Taxation is Coercion

[DaWoad]

Massive logic fail. Both would go down. Or did you miss the part where I said legalizing drug decreases drug use. How the fuck is drug related crime going to go up, when use goes down?

Does it? I was almost certain alcohol use went up after prohibition (though alcohol related crime certainly dropped like a rock)?

also I didn't miss the part where you said it, I missed the part where what you say is always true.

[DaWoad]

Why are you ignoring my statist problems question?

sorry thought I covered it, where is it?

Oh. Denying failure and any of it's problems is your solution. That's so... statist.

I apologized and asked nicely for you to point out what i'd missed. How does that translate to " Denying failure and any of it's problems is your solution."?

The state uses taxes to solve it's problems. It's a digression because continuing the mortgage, restaurant, nation thing is insanity.

You don't know of any problems the state is attempting to solve without success? A depression? In normal times, poverty?

And that's why I ask how much is enough. Because $4 trillion is obviously not enough. You need more. Here's a clue for you DaWoad, throwing money at the problem, doesn't make it go away.

What problem, specifically are we talking about?
Some problems certainly can be solved by throwing money at them, maintaining roads for example or building bridges (alongside a system for hiring engineers blah de blah de blah).
Other problems are inherit to human nature (crime, diseases, etc.) but there are very certainly "statist" solutions (public Police, public health care, social services,etc.)
Other problems are state driven issues (social programs vs. spending cuts, protectionism vs. free trade, the current financial crisis) and are solved in different ways by different political ideologies (government spending to create jobs and circulate money vs. trickle down economics or tax cuts to incentive's hiring or deregulation vs. tighter regulation depending on who's "fault" you view the situation as being.)
Finally some problems are universal. Fewer resources and more people, climate change, natural disasters etc. etc. etc. and these have solutions that are less reliant on stateism or liberalism(/libertarianism/anarchism/minarchism etc.) and more reliant on science/technology/engineering/etc.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Taxation is theft in much the same way that family is oppressive collectivist dictatorship (except that a much more rational case can be made for the latter).

No response?

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snip*

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

If you agree that the government can do no harm, you have to say that Hitler was completely justified in all of his actions while the Dictator of Germany.

Sure. That is clearly what I said -- almost word for word. I clearly believe that every "government" or "power" that has ever been used throughout history has been essentially the same, 100% legitimate, and unquestionable. Nothing any government ever has or will do should ever be questioned. Glad you made that clear for those who may have missed it in my post.

EDIT: And Adam Smith, John Locke, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and all past and current members of SCOTUS feel or felt exactly the same.

You say the government defines theft, and defines the taxation as not being a crime, correct?

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Where did I say anything even resembling that in my post?

How is that responsive to the points I did actually make in my post?

Are you so caught up repeating mantras that you can't think of anything else?

Cat, I get really annoyed when people quote Adam Smith and think that it is the end all be all of the argument. It is true that Adam Smith was one of the many "founding fathers" of capitalism, but the word capitalism does not need to be directly associated with him. Just as I could talk about Transcendentalism seperate from Emerson or Thoureau as a phenomenon, and not in reference to Emerson or Thoreau's works specifically.

You are correct that Theft technically is a legal term that the government defines. So technically, if you want to argue semantics, you are absolutely correct that taxation is not theft. This is something that I have realized from this debate. However, taxation is theft without the legal connotation. If I want to reword it and skip the semantic arguments, I would say that taxation is violent coersion.

The idea that I have to accept the institutions the government provides is ridiculous, especially since I don't use many of them, or I feel that a hypothetical privatization of the service would result in a better outcome. For instance, I walk to work and walk to most places around town. Yet my taxes go to pay for maintenance of the roads. Another example is when the police arrest me for a law I don't agree with. I pay for this mans salary, and I have no choice but to pay him, and if I break a law that is supposibly mandated by society, I have my liberty taken away and I am thrown in jail.

