Now one could argue that a violently enforceable right to acquire an unlimited portion of the world's resources SHOULD trump a violently enforceable right against involuntary starvation, but that argument would have to be based on something other than a side constraint against violence towards the "peaceful."
To clarify, imagine that there are a bunch of violently enforceable rights. When different rights conflict, one right trumps the other. So a right to property in one's body may trump the right against involuntary starvation which may trump any external property rights which may trump a right to basic health care which may trump a right to acquire 1/10000th of the world's resources which might trump a right to literacy which may trump a right to acquire 1/100th of the world's resources, etc.
It depends. Violent actions that cause the death of another are murder. If the violent actions used to enforce property rights cause involuntary starvation then those actions are murderous. If I am merely, through inaction, letting people starve that does not justify use of force against me. But if my active, violent enforcement of property rights is causing people to starve, those people have a prerogative of self-defense against my murderous actions.
@ranting55 "If the violent actions used to enforce property rights cause involuntary starvation then those actions are murderous."
Consider a violent--retaliatory--action used to enforce property rights in one's body (aka self defence). Also consider that the would-be attacker planned to eat the victim, and ends up starving after his attack is rebuffed because no other food can be found. Do you believe that the the victim of the attack is a murderer?
@bitbutter No, it is consistent to say that violence against Person A's body is permitted in the case that Person A plans to or has already committed violence against Person B's body.
Taxes are the user fees for civilization. Also, what is sovereignty? That power that is exercised to exclusively use physical force if necessary to uphold said civilization. I do not believe that the concept of a non-state society would realistically work in the sense that many people (not all of course) are greedy, that is a face and we know it. I personally see that a Center Left-Libertarian Social Democracy is the best and most practical option.
@SaturnEternity Although we disagree, the center left-libertarian society sure sounds a lot nicer than what we have now. We should consider ourselves allies.
The accepted definition in political science and in law is that sovereignty is "Gewaltmonopol des Staates" Whether used or not is having a hypothetical "Monopoly of violence" This is what is taught in law schools. The supreme and independent power of authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. Also, this is VERY conceptual topic. I'm not just regurgitating random information. There is a big theoretical picture to understand here.
@SaturnEternity I see just people, the only thing for which there is evidence. You have people who think they are allowed to use coercion to pursue their goals and people who do this with voluntary means.
The coercive types do this in the name of something called a state or the will of the majority or the common good or god. For none of these things I see any evidence or even any consistent or true principle underpinning their claims.
@SaturnEternity In any form of democracy some people claim the right to use force against other people. Even if they claim only limited force, I see no reason why some people ought to obey others, even if they claim they will limit themselves.
The principle of democracy equals the principle of group rape or 2 wolves and a sheep voting about what is for dinner.
"There is nothing more certain than death or taxes" Also, doesn't change the fact that some people sit on vast quantities of unused wealth, that if progressively taxed would promote more good for everybody, than just a few. Also your rape and wolf analogy is cute, but not exactly correct. Here is why, one: money equals debt, debt equals money earned, and money spent. Two: Money spent is money used. Although, not always spent wisely. Our system here in the US is cumbersome.
@SaturnEternity That is nonsense if theft is good for mister everybody, theft should always be good for everyone. This is clearly logically flawed:not everyone can steal from everyone.
Wealth is not 'sitting' there. Bill Gates owns a company that represents a lot of wealth. If X forces him to liquidate his company and hands the cash out mostly to the military to increase his repressive machinery, who is owning MS now? Should it be taken in force from them as well? and on and on?
@SaturnEternity money only equals debt, because a banking monopoly enforces that kind of money through government agents. They do that because debt based money allows them to pick the pockets of the tax slaves. Force is always initiated to the benefit of the enforcer, not to the benefit of the forced. How your money folk talk disqualifies the fact that democracy, in theory, is the majority forcing the minority, is a mystery to me.
@SaturnEternity "Investing wealth for the sake of wealth, seems real "Useful""
New businesses, that work hard to provide people with what they want at a price they're willing to pay, come into existence thanks to the behaviour of individuals investing wealth for the sake of wealth. So yes, it is an extremely useful behaviour, in terms of enhancing prosperity.
So is paying taxes and expecting decent public services from said taxes. Whether you're paying money to a central agency, or to various private ones, money spent is money spent. Whether it be used wisely or not by either entity.
I believe that a state of the citizens, governed by and for its citizens (We the People" is best established with the concept of the social contract. If you are a philosopher as your youtube page touts you to be, I'm sure you're familiar with this concept. States rise and fall constantly through the ages, and are consistently re-evaluated, and rebuilt on this concept and it is implemented differently each time mainly because each state may decide to follow the contract.
A user fee can only be legitimately levied if the person demanding payment owns the thing being used. It's far from clear why we should believe that the state has a legitimate ownership claim on the land.
Here's another unbacked assertion: The degree of civilisation we have exists in spite of, not because of, the state.
The islanders respond: "No, he is not a king, we are propertarians and do not believe in having a state. George is the rightful owner of the island because his great-grandfather was first on the island 100 years ago and made a homestead claim. George said that we are permitted to try to swim away if we are unhappy with the him as employer and landlord. We are unhappy that Oliver is starving to death, but that doesn't justify violence against George to gain access his food stockpile."
@ranting55 In the video, George doesn't seem any more wealthy than anybody else, and he certainly isn't the owner of everything the way you make him out to be in your scenario.
How did George wind up with all the food if he doesn't work? If the islanders did it for him, why didn't they demand adequate payment for their time and labor? As 'propertarians,' they'd know their labor is theirs and theirs alone; George has no claim of ownership on that.
@ranting55 "George is the rightful owner of the island because his great-grandfather was first on the island 100 years ago and made a homestead claim."
If George's great-grandfather homesteaded the island, I'm very curious to know how the ancestors of the (now starving) peasants ended up there--this detail is quite important from a propertarian's perspective.
@bitbutter Everyone on the island is either a shipwreck survivor or descended from a shipwreck survivor. George's great-grandfather was merely the first.
@ranting55 "Everyone on the island is either a shipwreck survivor or descended from a shipwreck survivor."
Is this a very tiny island? Have george's ancestors 'mixed their labour' with *all* the land on the island, and not abandoned any of it?--on a large island this would require an extraordinary amount of work to achieve (ie. implausible) before the next shipwrecked homesteader arrives to claim a plot of his own.
@bitbutter Don't you find it disturbing that the moral permissibility of Oliver's starvation should depend on the details of agricultural activity that occurred several generations before he was born?
@bitbutter Does propertarianism contain a personal duty of beneficence such as, "do not let people involuntarily starve," or is it merely compatible with such a duty?
@bitbutter You're right, they don't SAY the same thing, they simply MEAN the same thing.
If there's a table and at one end of it is George and five plates of food, the other is Oliver and his hunger, I will happily and personally help Oliver beat the shit out of George. Then Oliver and I can pool our resources and go after other Georges, recruiting more Olivers as we go.
You can share, or we can fight it out and see who will bleed more for their dinner.
If some starving people in the third world took some of your food (plausibly, food produced in the third world by a company of which you own stock) do you believe the use of force against them is justified to remedy this?
@ranting55 You didn't answer the question. Please do. You are letting people in the third world starve right now. Do you believe the use of force against you is justified to remedy this?
@ranting55 Given that you said there are "several hundred" people on the island, not only must the island be quite large, but the area must be traversed quite often for so many people to have ended up there in a relatively short amount of time. In addition to what bitbutter said, I have to ask: Why has nobody outside the island found it? Why has nobody built a lighthouse or the like over those 100 years? How is it the *only* structure they've built in that time is George's house?
Ok, let's imagine a desert island scenario to test intuitions. I am shipwrecked and swim to the nearest desert island. The island has several hundred malnourished inhabitants. One of them Oliver, is near death. They all work for a man named George, who is idle, well-fed, and lives in the island's only building. I ask if George is some sort of king.
