Taxation is Coercion

[Dododecapod]

Private industry is perfectly able, and willing to provide these good and services.

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

[NswikiLeaks]

Oh jeez, this argument again.

Do you hate libraries? Do you hate education?

[Dododecapod]

Oh jeez, this argument again.

Do you hate libraries? Do you hate education?

Who and which argument are you referring to?

[Bendira]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

[Dododecapod]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

[Bendira]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

[Dododecapod]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Yes.

[Bendira]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Yes.

Well, there is a fundamental disagreement then. I think violence is wrong, and you think it is ok. And I feel like I should only be responsible for my own choices, and you think that you are responsible for everybody else's choices.

[Dododecapod]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Yes.

Well, there is a fundamental disagreement then. I think violence is wrong, and you think it is ok. And I feel like I should only be responsible for my own choices, and you think that you are responsible for everybody else's choices.

No, but I do think I have a certain level of responsibility towards other people within our mutually supportive and protective organization (read: nation). As to violence, or the threat thereof, you're right, I don't have any problem with it; coercive methods are necessary in all societies and socio-economic forms to maintain order and stability, save perhaps the pipe-dream of "true communism".

[Dyakovo]

Moving is not only not a good option, it's not even a valid one.

So it is impossible to emigrate?

It's exceptionally difficult to emigrate <SNIP>.

There's plenty of people who would disagree. I guess you're just not properly motivated.

Because you say so, makes it true.

The number of illegal immigrants to the US comes to mind as an example of people who don't find it to be, as you and Bendira claim, essentially impossible to emigrate...

What it really comes down to is you and all the other anarcho-capalists want to enjoy all the benefits of living in a civilised society without out having to pay any of the costs.

Incorrect. We're pointing out how being forced to pay for the costs, whether you use the benefits or not is theft, and how those benefits could alternatively be provided.

Except it isn't, and frankly I can't think of anything (services not specific instances) that you don't use/benefit from.

edit: fixed spelling and elaborated slightly

[Dyakovo]

Go read my rant a couple pages back on how the police actually prevent me from defending myself.

That's funny. Wrong and stupid, but funny.

[Bendira]

Go read my rant a couple pages back on how the police actually prevent me from defending myself.

That's funny. Wrong and stupid, but funny.

Oh, ok?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

Property rights are a necessary component to owning ones own body and actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with social contract theory in that regard, if my understanding of social contract theory is correct.

Incomplete answer at best.

You do not explain your theory of property rights, where they come from, or why they should be respected by others in modern society.

BTW, the reason I said "without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory" is that most "modern" theories of property rights ("modern" extending back to at least Thomas Hobbes) are part and parcel of a social contract philosophy.

(You also completely skipped the first 3-part question.)

I don't remember the first parts, I will go back and try to answer them. Most likely I didn't feel they were anything not already discussed here.

The theory of social contract, from what I can gather, is the idea that you don't completely own your own body. Its the idea that society has partial ownership of your body. I personally am against slavery, and believe that we all are in complete ownership of our own bodies.

Now the reason why land ownership would have nothing to do with social contract, and actually completelythe opposite, is that without land ownership, we do not own ourselves. For instance, I own my own thoughts and actions. If I am on land that I own, and I own all of my possessions on that land, I am free to use those possessions to voice my opinion, my own thoughts and commit whatever actions I wish. However, if I am on your land, and I begin espousing neo nazi bigoted anti-semetic rants, you have the right to remove me from your property. But why? Technically I own my own thoughts and actions correct? Well, the only way I can truly fully own my own thoughts and actions, and openly display them is if the land below me is owned by my. This seems to have absoltuely nothing to do with social contract (from my understanding of social contract).

Some of the following may sound insulting or condescending. It is NOT intended that way. Try to read it for what it says.

1. You haven't studied any (or much) political philosophy, have you? Not Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Rawls, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, or even the Declaration of Independence and other works of the Founders of the U.S. Republic. Have you even studied libertarian/capitalist philosophers like Adam Smith, Robert Nozick, Frederick von Hayek, and Murray Rothbard?

2. You aren't really answering the question -- because, I think you don't understand it. You just keep begging the question that you "must" own yourself and therefore own things and land. You don't address at all why any other entity should respect this "ownership."

3. You honestly don't seem to understand how the philosophy of property rights developed and on what basis property rights are usually said to exist. Instead, you take their existence and universal recognition as a given.

