Life of a Commoner in an anarchist society

[Lockean Georgeville]

I am a philosophical anarchist. I believe the state lacks legitimacy, but I don't think it will ever be abolished.

Practically, I am a minarchist.

from the minarchism wikipedia article: "Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy and a form of libertarianism. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts."
You are obviously not a minarchist, because the former two institutions necessitate violence - and you believe violence to be non-legitimate.

I believe that the military, police, etc... are morally illegitimate, but practicality makes them politically legitimate.

[Ripoll]

So, I'm pretty sure the anarchism argument has subsided.....it will never happen

/thread

[Lockean Georgeville]

So, I'm pretty sure the anarchism argument has subsided.....it will never happen

/thread

It could happen, in theory. But it probably wont.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

it exists in democratic states, no action in America is taken without representation of the people

Show me any contract that you signed that explicitly gave the state the power to take your earnings, decide the amount, and decide the means by which they are to do so, that you signed before becoming a citizen.

Also, yes, actions are taken by the American government that go contrary to what the people want.

They don't need you to sign anything. Taxation is a basic necessity for a nation to function.

I'd like to point out that the perfect world necessary for anarchism to work perfectly is the same world where every other system works.

[Ripoll]

Show me any contract that you signed that explicitly gave the state the power to take your earnings, decide the amount, and decide the means by which they are to do so, that you signed before becoming a citizen.

Also, yes, actions are taken by the American government that go contrary to what the people want.

They don't need you to sign anything. Taxation is a basic necessity for a nation to function.

I'd like to point out that the perfect world necessary for anarchism to work perfectly is the same world where every other system works.

Exactly, any system based off of a Utopian society will fail because a utopian society cannot exist

[Skeckoa]

They don't need you to sign anything. Taxation is a basic necessity for a government to function.

Yeah, I know that a government needs money to function. So what? Doesn't make the fact that it exists without your consent any less valid.

I need food to function, but it is still theft if I steal chips from the local liquor store.

So, I'm pretty sure the anarchism argument has subsided.....it will never happen

/thread

Good job guys, now everyone slap hands!

one of your fellow libertarians even acknowledges that taxes are not theft

Taxation is not theft. It may resemble theft in important respects; it may be the case that some of the reasons that lead us to condemn theft will, if properly considered, lead us to condemn taxation; it may even be the case that taxation is as morally reprehensible as theft; nonetheless, and with apologies for the repetition, it is not theft.

The point is not semantic but rather phenomenological. The perceived reality of theft is notably distinct from that of taxation. When I return home from a libertarian scholars’ conference to find the lock on my door broken and my television set gone I am outraged. That which I expected to be secure from encroachment has been violated. The perpetrator of the theft has transgressed rules that both he and I recognize to be the de facto as well as de jure principles of cooperation that undergird a framework of civility from which all citizens can be expected to derive benefit. The moral ire I feel is, then, not some amorphous feeling that things are other than they ought to be. Rather, that animus is precisely localized: it is focused on this act by this individual. Moreover, I possess a justifiable confidence that my animus will be seconded by those among whom I live. What is primarily a violation of my rights is understood by them to be more than a private conflict of interest between me and the individual who coveted my television. Accordingly, I am able to avail myself of the formal apparatus of the legal system and the informal vindication afforded by a consensus among the members of the moral community that I have been violated and ought to be made whole. And if I am exceptionally lucky, this solidarity may even help me to recover the TV set.

In nearly all relevant respects the perceived context of taxation is significantly different. I look at my pay stub and observe that a large slab of my salary has been excised before I ever had the opportunity to fondle it. This is an annoyance, perhaps an intense one. But it is not focused on the particular extraction. Rather, its object is some or all of the tens of thousands of pages of the tax code, the political order within which the power to tax is lodged, and the constitutional foundations on which that political order is erected. I wish some or all of it were otherwise; that, though is the inverse of a highly specific grievance. Moreover, I cannot count on the solidarity of my fellow citizens. That is both a descriptive and a normative statement. If I have adopted the cooperationist rather than the rejectionist attitude toward the society in which I live, then I am thereby committed to acknowledging that although my fellow citizens’ views concerning the ethics of taxation are, as I see it, mistaken, the perspective from which they adopt those views is not so unreasonable or uncivil as to disqualify them from moral respect. I am entitled, perhaps even obligated, to attempt to persuade them to think otherwise. However, prior to the dawning of that bright dar in which the veils are lifted and freedom reigns, I shall, if I am not a fanatic, concede the legitimacy (not, of course, the optimality) of the overall moral framework within which taxation takes place. It is, therefore, not only misleading but also an exercise in borderline incivility to equate taxation with theft, for if it is then taken in its straightforward sense, that pronouncement denies the legitimacy of the social order and announces that I regard myself as authorized unilaterally to override its dictates as I would the depredations of a thief. It says to my neighbors that I regard them as, if not themselves thieves, then confederates or willing accomplices to thievery. Is it pusillanimous to suggest that declaring war, even cold war, against the other 99 percent of the population is imprudent? I would therefore caution libertarians to shelve the “Taxation is theft!” slogan despite its sonorous ring, and if they cannot bring themselves to do that, then at least to cultivate a twinkle in the eye when they haul it forth.