Oliver is an antisocial cunt and should be beaten up. And tuition fees are bad anyway, a child has to be provided with everything we would like our own children to be provided with. Parents are not to be trusted.
Simply - (Excluding children and the insane) A person(s) may not coerce or use violence upon another person(s) without their explicit consent. [sado-masochism, for e.g.] That's a fair summation of the philosophy of Liberty/Libertarianism?
@jjvoet In which of the scenarios described in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
@TheMagneticChicken They bought the segways with tax money because it is better if they do not have to go through the difficult process of walking while collecting taxes. Don't fret, it's for the greater good.
We can get to the hows of Voluntaryism after we accept the moral principle behind it. No one asked how would homes be cleaned or farms plowed if we got rid of slavery. Likewise no one should ask how would roads be provided or contracts enforced without the state. First we must see that no group of people should be allowed to hold a monopoly on the use of force. No one group should be able to impose rules on everyone else. No one group has the right to rule others just because people say they do.
Intuitions are sensitive to context. For example, our intuitions about visual objects operate accurately in the context that the light source is coming from above. Likewise, I believe our intuitions about not going “vigilante” on George are sensitive to being in the context of a democratic state.
@ranting55 "Likewise, I believe our intuitions about not going “vigilante” on George are sensitive to being in the context of a democratic state."
Imagine the scenarios in the video in the context of a desert island with the minimum number of people to make the story work. Then in which scenario do you believe it's acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
@bitbutter In that context (a very different one then my current context), if Oliver is entitled to some of what George possesses, it would be acceptable to threaten George with violence (after exhausting other options) in any of the scenarios.
@bitbutter Any of the following entitlement theories might conflict with George's current possessions:
1). Justice though homestead and voluntary transfer.
2). Total non-ownership (anarchism).
3.) Total communal ownership (communism).
4.) Utilitarianism.
5.) Equality of outcomes/welfare/opportunity/midfare/capabilities/etc.
Our intuitions about use of force have nothing to do with what entitlement theory happens to be true, because each one, if true, would justify the same amount of force.
@ranting55 Explain how it is that George does not own himself and his possessions, i.e. car, furniture or money (remembering money is used as a medium of exchange - a claim on physical goods).
@AussieAustrianBlog I've been using bitbutter's terminology. He makes a distinction between mere possession (he uses an example of the pickpocket that possesses your wallet) and true legitimate ownership. So, in a simple example, George does not own the car that he currently possesses if he stole it.
@ranting55 "Our intuitions about use of force have nothing to do with what entitlement theory happens to be true,"
None of these theories can be true imo. We adhere to a theory of property based on other considerations: Does it align well with our intuitions in most cases? How well does it serve our other goals? (conflict avoidance etc).
Which theory of property do you adhere to? (whether or not you believe it to be true in an absolute sense).
@bitbutter This video bases propertarianism on the principle of non-aggression. Yet the non-aggression principle is trivially true. It merely states that we should keep what we are entitled to, or even more transparently trivial, that we have a right to what we have a right to. It is an intellectually dishonest rhetorical smokescreen. If there was a video arguing for a propertarian scheme of property on its own merits or "other considerations" I would respond to it on its own comment page.
@ranting55 "This video bases propertarianism on the principle of non-aggression."
No, this video does nothing of the sort (and the non-aggression principle is based on propertarianism, not the other way around). The video encourages people to consider their moral intuitions applied to different situations.
Context #5: There is a democratic state and it does not require George to give to Oliver. I obey the state unless the entitlement violation is severe enough to outweigh my belief in majoritarianism.
Context #3: There is a non-democratic state and it does not legally require George to give to Oliver. There is no moral reason to obey the state. I use the least violent means possible to take from George and give to Oliver.
Context #1: There is no state. I use the least violent means possible to take from George and give to Oliver. I could act alone, with a mob, or through private courts.
Ok, thank you for the clarification. Let me see if I can provide a response to the argument in the video. Let's assume I believe three things. 1) Oliver is entitled to some of what George currently possesses. And all else equal, it is better if people get what they are entitled to. 2). All else equal, it is better if laws are the result of a majoritarian process. 3). All else equal, the less violence the better. There are five contexts relevant for my action:
But anyone who believes in enforceable schemes of property rights, i.e. non-anarchists, believes that the state DOES have the unique right to threaten non-violent people with violence. If I nonviolently fail to pay my rent, I will eventually be threatened with violence and evicted. Of course, you could say trespassing against my landlord's property rights IS violence, but that just begs the question.
@ranting55 "But anyone who believes in enforceable schemes of property rights, i.e. non-anarchists, believes that the state DOES have the unique right to threaten non-violent people with violence."
Certainly not. Law, and it enforcement predates the state's involvement in it, and has emerged in various places without any state interference. Law does not require the state.
@bitbutter Interesting. So in this regime of law without a state does have everyone have the right to violently enforce property rights? Even if enforcement is privatized and dispersed, is there any court with the unique right to adjudicate claims?
@ranting55 "So in this regime of law without a state does have everyone have the right to violently enforce property rights?"
I don't know. But there are reasons to believe that a private law order would be more libertarian than any system of state law, so it's more likely (taking into account things like proportionality of response).
@ranting55 "Even if enforcement is privatized and dispersed, is there any court with the unique right to adjudicate claims?"
No. Please see 'The Machinery of Freedom' (available as a free pdf online) which has a chapter outlining how the combination of private courts and competing defence agencies could work.
The theory that all that is necessary for a healthy society are enforceable property rights is an old one, is false and has been dis-proven within economics. This is propaganda, and it is attempting to degenerate society to a prior period that was awful, where people had less knowledge and when most people suffered.
Just as you require information about history of title and transfer to apply your theory, my theory of legitimacy also needs more information than is presented about George and Oliver to be applied. Final Answer: unknown, more information required. The point: non-aggression is not unique to libertarianism, every scheme of ownership (from the sane to the wildly insane) believes that enforcing any other scheme of ownership constitutes violent aggression against what people "really" own.
@ranting55 " The point: non-aggression is not unique to libertarianism, every scheme of ownership (from the sane to the wildly insane) believes that enforcing any other scheme of ownership constitutes violent aggression against what people "really" own."
Yes, I agree. One of the 'edges' that I believe (propertarian) libertarianism has over competing positions is that its core tenets are more often a better fit with out intuitions regarding the legitimacy of the use of force.
@bitbutter So it appears that you are just as willing to use violence to enforce your theory of legitimacy as are any of the thugs in the video. The "violence" is a red herring. "Sane" and "insane" schemes of ownership are enforced with equal violence. If, under whatever my theory of legitimacy happens to be, Oliver is entitled to what George possesses, I would threaten George exactly when you would, when nonviolent means have been exhausted.
@ranting55 "So it appears that you are just as willing to use violence to enforce your theory of legitimacy as are any of the thugs in the video"
'Just as willing', I doubt it. But I'm certainly not a pacifist either.
"If, under whatever my theory of legitimacy happens to be"
What theory of property do you hold to? And once more: In which of the scenarios described in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
You seem to be using the word "own" in some sort of moral sense and not a legal one. If you have the misfortune of being in a state that makes laws taking away what you own, then you no longer legally own it. For clarity, let's call moral ownership 'entitlement.' So why is that groups of individuals acting as members of a corporation can be entitled to things while groups of individuals acting as citizens of states cannot be so entitled? What makes some entitlement claims illegitimate?
@ranting55 "What makes some entitlement claims illegitimate?"
In my view the only sane way to assess the legitimacy of ownership claims is according to the homesteading principle (and voluntary title transfer). On this view the state is certainly not the legitimate owner of the majority of the land it claims.