I get really annoyed when someone's position is so intellectual bankrupt that they can only defend it by (1) ignoring actual counter-arguments, (2) attack strawmen instead, and (3) resort (however mildly) to personal attacks on opponents.

1. I never said, implied, etc., that Adam Smith's view on the matter ended all discussion. I merely said it was "food for thought." One strawman down.

2. I did not make the "legal" or "semantic" argument to which you object. You are correct that you would lose by either standard and your choice of the word "theft" is deliberately deceptive hyperbole, but, AS I SAID ORIGINALLY, your ethical argument is also without merit. Another strawman down.

3. There are many reasons why your final argument is wrong, beyond it also being essentially an attack on a strawman. Unless you can make a convincing ethical AND realistic argument that (1) there should be no government or (2) what government should or must exist can be wholly funded without any form of taxation, it is irrelevant that you may object to or reject some things on which a government would spend some tax money.

4. There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

I won't be holding my breath, but won't one of you at least try to answer the two points raised above?

Waiting, waiting, waiting .... rawhide!

Other than Bendira's answer of a related post (but not this one), no response?

[The Cat-Tribe]

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Tax money isn't someone's rightful thing.

Tell us, why is that, Jello?

Because the social contract says that it isn't.
If you wish to argue that one ought to have the right to not pay taxes, then that's a separate argument. Appealing to rights in making your argument would be circular and therefore pointless, so I'd advise you against it.

Do you honestly think any of this is true, or are you joking with every single point? We've proven the Social Contract is a lie, and the massive problems with the Social Contract, and the reasoning why the Social Contract is never legitimate; and you still stick with it as to never to try to see that your wrong on the subject. If there's one more circular argument on the planet greater and abused more than than the Creationist's Argument about the Bible and God:

*snip*
it's your argument about the Social Contract. Let me question you, if you believe the Social Contract to be a Divine un-written, Holiest Document ever written, let me ask you, where does it originate from?

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

I could deem all of Jello Biafra's funds "tax money" to myself... then he doesn't have a right to it?

If you are the one who enforces the social contract...yes.

Now all we have to do is re-write the 'Social Contract' to state that Jello is now to have all his family killed, his house torched in front of him, he shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while be forced to be as miserable as possible all the time.

The notion of a contract indicates consent. Of course, most social contracts do not require unanimity, so you could probably get that through without my consent.
Of course, it's doubtful that most people would agree to this, since they could easily be next.

No, you have no consent in the Social Contract; the consent is given by you existing in society. So you've agreed to have all your family killed, your house torched in front of yourself, you shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while you are being forced to be as miserable as possible all the time. And we have all 'democratically' voted to do all of these things to you, so it's all completely legitimate, correct?

Jello, that doesn't make sense. "Tax money" isn't some magical object that you're paid so you can send it to the government. "Tax money" is 50% of YOUR PROPERTY that the government holds a gun up to your head for.

No, it's the government's property that it collects via legal channels.

Ha!; no, it's not the Mafia's, not by a long-shot.

True. The government is not the mafia.

Noting that, our friend Jello here is an avid supporter of mob rule, even if, say, it involves destroying the environment, I can't see why he'd try to argue that the government is in fact different from the Mafia; perplexing arguments.

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Because it's part of being a citizen. You also have the right to work toward changes that would bring the country into line with your vision of how it should work. Are you doing that, or are you just coming here and playing the Internet "You're Not The Boss Of Me" Libertarian Tough Guy?

What?

Why does my being a citizen because I was born in the United States mean that the government has the right to steal my lunch money, and, if I don't pay, shove me in a locker for the rest of my life?

because they give you services, services that they have to pay with tax money. You can, of course, decide not to pay but that means 1 of three things. 1) stop using the services they provide, 2)change the system or 3)Don't pay and accept the consequences

Argument fail on the grounds of a lack of a mutually agreed to transaction.

No, it really doesn't. By living in the society you are agreeing to it.