[Sociobiology]

They don't need you to sign anything. Taxation is a basic necessity for a government to function.

Yeah, I know that a government needs money to function. So what? Doesn't make the fact that it exists without your consent any less valid.

you choose to live in the state, that is consent.
It state has made it breathtakingly easy for you to leave, you consent by choosing to remain and thus continue to use state services.

[Sociobiology]

it exists in democratic states, no action in America is taken without representation of the people

Show me any contract that you signed that explicitly gave the state the power to take your earnings, decide the amount, and decide the means by which they are to do so, that you signed before becoming a citizen.

look down, see where your feet are?
look in your wallet, what currency are you paid in?
by using the services you consent to paying for them, there is no point to a contract because you are a citizen upon birth, long before you have to pay for any of it and long before you are capable of giving consent one way or the other, you are educated as to what will be required of you and you can leave at any time and thus stop accruing debt.

the fact people are not born with the ability to give consent means that some contracts will have to be implicit if you want those youngsters to have rights.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

it exists in democratic states, no action in America is taken without representation of the people

Show me any contract that you signed that explicitly gave the state the power to take your earnings, decide the amount, and decide the means by which they are to do so, that you signed before becoming a citizen.

Also, yes, actions are taken by the American government that go contrary to what the people want.

I live here, I pay my taxes because the representatives that I vote for help set them. There is no document that I have signed because I have birthright citizenship - you could consider my birth certificate my parents giving consent on my behalf, but I don't particularly want to show the internet my birth certificate.

[Lockean Georgeville]

Yeah, I know that a government needs money to function. So what? Doesn't make the fact that it exists without your consent any less valid.

you choose to live in the state, that is consent.
It state has made it breathtakingly easy for you to leave, you consent by choosing to remain and thus continue to use state services.

Except you can't leave. There is no stateless society you can live in.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

you choose to live in the state, that is consent.
It state has made it breathtakingly easy for you to leave, you consent by choosing to remain and thus continue to use state services.

Except you can't leave. There is no stateless society you can live in.

international waters, if you can afford to sit there permanently

[Lockean Georgeville]

Except you can't leave. There is no stateless society you can live in.

international waters, if you can afford to sit there permanently

And what about those who can't afford to sit there permanently? They are forced to live under the rule of a State.

[Skeckoa]

Exactly, any system based off of a Utopian society will fail because a utopian society cannot exist

In short: "Anarchism cannot exist because people are bad, so we need a government made up of good people (but wait, aren't people bad?) to rule over the rest"

If you think that people are bad, why would giving some bad people power be better?

In the second case, (all men are immoral), the State cannot be permitted to exist for one simple reason. The State, it is generally argued, must exist because there are evil people in the world who desire to inflict harm, and who can only be restrained through fear of State retribution (police, prisons etc). A corollary of this argument is that the less retribution these people fear, the more evil they will do. However, the State itself is not subject to any force, but is a law unto itself. Even in Western democracies, how many policemen and politicians go to jail? Thus if evil people wish to do harm but are only restrained by force, then society can never permit a State to exist, because evil people will immediately take control of that State, in order to do evil and avoid retribution. In a society of pure evil, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the evil intents of disparate groups.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

international waters, if you can afford to sit there permanently

And what about those who can't afford to sit there permanently? They are forced to live under the rule of a State.

Nobody's forcing them to live at all.

[Lockean Georgeville]

And what about those who can't afford to sit there permanently? They are forced to live under the rule of a State.

Nobody's forcing them to live at all.

