Your baseline questions are not only correct, but also the basis for almost every anarchistic belief. The fact that so many in this comment section seem to be under the thrall of statist indoctrination, is utterly depressing. I simply cannot understand how people can so easily dismiss that ANY action, FORCED upon anybody, by ANYBODY, including government, is a form of violence. Or how they have been conditioned to believe that if the state does it, it is perfectly OK. It's not!
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
- The fact that so many in this comment section seem to be under the thrall of statist indoctrination, is utterly depressing.
Stop that reverse? it.
The fact that so many anarchists seem to hold to the dogmatic belief that anyone who doesn't see the state as the inherently evil, violent entity they do must be indoctrinated/stupid is utterly depressing. Actually I don't find it depressing, but it is a shame to see otherwise rational minds wasted.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Excellent point NakedAtheist. Merely shouting "its evil!!!" isn't any more persasive comming from anarchists than it is from streetcorner preachers. If taxation is stealing and stealing is wrong, you should be able to say why its wrong. No such answer has been forthcoming.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@randyhelzerman " If taxation is stealing and stealing is wrong, you should be able to say why its wrong."
Maybe you forgot randy, but within the last few hours I already told you that i don't believe that stealing is always wrong. That was _your_ position.
bitbutter 2 years ago
It would be really fascinating to me to know how you determine whether something is morally right or wrong. On what basis do yo make that call? I mean, a rose by any other name, if you and I disagree about the definition of stealing, its just a verbal disagreement. If we are talking about whether it is right or wrong for the government to collect taxes, then that is a substansive disagreement, and I'm interested in how you make that call.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
It is "wrong" only to the extent that you accept the principle of self-ownership. If you think that the people are the property of the state, then there is nothing wrong with taxation. That is the fundamental difference between statists and non-statists, who believe that the individual has the right to claim ownership of himself.
Once you have established this principle, the inherent evil of the claim a state makes over the ownership of a the product of your labor becomes evident.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@somecomputergeek
You make a good point, but no one has complete ownership of himself unless he lives on a desert island.
All of his action have consequences (both positive, and negative) for others.The state (except in it's worst form) does not claim complete "ownership" of anyone, but it has been granted by the members of society the right to regulate it's citizens to the extent necessary for society to function in a manner that serves the greater "good" as defined by those citizens.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"but it has been granted by the members of society"
'the members of society'? What members?
Please say what you mean. If you're actually talking about the consenting majority, then say that.
bitbutter 2 years ago
@bitbutter
The consent of all who chose to be members of the society, and that consent means you are agreeing to abide by the will of the majority.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
@TheNakedAtheist "The consent of all who chose to be members of the society"
You're muddling things up again. Society =/= state. Please try to digest that. I think this has been pointed out to you before.
bitbutter 2 years ago
"You're muddling things up again. Society =/= state."
You're muddying things up by making a distinction between society, and the state. The state, as much as you might want to think it is, is not some monster with a life, and mind of it's own. At it's best it is the embodiment of the consensus of the majority.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Society predates the state. They are separate things. Repeat that three times to yourself so we don't have to.
bitbutter 2 years ago
- Repeat that three times to yourself so we don't have to.
I think you've repeated it to yourself so many times you've been hypnotized.
society = state. Even when small groups got together, and reached a consensus on what they were going to do with the guy from the neighboring tribe who they caught stealing they were 'the state". The only difference is with size it became more reasonable to elect/assign people to make such decisions on their behalf. It grew from there.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
@TheNakedAtheist "society = state"
[Error Klaxon].
The state is a group who claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given geographical region.
Society is the fact of people living together for mutual benefit, and predates the rise of the state.
I hope the difference is clear to you.
bitbutter 2 years ago
-The state is a group who claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given geographical region.
Wow what a loaded definition, and one I completely disagree with.
A better definition off the top of my head (assuming a democratic form of government)
A group of people assigned by society to represent, and enforce it's consensus opinion.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"Wow what a loaded definition, and one I completely disagree with."