In which of the scenarios described in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
@bitbutter What if you discover that George's grandfather used force/fraud on Oliver's grandfather such that Oliver has a legitimate claim on George's property. Could you use violence for restoration?
@ranting55 "Oliver's grandfather such that Oliver has a legitimate claim on George's property. Could you use violence for restoration?"
If I'm able to demonstrate that I'm the rightful heir, and if non-violent options have been exhausted, I think the use of physical force would be justified in this case.
@ranting55 In which of the scenarios described in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
Wow. This is garbage. Comparing taxation to thuggery is a completely false and disingenuous equivocation. Taxation helps pay for public services and a healthy society. It is not robbery.
@purrmenantfeline "Taxation helps pay for public services and a healthy society. It is not robbery."
This is a non sequitur. In which of the scenarios described in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
@bitbutter Are you kidding me? My friend, you are wildly dogmatic to the point that you don't even realize that what you are saying flies in the face of all logic.
Hypothetical scenario: Let's say the state gives George the option of leaving the country permanently to avoid paying the taxes or going to jail. Is this still theft by the state?
@ranting55 A similar thought expriment: If the mafia allows the villagers the option of leaving the village if they don't like paying protection money, are their demands for that money legitimate? Anti-statists believe that like the mafia, the state has no legitimate ownership claim to the land it possesses, so in both cases these entities don't have a right to demand payment--and so their demands for payment (under threat of force) constitute aggression.
207 people feel comfortable with having government agents use violent force to steal from their more responsible, intelligent and successful neighbors on the behalf of irresponsible, ignorant and unsuccessful people like themselves.
@LoveSteroid I can't blame the poor people so much. They're the ones living with the effects of the whole scheme that's been put in place. It is more the fault of those with real influence on the government than the poor people who were victims of it. The poor is being fed the lie that government is the solution and probably can't afford to think outside immediate needs.
A nation without taxes.. no police force, no firedepartment, no public schools or hospitals, no army, no safety net, nothing?
Or do you think different corporations will create a police force and an army? if so, do you want them to? i sure as hell wouldnt..
Weres the profit in running a firedepartment? are people supposed to buy "fire-insurances" and if they dont have it, the private firedepartments just dont put the fire out? what if its a forest fire?..
@Porkusido "A nation without taxes.. no police force, no firedepartment, no public schools or hospitals, no army, no safety net, nothing?"
No. All these things can be provided competitively. And as with all competitive provision of goods, we should expect the products to be of a higher quality and cheaper than they would be if provided by a monopolist (and government is the ultimate monopoly).
@Porkusido "Or do you think different corporations will create a police force and an army? if so, do you want them to? i sure as hell wouldnt.."
Firms, not necessarily corporations. Yes. I would greatly prefer these things to be provided competitively rather than imposed by a coercive monopoly. For an explanation of why, please see the book Chaos Theory. It's short, and available free online in PDF form.
@Porkusido "Weres the profit in running a firedepartment?"
You could ask the Rural/Metro Corporation. See the article "Firefighting for profit" for more information.
"are people supposed to buy "fire-insurances" and if they dont have it, the private firedepartments just dont put the fire out?"
I don't know how they will end up arranging this kind of thing, there are many options. But google "State Firefighters Let House Burn" for a nasty example of what you're afraid of, under statism.
The simple act of paying taxes is the government forcing us with violence, yet we are ok with this because we know taxes are necessary for the government to run. Distribution of wealth is necessary to stabilized an economy as it encourages people to purchase. Voluntary interaction is preferable, but it is not at all reliable. For every example of spontaneous order working, there is an example of greed forcing the working class to live in conditions that are unacceptable for a first world country
@TheFledglingPhoenix "yet we are ok with this because we know taxes are necessary for the government to run."
You're using the 'statist-royal-we' here. It's ambiguous and euphemistic. Please rephrase.
"Distribution of wealth is necessary to stabilized an economy as it encourages people to purchase."
A free market already distributes wealth--since trade is mutually beneficial. Are you thinking of the coercive seizure and re-distribution of property?
@bitbutter I'm sorry but I see nothing ambiguous and euphemistic about it, can you explain how it is?
By distribution of wealth I mean exactly what the video highlighted, not re-distributing property. Unfortunately, trade alone does not guarantee a necessary amount of wealth distribution that leads to a stabilized growth in consumerism. A free market is unreliable in this regard, the Gilded Age of America is a good example.
@TheFledglingPhoenix "I'm sorry but I see nothing ambiguous and euphemistic about it, can you explain how it is?"
You said "yet we are ok with this because we know taxes are necessary for the government to run."
And yet _I_ am not okay with this (despite knowing that taxes are necessary for gov). So you're clearly not using 'we' in the plain meaning of the word. So what do you mean by 'we' here?
@bitbutter My mistake, I was using the word "we" in the plain meaning, I just didn't take into account there would be those not okay with it while knowing full well taxes are necessary for a government to run. That is to say, I left out anarchists, and I do apologize.
I would like a response to the rest of my post please.
@TheFledglingPhoenix "By distribution of wealth I mean exactly what the video highlighted, not re-distributing property."
Wealth is property. So you _do_ mean coercive seizure and re-distribution of property after all.
"A free market is unreliable in this regard, the Gilded Age of America is a good example."
What precisely do you think the gilded age is a good example of? and how does one know when the 'necessary' amount of coercive wealth transfer has been carried out?
@TheFledglingPhoenix "The gilded age is a good example of a free market not guaranteeing the safety of the working class and their ability to purchase."
Neither the state nor the market can be counted on to secure these things. But there are strong reasons to believe that a freed market will provide them far more reliably than a state ever could. Very roughly: prosperity can be expected to increase to the extent that trades happen. The state prevents a great many trades from happening.
@bitbutter A state can create laws and regulations that ensure the working class has enough purchasing power to ensure healthy consumerism. In this way it can be relied on to secure these things.
Prosperity can be expected to increase as trade does, but a free market does not guarantee increase trade, but well placed regulations can.
@TheFledglingPhoenix "The simple act of paying taxes is the government forcing us with violence, yet we are ok with this..."
I see that you corrected yourself later by pointing out that anarchists are not part of the people "we" that are okay with this. So the follow up question to ask yourself is, are you okay with threatening peaceful anarchists with violence to seize their property? Are you okay with people threatening George with violence to do the same thing thing?
@PeaceRequiresAnarchy I don't see it as violence and chances are I never will. To me its simply giving back to the society that allows you to prosper.
@TheFledglingPhoenix "To me its simply giving back to the society that allows you to prosper."
Ever time you make a voluntary trade you 'give back' to society--because both parties benefit. The 'giving back' is included in the very act. So in this regard at least, the threats of force you advocate are redundant.
@bitbutter It is not. You are talking about trading, I'm talking about taxes. Its safe to say that (for the most part) "threats of force" are necessary to ensure taxes are payed.
@TheFledglingPhoenix I'm talking about participating in society, and the imagined debt that you think people accrue by doing so. Taxes and trading are part of all that. Can you explain why you believe taxes are a necessary evil?
@bitbutter Taxes are necessary for a government to run and, as I've said many times already, I believe a state regulated economy is reliable in its ability to create a stable rate of growth in working class consumerism. While a free market is unhindered by regulations which leads to greater trade, there is no guaranteeing the safety of the working class
@TheFledglingPhoenix "I believe a state regulated economy is reliable in its ability to create a stable rate of growth in working class consumerism."
@bitbutter By distributing wealth from the rich to the working class through taxes a government can insure a stable growth in working class consumerism.
@TheFledglingPhoenix Humans do not need encouragement to spend. We all need necessities, and we all have an unlimited demand for comforts and luxury. We need encouragements to save and build capital. Capital accumulation by the poor is a way out of being poor. When government taxes and redistributes, the incentive to save, by the poor, is reduced. Add into that the hidden tax of inflation and the poor never get anywhere.