There is no other choice though.

Move to a deserted island somewhere where there are no other people.

Let me sum up and correct everything in this: You don't give consent by living in society; you where born in society. Neither can you justify any point by saying : "Move to a Desert Island" because I am a Libertarian, and

I must point out that "if you don't like it, then get the fuck out" has never seriously been a good argument.

The only difference between Hyde and myself in this scenario is that I am a Libertarian.

True, it is a bad argument. Kind of like when one complains about one's employer, it's a bad argument to say "you should find another job."

I must have precognition, because I knew I would have to answer this question: Different entirely; while the employer perhaps 'should' not use this as an argument; they can use this argument, as the decision to be employed is a consensual decision; the decision to be governed is not a consensual argument between people and leaders; thus that in and of itself is a reasoning against the argument that "If you don't like the country, you should just leave", while it is a legitimate argument to saying that if you do not like your employment; the fact that business is legitimate and government is not is just the cherry on the top of the cake.

Could you please point out for where and when exactly you (and whomever) proved (1) the Social Contract is a lie, (2) the massive problems with the Social Contract, and (3) why the Social Contract is never legitimate?

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?

Waiting, waiting, waiting ... rawhide!

Other than Bendira, no response?

[Grave_n_idle]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

Don't want to use the services? Don't live in that country, otherwise you're eating the food without intending to pay.

the GTFO argument fails.

It's your argument. You're being forced to use the military, the police, etc. Against your will. And then they make you pay.

Turns out, you're NOT actually being forced. You can opt out. Buh-bye now.

[Jello Biafra]

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Tax money isn't someone's rightful thing.

Tell us, why is that, Jello?

Because the social contract says that it isn't.
If you wish to argue that one ought to have the right to not pay taxes, then that's a separate argument. Appealing to rights in making your argument would be circular and therefore pointless, so I'd advise you against it.

Do you honestly think any of this is true, or are you joking with every single point? We've proven the Social Contract is a lie, and the massive problems with the Social Contract, and the reasoning why the Social Contract is never legitimate; and you still stick with it as to never to try to see that your wrong on the subject. If there's one more circular argument on the planet greater and abused more than than the Creationist's Argument about the Bible and God:

/snip picture

or this argument:

/snip picture

it's your argument about the Social Contract. Let me question you, if you believe the Social Contract to be a Divine un-written, Holiest Document ever written, let me ask you, where does it originate from?

I don't believe it's divine and holy, and certainly not unwritten. Most constitutions are written. The United States Constitution, for instance, originated as the result of the Constitutional Congress writing it and then elected representatives of the States ratifying it.

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

I could deem all of Jello Biafra's funds "tax money" to myself... then he doesn't have a right to it?

If you are the one who enforces the social contract...yes.

Now all we have to do is re-write the 'Social Contract' to state that Jello is now to have all his family killed, his house torched in front of him, he shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while be forced to be as miserable as possible all the time.

The notion of a contract indicates consent. Of course, most social contracts do not require unanimity, so you could probably get that through without my consent.
Of course, it's doubtful that most people would agree to this, since they could easily be next.

No, you have no consent in the Social Contract; the consent is given by you existing in society. So you've agreed to have all your family killed, your house torched in front of yourself, you shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while you are being forced to be as miserable as possible all the time. And we have all 'democratically' voted to do all of these things to you, so it's all completely legitimate, correct?

It would be legitimate if such a provision is included within the social contract. However, it is unlikely that people, when ratifying the contract, would consent to such a provision.

Jello, that doesn't make sense. "Tax money" isn't some magical object that you're paid so you can send it to the government. "Tax money" is 50% of YOUR PROPERTY that the government holds a gun up to your head for.

No, it's the government's property that it collects via legal channels.

Ha!; no, it's not the Mafia's, not by a long-shot.

True. The government is not the mafia.