That's fine. But keep in mind that when anti-statists use the word state, this (or something very similar) is probably what they mean.
bitbutter 2 years ago
We don't "chose" to be a member of society, as you imply. Most of the time, we choose to reside in the place where are. It is the state that chooses to IMPOSE IT'S will ON society. There are many excuses for this, including the idea that society has given it's consent, even if this "consent" is only manifested in a majority vote for the lessor of two evils and the absence of a violent revolt.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@somecomputergeek -- When you chose to reside in the place that you are you give your defacto consent to the social contract. You are always free to move somewhere more to your liking.
The state is an abstract entity and therefore has no will to impose on anyone. The "will" of the state is merely the aggregate will of it's citizens and ultimately, you.
1noen1 2 years ago
When an action affects others, self-ownership is no longer the only concern. For instance, if I use the threat of violence against you in order to get money, we would both agree that this is not due to a claim of self-ownership. Quite the opposite, I am violating YOUR rights of self-ownership. When individuals do it, the evil is easily identifiable. When the state does it, people justify this evil out of habit.
It is not the "citizens" you are talking about, but the tyranny of the majority.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Hi somecomputergeek, I don't think you own yourself, because I don't think people are the kinds of things which can be owned. I don't know a single statist who justifies taxation on the basis that the state owns people, that is a strawman.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
"I don't think you own yourself"
Do YOU own yourself? "ownership" is an important concept here and I don't think we agree on it's definition. YOU are the only that has that opinion, right? You HAVE an opinion. You OWN that opinion. THAT is self-ownership. It is a basic concept that must first be addressed before we can go any further.
If a slave owner decided to let the slave keep a portion of the product of it's labor, that slave is still a slave, even if he lets that slave keep 80%.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
The concept of ownership cannot be established independently of the concept of buying and selling. You do not have the right to sell yourself into slavery, because nobody has the right to buy you as a slave. You are autonomous and at liberty; these are distinct from self-ownership.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Your formulation is false. People are not the property of the state. The state only exists as a social contract between it's citizens. Taxation is payment for services and therefore derives it's (taxes) legitimacy from the state.
You are not a solitary individual and therefore cannot "own" yourself. The concept itself is absurd. You are part of a community and have both individual and collective rights, duties and responsibilities. The state does not own your labor, it contracts with you for it
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1 "The state does not own your labor, it contracts with you for it"
orly!
"Yes we have a contract. Don't you remember? Oh no, you never _signed_ it. No, you didn't verbally agree to it either. What? No no no I never told you what the terms were. No you can't look the terms up either because they're not written anywhere! It's a very _special_ contract you see? Glad we cleared that up"
bitbutter 2 years ago
@bitbutter -- yes there is a social contract but no, you don't need to physically sign it. Your presence is your defacto consent. Your presence and continued social benefit from the state creates debt. The terms are in the constitution and the laws of the land. Glad we cleared that up
1noen1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Your presence and continued social benefit from the state creates debt."
My presence does not create debt. The STATE buying things that it can not afford, and that I did not approve of that creates the debt. The wars, big digs, bridges to nowhere, war on plants, entitlement programs, bailouts, stimulus, pork, and $800 hammers is what creates the debt, NOT my existence.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Don't forget that the terms can change without your approval at any time, and those terms could be the inclusion of the ability to murder, steal, torture, kidnap and harass you if you question the "contract" that you never actually signed or agreed to.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"The state only exists as a social contract between it's citizens."
The idea of a social contract is ridiculous. If I said that you were under a contract to pay me $3000 for services that I gave you, even though you did not explicitly agree to it, and claimed that you are obligated to this because of where you lived, you would rightly call me crazy and the contract null and void. However, this is this VERY SAME CONTRACT as the state. The only difference is the one claiming it is valid.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
If I come into your restaurant and eat $3000 worth of food even though I did not explicitly sign any contract I still owe you the money. The contractual agreement was implied when I entered, sat down and ate your food.
I am perfectly free to go to any other restaurant (or state) and partake of their services if they are more to my liking. I can also bargain with you for a better price (or laws) or I can organize a boycott or even fight with you over your prices.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
I'm not going to the "restaurant" of the state. The state is coming to me and delivering the food, and threatening to come back and violently kidnap me if I don't pay for it.