@mersk100 Humans need money to spend and with more spending money they are encouraged to spend more. Encouraging people to save leads to a receding economy, less jobs, higher prices, etc. There is no inflation here, as no money is being added, only redistributed.
@TheFledglingPhoenix You need to learn Econ 101. Spending money DOES NOT help the economy. Savings is the only way to make an economy grow. Investment and job creation requires capital accumulation, which may only come from savings.
@DanMorin007 We are talking about the middle class and poor saving, these two groups rarely invest and they don't create jobs. Please read carefully next time.
@TheFledglingPhoenix I read carefully your message. The principle is that spending money does not help the economy. Giving money to others to spend is not what makes the society wealthier. Whatever the rich or the poor is spending changes little to the equation.
In summary, a society need savings to improve. The more savings, the better is the middle class and the poor.
@TheFledglingPhoenix That is what government-funded schools are teaching (brainwashing) us. I would recommend reading "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
@TheFledglingPhoenix First thing you need to do is learn the difference between wealth and fiat debt money, they are not the same thing.
Also your argument now is not the argument you were making before, which was pro taxation - redistribution, now you're saying there isn't redistribution. Moving the goal posts?
Secondly, when capital is scarce, interest rates go up, those who have saved will then be encouraged to lend. The current fiat debt system however breaks that and badly.
@TheFledglingPhoenix "wealth is given directly to the working class encouraging them to spend"
You're forgetting that through the coercive redistribution you're advocating, the wealth is prevented from being used for capital investment, which would increase worker productivity, and create real gains in wealth.
@TheFledglingPhoenix There are no guarantees (there's no guarantee that the poor who receive the expropriated funds won't spend it on booze and gambling). But profit-maximising intermediaries will be happy to lend money for purposes of capital investment when they judge the plan to be sound. The wealthy, also wanting to maximise returns, will entrust the partial management of their wealth to these intermediaries.
@bitbutter So no guarantees. I'll like to ask you a few more questions.
In a free market what guarantees the safety of the poor and middle class from the rich? By this I mean what guarantees them livable fees and workable hours.
@TheFledglingPhoenix "Laws can be created to guarantee the safety of the poor and working class."
Laws that enable coercive wealth transfer depend on that wealth existing in the first place. And that wealth is less likely to exist to the extent that coercive wealth transfer is judged to be likelihood. So no, laws that promise coercive wealth transfer cannot be counted on to secure the safety of the poor.
@bitbutter This is a common fallacy. "Tax the wealth to much and they disappear!". While the taxing will increase, it will still be but a fraction of what they make, the wealth will not diminish by any noticeable amount.
Now the money the poor and working class have are not all I mean when I say the state protects them. The government stops the wealthy from doing downright criminal acts against those less fortunate.
In a free market what is stopping the wealthy from abusing their power?
@TheFledglingPhoenix "The government stops the wealthy from doing downright criminal acts against those less fortunate."
You're misunderstanding the dynamic imo. The government enables the wealthy to protect their wealth through legislation that harms the most vulnerable (eg. barriers to entry for small firms, licensing, IP law, minimum wage). the sense in which you are right is that these acts aren't criminal, they're just immoral. This shouldn't come as a surprise.
Now one could argue that a violently enforceable right to acquire an unlimited portion of the world's resources SHOULD trump a violently enforceable right against involuntary starvation, but that argument would have to be based on something other than a side constraint against violence towards the "peaceful."
ranting55 2 days ago
To clarify, imagine that there are a bunch of violently enforceable rights. When different rights conflict, one right trumps the other. So a right to property in one's body may trump the right against involuntary starvation which may trump any external property rights which may trump a right to basic health care which may trump a right to acquire 1/10000th of the world's resources which might trump a right to literacy which may trump a right to acquire 1/100th of the world's resources, etc.
ranting55 2 days ago
It depends. Violent actions that cause the death of another are murder. If the violent actions used to enforce property rights cause involuntary starvation then those actions are murderous. If I am merely, through inaction, letting people starve that does not justify use of force against me. But if my active, violent enforcement of property rights is causing people to starve, those people have a prerogative of self-defense against my murderous actions.
ranting55 2 days ago
@ranting55 "If I am merely, through inaction, letting people starve that does not justify use of force against me."
I see. This implies that you believe that the state is not justified in its threat/use of force against George, is that correct?
bitbutter 2 days ago
@ranting55 "If the violent actions used to enforce property rights cause involuntary starvation then those actions are murderous."
Consider a violent--retaliatory--action used to enforce property rights in one's body (aka self defence). Also consider that the would-be attacker planned to eat the victim, and ends up starving after his attack is rebuffed because no other food can be found. Do you believe that the the victim of the attack is a murderer?
bitbutter 2 days ago
@bitbutter we should call this the "eat the rich defense" of individual rights. :)
quantumG 2 days ago
@bitbutter No, it is consistent to say that violence against Person A's body is permitted in the case that Person A plans to or has already committed violence against Person B's body.
ranting55 2 days ago
I love the mouth on that blue cloud.
sonofagunM357 3 days ago
Taxes are the user fees for civilization. Also, what is sovereignty? That power that is exercised to exclusively use physical force if necessary to uphold said civilization. I do not believe that the concept of a non-state society would realistically work in the sense that many people (not all of course) are greedy, that is a face and we know it. I personally see that a Center Left-Libertarian Social Democracy is the best and most practical option.
SaturnEternity 1 week ago
@SaturnEternity Although we disagree, the center left-libertarian society sure sounds a lot nicer than what we have now. We should consider ourselves allies.
firebadger101 6 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@firebadger101
Oh and please disregard my typo. Just saw that. lol
SaturnEternity 6 days ago
@SaturnEternity Threat with deadly force = civilization?
war = civilization ?
modelmark 6 days ago
@modelmark
The accepted definition in political science and in law is that sovereignty is "Gewaltmonopol des Staates" Whether used or not is having a hypothetical "Monopoly of violence" This is what is taught in law schools. The supreme and independent power of authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. Also, this is VERY conceptual topic. I'm not just regurgitating random information. There is a big theoretical picture to understand here.
SaturnEternity 6 days ago
@SaturnEternity I see just people, the only thing for which there is evidence. You have people who think they are allowed to use coercion to pursue their goals and people who do this with voluntary means.
The coercive types do this in the name of something called a state or the will of the majority or the common good or god. For none of these things I see any evidence or even any consistent or true principle underpinning their claims.
modelmark 5 days ago
@modelmark
Also, I recommend doing a google search on something called "Madisonian Democracy"
SaturnEternity 6 days ago
@SaturnEternity In any form of democracy some people claim the right to use force against other people. Even if they claim only limited force, I see no reason why some people ought to obey others, even if they claim they will limit themselves.
The principle of democracy equals the principle of group rape or 2 wolves and a sheep voting about what is for dinner.
modelmark 5 days ago
@modelmark
"There is nothing more certain than death or taxes" Also, doesn't change the fact that some people sit on vast quantities of unused wealth, that if progressively taxed would promote more good for everybody, than just a few. Also your rape and wolf analogy is cute, but not exactly correct. Here is why, one: money equals debt, debt equals money earned, and money spent. Two: Money spent is money used. Although, not always spent wisely. Our system here in the US is cumbersome.
SaturnEternity 5 days ago
@SaturnEternity That is nonsense if theft is good for mister everybody, theft should always be good for everyone. This is clearly logically flawed:not everyone can steal from everyone.
Wealth is not 'sitting' there. Bill Gates owns a company that represents a lot of wealth. If X forces him to liquidate his company and hands the cash out mostly to the military to increase his repressive machinery, who is owning MS now? Should it be taken in force from them as well? and on and on?
modelmark 5 days ago
@SaturnEternity money only equals debt, because a banking monopoly enforces that kind of money through government agents. They do that because debt based money allows them to pick the pockets of the tax slaves. Force is always initiated to the benefit of the enforcer, not to the benefit of the forced. How your money folk talk disqualifies the fact that democracy, in theory, is the majority forcing the minority, is a mystery to me.