Noting that, our friend Jello here is an avid supporter of mob rule, even if, say, it involves destroying the environment, I can't see why he'd try to argue that the government is in fact different from the Mafia; perplexing arguments.

Because the Mafia violates people's rights. The government cannot do so, unless the government (or the social contract) says that it did.

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Because it's part of being a citizen. You also have the right to work toward changes that would bring the country into line with your vision of how it should work. Are you doing that, or are you just coming here and playing the Internet "You're Not The Boss Of Me" Libertarian Tough Guy?

What?

Why does my being a citizen because I was born in the United States mean that the government has the right to steal my lunch money, and, if I don't pay, shove me in a locker for the rest of my life?

because they give you services, services that they have to pay with tax money. You can, of course, decide not to pay but that means 1 of three things. 1) stop using the services they provide, 2)change the system or 3)Don't pay and accept the consequences

Argument fail on the grounds of a lack of a mutually agreed to transaction.

No, it really doesn't. By living in the society you are agreeing to it.

There is no other choice though.

Move to a deserted island somewhere where there are no other people.

Let me sum up and correct everything in this: You don't give consent by living in society; you where born in society. Neither can you justify any point by saying : "Move to a Desert Island" because I am a Libertarian, and

I must point out that "if you don't like it, then get the fuck out" has never seriously been a good argument.

The only difference between Hyde and myself in this scenario is that I am a Libertarian.

True, it is a bad argument. Kind of like when one complains about one's employer, it's a bad argument to say "you should find another job."

I must have precognition, because I knew I would have to answer this question: Different entirely; while the employer perhaps 'should' not use this as an argument; they can use this argument, as the decision to be employed is a consensual decision; the decision to be governed is not a consensual argument between people and leaders; thus that in and of itself is a reasoning against the argument that "If you don't like the country, you should just leave", while it is a legitimate argument to saying that if you do not like your employment; the fact that business is legitimate and government is not is just the cherry on the top of the cake.

Just the opposite - government is legitimate (at least, it can be), but business is not.

[Sibirsky]

Massive logic fail. Both would go down. Or did you miss the part where I said legalizing drug decreases drug use. How the fuck is drug related crime going to go up, when use goes down?

Does it? I was almost certain alcohol use went up after prohibition (though alcohol related crime certainly dropped like a rock)?

also I didn't miss the part where you said it, I missed the part where what you say is always true.

You're talking about a socially acceptable beverage, that was used for thousands of years prior to prohibition.

Look at Portugal.

Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... z0xoi1aLyb

[Sibirsky]

Why are you ignoring my statist problems question?

sorry thought I covered it, where is it?

Oh. Denying failure and any of it's problems is your solution. That's so... statist.

I apologized and asked nicely for you to point out what i'd missed. How does that translate to " Denying failure and any of it's problems is your solution."?

The state uses taxes to solve it's problems. It's a digression because continuing the mortgage, restaurant, nation thing is insanity.

You don't know of any problems the state is attempting to solve without success? A depression? In normal times, poverty?

And that's why I ask how much is enough. Because $4 trillion is obviously not enough. You need more. Here's a clue for you DaWoad, throwing money at the problem, doesn't make it go away.

What problem, specifically are we talking about?
Some problems certainly can be solved by throwing money at them, maintaining roads for example or building bridges (alongside a system for hiring engineers blah de blah de blah).
Other problems are inherit to human nature (crime, diseases, etc.) but there are very certainly "statist" solutions (public Police, public health care, social services,etc.)
Other problems are state driven issues (social programs vs. spending cuts, protectionism vs. free trade, the current financial crisis) and are solved in different ways by different political ideologies (government spending to create jobs and circulate money vs. trickle down economics or tax cuts to incentive's hiring or deregulation vs. tighter regulation depending on who's "fault" you view the situation as being.)
Finally some problems are universal. Fewer resources and more people, climate change, natural disasters etc. etc. etc. and these have solutions that are less reliant on stateism or liberalism(/libertarianism/anarchism/minarchism etc.) and more reliant on science/technology/engineering/etc.