Why don't you try to open up a restaurant that works like that -- like the state. Deliver food to everyone in your neighborhood and send them a check. The fact that some of them like the food an pay you doesn't give you the right to threaten me with violence because I think your food is horrible.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@somecomputergeek -- It is an analogy hun. "The State" does not exist outside of me. I participated in it's creation and continue to do so. It only exists at "my" (collective) whim. You have contracted with the state for it's services and if you fail to hold to the contract it (we) have the right to use force to ensure your compliance.
Your restaurant example is falsely construed as I have repeatedly explained. We the people chose to create the "restaurant", if you don't like it then leave.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
"I participated in it's creation and continue to do so."
The state was created before you were born. You currently accept it's legitimacy, but the existence of a state does not inherently mean that the state is legitimate. You have NOT contracted with the state in any way. The state DICTATES this "contract" and you ACCEPT this INVOLUNTARY CONTRACT in the same way that a slave can accept his slavery.
If somebody doesn't like the mob shaking him down, he can go to another neighborhood.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@somecomputergeek - The state is continually created and maintained by the collective participation of myself and others. Were we to stop it would cease to exist. You are correct that not every state is legitimate. *This* state derives it's legitimacy from my consent.
Your example of the state as the mob has been refuted. Your example of the state as slavery has been refuted. Your charge of an involuntary contract has been refuted. Please come up with new arguments. These are all used up.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
You keep repeating CLAIMS, but you haven't refuted anything. CLAIMING that the state is based on the consent of the governed is NOT a refutation to the argument that it is not because it is involuntary. It reminds me of Monty Python's "argument clinic". Contradiction is NOT an argument.
The examples of the mob and slavery illustrated OTHER involuntary "contracts".
All your "arguments" amount to is this: "The tyranny of the majority is legitimate because it is the majority".
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Your claim that the state is like the mob is refuted by the fact that the mob does not own property and is an illegitimate organization
Your claim that the social contract is like slavery is refuted by the fact that you give your consent to it and have the freedom to chose. Things that slaves lack.
You are under no tyranny of the majority because there are checks and balances to ensure your rights. If you think they are inadequate you are free to petition or vote for changes.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
I'm DEMONSTRATING that the state is illegitimate by showing BEHAVIOR similar to an ILLEGITIMATE organization, and you refute that by saying the analogy is flawed because I'm comparing it with an illegitimate institution?
I do NOT give my consent to the social contract. If I GAVE my consent, it would NOT be a "social contract". Your claim that consent is implied because I don't move is RIDICULOUS.
watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU
It's not the tyranny of the majority because I can vote? Seriously?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Your claim that the state is no better than the mob because it's behavior is similar is false. Rape is not the same as making love even though the behavior in both is identical. Consent makes all the difference.
You DO give your implicit consent to the social contract by your continued presence and use of government services as the restaurant example shows.
You have failed to make your case.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
Rape is a PERFECT analogy. IN THIS ANALOGY, making love would be VOLUNTARY. THIS is the critical difference. The mob is "raping" people and the state is "raping" people. Yes, there is a difference, but that difference has NOTHING to do with it being VOLUNTARY. Getting raped by someone in uniform and has the "right paperwork" is STILL RAPE.
You're "implicit contract" is that, since the woman was walking down a street that you claim as your "turf", she has given her consent.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Yes, the Mob rapes the store owner when it demands protection money. The state does not because it has the consent of the owner who then enters into a contract with the state for services. If the store owner doesn't like it he can vote, petition the state for redress, run for office, lobby for favorable legislation or even revolt. Or... move his business to another country.
I see nothing immoral in the above. You have once again failed to make your case.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
"because it has the consent of the owner who then enters into a contract with the state for services."
But the owner DOESN'T enter into a contract with the state in any way UNLESS you say that he ALSO entered into a contract with the Mob because it is the EXACT SAME JUSTIFICATION (presence in geographical location) that you are using as the measure of "consent".
You can petition the Godfather for some mercy, too. Would you consider the Mob legitimate you could vote for the Godfather?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"CLAIMING that the state is based on the consent of the governed is NOT a refutation to the argument that it is not because it is involuntary."
Your consent is not involuntary. You are free to chose among several alternatives. When you have freedom of choice your consent is by definition not coerced.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
OK.
You have two choices -
1) You can give me $1000.
2) You can move away from everybody you know - your family, friends, and work.
If you CHOOSE to live there, and DON'T give me the $1000, I'll beat the hell out of you with a bag of apples.