So you must submit to the State or die? That's extremely authoritarian, don't you think?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Nobody's forcing them to live at all.

So you must submit to the State or die? That's extremely authoritarian, don't you think?

Unfortunately, even the weakest of states is more powerful than nothing - hence why every square inch of Earch is either owned by a state or is deemed "international property".
So, if you want to leave the influence of any state, yes, death is just about the only option you've got.

[Democratic Koyro]

So you must submit to the State or die? That's extremely authoritarian, don't you think?

Unfortunately, even the weakest of states is more powerful than nothing - hence why every square inch of Earch is either owned by a state or is deemed "international property"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nul ... ae_nullius

[Tamoi]

you choose to live in the state, that is consent.
It state has made it breathtakingly easy for you to leave, you consent by choosing to remain and thus continue to use state services.

Except you can't leave. There is no stateless society you can live in.

Precisely.
If we really were free to leave my friends and I wouldn't be jailed for living in the woods eating cattails. After all, they aren't eating them.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Unfortunately, even the weakest of states is more powerful than nothing - hence why every square inch of Earch is either owned by a state or is deemed "international property"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nul ... ae_nullius

I will rephrase, every habitable square inch - when there is land that a state doesn't want, that says something.

[Conserative Morality]

Precisely.
If we really were free to leave my friends and I wouldn't be jailed for living in the woods eating cattails. After all, they aren't eating them.

The 'freedom' to live in an anarchist state is like the 'freedom' to leech off society - it's pointless and immoral.

[Sociobiology]

you choose to live in the state, that is consent.
It state has made it breathtakingly easy for you to leave, you consent by choosing to remain and thus continue to use state services.

Except you can't leave. There is no stateless society you can live in.

so?
you can leave the state you are in at any time.
its not there problem if you can not find a contract that fits your standards.
I can't find an insurance plan for billions of dollars of death benefits for less than a dollar a year of premiums, that does not make all life insurance illegitimate.

[Sociobiology]

Except you can't leave. There is no stateless society you can live in.

Precisely.
If we really were free to leave my friends and I wouldn't be jailed for living in the woods eating cattails. After all, they aren't eating them.

leaving requires actually leaving, not just mooching.

[Skeckoa]

you choose to live in the state, that is consent. It state has made it breathtakingly easy for you to leave, you consent by choosing to remain and thus continue to use state services.

It is not "breathtakingly easy". It costs over $4,000 to do so (in America), and one of the prerequisites to renouncing citizenship is that you have no tax liabilities, meaning: it doesn't matter if you don't want citizenship, don't want the state's services, and are actively trying to renounce citizenship, the state still demands money from you.

look down, see where your feet are?look in your wallet, what currency are you paid in?by using the services you consent to paying for them, there is no point to a contract because you are a citizen upon birth, long before you have to pay for any of it and long before you are capable of giving consent one way or the other, you are educated as to what will be required of you and you can leave at any time and thus stop accruing debt.

That sounds a lot like a unilateral contract. One that the state agrees to, and then assumes that I will agree to. Leaving boils down to a few questions that I would love if you answered. Only the owner of a land has the final say on the rules of her property? Such rules include whether they should pay her for their time in her property. Does the state have legit ownership over all the land within its borders?

the fact people are not born with the ability to give consent means that some contracts will have to be implicit if you want those youngsters to have rights.

This also means that once they can give consent, they should have the option to opt-out. This is not granted, and asking them to leave is not a legit choice either since government doesn't own the land, and therefore does not have the right to tell me to pay for living on it.What right does the government have to impose unilateral contracts that other people do not have?

If all the citizens are citizens voluntarily then they should be able to voluntarily dissociate from the state without giving up their property. That is secede from the state.

[Sociobiology]

international waters, if you can afford to sit there permanently

And what about those who can't afford to sit there permanently? They are forced to live under the rule of a State.

yea life sucks you have to do things to stay alive, the universe is not fair nor free.

[Lockean Georgeville]

Except you can't leave. There is no stateless society you can live in.

so?
you can leave the state you are in at any time.
its not there problem if you can not find a contract that fits your standards.
I can't find an insurance plan for billions of dollars of death benefits for less than a dollar a year of premiums, that does not make all life insurance illegitimate.

But you do have the option of not buying life insurance. One does not have the option to not live under any state if they can't find a "social contact" that fits their standards.