4. Setting aside that I don't think your characterization of social contract theory is accurate only any level of any majory social contract theory, you clearly don't understand that there are many different versions of social contract theory. Some wholly theoretical, some allegedly quasi-historical. Most importantly, most social contract theories come from the same philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, etc) that believe in natural human rights including property rights. They recognize, however, that not everyone will recognize and respect everyone else's rights. Thus, existence without government (or "the state of nature") is a state of war and we form government to protect our liberty:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (emphasis added)

-- Declaration of Independence

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

--James Madison, Federalist No. 51(emphasis added).

5. John Locke, whose philosophy of natural rights most inspired the Founders of the United States, explained this connection between such rights (including property rights) and the formation of the social contract in his Second Treatise of Government:

Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
...
Sec. 127. Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of nature, being but in an ill condition, while they remain in it, are quickly driven into society. Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to, by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing, to be exercised by such alone, as shall be appointed to it amongst them; and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on. And in this we have the original right and rise of both the legislative and executive power, as well as of the governments and societies themselves.

Moreover, in explaining the legitimate and necessary powers of government, Locke specifically included the power to tax -- based on consent of the majority or its representives. See, e.g.,

Sec. 140. It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?

This is why I quoted Adam Smith and others earlier. The "philosopher-kings" (so to speak) of property rights including not only Hobbes, Locke, and Smith, but also libertarians like Milton Friedman and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek, all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate and even necessary to protect property rights. This makes it rather mind-boggling that several of you say all "taxation is theft."

If you want to have a debate by proxy, where we talk through historical figures, I suppose I can do that.

If you wish to casually dismiss all political philosophy, the accumulated wisdom of human history, and all ethical philosophy as merely irrelevant "debate by proxy" when discussing a question of poltical philosophy using terms and ideas derived from this history, philosophy, and ethics, then there is little point discussing the question with you at all.

You know not about which you speak and you are proud of it. Fine. Wallow in ignorance.

I am curious as to how you define (let alone justify the existence or rightness/wrongness of) rights, property, coercion, violence, theft, ownership, etc. without reference to philosophy, ethics, or history. But only in the same way I am curious to see whether my cat will fall off the top of bookcase where she is precariously perched.

"Property Rights and "Human Rights"
Liberals will generally concede the right of every individual to his "personal liberty," to his freedom to think, speak, write, and engage in such personal "exchanges" as sexual activity between "consenting adults." In short, the liberal attempts to uphold the individual's right to the ownership of his own body, but then denies his right to "property," i.e., to the ownership of material objects. Hence, the typical liberal dichotomy between "human rights," which he upholds, and "property rights," which he rejects. Yet the two, according to the libertarian, are inextricably intertwined; they stand or fall together.

Take, for example, the liberal socialist who advocates government ownership of all the "means of production" while upholding the "human" right of freedom of speech or press. How is this "human" right to be exercised if the individuals constituting the public are denied their right to ownership of property? If, for example, the government owns all the newsprint and all the printing shops, how is the right to a free press to be exercised? If the government owns all the newsprint, it then necessarily has the right and the power to allocate that newsprint, and someone's "right to a free press" becomes a mockery if the government decides not to allocate newsprint in his direction. And since the government must allocate scarce newsprint in some way, the right to a free press of, say, minorities or "subversive" antisocialists will get short shrift indeed. The same is true for the "right to free speech" if the government owns all the assembly halls, and therefore allocates those halls as it sees fit. Or, for example, if the government of Soviet Russia, being atheistic, decides not to allocate many scarce resources to the production of matzohs, for Orthodox Jews the "freedom of religion" becomes a mockery; but again, the Soviet government can always rebut that Orthodox Jews are a small minority and that capital equipment should not be diverted to matzoh production.

The basic flaw in the liberal separation of "human rights" and "property rights" is that people are treated as ethereal abstractions. If a man [p. 43] has the right to self-ownership, to the control of his life, then in the real world he must also have the right to sustain his life by grappling with and transforming resources; he must be able to own the ground and the resources on which he stands and which he must use. In short, to sustain his "human right" — or his property rights in his own person — he must also have the property right in the material world, in the objects which he produces. Property rights are human rights, and are essential to the human rights which liberals attempt to maintain. The human right of a free press depends upon the human right of private property in newsprint.