It's not cumbersome,it's fatally flawed.
modelmark 5 days ago
@SaturnEternity "Also, doesn't change the fact that some people sit on vast quantities of unused wealth"
Isn't this wealth typically used by third parties for investment? That's hardly 'unused'.
bitbutter 4 days ago
@bitbutter
Investing wealth for the sake of wealth, seems real "Useful"
SaturnEternity 4 days ago
@SaturnEternity "Investing wealth for the sake of wealth, seems real "Useful""
New businesses, that work hard to provide people with what they want at a price they're willing to pay, come into existence thanks to the behaviour of individuals investing wealth for the sake of wealth. So yes, it is an extremely useful behaviour, in terms of enhancing prosperity.
bitbutter 4 days ago
@bitbutter
So is paying taxes and expecting decent public services from said taxes. Whether you're paying money to a central agency, or to various private ones, money spent is money spent. Whether it be used wisely or not by either entity.
SaturnEternity 3 days ago
@SaturnEternity Will you acknowledge that you were mistaken when you implied that investing for the sake of gaining wealth was not useful?
bitbutter 3 days ago
@modelmark
I believe that a state of the citizens, governed by and for its citizens (We the People" is best established with the concept of the social contract. If you are a philosopher as your youtube page touts you to be, I'm sure you're familiar with this concept. States rise and fall constantly through the ages, and are consistently re-evaluated, and rebuilt on this concept and it is implemented differently each time mainly because each state may decide to follow the contract.
SaturnEternity 5 days ago
@SaturnEternity "Taxes are the user fees for civilization."
A user fee can only be legitimately levied if the person demanding payment owns the thing being used. It's far from clear why we should believe that the state has a legitimate ownership claim on the land.
Here's another unbacked assertion: The degree of civilisation we have exists in spite of, not because of, the state.
bitbutter 3 days ago
Agents on segways: Animating shortcut, or high-tech totalitarianism?
DasGuntLord01 1 week ago 2
@DasGuntLord01 "Agents on segways: Animating shortcut, or high-tech totalitarianism?"
Why choose!
bitbutter 4 days ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TAXES are a way of life DEAL with it....argue all you want they are still going to happen.
Magcomplex 1 week ago
@Magcomplex "TAXES are a way of life DEAL with it"
They said that about slavery too, and about burning witches, and about diseases that have since been eradicated.
bitbutter 1 week ago 17
@Magcomplex Sure theft will happen, the argumentation however, why some people should be obedient to other people, is just wrong, false or incorrect.
modelmark 6 days ago
The islanders respond: "No, he is not a king, we are propertarians and do not believe in having a state. George is the rightful owner of the island because his great-grandfather was first on the island 100 years ago and made a homestead claim. George said that we are permitted to try to swim away if we are unhappy with the him as employer and landlord. We are unhappy that Oliver is starving to death, but that doesn't justify violence against George to gain access his food stockpile."
ranting55 1 week ago
@ranting55 In the video, George doesn't seem any more wealthy than anybody else, and he certainly isn't the owner of everything the way you make him out to be in your scenario.
How did George wind up with all the food if he doesn't work? If the islanders did it for him, why didn't they demand adequate payment for their time and labor? As 'propertarians,' they'd know their labor is theirs and theirs alone; George has no claim of ownership on that.
How'd they get on the island, anyway?
Altimadark 1 week ago
@ranting55 "George is the rightful owner of the island because his great-grandfather was first on the island 100 years ago and made a homestead claim."
If George's great-grandfather homesteaded the island, I'm very curious to know how the ancestors of the (now starving) peasants ended up there--this detail is quite important from a propertarian's perspective.
bitbutter 1 week ago 4
@bitbutter Everyone on the island is either a shipwreck survivor or descended from a shipwreck survivor. George's great-grandfather was merely the first.
ranting55 1 week ago
@ranting55 "Everyone on the island is either a shipwreck survivor or descended from a shipwreck survivor."
Is this a very tiny island? Have george's ancestors 'mixed their labour' with *all* the land on the island, and not abandoned any of it?--on a large island this would require an extraordinary amount of work to achieve (ie. implausible) before the next shipwrecked homesteader arrives to claim a plot of his own.
bitbutter 1 week ago
@bitbutter Don't you find it disturbing that the moral permissibility of Oliver's starvation should depend on the details of agricultural activity that occurred several generations before he was born?
ranting55 1 week ago
@ranting55 Don't you find it disturbing when this happens in more socialist nations?
Altimadark 6 days ago
@ranting55 what do you mean with moral permissibility? All our survival depends on the technological advances of people in the past.
modelmark 6 days ago
@ranting55 "Don't you find it disturbing that the moral permissibility of Oliver's starvation"
It doesn't.
Please reflect on the following two claims and notice that they're not saying the same thing:
It is okay to let Oliver starve.
It is not okay to use or threaten force against a peaceful third party to get them to help Oliver.
bitbutter 4 days ago
@bitbutter Does propertarianism contain a personal duty of beneficence such as, "do not let people involuntarily starve," or is it merely compatible with such a duty?
ranting55 4 days ago
@ranting55 "Does propertarianism contain a personal duty of beneficence such as, "do not let people involuntarily starve,""
No. Like other positions (eg. advocacy of democracy) it says nothing about such a duty.
bitbutter 3 days ago
@bitbutter You're right, they don't SAY the same thing, they simply MEAN the same thing.
If there's a table and at one end of it is George and five plates of food, the other is Oliver and his hunger, I will happily and personally help Oliver beat the shit out of George. Then Oliver and I can pool our resources and go after other Georges, recruiting more Olivers as we go.
You can share, or we can fight it out and see who will bleed more for their dinner.
misterSnorkel 4 days ago
@bitbutter Let me clarify. Consider the following four claims:
1). It is not okay for George to let Oliver starve.
2). It is not okay for Oliver to take George's food.
3). Even if George does let Oliver starve, it is not okay for Oliver or others use violence against George.
4). Even if Oliver does take George's food, it is not okay for George or others to use violence against Oliver.
What I find disturbing is that propertarians believe 3) but not 4).
ranting55 3 days ago
@ranting55 You are letting people in the third world starve right now. Do you believe the use of force against you is justified to remedy this?
bitbutter 3 days ago
If some starving people in the third world took some of your food (plausibly, food produced in the third world by a company of which you own stock) do you believe the use of force against them is justified to remedy this?
ranting55 3 days ago
@ranting55 You didn't answer the question. Please do. You are letting people in the third world starve right now. Do you believe the use of force against you is justified to remedy this?
bitbutter 3 days ago
@ranting55 Given that you said there are "several hundred" people on the island, not only must the island be quite large, but the area must be traversed quite often for so many people to have ended up there in a relatively short amount of time. In addition to what bitbutter said, I have to ask: Why has nobody outside the island found it? Why has nobody built a lighthouse or the like over those 100 years? How is it the *only* structure they've built in that time is George's house?
Altimadark 1 week ago
Ok, let's imagine a desert island scenario to test intuitions. I am shipwrecked and swim to the nearest desert island. The island has several hundred malnourished inhabitants. One of them Oliver, is near death. They all work for a man named George, who is idle, well-fed, and lives in the island's only building. I ask if George is some sort of king.
ranting55 1 week ago
@ranting55 how does George convince them to work for him? Is there relationship with George voluntary or not?
modelmark 6 days ago
Oliver is an antisocial cunt and should be beaten up. And tuition fees are bad anyway, a child has to be provided with everything we would like our own children to be provided with. Parents are not to be trusted.
ohneschlaf 1 week ago
Well-made video with a great message... BUT OMIGOSH THAT CLOUD IS CREEPING ME OUT MAN
slorndag 1 week ago in playlist Why I am a voluntaryist/abolitionist (or: Anarchy? Horror!)