No solutions.

[Sibirsky]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

Don't want to use the services? Don't live in that country, otherwise you're eating the food without intending to pay.

the GTFO argument fails.

It's your argument. You're being forced to use the military, the police, etc. Against your will. And then they make you pay.

Turns out, you're NOT actually being forced. You can opt out. Buh-bye now.

You want socialism so much, get the fuck out.

[MoronThatStoryLater]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

Don't want to use the services? Don't live in that country, otherwise you're eating the food without intending to pay.

the GTFO argument fails.

It's your argument. You're being forced to use the military, the police, etc. Against your will. And then they make you pay.

Turns out, you're NOT actually being forced. You can opt out. Buh-bye now.

You want socialism so much, get the fuck out.

I hear Kim Jong-Il is hiring poolboys and people to get things down for him off the top shelf.

[Chumblywumbly]

There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

Other than Bendira's answer of a related post (but not this one), no response?

Speaking for the opposition, as it were, an answer to (2) would presumably involve an invocation of Natural Law, perhaps along religious Lockean lines. Though, safe to say, there would be a fair few raised eyebrows at such a suggestion.

As an aside, I think left-libertarians such as myself have common ground, or at least similar dislikes to many right-libertarians, and could be on the same side in many debates, if only they wouldn't bang on about property so much. Which was kind of my entire thought process while studying Anarchy, State & Utopia back in uni.

[Xomic]

There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

Other than Bendira's answer of a related post (but not this one), no response?

Speaking for the opposition, as it were, an answer to (2) would presumably involve an invocation of Natural Law, perhaps along religious Lockean lines. Though, safe to say, there would be a fair few raised eyebrows at such a suggestion.

As an aside, I think left-libertarians such as myself have common ground, or at least similar dislikes to many right-libertarians, and could be on the same side in many debates, if only they wouldn't bang on about property so much. Which was kind of my entire thought process while studying Anarchy, State & Utopia back in uni.

I've never quite gotten how left libertarianism is suppose to work to protect political and civil rights, without some sort of government.

[Jello Biafra]

There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

Other than Bendira's answer of a related post (but not this one), no response?

Speaking for the opposition, as it were, an answer to (2) would presumably involve an invocation of Natural Law, perhaps along religious Lockean lines. Though, safe to say, there would be a fair few raised eyebrows at such a suggestion.

As an aside, I think left-libertarians such as myself have common ground, or at least similar dislikes to many right-libertarians, and could be on the same side in many debates, if only they wouldn't bang on about property so much. Which was kind of my entire thought process while studying Anarchy, State & Utopia back in uni.

I've never quite gotten how left libertarianism is suppose to work to protect political and civil rights, without some sort of government.

We oppose the state, not the government.
Or, to paraphrase some, "we're fine with government, or at least governance"

[Chumblywumbly]

There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

Other than Bendira's answer of a related post (but not this one), no response?

Speaking for the opposition, as it were, an answer to (2) would presumably involve an invocation of Natural Law, perhaps along religious Lockean lines. Though, safe to say, there would be a fair few raised eyebrows at such a suggestion.

As an aside, I think left-libertarians such as myself have common ground, or at least similar dislikes to many right-libertarians, and could be on the same side in many debates, if only they wouldn't bang on about property so much. Which was kind of my entire thought process while studying Anarchy, State & Utopia back in uni.

I've never quite gotten how left libertarianism is suppose to work to protect political and civil rights, without some sort of government.

This is heading for a major threadjack... but basically left-libs don't advocate no government, they advocate a very different form of government. To contrast (brutely and broadly), right-libs wish to chop off all the parts of government that they see as extraneous, while left-libs wish to change the entire way governance is conducted.

[Xomic]

We oppose the state, not the government.
Or, to paraphrase some, "we're fine with government, or at least governance"

Won't any sort of government lead to states? For example, a group of people with two different leaders, half supports one, the other half supports the other; wouldn't this, over time, evolve into two different states?