In fact, there are no human rights that are separable from property rights. The human right of free speech is simply the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, or to own one oneself; the human right of a free press is the property right to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and to sell them to those who are willing to buy. There is no extra "right of free speech" or free press beyond the property rights we can enumerate in any given case. And furthermore, discovering and identifying the property rights involved will resolve any apparent conflicts of rights that may crop up."

By Murray Rothbard in The Libertarian Manifesto (Rothbard being one of the land ownership philosophers that I supposibly have no knowledge about).

This point of view tends to conflict with the idea that from the moment we are born, we sign a contract enslaving ourselves to society.

1. Actually, I guessed you had little or no knowledge of political philosophy in general, including a number of named philosophers and then asked (without assuming either way) if you had "even studied libertarian/capitalist philosophers like Adam Smith, Robert Nozick, Frederick von Hayek, and Murray Rothbard?" Although Rothbard is scraping the bottom of the barrel, if you have actually read his work that is at least a step towards educating yourself.

2. Nothing in the passage you quote is particularly relevant. It doesn't explain where rights come from or why they must be respected. It simply (and disingenuously) chides liberals for allegedly denying property rights while recognizing other rights. Nor does anything in that passage saying anything about taxes or taxation being theft. Having read Murray N. Rothbard's For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (links found here), I will admit, however, he does say the last repeatedly. Of course, he is wrong and his Manifesto is full of historical and philosophical errors.

3. Contrary to your assertion (which is mostly an argument from ignorance), nothing in the above passage contradicts the possibility of a social contract -- either theoretical or historical. Even looking to Rothbard's Manifesto as whole, you find little real argument against social contract theory. He argues (rather shortly and shallowly) that governments didn't actually historically arise from voluntary contracts, but most social contract theorists would agree that it isn't an anthropological or historical truth, but a philosophical construct.

[Xomic]

Thank you for playing, but devil's advocacy isn't going to be helpful here. Regardless:

1. Not responsive and silly. Anytime reality is "unfair," you are a victim of "theft" because your options are not ideal and therefore your choices are "coerced"?

*shrugs* No idea. I'm really not sure what exactly this side is trying to say with the whole thing- it's obvious that people have a choice to stay or go, yet somehow they don't see it as such.

Perhaps what they're trying to say is, when a choice is put before you by a higher authority, like a government, or a man with a gun, unless the choices are reasonably equal in cost to you, then you're being coerced to select the opinion that the high authority wants you to pick, thus you don't really have free will... or something.

2. Begs the question of why one owns whatever one produces. Also raises a host of questions: Where does the wood carver get the wood, the tools, etc? What keeps the farmer or anyone else from just taking the carving? Etc, etc.

Well, the farmer can't take his skill from him... I guess. (This of course ignores the fact that in a state of nature, you can't be a specialist like a wood carver, you have to do everything. It's only when in a group, with *gasp!* a government of some sort, (Even if it's just a single leader-type person) that people can really begin to specialize.)

As for the question of why someone owns whatever the produce; if you put your labor into something, then what you produce is the physical representation of it.

[Bendira]

1. Actually, I guessed you had little or no knowledge of political philosophy in general, including a number of named philosophers and then asked (without assuming either way) if you had "even studied libertarian/capitalist philosophers like Adam Smith, Robert Nozick, Frederick von Hayek, and Murray Rothbard?" Although Rothbard is scraping the bottom of the barrel, if you have actually read his work that is at least a step towards educating yourself.

Ok

2. Nothing in the passage you quote is particularly relevant. It doesn't explain where rights come from or why they must be respected. It simply (and disingenuously) chides liberals for allegedly denying property rights while recognizing other rights. Nor does anything in that passage saying anything about taxes or taxation being theft. Having read Murray N. Rothbard's For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (links found here), I will admit, however, he does say the last repeatedly. Of course, he is wrong and his Manifesto is full of historical and philosophical errors.

Except for the fact that self ownership is part of libertarian theory. And property rights are intertwined with self ownership. And a social contract would suggest that I do not own myself, because I have a responsibility to society. Which is a form of slavery, violence and coercion. Because I am forced into signing a contract at birth that I did not voluntarily agree to. In the same way that it is a ridiculous idea that I am born evil, and I am responsible for this infinitely wise philosophers death (jesus). Social contract theory seems to be some sort of coercive philosophy that uses the same logic as religion. Nothing in that passage says taxes are wrong or taxes are theft, because thats not why I linked it here. You are asserting this idea of enslavement to a social contract, and that ifI believe in property ownership, I somehow believe in enslavement to society. This is of course false, as I have proven when I linked this clearly stating an alternative position to the social contract theory of societal enslavement. Not only that, but it disproves your assertion that there are no land ownership theories that are void of coercive slavery requirements.