Simply - (Excluding children and the insane) A person(s) may not coerce or use violence upon another person(s) without their explicit consent. [sado-masochism, for e.g.] That's a fair summation of the philosophy of Liberty/Libertarianism?
jontycampbell 1 week ago
An excellent video about the true nature of government coercion and the potential of tyranny in democracy. Well done, friends.
bjlayd61 1 week ago
@bjlayd61 Thanks very much.
bitbutter 1 week ago
Search 'IRS Code 9.2.3.5'
TheKaffeeKlatsch 1 week ago
George seems to be an asshole, badly animated too.
jjvoet 1 week ago
@jjvoet In which of the scenarios described in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
bitbutter 1 week ago
Of course it's okay to threaten Oliver.
Six out of ten people agree.
jeffiek 1 week ago
I love this. It makes me feel super relaxed, even though the subject matter is super-serious.
rockstarofredondo 1 week ago 2
@rockstarofredondo I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for letting me know.
bitbutter 1 week ago
Simply brilliant, brilliantly simple.
jontycampbell 1 week ago 2
@jontycampbell Glad you liked it, thanks!
bitbutter 1 week ago
Why are the agents on segways.
TheMagneticChicken 2 weeks ago
@TheMagneticChicken They bought the segways with tax money because it is better if they do not have to go through the difficult process of walking while collecting taxes. Don't fret, it's for the greater good.
BlazedBastar666 2 weeks ago 2
@TheMagneticChicken Because they get to spend the people's money frivolously, like the gov does.
preppervseconomy 1 week ago
We can get to the hows of Voluntaryism after we accept the moral principle behind it. No one asked how would homes be cleaned or farms plowed if we got rid of slavery. Likewise no one should ask how would roads be provided or contracts enforced without the state. First we must see that no group of people should be allowed to hold a monopoly on the use of force. No one group should be able to impose rules on everyone else. No one group has the right to rule others just because people say they do.
FreedomFighter1131 2 weeks ago
Intuitions are sensitive to context. For example, our intuitions about visual objects operate accurately in the context that the light source is coming from above. Likewise, I believe our intuitions about not going “vigilante” on George are sensitive to being in the context of a democratic state.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 "Likewise, I believe our intuitions about not going “vigilante” on George are sensitive to being in the context of a democratic state."
Imagine the scenarios in the video in the context of a desert island with the minimum number of people to make the story work. Then in which scenario do you believe it's acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@bitbutter In that context (a very different one then my current context), if Oliver is entitled to some of what George possesses, it would be acceptable to threaten George with violence (after exhausting other options) in any of the scenarios.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 "if Oliver is entitled to some of what George possesses"
What would entitle him to George's property?
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@bitbutter Any of the following entitlement theories might conflict with George's current possessions:
1). Justice though homestead and voluntary transfer.
2). Total non-ownership (anarchism).
3.) Total communal ownership (communism).
4.) Utilitarianism.
5.) Equality of outcomes/welfare/opportunity/midfare/capabilities/etc.
Our intuitions about use of force have nothing to do with what entitlement theory happens to be true, because each one, if true, would justify the same amount of force.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 Explain how it is that George does not own himself and his possessions, i.e. car, furniture or money (remembering money is used as a medium of exchange - a claim on physical goods).
AussieAustrianBlog 2 weeks ago
@AussieAustrianBlog I've been using bitbutter's terminology. He makes a distinction between mere possession (he uses an example of the pickpocket that possesses your wallet) and true legitimate ownership. So, in a simple example, George does not own the car that he currently possesses if he stole it.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 I agree, if you steal my car, then I have the right to claim back what is rightfully mine. You may possess my car but you do not own it.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 week ago
@ranting55 "Our intuitions about use of force have nothing to do with what entitlement theory happens to be true,"
None of these theories can be true imo. We adhere to a theory of property based on other considerations: Does it align well with our intuitions in most cases? How well does it serve our other goals? (conflict avoidance etc).
Which theory of property do you adhere to? (whether or not you believe it to be true in an absolute sense).
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@bitbutter This video bases propertarianism on the principle of non-aggression. Yet the non-aggression principle is trivially true. It merely states that we should keep what we are entitled to, or even more transparently trivial, that we have a right to what we have a right to. It is an intellectually dishonest rhetorical smokescreen. If there was a video arguing for a propertarian scheme of property on its own merits or "other considerations" I would respond to it on its own comment page.
ranting55 1 week ago
@ranting55 "This video bases propertarianism on the principle of non-aggression."
No, this video does nothing of the sort (and the non-aggression principle is based on propertarianism, not the other way around). The video encourages people to consider their moral intuitions applied to different situations.
bitbutter 1 week ago
Context #5: There is a democratic state and it does not require George to give to Oliver. I obey the state unless the entitlement violation is severe enough to outweigh my belief in majoritarianism.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
Context #4: There is a democratic state and it legally requires George to give to Oliver. I assist the state in enforcement.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
Context #3: There is a non-democratic state and it does not legally require George to give to Oliver. There is no moral reason to obey the state. I use the least violent means possible to take from George and give to Oliver.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
Context #2: There is a non-democratic state and it legally requires George to give to Oliver. I assist the state in enforcement.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
Context #1: There is no state. I use the least violent means possible to take from George and give to Oliver. I could act alone, with a mob, or through private courts.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
Ok, thank you for the clarification. Let me see if I can provide a response to the argument in the video. Let's assume I believe three things. 1) Oliver is entitled to some of what George currently possesses. And all else equal, it is better if people get what they are entitled to. 2). All else equal, it is better if laws are the result of a majoritarian process. 3). All else equal, the less violence the better. There are five contexts relevant for my action:
ranting55 2 weeks ago
But anyone who believes in enforceable schemes of property rights, i.e. non-anarchists, believes that the state DOES have the unique right to threaten non-violent people with violence. If I nonviolently fail to pay my rent, I will eventually be threatened with violence and evicted. Of course, you could say trespassing against my landlord's property rights IS violence, but that just begs the question.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 "But anyone who believes in enforceable schemes of property rights, i.e. non-anarchists, believes that the state DOES have the unique right to threaten non-violent people with violence."
Certainly not. Law, and it enforcement predates the state's involvement in it, and has emerged in various places without any state interference. Law does not require the state.
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@bitbutter * at least in england (common law).
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@bitbutter Interesting. So in this regime of law without a state does have everyone have the right to violently enforce property rights? Even if enforcement is privatized and dispersed, is there any court with the unique right to adjudicate claims?
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 "So in this regime of law without a state does have everyone have the right to violently enforce property rights?"
I don't know. But there are reasons to believe that a private law order would be more libertarian than any system of state law, so it's more likely (taking into account things like proportionality of response).
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 "Even if enforcement is privatized and dispersed, is there any court with the unique right to adjudicate claims?"
No. Please see 'The Machinery of Freedom' (available as a free pdf online) which has a chapter outlining how the combination of private courts and competing defence agencies could work.
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. I love your videos. A direct illustration of the moral hypocrisy of the statists.
ArmednSafe 2 weeks ago
The theory that all that is necessary for a healthy society are enforceable property rights is an old one, is false and has been dis-proven within economics. This is propaganda, and it is attempting to degenerate society to a prior period that was awful, where people had less knowledge and when most people suffered.
purrmenantfeline 2 weeks ago
@purrmenantfeline "The theory that all that is necessary for a healthy society are enforceable property rights [] is false"
This forms the basis, but it's not enough. Also necessary (at least) are the division of labour, money and trade.
"This is propaganda"
Yes.
"and it is attempting to degenerate society to a prior period"
No.
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
Just as you require information about history of title and transfer to apply your theory, my theory of legitimacy also needs more information than is presented about George and Oliver to be applied. Final Answer: unknown, more information required. The point: non-aggression is not unique to libertarianism, every scheme of ownership (from the sane to the wildly insane) believes that enforcing any other scheme of ownership constitutes violent aggression against what people "really" own.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 " The point: non-aggression is not unique to libertarianism, every scheme of ownership (from the sane to the wildly insane) believes that enforcing any other scheme of ownership constitutes violent aggression against what people "really" own."
Yes, I agree. One of the 'edges' that I believe (propertarian) libertarianism has over competing positions is that its core tenets are more often a better fit with out intuitions regarding the legitimacy of the use of force.
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@bitbutter So it appears that you are just as willing to use violence to enforce your theory of legitimacy as are any of the thugs in the video. The "violence" is a red herring. "Sane" and "insane" schemes of ownership are enforced with equal violence. If, under whatever my theory of legitimacy happens to be, Oliver is entitled to what George possesses, I would threaten George exactly when you would, when nonviolent means have been exhausted.
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 "So it appears that you are just as willing to use violence to enforce your theory of legitimacy as are any of the thugs in the video"
'Just as willing', I doubt it. But I'm certainly not a pacifist either.
"If, under whatever my theory of legitimacy happens to be"
What theory of property do you hold to? And once more: In which of the scenarios described in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
You seem to be using the word "own" in some sort of moral sense and not a legal one. If you have the misfortune of being in a state that makes laws taking away what you own, then you no longer legally own it. For clarity, let's call moral ownership 'entitlement.' So why is that groups of individuals acting as members of a corporation can be entitled to things while groups of individuals acting as citizens of states cannot be so entitled? What makes some entitlement claims illegitimate?
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 "What makes some entitlement claims illegitimate?"
In my view the only sane way to assess the legitimacy of ownership claims is according to the homesteading principle (and voluntary title transfer). On this view the state is certainly not the legitimate owner of the majority of the land it claims.
In which of the scenarios described in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@bitbutter What if you discover that George's grandfather used force/fraud on Oliver's grandfather such that Oliver has a legitimate claim on George's property. Could you use violence for restoration?
ranting55 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 "Oliver's grandfather such that Oliver has a legitimate claim on George's property. Could you use violence for restoration?"
If I'm able to demonstrate that I'm the rightful heir, and if non-violent options have been exhausted, I think the use of physical force would be justified in this case.
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@ranting55 In which of the scenarios described in the video (if any) do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
Wow. This is garbage. Comparing taxation to thuggery is a completely false and disingenuous equivocation. Taxation helps pay for public services and a healthy society. It is not robbery.
purrmenantfeline 2 weeks ago
@purrmenantfeline "Taxation helps pay for public services and a healthy society. It is not robbery."
This is a non sequitur. In which of the scenarios described in the video do you believe it becomes acceptable to threaten your (former) friend with violence?
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
@bitbutter Are you kidding me? My friend, you are wildly dogmatic to the point that you don't even realize that what you are saying flies in the face of all logic.
purrmenantfeline 2 weeks ago
@purrmenantfeline It's a simple question. It's a shame you're unwilling to answer it.
bitbutter 2 weeks ago
Hypothetical scenario: Let's say the state gives George the option of leaving the country permanently to avoid paying the taxes or going to jail. Is this still theft by the state?
ranting55 3 weeks ago
@ranting55 A similar thought expriment: If the mafia allows the villagers the option of leaving the village if they don't like paying protection money, are their demands for that money legitimate? Anti-statists believe that like the mafia, the state has no legitimate ownership claim to the land it possesses, so in both cases these entities don't have a right to demand payment--and so their demands for payment (under threat of force) constitute aggression.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@ranting55 Why should a peaceful person be forced to leave the country?
iainmac2 2 weeks ago
the cartoons are so sweet and gentle, yet so insane at the same time. it's like a cult indoctrination film or propaganda reel.
legionjdw 3 weeks ago
@legionjdw These films are certainly propaganda--media designed to persuade people about an idea.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
Talking Blue Cloud 2012!
Oranje101 3 weeks ago
207 people feel comfortable with having government agents use violent force to steal from their more responsible, intelligent and successful neighbors on the behalf of irresponsible, ignorant and unsuccessful people like themselves.
LoveSteroid 3 weeks ago
@LoveSteroid I can't blame the poor people so much. They're the ones living with the effects of the whole scheme that's been put in place. It is more the fault of those with real influence on the government than the poor people who were victims of it. The poor is being fed the lie that government is the solution and probably can't afford to think outside immediate needs.
slaughtz 3 weeks ago
dude, taxes are necassary for a country to work.
Porkusido 3 weeks ago
@Porkusido "taxes are necassary for a country to work."
What do you mean exactly by 'work'?
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@Porkusido No they are not. They are necessary for some forms of government to work, but not all forms of government.
mersk100 3 weeks ago
@Porkusido "dude, taxes are necassary for a country to work."
Google "What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist" and read the brief article by Stefan Kinsella
PeaceRequiresAnarchy 3 weeks ago
Well, thats great.
A nation without taxes.. no police force, no firedepartment, no public schools or hospitals, no army, no safety net, nothing?
Or do you think different corporations will create a police force and an army? if so, do you want them to? i sure as hell wouldnt..
Weres the profit in running a firedepartment? are people supposed to buy "fire-insurances" and if they dont have it, the private firedepartments just dont put the fire out? what if its a forest fire?..
Porkusido 3 weeks ago
@Porkusido "A nation without taxes.. no police force, no firedepartment, no public schools or hospitals, no army, no safety net, nothing?"
No. All these things can be provided competitively. And as with all competitive provision of goods, we should expect the products to be of a higher quality and cheaper than they would be if provided by a monopolist (and government is the ultimate monopoly).
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@Porkusido "Or do you think different corporations will create a police force and an army? if so, do you want them to? i sure as hell wouldnt.."
Firms, not necessarily corporations. Yes. I would greatly prefer these things to be provided competitively rather than imposed by a coercive monopoly. For an explanation of why, please see the book Chaos Theory. It's short, and available free online in PDF form.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@Porkusido "Weres the profit in running a firedepartment?"
You could ask the Rural/Metro Corporation. See the article "Firefighting for profit" for more information.
"are people supposed to buy "fire-insurances" and if they dont have it, the private firedepartments just dont put the fire out?"
I don't know how they will end up arranging this kind of thing, there are many options. But google "State Firefighters Let House Burn" for a nasty example of what you're afraid of, under statism.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
George is a selfish prick who gets what he deserves. And yes I would tell that to his face, especially if we've been friends since early childhood.
AmortizeThis 3 weeks ago
The simple act of paying taxes is the government forcing us with violence, yet we are ok with this because we know taxes are necessary for the government to run. Distribution of wealth is necessary to stabilized an economy as it encourages people to purchase. Voluntary interaction is preferable, but it is not at all reliable. For every example of spontaneous order working, there is an example of greed forcing the working class to live in conditions that are unacceptable for a first world country
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "yet we are ok with this because we know taxes are necessary for the government to run."
You're using the 'statist-royal-we' here. It's ambiguous and euphemistic. Please rephrase.
"Distribution of wealth is necessary to stabilized an economy as it encourages people to purchase."
A free market already distributes wealth--since trade is mutually beneficial. Are you thinking of the coercive seizure and re-distribution of property?
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter I'm sorry but I see nothing ambiguous and euphemistic about it, can you explain how it is?
By distribution of wealth I mean exactly what the video highlighted, not re-distributing property. Unfortunately, trade alone does not guarantee a necessary amount of wealth distribution that leads to a stabilized growth in consumerism. A free market is unreliable in this regard, the Gilded Age of America is a good example.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "I'm sorry but I see nothing ambiguous and euphemistic about it, can you explain how it is?"
You said "yet we are ok with this because we know taxes are necessary for the government to run."
And yet _I_ am not okay with this (despite knowing that taxes are necessary for gov). So you're clearly not using 'we' in the plain meaning of the word. So what do you mean by 'we' here?
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter My mistake, I was using the word "we" in the plain meaning, I just didn't take into account there would be those not okay with it while knowing full well taxes are necessary for a government to run. That is to say, I left out anarchists, and I do apologize.
I would like a response to the rest of my post please.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "By distribution of wealth I mean exactly what the video highlighted, not re-distributing property."
Wealth is property. So you _do_ mean coercive seizure and re-distribution of property after all.
"A free market is unreliable in this regard, the Gilded Age of America is a good example."
What precisely do you think the gilded age is a good example of? and how does one know when the 'necessary' amount of coercive wealth transfer has been carried out?
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter The gilded age is a good example of a free market not guaranteeing the safety of the working class and their ability to purchase.
A good indicator of a "necessary" amount of wealth transfer is a healthy growing economy with a stabilized growth in consumerism.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "The gilded age is a good example of a free market not guaranteeing the safety of the working class and their ability to purchase."
Neither the state nor the market can be counted on to secure these things. But there are strong reasons to believe that a freed market will provide them far more reliably than a state ever could. Very roughly: prosperity can be expected to increase to the extent that trades happen. The state prevents a great many trades from happening.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter A state can create laws and regulations that ensure the working class has enough purchasing power to ensure healthy consumerism. In this way it can be relied on to secure these things.
Prosperity can be expected to increase as trade does, but a free market does not guarantee increase trade, but well placed regulations can.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "but a free market does not guarantee increase trade,"
A freed market is the absence of coercive interference in markets. Prima facie it increases trade. If you believe otherwise can you explain why?
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter I'm talking about continuous increase in trade, not the increase in trade do to lack of regulations.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "The simple act of paying taxes is the government forcing us with violence, yet we are ok with this..."
I see that you corrected yourself later by pointing out that anarchists are not part of the people "we" that are okay with this. So the follow up question to ask yourself is, are you okay with threatening peaceful anarchists with violence to seize their property? Are you okay with people threatening George with violence to do the same thing thing?
PeaceRequiresAnarchy 3 weeks ago in playlist Featured
@PeaceRequiresAnarchy I don't see it as violence and chances are I never will. To me its simply giving back to the society that allows you to prosper.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "To me its simply giving back to the society that allows you to prosper."
Ever time you make a voluntary trade you 'give back' to society--because both parties benefit. The 'giving back' is included in the very act. So in this regard at least, the threats of force you advocate are redundant.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter It is not. You are talking about trading, I'm talking about taxes. Its safe to say that (for the most part) "threats of force" are necessary to ensure taxes are payed.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix I'm talking about participating in society, and the imagined debt that you think people accrue by doing so. Taxes and trading are part of all that. Can you explain why you believe taxes are a necessary evil?
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter Taxes are necessary for a government to run and, as I've said many times already, I believe a state regulated economy is reliable in its ability to create a stable rate of growth in working class consumerism. While a free market is unhindered by regulations which leads to greater trade, there is no guaranteeing the safety of the working class
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "I believe a state regulated economy is reliable in its ability to create a stable rate of growth in working class consumerism."
Yes I know. Can you explain why?
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter By distributing wealth from the rich to the working class through taxes a government can insure a stable growth in working class consumerism.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix Why do you believe that this kind of coercive wealth transfer ensures stable growth in working class consumerism?
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter wealth is given directly to the working class encouraging them to spend
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix Humans do not need encouragement to spend. We all need necessities, and we all have an unlimited demand for comforts and luxury. We need encouragements to save and build capital. Capital accumulation by the poor is a way out of being poor. When government taxes and redistributes, the incentive to save, by the poor, is reduced. Add into that the hidden tax of inflation and the poor never get anywhere.
mersk100 3 weeks ago 2
@mersk100 Humans need money to spend and with more spending money they are encouraged to spend more. Encouraging people to save leads to a receding economy, less jobs, higher prices, etc. There is no inflation here, as no money is being added, only redistributed.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix You need to learn Econ 101. Spending money DOES NOT help the economy. Savings is the only way to make an economy grow. Investment and job creation requires capital accumulation, which may only come from savings.
DanMorin007 3 weeks ago
@DanMorin007 We are talking about the middle class and poor saving, these two groups rarely invest and they don't create jobs. Please read carefully next time.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix I read carefully your message. The principle is that spending money does not help the economy. Giving money to others to spend is not what makes the society wealthier. Whatever the rich or the poor is spending changes little to the equation.
In summary, a society need savings to improve. The more savings, the better is the middle class and the poor.
DanMorin007 3 weeks ago
@DanMorin007 Spending money creates demand, companies then meet that growing demand, leading to a growing economy.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix That is what government-funded schools are teaching (brainwashing) us. I would recommend reading "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
DanMorin007 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix First thing you need to do is learn the difference between wealth and fiat debt money, they are not the same thing.
Also your argument now is not the argument you were making before, which was pro taxation - redistribution, now you're saying there isn't redistribution. Moving the goal posts?
Secondly, when capital is scarce, interest rates go up, those who have saved will then be encouraged to lend. The current fiat debt system however breaks that and badly.
mersk100 3 weeks ago
@mersk100 No. My argument has stayed consistent from the beginning, that is always pro taxation-redistribution.
We are speaking of the poor and working class, those incapable of lending even through saving.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "wealth is given directly to the working class encouraging them to spend"
You're forgetting that through the coercive redistribution you're advocating, the wealth is prevented from being used for capital investment, which would increase worker productivity, and create real gains in wealth.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter And whats guaranteeing this wealth would be spent on capital investment?
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix There are no guarantees (there's no guarantee that the poor who receive the expropriated funds won't spend it on booze and gambling). But profit-maximising intermediaries will be happy to lend money for purposes of capital investment when they judge the plan to be sound. The wealthy, also wanting to maximise returns, will entrust the partial management of their wealth to these intermediaries.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter So no guarantees. I'll like to ask you a few more questions.
In a free market what guarantees the safety of the poor and middle class from the rich? By this I mean what guarantees them livable fees and workable hours.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "So no guarantees"
Correct. There are no guarantees about anything, neither under statism, nor under a freed market. Please bear that in mind..
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter Not so. Laws can be created to guarantee the safety of the poor and working class.
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "Laws can be created to guarantee the safety of the poor and working class."
Laws that enable coercive wealth transfer depend on that wealth existing in the first place. And that wealth is less likely to exist to the extent that coercive wealth transfer is judged to be likelihood. So no, laws that promise coercive wealth transfer cannot be counted on to secure the safety of the poor.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago
@bitbutter This is a common fallacy. "Tax the wealth to much and they disappear!". While the taxing will increase, it will still be but a fraction of what they make, the wealth will not diminish by any noticeable amount.
Now the money the poor and working class have are not all I mean when I say the state protects them. The government stops the wealthy from doing downright criminal acts against those less fortunate.
In a free market what is stopping the wealthy from abusing their power?
TheFledglingPhoenix 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix What power?
goose1077 3 weeks ago
@TheFledglingPhoenix "The government stops the wealthy from doing downright criminal acts against those less fortunate."
You're misunderstanding the dynamic imo. The government enables the wealthy to protect their wealth through legislation that harms the most vulnerable (eg. barriers to entry for small firms, licensing, IP law, minimum wage). the sense in which you are right is that these acts aren't criminal, they're just immoral. This shouldn't come as a surprise.
bitbutter 3 weeks ago