Since you have a CHOICE, it's not involuntary.
That's your argument. Really?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
There is no fundamental right to property. There is no moral obligation for me to respect your property. The use of force is what creates the conditions for rights, including those of property, to exist.
You don't posses the right to make that contract without my consent. No, this does not conflict with the state as consent of the governed because the state exists prior (not in a temporal sense) to your right to make and enforce contracts.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
"There is no fundamental right to property."
YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that the state is legitimate because of the acceptance or it's legitimacy by the majority. If there is no fundamental right to self-ownership, then NONE of the individuals who make up the majority have any rights that they can transmit to the state.
Force is used to DEFEND property as well as ACQUIRE property. The fact that violence is also to defend property doesn't justify using it to acquire property.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@1noen1
"You don't posses the right to make that contract without my consent."
Exactly. This would not be the case, however, if you were not obligated to anything in the contract. In that case, it would not be your concern.
"the state exists prior to your right to make and enforce contracts."
This is a post-facto justification. Do you think violence is the only way to manage contracts? If I don't do a good job at work, I get fired, but nobody kidnaps me and throws me in a room with a rapist.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@1noen1
"Were we to stop it would cease to exist."
Yes, you're right. Please stop threatening me with violence if I don't pay for things I don't want to, and in some cases, like war and torture, think are highly unethical.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@1noen1
"Your restaurant example is falsely construed as I have repeatedly explained"
You haven't explained anything. You've simply repeated yourself claiming that the state is legitimate and if I don't like it I can leave. You haven't explained WHY the state is legitimate outside of confusion between "society" and the majority.
Your position holds that ALL majority rule is legitimate, which is OBVIOUSLY FALSE, and countless examples, such as slavery, war and racism, can attest.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
States derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The social group constructs the apparatus of the state in order to do those things collectively that we cannot do alone.
The root of your objection is your false belief that you are not a part of the social order. Humans cannot exist as solitary animals. We can survive ONLY as a group.
The US government never enslaved anyone.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
"States derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed."
If I consented to the state's governance of me, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You are talking about the MAJORITY, not the "governed". IF states TRULY derived their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, then taxes would be VOLUNTARY rather than collected under the threat of force.
Social constructs exist independently of ideology OR a state. Are you denying the existence of VOLUNTARY social constructs?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Can we get this to 300? ;)
But you DO consent to the state's governance over you, not explicitly but as I have explained, by your implicit consent. Your consent is not involuntary because you are free at any time to chose among different alternatives. Including changing the terms of the social contract. If you want taxes to be voluntary then you are free to vote accordingly or run for office or any other choice.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
Implicit consent? Because I don't move? That doesn't work for ANYTHING ELSE. Why do you think it somehow works when we're talking about the state?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
The one freedom that you do not have is the one you and all libertarians want -- to be free of the consequences of your actions.
The answer is no.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
This isn't about my being accountable for MY actions. This is about me being accountable for the actions of the STATE. If anything, I PROMOTE the idea of consequences of MY actions, including the product of MY labor.
The ACTION in question is the action of the STATE -- the INITIATION OF VIOLENCE. I think that the state should be accountable for ITS actions, not me. I also don't think the state has the right to force ARBITRARY consequences on NON-ACTIONS or NON-VIOLENT actions.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Well you are the state so you are free to hold yourself accountable. Vote accordingly.
It is late, time for supper. Thank you for not devolving into ad homs. Over and out.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
That's just it -- I am NOT the state. WE are not the state. The state is a small group of people that have a monopoly on the legal initiation of violence. Having some influence over an institution doesn't mean I consent to being robbed by that institution, any more than a woman trying to talk a man out of raping her is giving her consent because she could try and talk him out of it. You're basically saying that, if she doesn't convince him, she's giving her consent.
Good night.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
@somecomputergeek Excellent analogy. Amazing that people don't seem to grasp this.
bitbutter 2 years ago
@1noen1
"The US government never enslaved anyone."
No, they just enforce a "contract" nobody signed or explicitly agreed to (though they implicitly agree to by existing and not moving out of the country) that demands 1/4 of the product of their labor under the threat of violence. To say this is "slavery" would be irrational, as it is not COMPLETE slavery, and the slaves are free to move to another plantation.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Any person, entity, or institution that would use force, or the threat of force, to make anyone capitulate to the will of that person, entity, or institution, IS inherently evil. That is the epitome of the term "evil". This does not by any means indicate that those things are completely evil, just necessarily so, or "allowed" by societal standards.