3. Contrary to your assertion (which is mostly an argument from ignorance), nothing in the above passage contradicts the possibility of a social contract -- either theoretical or historical. Even looking to Rothbard's Manifesto as whole, you find little real argument against social contract theory. He argues (rather shortly and shallowly) that governments didn't actually historically arise from voluntary contracts, but most social contract theorists would agree that it isn't an anthropological or historical truth, but a philosophical construct.

You are right to say that I don't know much about social contract theory, in terms of its history etc. But it is clearly violent coercive slavery. I don't mean offense, but you strike me as a sort of a yuppie liberal that would prefer to debate philosophy for just the fun of sounding intelligent. Its true that I may not be able to cite as sophisticated sources as you are, but if you boil your argument down to its most fundamental level, it still wouldn't suggest that taxation is anything other than violent coercion. The only way that you could win a debate like this, is to discredit me by pointing out my unfamiliarity with whatever concepts you are espousing. But that dosn't make you right. Simply pointing to respected figures throughout history, and saying "See, they agree with me!" does not make your argument right. And confusing your opponent in a debate with convoluted arguments that could just as easily be made in a more straight forward manner seems a bit dishonest. If you want me to admit that you have a better lack of philosophy from a historical viewpoint, then I would be glad to cede you that. But it still dosn't get you anywhere closer to proving to me that taxation is anything but violent coercion.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. Actually, I guessed you had little or no knowledge of political philosophy in general, including a number of named philosophers and then asked (without assuming either way) if you had "even studied libertarian/capitalist philosophers like Adam Smith, Robert Nozick, Frederick von Hayek, and Murray Rothbard?" Although Rothbard is scraping the bottom of the barrel, if you have actually read his work that is at least a step towards educating yourself.

Ok

2. Nothing in the passage you quote is particularly relevant. It doesn't explain where rights come from or why they must be respected. It simply (and disingenuously) chides liberals for allegedly denying property rights while recognizing other rights. Nor does anything in that passage saying anything about taxes or taxation being theft. Having read Murray N. Rothbard's For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (links found here), I will admit, however, he does say the last repeatedly. Of course, he is wrong and his Manifesto is full of historical and philosophical errors.

Except for the fact that self ownership is part of libertarian theory. And property rights are intertwined with self ownership. And a social contract would suggest that I do not own myself, because I have a responsibility to society. Which is a form of slavery, violence and coercion. Because I am forced into signing a contract at birth that I did not voluntarily agree to. In the same way that it is a ridiculous idea that I am born evil, and I am responsible for this infinitely wise philosophers death (jesus). Social contract theory seems to be some sort of coercive philosophy that uses the same logic as religion. Nothing in that passage says taxes are wrong or taxes are theft, because thats not why I linked it here. You are asserting this idea of enslavement to a social contract, and that ifI believe in property ownership, I somehow believe in enslavement to society. This is of course false, as I have proven when I linked this clearly stating an alternative position to the social contract theory of societal enslavement. Not only that, but it disproves your assertion that there are no land ownership theories that are void of coercive slavery requirements.

3. Contrary to your assertion (which is mostly an argument from ignorance), nothing in the above passage contradicts the possibility of a social contract -- either theoretical or historical. Even looking to Rothbard's Manifesto as whole, you find little real argument against social contract theory. He argues (rather shortly and shallowly) that governments didn't actually historically arise from voluntary contracts, but most social contract theorists would agree that it isn't an anthropological or historical truth, but a philosophical construct.

You are right to say that I don't know much about social contract theory, in terms of its history etc. But it is clearly violent coercive slavery. I don't mean offense, but you strike me as a sort of a yuppie liberal that would prefer to debate philosophy for just the fun of sounding intelligent. Its true that I may not be able to cite as sophisticated sources as you are, but if you boil your argument down to its most fundamental level, it still wouldn't suggest that taxation is anything other than violent coercion. The only way that you could win a debate like this, is to discredit me by pointing out my unfamiliarity with whatever concepts you are espousing. But that dosn't make you right. Simply pointing to respected figures throughout history, and saying "See, they agree with me!" does not make your argument right. And confusing your opponent in a debate with convoluted arguments that could just as easily be made in a more straight forward manner seems a bit dishonest. If you want me to admit that you have a better lack of philosophy from a historical viewpoint, then I would be glad to cede you that. But it still dosn't get you anywhere closer to proving to me that taxation is anything but violent coercion.