[Jello Biafra]

We oppose the state, not the government.
Or, to paraphrase some, "we're fine with government, or at least governance"

Won't any sort of government lead to states? For example, a group of people with two different leaders, half supports one, the other half supports the other; wouldn't this, over time, evolve into two different states?

Not if none of them possesses a legitimate monopoly on violence over a given territory.

[The Cat-Tribe]

There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

Other than Bendira's answer of a related post (but not this one), no response?

Speaking for the opposition, as it were, an answer to (2) would presumably involve an invocation of Natural Law, perhaps along religious Lockean lines. Though, safe to say, there would be a fair few raised eyebrows at such a suggestion.

As an aside, I think left-libertarians such as myself have common ground, or at least similar dislikes to many right-libertarians, and could be on the same side in many debates, if only they wouldn't bang on about property so much. Which was kind of my entire thought process while studying Anarchy, State & Utopia back in uni.

Setting aside the religious aspect of Lockean Natural Law, Locke's property rights theory direclyt leads to his social contract theory AND his approval of taxation. So that seems like a recipe for failure.

Also, even Nozick in arguing that redistributive taxes were illegitimate, recognized that some taxation was legitimate, right?

[Chumblywumbly]

There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

Other than Bendira's answer of a related post (but not this one), no response?

Speaking for the opposition, as it were, an answer to (2) would presumably involve an invocation of Natural Law, perhaps along religious Lockean lines. Though, safe to say, there would be a fair few raised eyebrows at such a suggestion.

As an aside, I think left-libertarians such as myself have common ground, or at least similar dislikes to many right-libertarians, and could be on the same side in many debates, if only they wouldn't bang on about property so much. Which was kind of my entire thought process while studying Anarchy, State & Utopia back in uni.

Setting aside the religious aspect of Lockean Natural Law, Locke's property rights theory direclyt leads to his social contract theory AND his approval of taxation. So that seems like a recipe for failure.

Just as one might remove God from the Lockean picture, it is not impossible that we might remove his subsequent argument about social contract theory - which is, I believe, the route Nozick takes.

The real problem for me is that this is all based upon the notion of self-ownership. Locke says we have rights over the things we produce due to the fact we own ourselves and our labour. But there's a big question of how self-ownership arises (especially if we don't have a Supreme Being granting us this very secular distinction) and in my view the notion of self-ownership, a form of property right, prior to a worldly authority that creates and grants property rights makes little sense.

Or, makes little sense without Natual Law, and I, for one, don't wish to go down that route.

Also, even Nozick in arguing that redistributive taxes were illegitimate, recognized that some taxation was legitimate, right?

If memory serves, Nozick argues that a entirely voluntary (directly voluntary, not social contract-style tacit consent) tax which covers the cost of the state protecting you and your livelyhood is the only legitimate tax.

[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?

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...

You have no idea how capitalism works . Its almost sad that you guys are such trolls. The example he gave was a person living out in the middle of no where without anything to offer to society. Obviously if there is somebody giving something to society that society values, roads would be built as a means to transport these goods back to society. You guys all make fun of the invisible hand of the free market. I don't mean to be offensive, but the reason why is because you have no grasp on reality, economics or cause and effect relationships.

[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...

You have no idea how capitalism works . Its almost sad that you guys are such trolls. The example he gave was a person living out in the middle of no where without anything to offer to society. Obviously if there is somebody giving something to society that society values, roads would be built as a means to transport these goods back to society. You guys all make fun of the invisible hand of the free market. I don't mean to be offensive, but the reason why is because you have no grasp on reality, economics or cause and effect relationships.

There are few dozen fisher family living in the bank of the river - why exactly will private companies bother to provide roads, postal service etc there? They aren't going to make any profit from there anyway.

[Sibirsky]

I have been touched by the invisible hand.

[Bendira]

There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

Other than Bendira's answer of a related post (but not this one), no response?