That understanding is merely a statement of factual reality, that is neither dogmatic or stupid, and to label it so is the real dogmatism of statists
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
-That understanding is merely a statement of factual reality
Umm yeah, sure. Did God tell you that?
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Actually, I don't believe in god, as religion, or belief in the supernatural, is just as corrupt an idea as the belief that the state is all good. A premise you are obviously willing to not only accept, but endorse. This in my opinion, makes you a moron, and I find that interaction with morons is a waste of time.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
"the belief that the state is all good"
Well since I NEVER said the state was all good I guess I'm not a moron, but thanks for the straw man.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
And I never said the state was all bad, just pointing out the factual reality that some portions are inherently evil. Something that your ilk are all to eager to dismiss. So who's strawmaning who?
Perhaps you should change your username, for it appears you have replaced "god" with the state, as you argue for it as vehemently as any christian or muslim does for their deity.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
"you have replaced "god" with the state, as you argue for it as vehemently as any christian"
Why would I need to argue for the state? Unlike anarchy the state actually exists. I only argue against dogmatic beliefs like "the state is inherently evil" when "evil" doesn't even exist.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
""evil" doesn't even exist."
Your level of cognitive dissonance is utterly astounding. You truly are a moron among morons, as all one has to do is read a newspaper or watch the news on TV, to see examples of evil in the world.
As to your not needing to argue for the state, that appears to be ALL you have been doing in this comment section. You are the states own cheerleader. You remind me of a spoiled and insolent child, who insists they are right, in the face of overwhelming contrary facts.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
@xxxchaindrive
Please tell me you aren't as stupid as your comments would lead anyone who reads them to believe. lol
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
@xxxchaindrive
Of Wait! I get it now. You're pretending to be an anarchist to make them look stupid. I'm afraid you failed no one who can string semi coherent sentences together could be as dense as you appear unless it's an act.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Let me get this straight...you deny reality, ignore history, and argue for an entity that you say needs no one to argue for...and you have the audacity to consider me "stupid"?? (Facepalm) un-fucking-believable!!
Oh wait...I get it now...you're a troll!! Or a liberal democrat, not much difference there, as all you left-wing nutjobs think the same way.
Well, now that I know what I'm dealing with, I'll be able to ignore your blatant moronic bullshit.
Have a nice day...I'm done with you
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
@xxxchaindrive
With friends like you anarchists don't need enemy's. It's amazing someone can say as much as you do without saying anything.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Here's my problem with your question - or at least part of the problem. I really think you need to be able to satisfactorily answer the question of my video before even *going here*. The reason I say that is that showing me the state is bad (even potentially *evil*) means very little if the alternative is truly unattainable, which I fear is the case - and none of the videos or comments have shown me otherwise yet. (continued)
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
Part 2
I know what you want to get to - the moral superiority of the anarchist position. I used the following comparison in another comment.
It is quite possible that pacifism is morally superior to the use of violence. Yet pacifists will quickly be destroyed by those who are *not*, making moot the point of moral superiority.
I don't concede that anarchy is the morally superior position, but even if it is, what is the point if it *can not* succeed in the real world. It becomes academic.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
@AncientAtheist Acceptance of these statements are my conditions for _starting_ debate (they are not an attempt to validate anarchism). You're free to take or leave them.
bitbutter 2 years ago
You're starting from the wrong assumption that it is YOUR money. It's not. You are allowed to use it at the price of taxes.
Pylo01 2 years ago
Note that this is obviously a gross oversimplification of how things work in the real world, but then again, so is every single anarchist argument I've ever heard.
Pylo01 2 years ago
"You're starting from the wrong assumption that it is YOUR money. It's not."
The pertinent point is that I'm being forced to hand over the product of my labour under duress. Now can you acknowledge the truth of the two statements?
bitbutter 2 years ago
Comment removed
Pylo01 2 years ago
No, I can't.
My point is that it is not the product of your labor alone, but the product of many factors that come with living in the modern society.