Okey, dokey. There is no point discussing social contract theory with you, as you don't understand it, don't want to understand it, and consider even referring to it a dishonest trick.

I should abandon trying to discuss this question at all with someone that simply repeats certain concepts as dogma without understanding what those concepts mean or the logical consequences of those concepts.

But, let's try to make this as simple as possible:

1. Not that I disagree with self-ownership, but explain why you have a right to it and why others must respect it.

2. Why should I respect your alleged "ownership" or "property right" to anything other than your own body? If I want something you claim, why shouldn't I just take it? What stops me?

3. How do you come to own land? What gives you the right to declare a portion of the earth yours? What gives you powers over it? How are these enforced?

4. Why is coercion wrong? When is a choice coerced and when is not? Is a choice coerced merely because it is not "fair" or between equally desirable outcomes?

5. What is slavery? What makes it wrong? Is it slavery anytime circumstances make you do something you would rather not do?

6. Is there any role or need for government whatsoever? My understanding is that you would agree there is and strongly disagree with anarchy. How then is government formed? Where does it come from? What is it rightful basis of authority? How do you distinguish legitimate government action from "violent coercion'?

Not to re-open old wounds, but the reason I referred to past philosophers is that humankind has struggled with these (and related questions) throughout history and some are considered to have made greater insight into these questions than others. I was trying to look out from the shoulders of these giants. But we can start from scratch. Just answer the simple questions above.

EDIT: Despite my harsh words earlier, Bendira, I do appreciate and admire that you have at least attempted to answer some of my questions and engage in dialogue. I wish the same could be said for others arguing that "taxation is theft."

[Soheran]

This point of view tends to conflict with the idea that from the moment we are born, we sign a contract enslaving ourselves to society.

"This point of view" is also profoundly silly. There are two major problems with it.

1. Let us grant arguendo his view of socialism. What does it have to do with, e.g., a welfare state? It is one thing to say that the government owning the means of production poses problems for the freedom of the press; it is quite another to say that taxation to support social spending does. We can, and do, have extensive freedom of speech and expression despite also having a large government budget. The redistribution of wealth has no bearing on expressive liberty.

2. Of course, his view of socialism is wrong too. He engages in a standard libertarian trick of applying a double standard to different ownership systems. Freedom of speech is supposed to be infringed because you have to get the government to agree for you to publish something--but exactly the same thing is true in a capitalist society, only you're not seeking the permission of the government, but just the permission of the owner of capital. Freedom of speech requires, on no view, personal ownership of means of publication such that you have total discretion over when, how, and what to publish. What freedom of speech would entail in a socialist society is that the standards and terms the government sets for use of and access to its means of expression not be speech-suppressive--just as the regulatory powers it already has may not be speech-suppressive, just as the property system it presently legislates and enforces (which certainly materially interferes with people's capacity to express themselves---e.g. graffiti prohibitions) does not somehow imply that we live in a censorship-laden society.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

2. Why should I respect your alleged "ownership" or "property right" to anything other than your own body? If I want something you claim, why shouldn't I just take it? What stops me?

3. How do you come to own land? What gives you the right to declare a portion of the earth yours? What gives you powers over it? How are these enforced?

Maybe you'll have these questions answered after another 1000 posts.

[The Cat-Tribe]

2. Why should I respect your alleged "ownership" or "property right" to anything other than your own body? If I want something you claim, why shouldn't I just take it? What stops me?

3. How do you come to own land? What gives you the right to declare a portion of the earth yours? What gives you powers over it? How are these enforced?

Maybe you'll have these questions answered after another 1000 posts.

Naw. I've been asking variations of these same questions every time this meme has come up and the "taxation is theft" worshippers never answer.

[Sungai Pusat]

Well, I know that.

Know it from where? Where did you read it, or was it a Road to Damascus type thing?

Just do the maths and you'd get why people would prefer privatised services over public ones: Because it is more cheaper and since the class size is smaller, it is bound to be more efficient.