Speaking for the opposition, as it were, an answer to (2) would presumably involve an invocation of Natural Law, perhaps along religious Lockean lines. Though, safe to say, there would be a fair few raised eyebrows at such a suggestion.

As an aside, I think left-libertarians such as myself have common ground, or at least similar dislikes to many right-libertarians, and could be on the same side in many debates, if only they wouldn't bang on about property so much. Which was kind of my entire thought process while studying Anarchy, State & Utopia back in uni.

Technically, I ethically sympathize with the left on many issues. However, you cannot base an economic system on morality. I would be a left anarchist, if I thought it was a possible and realistic system. But in my opinion, there is no way to stop a heirarchy from forming in a leftist system. This is because in order to assure that resources are evenly distributed, you would have to have a hierarchy. Also, there is the lack of self ownership, where your body is the property of society.

[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?

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...

You have no idea how capitalism works . Its almost sad that you guys are such trolls. The example he gave was a person living out in the middle of no where without anything to offer to society. Obviously if there is somebody giving something to society that society values, roads would be built as a means to transport these goods back to society. You guys all make fun of the invisible hand of the free market. I don't mean to be offensive, but the reason why is because you have no grasp on reality, economics or cause and effect relationships.

There are few dozen fisher family living in the bank of the river - why exactly will private companies bother to provide roads, postal service etc there? They aren't going to make any profit from there anyway.

Ok, if they aren't making any profit, they WON'T build roads. So obviously if these families expect services, they shouldn't live there. You guys keep changing the scenario. You make the issue a moving target, and whenever I defeat one of your illogical arguments, you create another in its place. Here, I will give you guys an economics lesson so you can stop making these stupid arguments.

Why your argument is fail.

I am a fishermen, and I have decided to live out in the middle of no where. In our society, many times infrustructure is built for me to live. Of course this is unfair, because other peoples tax dollars are paying for MY decision to live way outside society.

In an anarhco-capitalist system, nobody would be forced to pay for his actions. So if he is a fishermen, and builds a house in the middle of no where, he wouldn't receive services.

However, if he catches enough fish each year to make building a road and extending services to his house economical, then the services would obviously be built for him. This is because society would benefit by providing these services. He could even have the services from the very beggining, if he impresses an investor enough.

Now lets take the inevitable stupid question that will follow, which is "what if somebody mines a really rare type of ore, and he dosn't mine enough for society to find it valuable, but it is still necessary for society". Well don't let your little head explode Jimmy, even though you are completely retarded. Because if thats the case, obviously this rare ore would have something we who understand economics would call "scarcity". And because of this, the ore's value would he high enough that it would be economically beneficial to extend services to him.

[Chumblywumbly]

There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

Other than Bendira's answer of a related post (but not this one), no response?

Speaking for the opposition, as it were, an answer to (2) would presumably involve an invocation of Natural Law, perhaps along religious Lockean lines. Though, safe to say, there would be a fair few raised eyebrows at such a suggestion.

As an aside, I think left-libertarians such as myself have common ground, or at least similar dislikes to many right-libertarians, and could be on the same side in many debates, if only they wouldn't bang on about property so much. Which was kind of my entire thought process while studying Anarchy, State & Utopia back in uni.

Technically, I ethically sympathize with the left on many issues. However, you cannot base an economic system on morality.

Why not? Nozick, the man who revived serious right-libertarianism, who declared that 'taxation is slavery', and whose arguments you are (at times) following, bases his entire system on moral grounds.

Indeed, what else does one base an economic system on, if not morality?

]Also, there is the lack of self ownership [in left-libertarian theory], where your body is the property of society.

On the contrary; there is no notion of an individual's body as property. If you believe that left-libertarians wish simply the transfer of property rights of things and persons from individuals to society at large, then you fundementally misunderstand the left-libertarian critique of property and property rights.

My question to you would be: from where does self-ownership arise?