And I'm not sure that what the money is used for (in your example: for projects you don't support) has anything to do with whether or not it is justified to take it away from you.
Pylo01 2 years ago
I had to correct my position on your 2. statement (the deleted comment above).
I only agree that the state will enforce the law with violence (and I'm perfectly fine with that as long as the state (and by extension it's laws) is legitimate, that is: of the people, by the people and for the people).
But the problem is the state claims that what it takes from you rightfully belongs to the state so it is not stealing.
Pylo01 2 years ago
@Pylo01 "legitimate, that is: of the people, by the people and for the people"
What does 'the people' mean here exactly? Because it obviously doesn't mean all the people living in the territory claimed by the state. Does it just mean that the majority get to decide on the rules, no matter how unjust?
bitbutter 2 years ago
If that is "no matter how unjust you personally think it is" than the answer is: yes, that is exactly what I meant.
Pylo01 2 years ago
@Pylo01 I see. So the antisemitic Nuremberg laws of Germany were in fact legitimate on your view, and you believe that the use of violence to enforce them was legitimate too.
I'm afraid we lack enough common ground for a discussion about the moral legitimacy of the state.
bitbutter 2 years ago
I didn't say anything about morality.
And what if there was no Germany (the state)? If what you say is true, and the majority of people on that territory hated the Jews they could (and most probably would) still discriminate against them. The sate has no morality of its own, it's the people you need too judge if they granted state the power too do things you consider immoral.
Pylo01 2 years ago
They could (and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't) exercise that power even without the state.
Pylo01 2 years ago
"You're starting from the wrong assumption that it is YOUR money."
We're starting from the assumption that it is OUR labor. Money is simply a means of exchange. Simply because the state controls that particular means of exchange (and violently opposes competing currency, like the liberty dollar, for instance), DOES NOT mean that the LABOR or the VALUE PRODUCED by that labor belongs to the state.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Since the type of state is relevant, I'll assume you're referring to a state where the citizens have the right (directly, or indirectly by voting) to chose what taxes everyone will be required to pay. And that the citizens are free to leave the state, and give up their citizenship if they so desire.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
1. No. You implicitly agree to pay those taxes by choosing to be a citizen of the state, and availing yourself of the services provided by said state.
2. No. The state will only kill you if you violently oppose the rights granted to it by it's citizens.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Continued...
In fact to expand on number two. If you violently opposed that right, YOU (not the state) would essentially be the one using violence by proxy against those who have freely chosen to organize under that state, and would be violating their rights.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
How do I cancel said citizenship and at what point in my life did I choose to be a citizen of the state I'm living under? Please think about your answer, I don't like having to point out obvious flaws.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
@ChristiansScherwin
Search Google for - how to give up my citizenship.
I think a compelling argument could be made that no one under 18, or whatever age is considered a legitimate age of consent should be required to pay taxes, but in such a case the parent should be responsible to reimburse the state for the services you had used until such time. If it exceeded what they had already contributed in taxes. (public education etc)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
@TheNakedAtheist
"You implicitly agree to pay those taxes [...]"
So you believe that a local mafia, who'd taken over all the bakeries (which you continued to buy bread from, preferring not to starve), would not be stealing from you when it extracted protection money?
If you imagine it makes a difference, pretend this is an unusual mafia who allows its victims to vote for which don will get to threaten the villagers (but all dons will threaten them).
bitbutter 2 years ago
@bitbutter
There you go with that silly mafia analogy again.
Comparing a democratically established government that was granted it power BY THE PEOPLE, with the mafia. lol
The only way that analogy isn't an epic fail is if you're referring to a dictatorship.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago 2
@TheNakedAtheist I notice that you didn't answer whether or not you think the (democratic) mafia is stealing (despite you using their services, and not leaving their territory). I think it is, and I think that's clear to everyone.
Can you address that?
bitbutter 2 years ago
@bitbutter
Such a mafia would not be democratic. The "victims" would have to be able to elect a don who wouldn't extract protection money, and they would have (at some point) had to voted to have the mafia take over the bakeries.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
@TheNakedAtheist "Such a mafia would not be democratic. The "victims" would have to be able to elect a don who wouldn't extract protection money"
Why do you think this requirement is necessary in order for it to be a democracy?
bitbutter 2 years ago
- Why do you think this requirement is necessary in order for it to be a democracy?