People already have actual privatised services, and I have shown many examples where people do not "prefer" them. All you have shown so far, is your personal hypothesis is that people "would" prefer them (this must make you psychic, as it's not even "might"), even though most people don't prefer it now, and haven't done ever since the whole privateering thing first took off.

I am refering to cost. If people see the amount of actual cost per student right now, they would be wanting the privatised services a heck of a lot more as it is cheaper and a smaller class size means better efficiency.

[Sungai Pusat]

eh, it's not theft if you agree to it. Unfortunately, there's not many options to not agree to it anymore- anybody know of somewhere you can live where you don't have to be taxed? I suppose in the sense that there's virtually no where to live that isn't governed, so you can't really be free, it is a sort of enslavement.
It's also sort of like saying that a parent making their kid do the dishes is enslaving them. I mean, you're getting something for your taxes- firemen, for one thing. And an army that sometimes does horrible things you don't agree with, but also is there to keep horrible things you don't agree with from happening to you. And welfare so you'll never starve and you don't have to die of a curable disease. So it's not really theft because you're paying for a service, albeit begrudgingly and out of fear of imprisonment.
And anyway you do have some choices, at least in a democratic govt, you can try and elect someone who will lower taxes for example. So there's an element of theft I suppose but it'd be disingenuous to call it out-and-out theft.

Actualy, it isn't. Taking money forcefully from the people is already theft. And even though you get something, it would be much simpler just to pay them when you need the service.

Services among which many wouldn't exist without group need. Or without some other profit motive for the company. You know who is going to pave a road out into the sticks to your house? No god damn one.

Yeah, profit is not good. It is actually nessecary. That s because when there is some money left over, it means to tell your company: "Hey, I am not overspending!" Are you saying that only companies have a profit motive? What about the rest of us? We sure want to have all we want to be used and spent using our own money, but we need some leftover or else we'd just overspend. And the only reason that many people are left behind on living, sa if I have a house built somewhere far is because I choose to. The government also sees it wasted as well if I am the only onw living around for miles and hey just build some road there. Like you said: No god damn one person is going to build a road into the sticks to my house. Not even the government. If you want to state your arguement for the government, at least base it on supporting the government's taxation and services. And besides, since the government would lose voters support by having a surplus for the future, they have to overspend slightly to make the people happy. If not, they will be 'charged' like you said for having a profit motive. Oh wait! Everyone has a profit motive, like I explained! Everyone's gonna have some leftover of their earned income.

[Brickistan]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Right, let’s force the farmers, miners, lumber jacks, oil workers, fishers, and indeed everybody else whose job takes them away from major cities and force them to move to the city. Never mind that we need their services out there in the middle of nowhere and that we need to transport the goods they produce into the cities.

You’re “forced” to pay for the infrastructure that allows people to live in the middel of nowhere because it’s vital to society as a whole...

[Great Nepal]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Right, let’s force the farmers, miners, lumber jacks, oil workers, fishers, and indeed everybody else whose job takes them away from major cities and force them to move to the city. Never mind that we need their services out there in the middle of nowhere and that we need to transport the goods they produce into the cities.

You’re “forced” to pay for the infrastructure that allows people to live in the middel of nowhere because it’s vital to society as a whole...

Not to mention, if all of them come inside the cities, traffic jams in M25 will triple, houses price and rents in cities will rocket and 99.98% people wont be able to afford it and when people go to park, they will see people sleeping in benches.

[DaWoad]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Right, let’s force the farmers, miners, lumber jacks, oil workers, fishers, and indeed everybody else whose job takes them away from major cities and force them to move to the city. Never mind that we need their services out there in the middle of nowhere and that we need to transport the goods they produce into the cities.

You’re “forced” to pay for the infrastructure that allows people to live in the middel of nowhere because it’s vital to society as a whole...

society nothing, it's vital to humanity as a whole.

[Great Nepal]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Right, let’s force the farmers, miners, lumber jacks, oil workers, fishers, and indeed everybody else whose job takes them away from major cities and force them to move to the city. Never mind that we need their services out there in the middle of nowhere and that we need to transport the goods they produce into the cities.

You’re “forced” to pay for the infrastructure that allows people to live in the middel of nowhere because it’s vital to society as a whole...

society nothing, it's vital to humanity as a whole.

Humanity exists due to society.