What type of a democracy WOULDN'T have all options available?
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"was granted it power BY THE PEOPLE"
Why do these people get to grant the government power over other people? Again, things arn't too different to a mafia; they are granted power by a few people too (with the majority having no say whatsoever) how is the government any different? Did either you or me grant it power? No. In the case of most states it was people who lived hundreds of years ago who cannot possibly have acted on my behalf.
TheLovePizza 2 years ago
@TheLovePizza "Why do these people get to grant the government power over other people? "
I'm also confused by how that works, and why (otherwise sensible?) people imagine that 'might makes right' is a legitimate principle.
bitbutter 2 years ago
"where the citizens have the right (directly, or indirectly by voting) to chose what taxes everyone will be required to pay."
Last time i checked, voting doesn't allow me not to pay tax.
bitbutter 2 years ago
"Last time i checked, voting doesn't allow me not to pay tax."
lol No, the fact that you have the right to vote does not mean you can choose not to pay taxes. It means you have the right directly, or indirectly to vote to increase, decrease, or repeal tax laws.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Hi bittbutter, I'm interested in who you think determines what "theft" is. Presumably this isn't any sort of God. I think the state determines what theft is, and therefore has the right to define it such that taxation isn't. If you think the individual can define theft, then why can't I define theft such that its ok for me to enslave you, as that isn't theft?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
I think my position will be clarified if i ask you the same question as veryevilpetting zoo:
You're a survivor from a crash onto a desert island (no state lays claim to this island). You manage to catch a fish, but one of the other survivors snatches it out of your hand and runs off.
Have they stolen the fish? I say they have, state or no state.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Well bitbutter, lets ask them. they say I am an inferior animal, and they no more stole the fish from me than I stole the fish from a bigger fish which was trying to eat it. Its just Darwinian natural selection at work if they outcompete me for scare resources. If he's wrong what makes him wrong? If its not theft for me to take the fish from a bigger fish, why is it theft for him to take the fish from me? Just vatically stating ex cathedra that it is theft isn't really an answer.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
@randyhelzerman "Well bitbutter, lets ask them"
I'm more interested in _your_ reply :) Because it's relevant to the idea that theft is a concept that depends on the state. I don't believe you really believe that.
If a person on the island snatches a fish out of your hands, without your permission and runs away with it, do you think that is stealing or don't you? I think it obviously is.
(NB: i'm not asking if this action can be justified, i'm just asking if it qualifies as stealing/theft).
bitbutter 2 years ago
I think it would be stealing, but only because--even tho I was on the island--I would still consider myself a member of a community consisting of people still alive and dead and we all agree that it would be stealing. If we had made a different choice, it would not be stealing. And as we have made a different choice vis-a-vis taxation, that is not stealing.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
At this generality, I don't accept the first statement at all. That's because the concept of stealing presumes:
1) well defined notions of property and ownership
2) well defined notion of legitimate/just transfer of property ownership
But those basically presume the state.
This illustrates my usual disagreement with hyper-libertarianism/anarchy - assuming everything "basically just stays the same" when you remove the state (only the bad stuff goes away). With that, I couldn't disagree more
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "well defined notion of legitimate/just transfer of property ownership
But those basically presume the state."
Hypothetical: Desert island shipwreck, small group of survivors. Someone takes the fish you caught without your permission. Have they not stolen it?
bitbutter 2 years ago
Do you catch your fish one their property - their claimed beachfront? Did you use one of their sharpened sticks for a spear? Did you use one of their sharped rocks to make your spear? If yes to any of these, what's the fair partial compensation? 15% of the fish? 25%? 100%? A knife in the back?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Lets say that everyone has been fishing in all waters, using sharpened sticks they made themselves. Someone snatches a fish out of your hand and runs off.
I don't believe that you can honestly deny that they've stolon that fish. Can you?
bitbutter 2 years ago
@bitbutter "stolon" :D
bitbutter 2 years ago
Re: "Island Anarchy"
I'll admit that it's a place where anarchy might work, if:
1) less than couple dozen people
2) virtually all the people are very reasonable
3) natural abundance sufficient for all of them to survive independently
When you reduce ownership to its most simple - "I caught that fish myself" - the state doesn't seem to be involved, I agree. But you've achieved that by creating a simple example that has basically nothing to do with the human social world as it actually is.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago 3
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I'd like us to try to stick to the topic of the vid, which is the nature of taxation, not the practicality of anarchy.
If, on the island, someone snatching a fish from your hands is an example of theft, then it's not the case that a state is required in order for the concept of stealing to have meaning. Do you agree?
bitbutter 2 years ago
I agree that "I caught the fish completely on my own, so it's mine" works and doesn't require the state. But it takes only a hint of real world complexity before property and legitimate ownership become problematic.
Suppose there's only one fertile stretch of land on an island with poor fishing. One guy clears it and cultivates it. By your fish example, all the harvest is his. But can he morally monopolize the only reliable food source, simply because he got to that land and worked it first?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago 2
(cont)
Suppose there's a lone leopard on the island. Instead of fishing, one guy risks his life to hunt it down before it kills anyone. If he then takes a bit of "their" fish, is it stealing?
Suppose the fresh water is drying up, and 7 people dig a well. A lazy 8th person doesn't participate. Is it theft if he takes water? What if he isn't lazy, but rather willing though injured? Suppose 4 of the 7 say he can't use the well, but 3 of the 7 say he can. Is it theft if he uses the well?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago 3
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Suppose 4 of the 7 say he can't use the well, but 3 of the 7 say he can. Is it theft if he uses the well?"
It is theft if he uses force to take the first 4's ownership portion of the well. In other words, the other three can each charitably give him part of their 1/7th stake in the well water. You are implying a moral/ethical question about helping the needy when the real question here is this: assuming someone is an ass, is it therefore moral to steal things from them?
TheBullionBull 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Suppose there's a lone leopard on the island. Instead of fishing, one guy risks his life to hunt it down before it kills anyone. If he then takes a bit of "their" fish, is it stealing?"
So you're sitting in traffic and there is some dirt on your windshield. A man runs up and washes it off without asking you if it was OK. He then knocks on your window demands $30 or he'll shoot you. Who died and made your "guy" the official leopard hunter entitled to all benefits thereof?
TheBullionBull 1 year ago
@TheBullionBull
Your windshield example isn't parallel; it's acting in order to claim a justification for robbery. Would anyone risk their life to solo hunt a leopard just to claim a justification for robbery? When they could've just gone fishing instead? I think not.
The specific hypotheticals aren't the point. The point is that when reality's messiness intrudes on anarchist property scenarios (& other anarchists claims), the anarchist's simplisitc assumptions are revealed as completely naive
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Would anyone risk their life to solo hunt a leopard just to claim a justification for robbery? When they could've just gone fishing instead? I think not."
Ah, so if the person's internal motivations are selfless enough in your eyes, they can take from others without asking permission? So you will send me a check the next time I volunteer at a soup kitchen then, yes? You are confusing your subjective notion of quid-pro-quo with what people actually have a right to take.
TheBullionBull 1 year ago
@TheBullionBull Allow me to elaborate on that last point. I am a Christian and hence believe there is moral duty to help the poor. However, no where in the Bible or any other religion (or any rational secular set of ethics for that matter) is there a rule that says, "If someone doesn't give to the poor as much as you, go to their house and threaten to arrest or kill them unless they give more." So there is a difference between having a duty, and forcing people to obey that duty.
TheBullionBull 1 year ago
@TheBullionBull On this difference of having a duty and being forced to obey it: Most people would agree than a man has a duty to love his wife. But does anyone advocate going around with police to force men who are jerks to be more loving? It would be insane. The same goes for all kinds of moral questions. You can PREVENT people from doing openly bad behavior (killing, stealing, arson, etc) but you can't FORCE good behavior (charity, love, empathy, etc) because good comes from the heart.
TheBullionBull 1 year ago
@TheBullionBull
Re: "You can PREVENT people from doing openly bad behavior (killing, stealing, arson, etc) but you can't FORCE good behavior (charity, love, empathy, etc) because good comes from the heart"
I agree. However, you're comparing bad ACTS with good INTENTS. Force can't effectively change intent (well, there's forced brainwashing I suppose - whatever). Force is about controlling actions.
And this has little to do with property being a transparently obvious in a complex social world
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago