Taxation is theft- prove me wrong

[bUU]

In other words, the RWNJs are just using words to mean what they mean when it panders to their self-centered avarice, and then refusing to accept that those words mean the same thing when it ruins their ridiculous narrative.

[Dsengere]

Who would define theft as unlawful appropriation? Theft has nothing to do with the law. Theft is wrongful or unauthorized appropriation of property, not unlawful appropriation of property. The definition of rape is not the unlawful appropriation of sex, it is the wrongful and unauthorized appropriation of sex.

 

Yes, with the concept of property also comes the idea that people have the right to exclusive use of that property and to use force to defend it. That is not the same thing as theft. The idea of theft depends on the idea of property. Without property, there can be no theft.

 

 

The idea that all property is theft presupposes that The collective owns everything as property and that if one person claims exclusivity over it, then they are stealing property from the collective. But again, if property doesn't exist, then nobody has a claim to any objects or land.

 

You are saying that it is theft for a person to defend something which they have found and added value to before anyone else against somebody who arbitrarily decides that they want to use that object. Don't you think the person who began using and adding value to an object or a piece of land first has a more legitimate claim to it than somebody who simply strolls along at any moment and decides they want to use it? How does the arbitrary whim of a passerby who wants to take your stuff trump your right to exclude other people from using your stuff?

 

As for what the prevailing view on whether a woman implies consent to being raped is, of course you realize that the prevailing view is irrelevant. Slavery used to be the prevailing view. I am only concerned with what is morally right, not prevailing view is.

 

Rights only exist as a result of communal consent? I'm sure the slaveowners would love to hear this.

 

Okay, hopefully you won't mind when me and my community of thugs decide it's okay to rape you. After all, you don't have the right unless we decide you do.

 

The idea that you can indebt someone without their permission is ridiculous. Under your logic, you now oh me $5000 for my time spent debating you and enlightening you on these basic moral concepts because that's the going rate.

 

Again, this idea that you have more of a right to certain goods than the person who was there before you is ridiculous. If you have the right to take these goods away from somebody else for your own use, then they have the right to take it straight back from you.

 

Now, if you don't mind, (actually I don't care whether you mind) i'm going to go use your toothbrush to wipe my ass and help myself to the contents of your refrigerator because you don't have the right to deprive me of that, according to you.

[Dsengere]

I almost forgot,

 

There is no such thing as debt if there is no such thing as property. Obviously money cannot exist if property cannot exist because the whole concept of money is that you own it and you have exclusive use over it.

 

Therefore, nobody has the right to tax me under your logic because that would assume I owe them the property of money and if they do not have the right to exercise exclusive use of an defense over their own money, then money means nothing.

 

In other words, using your logic, I have the right to use any and all goods and services for free because nobody owns them and nobody has the right to initiate violence against me for using them.

[Vlerchan]

"Yes, with the concept of property also comes the idea that people have the right to exclusive use of that property and to use force to defend it."

 

And the concept of property is a social construct, backed by the threat of violent force.

 

Like taxation.

 

"That is not the same thing as theft."

 

It's similar.

 

​Or at least when you arbitrarily deprive an individual access to a recourse I can only imagine such actions as constituting theft.

 

"Without property, there can be no theft."

 

I agree that Libertarians created their own problems.

 

"The idea that all property is theft presupposes that The collective owns everything as property and that if one person claims exclusivity over it, then they are stealing property from the collective. But again, if property doesn't exist, then nobody has a claim to any objects or land. "

 

Yes, it presupposes that all resources are common property; because what better presupposition is there?

 

"You are saying that it is theft for a person to defend something which they have found and added value to before anyone else against somebody who arbitrarily decides that they want to use that object. Don't you think the person who began using and adding value to an object or a piece of land first has a more legitimate claim to it than somebody who simply strolls along at any moment and decides they want to use it? How does the arbitrary whim of a passerby who wants to take your stuff trump your right to exclude other people from using your stuff? "

 

Surely you recognise that value is down to subjective opinion and shouldn't be the foundations for something like objective property rights. Of course I see no reason why someone "adding value" to something means that ownership is transferred to them; or why it should grant them a more "legitimate" claim to that recourse. In the factories in Galt's Gulch do you intend for working-class people to gain control over the goods they produce?

 

I should also add that your argument doesn't do much for land. I can see how bringing wood and stone together, creating a bench, might add value; but then you're creating something new from older resources. That's obviously not the case from land, which is a gift of nature; and not a product of human labour.

 

"I am only concerned with what is morally right, not prevailing view is."

 

And I'm saying what you believe is moral isn't relevant; because morality is just your opinion on something.

 

Prevailing views are tangible realities Prevailing views also emerge from the collective's moral leanings.

 

"Rights only exist as a result of communal consent? I'm sure the slaveowners would love to hear this."

 

Feel free to expand on where you believe that rights emerge from.

 

It seems just from observing reality however that communal consent is the obvious basis for rights/freedoms their existence.

 

"Okay, hopefully you won't mind when me and my community of thugs decide it's okay to rape you."

 

I will mind.

 

But unless some authoritative force exists to oppose you raping me then what I want is irrelevant. I don't have a right not to be raped, there would not be conditions for your to un-opposedely rape me otherwise.

 

"The idea that you can indebt someone without their permission is ridiculous."

 

I thought Libertarians liked to believe that just by existing within a certain context I was "consenting"?

 

Or at least that's what they tell me when I'm chocking down someone else's cigarette smoke at a bar.

 

"Under your logic, you now oh me $5000 for my time spent debating you and enlightening you on these basic moral concepts because that's the going rate."

 

I have no idea how you derived that from my logic.

 

Under my logic, I don't owe you anything, because you don't have authoritative force on your side. You have no right to my money.

 

"Again, this idea that you have more of a right to certain goods than the person who was there before you is ridiculous. If you have the right to take these goods away from somebody else for your own use, then they have the right to take it straight back from you. "

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. Please put it in context. Thank you.

 

"Now, if you don't mind, (actually I don't care whether you mind) i'm going to go use your toothbrush to wipe my ass and help myself to the contents of your refrigerator because you don't have the right to deprive me of that, according to you."

 

You really did just skim over the whole "communal consent awards us rights"-thing didn't you?

 

---

 

"Therefore, nobody has the right to tax me under your logic because that would assume I owe them the property of money and if they do not have the right to exercise exclusive use of an defense over their own money, then money means nothing."

 

No, property rights very much exist, and are enforced by violent force, so what you're saying is nonsensical.

 

I also believe private property rights are a social-benefit right now, so I support their existence, even if it does involve coercion. I'm not a communist.

[Dsengere]

And the concept of property is a social construct, backed by the threat of violent force.

Like taxation.

...and? If that's your justification, you may as well just say "Taxation is legitimate because potato".

It's similar.

​Or at least when you arbitrarily deprive an individual access to a recourse I can only imagine such actions as constituting theft.

It's not arbitrary though. I wish everyone could have everything. But the fact is that human beings all have equal rights and as such, our right to claim property as ours ends where other people have already claimed that as their own property. And as I tried to explain before, the person who as ALREADY claimed something as property (through any number of means such as homesteading, creating something, adding value, etc.) has much more of a legitimate claim over said property than the random passerby. So the exclusion is not arbitrary, it's in respect for the property rights of another person.

Yes, it presupposes that all resources are common property; because what better presupposition is there?

The supposition that nobody owns anything until they homestead/create/add value to it.

Surely you recognise that value is down to subjective opinion and shouldn't be the foundations for something like objective property rights. Of course I see no reason why someone "adding value" to something means that ownership is transferred to them; or why it should grant them a more "legitimate" claim to that recourse. In the factories in Galt's Gulch do you intend for working-class people to gain control over the goods they produce?

Yes, value is subjective, but that doesn't hurt my argument. Inherent in the concept of property is the fact that clearly the property owner values the property. You may not, but someone else does.

The reason why adding value to something grants you ownership is because you own the effects of your actions. This video goes into much more detail.

Of course, workers in a factory are voluntarily selling the product of their labor to their employer.

I will mind.

But unless some authoritative force exists to oppose you raping me then what I want is irrelevant. I don't have a right not to be raped, there would not be conditions for your to un-opposedely rape me otherwise.

Ok, I realize that rights do not exist objectively. They are a concept in our minds. But what I'm saying is that truth, for all intents and purposes, DOES exist objectively and the human mind tends towards it, and human opinions can be proven false when compared to objective reality (such as the statement that 2+2=5 is false). That being said, morality is ultimately a reflection of the truth. Honestly I don't think diving down this deep is going to help us out in this discussion. I would hope that you agree that might does not make right and that as humans we should not rely on brute force as a way to organize society. If we should, I don't know why you're even arguing for what you believe to be true if you're not concerned with the truth. This framework of morality is called UPB (universally preferable behavior) and it's impossible to argue against:

Do you believe that "might makes right" or that all humans have inalienable rights?

I thought Libertarians liked to believe that just by existing within a certain context I was "consenting"?

Or at least that's what they tell me when I'm chocking down someone else's cigarette smoke at a bar.

Libertarians believe in property rights. When you inhabit someone else's property, you are implicitly agreeing to abide by their rules because 1: You are not forced to be there and 2: You do not have the right to dictate behavior within that property unless you're the property owner (as long as nobody is violating the non-aggression principle- nobody is allowed to do that anywhere). Again, this is a case where your right to swing your hand ends where my nose begins. I wish you could travel the entire world without having to inhale cigarette smoke, but you are not the only person in the world with preferences. Do you not think that people have the right to dictate the rules on their own land? If they don't, what gives you (or the collective) that right (in this case, to ban smoking)?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Please put it in context. Thank you.

What I'm getting at is that the original property owner has more of a right to their property than a random passer-by who decides they want to use said property.

"No, property rights very much exist, and are enforced by violent force, so what you're saying is nonsensical.

I also believe private property rights are a social-benefit right now, so I support their existence, even if it does involve coercion. I'm not a communist."

Before you stated that if taxation is theft, then property is theft. 1: How does the second statement hinge on the first at all? Please prove how the two are related.

Also, the belief in private property necessarily precludes the belief in communal property- they are mutually exclusive. Do you believe in PRIVATE property rights?

[scott]

Billybiol never addressed the fact that natural rights cannot be preconditioned. Nor did he addressthe blatant conflict w/ amendment V. The Constitution is a contract with ALL citizens and must be taken in total. You would have no luck violating a contract based on a particular passage taken out of context w/ the whole. Nor could one "redifine" any portion of that contract unilaterally as any changes to a contract must be agreed to by all parties to the contract for it to continue to be valid. Theft, whether on not it is democratically sanctioned, stiil violates the natural individual liberty of an individual because someone else's choice has been imposed on that individual. Need I remind anyone that INDIVIDUAL liberties extend only to the individual that expresses them. The imposition of an individual liberty on another necessarily violates the definition of an "individual" liberty. (Individual = seperate)

[median]

I wrote an entire response and upon clicking submit the website had logged me out and I lost everything. This is response attempt #2. Someone please change the admin settings on the website so that people won't lose their data!!

 

As I've said multiple times before, the idea that you "owe" part of your success to society is nonsense. A car mechanic isn't dumb enough to try to charge people for every time they drive their car after he fixes it. Instead, he charges ONCE to fix the car and calls it good. Similarly, if you pay everyone off for the goods and services that you consume (pay teachers for teaching you, pay farmers for your food, pay engineers for buying their products, etc.) then there is no debt to society. Of course, we all benefit from the existence of organized society, but if we are all to pay society for this supposed "debt", then the "debt" would cancel out. That is, if everyone owes society, then everyone is also owed by society. It's a zero sum game.

First, just saying something is nonsense doesn't make it nonsense - unless of course you just want everyone to take your word for it. Second, you didn't demonstrate a "zero sum game" here. You just asserted it. Certain people, and groups of people, are doing the work to maintain the well-being of society as a whole (in general) and you are benefiting from the labor of those people (just as you would be if you lived in, having been born into, a small village in Africa). So you DO in fact owe a debt to society by using those services and, more importantly, being a social human being who lives in society.

 

Humans aren't "given" freedom, they are born with it. It is taken away by people who advocate for the initiation of force against peaceful people. Your statement is completely arbitrary and devoid of any reasoning from first principles.

NOPE. There are at least two severe problems with your attempted reasoning here. First, you have assumed that people are "peaceful" if they do not pay what they owe, when in fact they are not. It would be like walking into a restaurant, ordering some food, eating the food, and then 'peacefully' leaving (claiming no harm no foul b/c there was no contract signed). Living amidst society does not automatically make you peaceful, especially when you utilize assets and services for which you have not paid (if in fact you have not paid your share for them). Secondly, you are equivocating on the term freedom here. Freedom in the political sense does not exist in a vacuum. It does not 'exist' in and of itself. People grant allowances, claims 'against, actions, and permissions to others and restrict those of still some others (depending upon the circumstances and the justifications therein). In the philosophical sense, libertarian freedom (aka - freewill) does not exist. It is an illusion, since all matter in the universe is governed by physical laws and human beings, and everything else, is made up of matter. In that sense we were not "born with it" b/c we never had it in the first place. But perhaps you should better define what it is you are attempting to refer to when you use that term.

 

 

No person has the right to sign up another person for a contract against their will. If parents have that right, then I have the right to sign you up to come fix my toilet.

 

This is just another assertion of preference and is very reductionist to say the least. The first thing about it is that it assumes a definition of "right" that myself, and likely many others here, will reject. Rights do not exist in and of themselves. They are not 'things' that you just have and can trade. They are not commodities. Rights have to do with privileges, claims, powers, and immunity (in general) and their application is within the context of social society, where other people grant or disallow such privileges. Parents, for example, are thought to have the "right" to bear children. But since your parents did not know your will prior to having sex to make you, were they violating your supposed "rights" by not getting your permission to 'make' you before you were born? The point is, rights are only applicable or granted when other people agree and there are plenty of instances when people acting without the knowledge of anothers will are justified in doing so (such as child bearing, parenting, walking into a restaurant, the comatose, or the mentally handicapped).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#2

 

 

Statists always use this idea to try to prove that taxation is not theft.

The problem is, the government took your money by force without your permission BEFORE you used any of these services. If government services (roads, library, etc.) were voluntary and "pay to play" (in other words, like any other business), there would be no problem.

Statists will, in their truly snakelike ex-post-facto justification, try to say "See? You used the service, therefore you wanted it therefore we didn't do anything wrong!" Obviously complete BS.

I'll stop using those services when people stop taking my money without my permission before I even agree to enter into contract.

This is false. When I was a child my parents paid my debt and I was utilizing and benefiting from collective services the whole time. Once I was old enough I began to pay my due myself, all the while having utilized those services. So it is simply incorrect to claim that anyone is taxed beforehand, b/c they aren't. If you were actually true to your principles you would stop using the services for which you currently benefit and which I pay for. Otherwise, you are acting in hypocrisy (aside from the issue of whether or not taxation is theft).

Second, if you use and benefit from the services I and others pay for (roads, bridges, firemen, etc) but you refuse to pay for those services, then who is the snake? The fact that your last sentence is basically an admission that you DO in fact utilize those services shows that you are in fact violating your own principles and practicing hypocrisy. Just claiming that the response is "Obviously complete BS" doesn't make it so. Are we supposed to just take your word for it again? Furthermore, no one stated that you actually wanted to meet your implicit basic obligations to society. We're saying you owe for them regardless of whether or not you want to.

I will echo what others have said here by noting that this philosophy of absolute voluntarism sounds very douchy and fictional at best (a kind of narcissistic/sociopathic "every man for himself" feudalism). I have yet to see any convincing reasons for thinking it could even remotely be actualized and hence I place it in the category of fairy-tale-dream-land.

[Vlerchan]

"...and? If that's your justification, you may as well just say "Taxation is legitimate because potato"."

 

I'm saying that both taxation and private-property rights are social constructs, who's existence are backed by threat of violent force.

 

There's no reason why taxation should be distinguishably worse that private-property rights.

 

"It's not arbitrary though."

 

It's arbitrary if you don't believe that working on something or homesteading it confers that right to ownership over that recourse to you; because of the laws or nature, or something similarly ill-defined. From the standpoint of someone who doesn't engage in these lengthy moral constructions to justify the basis of their ideology, it very much does seem like arbitrary deprivation.

 

"But the fact is that human beings all have equal rights and as such, our right to claim property as ours ends where other people have already claimed that as their own property."

 

I'm having a hard time understanding where our right to claim property comes from, is the problem.

 

"And as I tried to explain before, the person who as ALREADY claimed something as property (through any number of means such as homesteading, creating something, adding value, etc.) has much more of a legitimate claim over said property than the random passerby."

 

I think what makes someone's claim more "legitimate" depends on that cultural context that someone finds themselves in.

 

You might believe that doing whatever gives you a more legitimate claim, but is their a basis to that belief beyond your own faith in it?

 

"The reason why adding value to something grants you ownership is because you own the effects of your actions."

 

I can't watch videos on my tiny broadband. Would you mind summarising the video? I'll respond after. Thanks.

 

"Of course, workers in a factory are voluntarily selling the product of their labor to their employer. "

 

I'm not sure how you equate selling your labour power with selling the fruits of your labour.

 

I see the two as distinct.

 

"Honestly I don't think diving down this deep is going to help us out in this discussion. I would hope that you agree that might does not make right and that as humans we should not rely on brute force as a way to organize society. If we should, I don't know why you're even arguing for what you believe to be true if you're not concerned with the truth."

 

I also agree we're not going to get far diving this deep.

 

To keep it short: We're going to run into our most major differences in that I believe the morality of an action is found in it's consequences, whilst you believe that the morality of an action is found within the action itself. I can justify the use of violent force against human beings if I believe that there's a social benefit being derived from the use of such violent force.

 

From this, it must seem obvious that I tend to see the whole idea of "rights" as irrelevant. I do tend, however, to vehemently support positive rights, on the basis that I see negative consequences of their retracting being greater than any positive consequences that might be derived from such.

 

"What I'm getting at is that the original property owner has more of a right to their property than a random passer-by who decides they want to use said property."

 

I'd be more favourable of the view that the individual in use of the recourse has more of a right to it than another individual, in the specific context of their situation. It comes from the idea of a distinction between private property and personal property: personal property is a fact, private property is a (positive) right; and since positive rights by their very nature require some form of standing coercion, my suggestion is the most NAP-compliant.

 

I also see the above compatible with the idea of communal property; in that common ownership is still existent, it's just that social mechanisms exist in that that fact that someone is in use of a certain recourse is respected.

 

"Please prove how the two are related. "

 

From above:

 

"I'm saying that both taxation and private-property rights are social constructs, who's existence are backed by threat of violent force.

 

There's no reason why taxation should be distinguishably worse that private-property rights."

 

You just see one as legitimate because you've specifically gone out of your way and created moral foundations in which one is legitimate.

 

"Do you believe in PRIVATE property rights?"

 

I'm pointing out that a system of communal property rights would require less coercion than a system of private-property rights.

 

I tend to prefer a patchwork of social-, private- and common-ownership; though, there'd be much less emphasis on private-ownership that current.

 

---

 

"I place it in the category of fairy-tale-dream-land. "

 

I like to call it "Unicorn Capitalism".

[Dsengere]

“First, just saying something is nonsense doesn't make it nonsense - unless of course you just want everyone to take your word for it. Second, you didn't demonstrate a "zero sum game" here. You just asserted it. Certain people, and groups of people, are doing the work to maintain the well-being of society as a whole (in general) and you are benefiting from the labor of those people (just as you would be if you lived in, having been born into, a small village in Africa). So you DO in fact owe a debt to society by using those services and, more importantly, being a social human being who lives in society. “

I don’t think you get it. I am a part of society too. I contribute to society’s success too. Therefore, society owes me something back as well. If I owe each person in society a small amount for contributing to society’s success and each person in society owes me a small amount for contributing to society’s success, the sum of transactions equals zero. It’s simple math.

 

Furthermore, it adds completely unnecessary confusion to the situation. If every service is privatized and voluntary, all “debts to society” are paid in full immediately when people consume said services.

“NOPE. There are at least two severe problems with your attempted reasoning here. First, you have assumed that people are "peaceful" if they do not pay what they owe, when in fact they are not. It would be like walking into a restaurant, ordering some food, eating the food, and then 'peacefully' leaving (claiming no harm no foul b/c there was no contract signed).”

 

I agree that people stealing a good or service is not peaceful. However, it would obviously be completely illegitimate if the restaurant owner goes door to door with a gun and demands that you eat at his restaurant for a fee (or else you will be kidnapped and jailed and if you try to escape you will be shot). In principle, this is exactly what the government does.

“ In the philosophical sense, libertarian freedom (aka - freewill) does not exist. It is an illusion, since all matter in the universe is governed by physical laws and human beings, and everything else, is made up of matter. In that sense we were not "born with it" b/c we never had it in the first place. But perhaps you should better define what it is you are attempting to refer to when you use that term. “

“This is just another assertion of preference and is very reductionist to say the least. The first thing about it is that it assumes a definition of "right" that myself, and likely many others here, will reject. Rights do not exist in and of themselves. They are not 'things' that you just have and can trade.”

“The point is, rights are only applicable or granted when other people agree and there are plenty of instances when people acting without the knowledge of anothers will are justified in doing so”

OK, fine. To be fair, you do not exist either- you are simply a collection of atoms. Forgive me for using words and concepts- I assumed I was dealing with people who have the ability to conceptualize things. I’m taking some liberties here which I would hope all people agree with.

Yes, if you know for a fact that someone would agree with you acting without their knowledge, then you are justified (such as if you put out the fire in your neighbor's house when they are not home). But if you then turn around and try to charge them $1,000,000 for the service, clearly there is a problem. Now, the situation that we're actually talking about here (taxation) involves fully conscious and aware adults. You cannot claim that the government provide people services because they assumed that they were looking out for everyone in their absence of thought. The government has the obligation to respect every human's right to opt out of any transaction if they do not wish to participate.

 

Please answer the following questions: Does a woman have the moral right to not be raped, regardless of what society wants? Yes I realize that ultimately, this moral right means nothing if society doesn’t respect it. But we should strive to make society conform to these basic moral rights instead of abiding by the “might makes right” concept. This is what separates civilized culture from barbarism.

“When I was a child my parents paid my debt and I was utilizing and benefiting from collective services the whole time. Once I was old enough I began to pay my due myself, all the while having utilized those services.”

That’s fine, if your parents agreed that they wanted government services for you and you wanted them from your parents. But of course your parents have the moral right to opt out of any services that they don’t want for you, and you as well had the moral right to opt out of receiving those services.

This is actually really simple, dude.

If government services are strictly “pay to play” (like any other service in the free market), then I have no problem with them. However, what differentiates government services from other ones is that if you don’t want to pay for or consume them and you lose the vote, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, you must pay. So it would be ridiculous to be forced to pay for said service and then not use it. I don’t want to use government services and not pay for them. I simply want to be able to OPT OUT and use OTHER services. It’s very simple. Does this make sense to you?

This brings up the all important concept: Does any human or group of humans have the right to force someone to pay for a service that they don’t want? If the answer is yes, then I will be at your house tomorrow to paint it for $50,000 whether or not you want or need this service.

This is all trivially easy and obvious stuff.

[Dsengere]

“There's no reason why taxation should be distinguishably worse that private-property rights.”

I can think of a reason: That original property owners have a much more legitimate claim to property than someone who simply decides that they want the property of another human being. It is worse to take something away from someone than to exclude them from gaining something which somebody else already owns. In other words, “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” (to put it very non-philosophically).

“From the standpoint of someone who doesn't engage in these lengthy moral constructions to justify the basis of their ideology, it very much does seem like arbitrary deprivation.”

If the lengthy moral constructions are philosophically (factually) correct, that’s their own fault for not thinking. Private property rights are more or less universally respected, intuitive, and self-evident. To me, it’s no surprise that someone wants to defend their property from me when I decide I want to use something which they have already claimed. If I walk into a random machine shop and start using their lathe, I would expect the machinists to be pissed off and rightfully keep me out of their shop as they are trying to accomplish something and don’t need me to be messing around and destroying their property. I realize this is just one example but hopefully it illustrates some of the good reasons for private property rights.

“I can't watch videos on my tiny broadband. Would you mind summarising the video? I'll respond after. Thanks.”

 

You know to be honest I really would love to, and maybe over the phone would be easier. I love debating this stuff but I just don’t have that much time to surmise the entire video, however the video is fantastic and sums it up very well. Maybe we can continue this via skype sometime?

“I'm not sure how you equate selling your labour power with selling the fruits of your labour.

I see the two as distinct. “

Could you please elaborate? I don’t quite get this. I don’t see the difference.

“To keep it short: We're going to run into our most major differences in that I believe the morality of an action is found in it's consequences, whilst you believe that the morality of an action is found within the action itself. “

Funny you mention this, I actually agree ultimately. In the grand scheme of things, the only goal of morality is to produce a favorable outcome, right? That’s why pink polka dots are not morally right or wrong, but shooting someone in the face (launching lead at high velocity toward someone’s brain) is. I just happen to believe that a moral code is the best way of achieving a good outcome. We come up with basic moral concepts like “raping is always wrong”. Now, in the case that you had to rape someone to save 1,000,000 people for some crazy reason, of course we can make an exception. But in 99.99% of cases, we abide by the principle. I treat property rights as just another one of those moral principles.

“I'd be more favourable of the view that the individual in use of the recourse has more of a right to it than another individual, in the specific context of their situation. It comes from the idea of a distinction between private property and personal property: personal property is a fact, private property is a (positive) right; and since positive rights by their very nature require some form of standing coercion, my suggestion is the most NAP-compliant.”

That’s an interesting viewpoint. I will certainly consider it. I would really like to get your opinion on the “philosophy of property rights” video though as some point. Is there any way you can watch or listen to it?

Thank you for the interesting ideas.

[Vlerchan]

"That original property owners have a much more legitimate claim to property than someone who simply decides that they want the property of another human being."

 

You'll find my problem lies in the idea that how to define the "original property owner" is somewhat murky.

 

In my mind, there is no legitimate property owners; there's just people who have certain long-standing claims to certain resources underpinned by the threat of violent force. These people might believe that they are legitimate property owners, and I don't care to correct them here; but regardless of how they might want to justify their belief, it is just a belief.

 

"It is worse to take something away from someone than to exclude them from gaining something which somebody else already owns."

 

What if there would be less aggregate suffering if property ownership would be transferred from to the "someone" who is more needy?

 

In my mind, if the overall public good (see: utilitarianism) is served through coerced property transfers, then it would be "worse" to not engage in such.

 

"If the lengthy moral constructions are philosophically (factually) correct, that’s their own fault for not thinking."

 

The "lengthy moral constructions" are faith-based conjectures, with no reference to reality; because reality can't direct you in what's right or wrong.

 

Something can also be "logical", as in coherent, without holding any empirical value; which is what's happening now.

 

"Private property rights are more or less universally respected, intuitive, and self-evident."

 

In a society in which private-property rights have a long-spanning history of existing, you forgot to mention.

 

"I realize this is just one example but hopefully it illustrates some of the good reasons for private property rights."

 

I'm not arguing that private property rights shouldn't exist. I agree that private-property rights have their uses. I'm arguing that when we discuss private-property rights we're discussing claims, of imaginary legitimacy, which are maintained through threatening others who might wish to breach them with violent force; like taxation.

 

"Could you please elaborate? I don’t quite get this. I don’t see the difference."

 

"Labour Power" means "Labours Engagement In production". "Labour's Fruits" is "Whatever Comes From That Engagement".

 

Employers purchase "Labour Power". Where does their claim to "Labour's Fruits" come from?

 

"I just happen to believe that a moral code is the best way of achieving a good outcome."

 

I find it more pragmatic to judge each act individually.

 

"I treat property rights as just another one of those moral principles."

 

Interesting. That means you'd support breaching private-property rights if you thought the greater good would be achieved?

 

---

 

"I would really like to get your opinion on the “philosophy of property rights” video though as some point. Is there any way you can watch or listen to it?"

 

I can give it a look next time I've access to the broadband in my university; which'll be next week-ish, and then I could get back to you.

 

"Thank you for the interesting ideas."

 

And thank you for the well reasoned responses.

[Dsengere]

I'll wait until you watch the video for the replies for now. It describes the legitimacy of owning property (to show that it's not just arbitrary) so maybe it can clear some stuff up that I haven't yet. But I look forward to continuing. Peace!

[median]

"I don’t think you get it. I am a part of society too. I contribute to society’s success too. Therefore, society owes me something back as well. If I owe each person in society a small amount for contributing to society’s success and each person in society owes me a small amount for contributing to society’s success, the sum of transactions equals zero. It’s simple math.

Furthermore, it adds completely unnecessary confusion to the situation. If every service is privatized and voluntary, all “debts to society” are paid in full immediately when people consume said services."

This response leads me to think that YOU in fact don’t “get it”. The debts that each of owe for keeping of a well-being society (the greatest good for the greatest number, in general) are not owed to specific individuals on case-by-case bases. They are a collection of the actions and expenditures that are shared by all. It seems you keeping assuming that “the individual” is all that matters and many of us here reject that assertion (neither have you supported it). The idea that “it’s simple math” is highly reductionist b/c there is nothing simple about keeping and maintaining the cooperative infrastructures which we all benefit from. There is nothing “simple” about the process. And neither is it simply a matter of, “Hey dude, build a road here and I’ll pay you so everyone can use it” (even if they didn’t contribute). Society is inherently complex (as are human beings) and the assertion that taxes add “completely unnecessary confusion” is unsupported. What is necessary is determined by people and obviously we have determined it necessary for most of human history. Furthermore, it has worked pretty well in general for providing for the basic mechanisms needed for society to function (even when some people refuse to contribute or “volunteer”). In short, most of us ARE contributing and we are also getting things back. If a person is not contributing toward a society (and infrastructure) in which they both live and benefit from then they ought to suffer the consequences of not meeting your their implicit obligations.

“I agree that people stealing a good or service is not peaceful. However, it would obviously be completely illegitimate if the restaurant owner goes door to door with a gun and demands that you eat at his restaurant for a fee (or else you will be kidnapped and jailed and if you try to escape you will be shot). In principle, this is exactly what the government does.”

NOPE again. This is a false analogy on at least two counts. First, you are not born into a restaurant with specific rules, but you ARE born into a society in which you are automatically benefitting from the foundational infrastructures that exist there. As such you have a basic implicit responsibility to society in virtue of living among society and your benefitting from that society requires you to contribute toward that society (i.e. - you have a debt that you owe and the “men with guns” are coming to collect on that debt). So you ARE in fact stealing if you are not meeting your implicit obligation to the society in which you live and benefit. Secondly though, the attempted analogy of the restaurant owner going door to door with a gun is also false. That thought is quite simplistic since debt collection doesn’t work that way anyway (since “men with guns” don’t come to your house straight off unless you take things to the enth degree and break the law protracted). So too, a restaurant owner does not have the authority to take such actions. Now, you still didn’t “get” my restaurant example. Much like a restaurant which has an implicit policy of “everyone who enters pays something from that which they benefit”, society exists in a similar fashion since you are “eating the fruits” of someone else's labor and hence you are required to pay the implicit ‘check’. If you do not then you are effectively stealing and you (rightfully) should suffer the legal consequences for it. In this case, society IS the restaurant which you are born into and work within. What I find personally immoral is people who live in society and benefit from the collective actions and works of others and yet don’t want to pay for those benefits.

“Yes, if you know for a fact that someone would agree with you acting without their knowledge, then you are justified (such as if you put out the fire in your neighbor's house when they are not home). But if you then turn around and try to charge them $1,000,000 for the service, clearly there is a problem. Now, the situation that we're actually talking about here (taxation) involves fully conscious and aware adults. You cannot claim that the government provide people services because they assumed that they were looking out for everyone in their absence of thought. The government has the obligation to respect every human's right to opt out of any transaction if they do not wish to participate. “

 

Your last statement here is just another unsupported claim. “The government” is merely a term that is used to describe a specific sets of peoples, doing specific things for the benefit of the whole. As such I see no sound foundation for the assertion that ‘people’ (i.e. - government working toward the greater collective good of society) are in any way obligated to “respect every human’s right to opt out” while being amidst that society and benefitting (since merely living in such a society affords said person such benefits and thus entails them to an implicit obligation to contribute to it - kind of like being born in an ant colony and living there). If you agree that it is fine for parents to have sex and create children, without knowing whether or not those children would want to live in society then my rebuttal stands and pure 100% voluntarism is overcome by the necessities of the whole.

“Please answer the following questions: Does a woman have the moral right to not be raped, regardless of what society wants? Yes I realize that ultimately, this moral right means nothing if society doesn’t respect it. But we should strive to make society conform to these basic moral rights instead of abiding by the “might makes right” concept. This is what separates civilized culture from barbarism. “

This is yet another false analogy. So too, I think you answered your own question regarding rights (at least in part). A woman being raped is not a necessity for the keeping of a well-being cooperative society and hence is not an accurate depiction of the topic. Furthermore, this example does not counter the notion that society (groups of voters in a small village for example) have both the necessity and allowance for mandating and/or agreeing on rules/laws and benefits for which others in that collective must contribute (even if those members in the village are not yet born). Secondly, please go read the article I sent you from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy as to the discussion of “rights” (i.e. - what are they, what they entail, and the debates that have existed about that term) along with the one on morality. This may help you better understand where I am coming from and may bring us to a discussion about morality and what it entails. My view is that morality has to do (and pertains to) the well-being of conscious creatures and the minimization of unnecessary harm (i.e. - something similar to Sam Harris’s view in his book The Moral Landscape). However, people’s definitions of what morality is about and how it should be applied in certain circumstances often differ and I suspect that is where the root difference in our worldviews with lie.

“That’s fine, if your parents agreed that they wanted government services for you and you wanted them from your parents. But of course your parents have the moral right to opt out of any services that they don’t want for you, and you as well had the moral right to opt out of receiving those services.

 

This is actually really simple, dude.”

No, it’s not “really simple, dude”. Discussions of morality and politics are extremely complex and intricate and have been discussed and debated for centuries. You are talking to someone with two degrees in philosophy and as such I am extremely unlikely to give-pass to such reductionism. Regarding your response, please define for me what you think a “moral right” is and what that term actually entails for human beings.

“If government services are strictly “pay to play” (like any other service in the free market), then I have no problem with them. However, what differentiates government services from other ones is that if you don’t want to pay for or consume them and you lose the vote, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, you must pay. So it would be ridiculous to be forced to pay for said service and then not use it. I don’t want to use government services and not pay for them. I simply want to be able to OPT OUT and use OTHER services. It’s very simple. Does this make sense to you?”

I understand your argument and what you (personally) think you want - just like I understand that some people want to have not been born (they had no choice!). My response is...tough. You live in society and as such you have an implicit responsibility to that society (even if it is not a perfect or ideal case). As others have noted, maybe you just don’t like being in reality? Regardless, you are in society and benefitting from it’s functions and infrastructures (such as using roads). If you continue to do so, then you are still practicing hypocrisy and violating your own principles. Perhaps you should consider being more critical of your own tightly held beliefs instead?

Secondly, there is no such thing as a “free market”. That idea is a fiction - both on a political and physical level (another kind of fairytale-land). The only close examples we have of such ideals are places like Somalia, of which you are free to relocate anytime if you don’t like the society in which you now reside. As for now, you are in fact “using” societal services by living among society and thus owe for them.

“This brings up the all important concept: Does any human or group of humans have the right to force someone to pay for a service that they don’t want? If the answer is yes, then I will be at your house tomorrow to paint it for $50,000 whether or not you want or need this service.

 

This is all trivially easy and obvious stuff.”

First, your question here is a red-herring since we are discussing societies and their welfare, of which we all share an implicit responsibility to contribute. Does a person have a “right” to live among a society (for which they are connected and benefit from) and yet refuse to contribute to it? My answer is, yes they do. But then, by the same token, society also has a “right” to make that person suffer the consequences of not contributing. Again, “rights” do not exist in a vacuum. Second, your house example is yet another false analogy. Just like your attempted rape example, painting my house for $50,000 is not necessary for the maintaining of the basic well-being of society and as such the example does not accurately depict the situation we find ourselves in.

No, it is not “trivially easy and obvious”. It is your assumption.

[Dsengere]

"This response leads me to think that YOU in fact don’t “get it”. The debts that each of owe for keeping of a well-being society (the greatest good for the greatest number, in general) are not owed to specific individuals on case-by-case bases. They are a collection of the actions and expenditures that are shared by all. It seems you keeping assuming that “the individual” is all that matters and many of us here reject that assertion (neither have you supported it)."

Did you know that society is made up of individuals? What you deny the individual, you also deny all of society. The well being of society (or the greatest number, or the collective, or whatever you want to call it) is measured by the good experienced by each individual. It's also funny that you seem to think that because I stick up for the individual, somehow I'm necessarily against all of society, as if those two things are mutually exclusive when in fact they're one in the same. The data clearly shows that respect for individual rights (AKA Economic freedom) brings the most good for the most number of people: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQyCkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dv1U1Jzdghjk&ei=UdE3VLXTJJCOyAT98ILQDw&usg=AFQjCNExCbSeSwYwUDZVo87d38jcs4dumQ&bvm=bv.77161500,d.aWw

"The idea that “it’s simple math” is highly reductionist b/c there is nothing simple about keeping and maintaining the cooperative infrastructures which we all benefit from."

That's the most apples to oranges comparison I've ever heard. Yes, organizing infrastructure may well be complicated, but paying for it is not. Designing, manufacturing, and selling computers is an extremely complicated process, but going out and buying a computer is... well, NOT that complicated. It is, as stated, simple math.

If I am buying, say a computer (but this applies to any good or service, including infrastructure) you charge $800, I pay you $800, there's no debt to anyone at the end of the day. I don't owe your engineers or your line workers or your salesmen, even though without them I wouldn't have the computer. Why? Because THEY ALREADY GET PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES. They get paid for by me paying the computer company. To pay them again through some collectivist taxation scheme is completely unnecessary.

"“Hey dude, build a road here and I’ll pay you so everyone can use it” (even if they didn’t contribute). "

Really? Do you have ANY experience in the free market? Have you ever had a job? Do you think roads would be run by one person paying the road company to build a road? Road companies would likely build the roads on their own dime and charge people for usage.

" What is necessary is determined by people and obviously we have determined it necessary for most of human history."

OHHH, now it all makes sense. I bow to your logic.

If you're really in favor of people determining what is necessary, then you should let the free market work because the ONLY way you can get rich (outside of robbing or defrauding people) in the free market is by offering them what they demand, so that they VOLUNTARILY give you their money. The free market is the most efficient way to serve the demands of society. Here's another video I made on that very subject: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DP2qlQ8h5GLE&ei=GdI3VJT2Hsn2yQT1_IH4Aw&usg=AFQjCNFw6dPNjDx275kiqqIdsc1E02oPwg&bvm=bv.77161500,d.aWw

" First, you are not born into a restaurant with specific rules, but you ARE born into a society in which you are automatically benefitting from the foundational infrastructures that exist there."

Wow. That makes the analogy even more severe. You are literally in favor of enslavement of people the moment they are born. You hate choice. You are a despicable human being.

"So you ARE in fact stealing if you are not meeting your implicit obligation to the society in which you live and benefit. "

If you expect to collect money from people who never agreed to pay for your service, you are nothing more than a common criminal.

"If you agree that it is fine for parents to have sex and create children, without knowing whether or not those children would want to live in society then my rebuttal stands and pure 100% voluntarism is overcome by the necessities of the whole. "

Really? Children have the option to opt out of life at any moment. You don't afford people the option to opt out of the government.

Here's a question for you. IF the government is so fantastic and provides such great services, why does it have to be compulsory? Why can't it compete with the free market? Surely it will outperform the free market. So, simply treat the government as any other business: If you don't want the services, you don't get to use them and you don't have to pay.

"A woman being raped is not a necessity for the keeping of a well-being cooperative society and hence is not an accurate depiction of the topic. "

Yet you think theft is a necessity for "the keeping of a well-being cooperative society", so you just as quickly throw the moral principle of "DON'T STEAL" straight out the window.

"My response is...tough. You live in society and as such you have an implicit responsibility to that society (even if it is not a perfect or ideal case)."

Tell that to the slaves. Throughout history, MOST PEOPLE HAD NO MORAL ISSUE WITH SLAVERY. THEY GENUINELY THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE ECONOMY AND FOR THE GREATER GOOD. And because of their complete disregard for moral principles, they threw all morality out the window and said "Well, we need it, so TOUGH". Guess what group of people you'll be grouped with by future generations? Filthy, disgusting slave owners.

[Dsengere]

Here’s an example to illustrate how there is no outstanding debt to society in a purely free market (voluntary, un-coerced exchanges, respect for the NAP, etc.)

Let’s pretend that we live in a stateless society on a big island with no government.

Let’s say I want to buy a car.

 

I pay the car dealership for the car in cash, case closed. No debt to society, EVEN THOUGH all of society made that car possible. How is this possible? After all, the car could not exist without the roads, and teachers, and infrastructure, etc.

 

The car company paid line workers to assemble the cars.

The car company also paid engineers to design the cars.
The company also pays for electricity to run their office.

The engineers paid a college or other institution to teach them engineering.

The college paid professors to teach.
The professors at the college pay the road company to drive on the roads.
The road company pays its laborers to build the road and the concrete company for the material.
The concrete company pays for gasoline to run their machines.
The concrete company pays laborers to unearth this material.

The laborers pay the supermarket to buy food so they can work.

Everyone pays their security/defense organization so that they can work in peace.
And the list goes on as a deep, intertwined web of transactions.

Yet the car buyer only has to pay the car dealership even though he benefitted from all of these things.

BUT the car buyer is actually paying for all of these things because they are captured in the price of the car! Why do cars cost a lot? Because a lot goes into them!

At the end of the day, nobody owes anybody.

“Oh!” you say, “But in today’s society, government runs the school and the road! Therefore, taxation is not theft!” For those who voluntarily choose to utilize government services, that is true. But for those who would rather utilize a different source to provide these services, THEY have no choice and are being stolen from.

 

To make this point clear, just replace any of the companies we use today, which are voluntary, with the mafia. What if your local mafia required that you buy food from their supermarket? After all, everyone needs food, right? Everyone benefits from food, right? Therefore it’s not theft for them to take your money at gunpoint and then offer you their food, right? Of course, this IS theft because it clearly matches the definition of theft.

Even though we all enjoy all kinds of positive externalities (like enjoying a society with educated people, or going to a club where everyone was able to drive there and party late into the night because of electricity), nobody expects you to double-pay for those things. No car mechanic would charge people every time they drove their car (even though, without the mechanic, you wouldn’t even be able to drive AT ALL!).

Now, onto the childhood example:

Yes, as a baby and child, you consume a lot of services because you are helpless and dependent. That is why your parents are morally obligated to provide for you BECAUSE the child did not have a choice whether or not they would be born. You more or less say, “well, you’re in favor of childbirth therefore you’re in favor of involuntary relationships in general between fully autonomous adults”, but of course that statement is false. Parents do not have the right to charge helpless and dependent babies and children for consuming services when they literally had no choice in the matter (aside from suicide, which children naturally don’t even think of or consider because of their natural drive to survive, until they’re at least 5 or older). For parents to require their children to pay them back for consuming baby food would be no better than me trapping you in my basement, feeding you spinach, and then charging you for it.

Of course, the situation becomes much more clear when you’re dealing with fully autonomous, consenting adults. In those situations, it’s even more clear that you do not have the right to charge people without their agreement.

[median]

PART II

“Did you know that society is made up of individuals? What you deny the individual, you also deny all of society. The well being of society (or the greatest number, or the collective, or whatever you want to call it) is measured by the good experienced by each individual. It's also funny that you seem to think that because I stick up for the individual, somehow I'm necessarily against all of society, as if those two things are mutually exclusive when in fact they're one in the same. The data clearly shows that respect for individual rights (AKA Economic freedom) brings the most good for the most number of people: https://www.google.c....77161500,d.aWw”

I reject the assertion that being apart of society and being compelled to contribute to it (as keeping with our implicit responsibility to do so) is somehow “denying” you any essential “rights”. Rights are only as good as those who agree with you and the rational justifications that are made for them. The good of the whole of society is measured in many different ways but the point was that since we have an implicit responsibility to one another in our society we must make good on that responsibility and that requires payment in exchange for the benefits we are currently receiving each day. Otherwise we are stealing. Now, you did not present any sound reasoning for your assertion that the concept of the individual and the concept of society are one in the same (in fact I reject such notions of reductionism since our actions effect others and the well being of the most amount of people is not trumped by the alleged “rights” of a few). In my view, the “rights” of an individual do not trump the rights of the whole. Living in society comes with certain responsibilities ( and thus debts) and as such people are rightfully compelled to make good on them. Btw, the video you posted didn’t demonstrate anything. It just made claims with no actual references, nor did it actually define its terms. The Koch brothers? Really? Please try to cite references that are less biased if you would like them to be taken seriously.

“That's the most apples to oranges comparison I've ever heard. Yes, organizing infrastructure may well be complicated, but paying for it is not. Designing, manufacturing, and selling computers is an extremely complicated process, but going out and buying a computer is... well, NOT that complicated. It is, as stated, simple math.

 

If I am buying, say a computer (but this applies to any good or service, including infrastructure) you charge $800, I pay you $800, there's no debt to anyone at the end of the day. I don't owe your engineers or your line workers or your salesmen, even though without them I wouldn't have the computer. Why? Because THEY ALREADY GET PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES. They get paid for by me paying the computer company. To pay them again through some collectivist taxation scheme is completely unnecessary.”

This is yet another false analogy, since one computer is (again) not necessary for the basic welfare of all. There is far more that goes into maintaining the infrastructures from which we all benefit and require. It isn’t just as simple as one guy paying for a road and then charging people to use it (especially since such an idea leads to feudalism - where only he who has enough money has “rights”) As myself, and Jim (and probably others) mentioned before, each of us has an implicit responsibility in being and living in society and as such those responsibilities need to be met (even by those who don’t wish to meet them).

“Really? Do you have ANY experience in the free market? Have you ever had a job? Do you think roads would be run by one person paying the road company to build a road? Road companies would likely build the roads on their own dime and charge people for usage.”

First, as I already pointed out there simply is no such thing as a “free market”, and never has been. That idea is a fictional dream world pushed by rigid ideology (similar to the ideology of religions). No markets have ever been “free” proper. More to the point though, this notion that “road companies” would build roads and charge people for usage is pure speculation. And even if I granted that such a concept would be actualized it is still pure speculation that such a system would be better than what has already been accomplished. Anyone can make such speculations. How about this one? In this dream-world of “voluntary” roads, owners of every piece of land would stop people at the end of every single property line and charge them for use, forcing them to sign contracts (etc), and creating massive traffic jams at every line. And what about people who can’t afford to pay? I guess it’s debt slavery or no travel for them. And what if I refuse to pay and just drive through? Is the landowner going to sue my paramilitary? What you are promoting here is essentially feudalism and it does not work.

“OHHH, now it all makes sense. I bow to your logic.

 

If you're really in favor of people determining what is necessary, then you should let the free market work because the ONLY way you can get rich (outside of robbing or defrauding people) in the free market is by offering them what they demand, so that they VOLUNTARILY give you their money. The free market is the most efficient way to serve the demands of society. Here's another video I made on that very subject: https://www.google.c....77161500,d.aWw”

First, I’m not going to sit for 25 minutes and listen to you rant on a YouTube video. Simply present your arguments here for others to see and respond to. Second, when people have come together through history (by their own voluntary choice) they have created rules, laws, and enforces of those laws, along with infractures and services to provide for the basic common good of all. And they had the “right” to do so due to the nature of what rights are. We can have a debate about what rights are, from where they derive, and so forth but for now it stands to reason that when given “freedom” people create governments! And each of us benefit from the collective actions of those who have come before, and operate now. As to your second assertion about free-markets I will await some actual unbiased and academic data to back up that claim (along with proper definitions of terms). Again, the “free market” does not exist and I have yet to be presented with any evidence that such a concept is even remotely realistic.

“Wow. That makes the analogy even more severe. You are literally in favor of enslavement of people the moment they are born. You hate choice. You are a despicable human being.”

Two things. First, if you actually want to have a rational discussion here (and truly care whether or not your beliefs/presuppositions are true or not), then how about refraining from such snide name calling - as it does nothing to move the discussion forward and only serves to piss people off. It’s clear that your morality differs from my own (as well as others here), but that difference doesn’t make me a “despicable human being”. And your assertion of it is just another personal subjective opinion. Secondly, you misrepresented my position here by attempting to tell ME what I am “for” (straw man fallacy). I neither stated nor implied that I am for enslaving anyone. Neither did I say or imply that I “hate choice”. Have you really just revered to putting words in my mouth because you have no better rebuttal? Please go back and read my previous rebuttal, and properly represent what I stated next time. Otherwise, you won’t be arguing against me but someone else that you made up in your head.

“If you expect to collect money from people who never agreed to pay for your service, you are nothing more than a common criminal.”

Pertaining to the context of this discussion, this is (yet again) another one of your unsupported assertions (and just an opinion). I already rebutted this part of the topic and you didn’t deal with it. In virtue of being a part of society people are already using and implicitly agreeing to use the services that are benefitting them (just like you are already doing; in hypocrisy against your own stated principles I might add). Thus, they owe for the use of such benefits. Unless you are going to argue that your parents violated your alleged “rights” by having sex and giving birth to you (and/or that you have no implicit responsibility to society), my rebuttal stands. You use and benefit from basic collective services and therefore you owe for them.

“Really? Children have the option to opt out of life at any moment. You don't afford people the option to opt out of the government. “

You just missed the point entirely. Children do not have the option to “opt out” of being born, but their parents DO in fact have the right to bring them into this world, (again b/c rights are human constructs granted by one another). But, it is completely untrue that you don’t have the option to opt out of government. You do! You can kill yourself right now, if you so choose. You will then no longer be a part of society and will no longer be benefitting from it and no longer need to contribute to it. To quote Ben Steele from years ago, “No system is ever entirely voluntary since we are all born into systems that we didn’t create.”

“Here's a question for you. IF the government is so fantastic and provides such great services, why does it have to be compulsory? Why can't it compete with the free market? Surely it will outperform the free market. So, simply treat the government as any other business: If you don't want the services, you don't get to use them and you don't have to pay. “

First, I never once have stated that government is “so fantastic”. So again, you are arguing against someone else you made up in your head (not me). My position is that our government does a pretty dang good job at most of its services and benefits most of the time. Second, the idea that complete voluntarism (as you are advocating for) is better than what we have (even if true) is wholly unsupported by any historical or scientific evidence. There simply is no sound reason for thinking that this utopian world is even plausible (let alone possible), especially given what we have seen in past times when significant governmental safety nets are removed from parts of society (i.e. - Somalia). In that sense, this notion is a completely hypothetical and non-empirical ideology of fiction. And as such I see no reason for adopting it or even considering it as a viable option for human beings. Idealism leads to worse societies, not better ones.

“Yet you think theft is a necessity for "the keeping of a well-being cooperative society", so you just as quickly throw the moral principle of "DON'T STEAL" straight out the window. “

I’m a little surprised that you responded this way. Do you actually think that I agree with your assertion that taxation is theft? If it isn’t already obvious, the answer is NO. I reject your assertion that taxation is theft and I have seen no sound reasoning to support that it is. Have you not been paying attention to my responses to you? Furthermore (and I wanted to mention this earlier), the burden of proof is not with me to “prove you wrong”. The burden of proof lies with you who made the claim.

“Tell that to the slaves. Throughout history, MOST PEOPLE HAD NO MORAL ISSUE WITH SLAVERY. THEY GENUINELY THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE ECONOMY AND FOR THE GREATER GOOD. And because of their complete disregard for moral principles, they threw all morality out the window and said "Well, we need it, so TOUGH". Guess what group of people you'll be grouped with by future generations? Filthy, disgusting slave owners.”

Care to actually backup this claim of “they”? How about citing some actual source documentation for this claim that people thought is was “necessary for the economy and for the greater good.” If you do so I will analyze their arguments and explain my reasoning. I apologize in advance if this sounds rude but my impression is that you haven’t actually read any academic/historical sources or source documentation on the subjects of philosophy, political philosophy, or economics. It sounds as if you’ve just listened to a bunch of Stefan Molynuts YouTube videos and became sucked into his cult.

[Dsengere]

"I reject the assertion that being apart of society and being compelled to contribute to it (as keeping with our implicit responsibility to do so) is somehow “denying” you any essential “rights”. Rights are only as good as those who agree with you and the rational justifications that are made for them. The good of the whole of society is measured in many different ways but the point was that since we have an implicit responsibility to one another in our society we must make good on that responsibility and that requires payment in exchange for the benefits we are currently receiving each day. Otherwise we are stealing. Now, you did not present any sound reasoning for your assertion that the concept of the individual and the concept of society are one in the same (in fact I reject such notions of reductionism since our actions effect others and the well being of the most amount of people is not trumped by the alleged “rights” of a few). In my view, the “rights” of an individual do not trump the rights of the whole. Living in society comes with certain responsibilities ( and thus debts) and as such people are rightfully compelled to make good on them. Btw, the video you posted didn’t demonstrate anything. It just made claims with no actual references, nor did it actually define its terms. The Koch brothers? Really? Please try to cite references that are less biased if you would like them to be taken seriously. "

Let me try this... I "reject" your claims. Whew! I win! That was easy (sorry, learned it from you bro). Address the arguments and the data or don't talk.

"This is yet another false analogy, since one computer is (again) not necessary for the basic welfare of all. "

Ok, then replace it with something "necessary for the welfare of all"; The math model still holds. Also, there's this thing called "charity"- people are really into it. In fact, the majority of people care a great deal about the poor (otherwise the product of democracy would not produce a massive welfare state).

Did you know that nobody is forcing supermarkets to exist? They're not government run! How then could they ever work with no government guarantee!? Is it possible that people are all acting in their rational self interest in the free market, and a demand is being fulfilled (in fact, the most important demand- food!) Well, yes, of course. And for those who can't afford food, there is overflowing charity to take care of them. I know you'll balk at that last sentence, and I know you'll balk at this video, but I don't care. The fact is that there is far more than enough charity to take care of all those who actually need it in society:

"First, as I already pointed out there simply is no such thing as a “free market”, and never has been. That idea is a fictional dream world pushed by rigid ideology (similar to the ideology of religions). No markets have ever been “free” proper. "

So? Did you know that there has never been a perfect laboratory setting for ANY physical law derived, like f=ma? That doesn't mean we shouldn't observe basic facts, such as that prosperity is a result of the level of economic freedom? You would know that if you watch the 2:00 minute economic freedom video. There may have never been a perfectly free market. So what? We can see the effect of increasing economic freedom and realize that there is a trend. Duh.

"And even if I granted that such a concept would be actualized it is still pure speculation that such a system would be better than what has already been accomplished."

No. The data is clear that economic freedom produces prosperity. Irrefutable.

"How about this one? In this dream-world of “voluntary” roads, owners of every piece of land would stop people at the end of every single property line and charge them for use, forcing them to sign contracts (etc), and creating massive traffic jams at every line. And what about people who can’t afford to pay? I guess it’s debt slavery or no travel for them. And what if I refuse to pay and just drive through? Is the landowner going to sue my paramilitary? What you are promoting here is essentially feudalism and it does not work. "

Again, you obviously have no entrepreneurial experience whatsoever. There's this thing called "competition" and "pleasing your customers so that they voluntarily pay you".

"Two things. First, if you actually want to have a rational discussion here (and truly care whether or not your beliefs/presuppositions are true or not), then how about refraining from such snide name calling - as it does nothing to move the discussion forward and only serves to piss people off. It’s clear that your morality differs from my own (as well as others here), but that difference doesn’t make me a “despicable human being”. And your assertion of it is just another personal subjective opinion. Secondly, you misrepresented my position here by attempting to tell ME what I am “for” (straw man fallacy). I neither stated nor implied that I am for enslaving anyone. Neither did I say or imply that I “hate choice”. Have you really just revered to putting words in my mouth because you have no better rebuttal? Please go back and read my previous rebuttal, and properly represent what I stated next time. Otherwise, you won’t be arguing against me but someone else that you made up in your head. "

NAA (not an argument).

" (again b/c rights are human constructs granted by one another). "

OK. I have the right to rape you, according to... me and my gang of thugs. We're bigger and stronger than you, so your opinion doesn't matter. We'll see you tonight!

"Care to actually backup this claim of “they”? How about citing some actual source documentation for this claim that people thought is was “necessary for the economy and for the greater good.” If you do so I will analyze their arguments and explain my reasoning. "

I'm surprised that you even care about the majority opinion. According to you, people don't have natural rights, and... as you so eloquently said, "tough". The fact is that evil people operating under your beloved "might makes right" ideology got away with slavery for thousands and thousands of years of human history.

But if you want documentation, here you go:

http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/brief.htm

[Dsengere]

If you believe that people have an obligation to help others in society, then clearly you should believe that there is no problem with forcing people into the "most effective" professions to serve the greater good, right? Sacrifice the individual for the collective.

Let's say one person would better serve society as a doctor, but he doesn't much want to become a doctor.

Do I have the right to force this person to become a doctor if it will increase overall well-being in society? After all, he SHOULD choose the career that best serves society. He has an obligation, no? Obviously I do not have the right to force him to become a doctor. The same goes towards paying to help the poor But why not? Well, respect for individual rights (in this case, the right to choose whatever career you want) is rooted in the idea that humans are not godlike- if they could predict the future perfectly, that would be an argument for complete totalitarianism and central planning. But this doesn’t really work well as history has demonstrated again and again. We all know that humans are not perfect, we have come up with some really basic moral principles that happen to work really well in organizing society, such as “don’t hit, don’t steal”, etc. instead of trusting every person to be able to weigh the utilitarian pros and cons of every single situation (as this is very conducive to justifying evil, etc.)

The reason we call these principles is that we try to apply them universally even when they don’t seem to serve the utilitarian purpose (we don’t simply kill people even if we truly believe them to be a net drain on society, such as a deaf and blind quadriplegic who will never generate value in society. Why? Because we are universally applying the principle of “do not murder” because, on the whole, this principle works well when we adhere to it. When we throw the principles out the window, society tends to collapse into chaos. Moral principles are not perfect and do not apply to every single conceivable situation, but we trust them and stick to them 99.9% of the time.

So, how does this relate to taxation? I, and many others, strongly believe that abiding by the non-aggression principle (don’t hit, don’t steal, don’t rape, don’t murder, don’t initiate force, etc.) FAR better serves society and the disadvantaged than the initiation of force that is government. I disagree with your vision of society, so I hope that you will grant me the common courtesy of NOT taking my property by force to fulfill your worldview.

So, on your point that it’s not stealing to make someone pay for the sick, elderly, etc. because it is their obligation: Firstly, the very definition of theft disagrees with you.

[KneeJerk]

"First, as I already pointed out there simply is no such thing as a “free market”, and never has been. That idea is a fictional dream world pushed by rigid ideology (similar to the ideology of religions). No markets have ever been “free” proper. "

 

 

 

A rigid ideology going back hundreds (thousands?) of years must be pretty darn rigid.

 

From bartering three chickens for a goat w/o any interference from any outside party, to hiring who you want and paying them what they are willing to work for, is one heck of an 'ideology'.

 

The term 'logical' comes to mind.

 

Freedom ... liberally applied.

 

KJ

[median]

Here’s an example to illustrate how there is no outstanding debt to society in a purely free market (voluntary, un-coerced exchanges, respect for the NAP, etc.)

 

Let’s pretend that we live in a stateless society on a big island with no government.

 

Let’s say I want to buy a car.

 

I pay the car dealership for the car in cash, case closed. No debt to society, EVEN THOUGH all of society made that car possible. How is this possible? After all, the car could not exist without the roads, and teachers, and infrastructure, etc.

 

The car company paid line workers to assemble the cars.

The car company also paid engineers to design the cars.

The company also pays for electricity to run their office.

The engineers paid a college or other institution to teach them engineering.

The college paid professors to teach.

The professors at the college pay the road company to drive on the roads.

The road company pays its laborers to build the road and the concrete company for the material.

The concrete company pays for gasoline to run their machines.

The concrete company pays laborers to unearth this material.

The laborers pay the supermarket to buy food so they can work.

Everyone pays their security/defense organization so that they can work in peace.

And the list goes on as a deep, intertwined web of transactions.

 

Yet the car buyer only has to pay the car dealership even though he benefitted from all of these things.

BUT the car buyer is actually paying for all of these things because they are captured in the price of the car! Why do cars cost a lot? Because a lot goes into them!

At the end of the day, nobody owes anybody.

 

“Oh!” you say, “But in today’s society, government runs the school and the road! Therefore, taxation is not theft!” For those who voluntarily choose to utilize government services, that is true. But for those who would rather utilize a different source to provide these services, THEY have no choice and are being stolen from.

 

To make this point clear, just replace any of the companies we use today, which are voluntary, with the mafia. What if your local mafia required that you buy food from their supermarket? After all, everyone needs food, right? Everyone benefits from food, right? Therefore it’s not theft for them to take your money at gunpoint and then offer you their food, right? Of course, this IS theft because it clearly matches the definition of theft.

 

Even though we all enjoy all kinds of positive externalities (like enjoying a society with educated people, or going to a club where everyone was able to drive there and party late into the night because of electricity), nobody expects you to double-pay for those things. No car mechanic would charge people every time they drove their car (even though, without the mechanic, you wouldn’t even be able to drive AT ALL!).

 

Now, onto the childhood example:

 

Yes, as a baby and child, you consume a lot of services because you are helpless and dependent. That is why your parents are morally obligated to provide for you BECAUSE the child did not have a choice whether or not they would be born. You more or less say, “well, you’re in favor of childbirth therefore you’re in favor of involuntary relationships in general between fully autonomous adults”, but of course that statement is false. Parents do not have the right to charge helpless and dependent babies and children for consuming services when they literally had no choice in the matter (aside from suicide, which children naturally don’t even think of or consider because of their natural drive to survive, until they’re at least 5 or older). For parents to require their children to pay them back for consuming baby food would be no better than me trapping you in my basement, feeding you spinach, and then charging you for it.

 

Of course, the situation becomes much more clear when you’re dealing with fully autonomous, consenting adults. In those situations, it’s even more clear that you do not have the right to charge people without their agreement.

 

A stateless society on a big island with no government is fiction (just like the alleged "free market" is and like the concept of “freewill” is) but I will respond anyhow. The analogy is another false one, since you're having a car (in this little scenario) is not a necessity for keeping the general welfare of all peoples living among one another in a society (unlike something like clean water which is). So there is no rightful or accurate correlation there and in my view you are putting way too much trust in people's 'good graces' to keep society functioning smoothly (unrealistically). Many people (if not most people), when left to their own devices, exhibit selfish, greedy, narcissistic, and sociopathic tendencies and this is one of the reasons why I (and many others) believe that collective action and regulation is necessary. Secondly, your mafia analogy (although very common) is also a false one b/c mafias are by definition illegal entities that have no legitimate authority in society to enforce collective rules (especially since we live in a democracy where each can work and vote toward change if we wish to). Mafias are also not elected officials, nor are they working toward the benefit of people in society. They seek to harm society for personal gain (in fact, if anything they are anarchistic in at least a few senses). Furthermore, the mafia does not own land, property, or resources which people are born into and from which we benefit in virtue of living (like we do in society). So there is no significantly defensible analogy there either (even though this mafia analogy is really just a repetition of the assertion that taxation is extortion/theft; for which myself and others here have seen no sound reasoning to support).

 

Regarding your comment on “double pay” I think you presented yet another false analogy. The services from which we benefit, in virtue of living in society, require ongoing maintenance, upkeep, workers to do those jobs, and sometimes new equipment (for starters); not to mention payment (from which all of us benefitted prior to our births and which our collective contribution has allowed for all to benefit and not just some who can afford it) . So the situation is not at all like a one time transaction of buying a car. We are paying for the continued upkeep of the basic services that are generally required for the general well-being of all. However, in my view we are not doing enough. Regarding parents, they DO in fact have the “right” to give birth to children (without their consent), and they have the right to coerce them to do chores (and other work) around the house to keep things running smoothly (against their initial consent I might add), as well as make them go to school, do their homework, and contribute to the family etc. There is no relation to “slavery”, as such situations are part of living together and working collectively within the confines of our basic responsibilities we have to one another (whether on a small scale in a family or village, or on a larger scale). So I don’t think the family analogy is really going to assist your argument here. We are not “autonomous” from one another. That notion is just another fiction promulgated by narcissistic draconian philosophy. Our actions, and non-actions, affect others around us and as such we, the people, have a right to work toward the betterment for as many as possible through collective voting, law, and order.

[median]

“Let me try this... I "reject" your claims. Whew! I win! That was easy (sorry, learned it from you bro). Address the arguments and the data or don't talk.”

This response, and the others from your post #467, basically ignored major parts of my rebuttal (which is quite ironic given your assertions about “despicable human being”, which has nothing to do with “the arguments”, and your command you gave above). Could you get anymore hypocritical? I not only stated that I reject your assertion regarding “rights”, I also gave reasons for that rejection. If you choose not to rationally address those rebuttals then they stand for now. As I mentioned before, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim that “taxation is theft” and neither I (nor others here) have seen any rational justification for that claim. I will talk all I want thank you.

“Ok, then replace it with something "necessary for the welfare of all"; The math model still holds. Also, there's this thing called "charity"- people are really into it. In fact, the majority of people care a great deal about the poor (otherwise the product of democracy would not produce a massive welfare state). “

It is not my job to assist your argument by replacing the words in your assertion with something else. My response was meant to address the false analogies you keep trying to use in your reasoning that absolutely no coercion can be ethical. Further, the postulation that charity will take care of what is needed to maintain society is just another common unsupported one (kind of like the claim that the rule of corporations, i.e. corporate tyranny, will do any better than what we have now). I will wait for you to produce actual unbiased data on both the claims that charity will somehow be sufficient and that the majority of people are actually contributing enough. To date, I view these as nothing but unsupported assertions of a fictional world that doesn’t exist, has never existed, and for which we have no sound reason for thinking could exist in the real world.

“Did you know that nobody is forcing supermarkets to exist? They're not government run! How then could they ever work with no government guarantee!? Is it possible that people are all acting in their rational self interest in the free market, and a demand is being fulfilled (in fact, the most important demand- food!) Well, yes, of course. And for those who can't afford food, there is overflowing charity to take care of them. I know you'll balk at that last sentence, and I know you'll balk at this video, but I don't care. The fact is that there is far more than enough charity to take care of all those who actually need it in society:”

As I mentioned before, I’m not interested in watching protracted videos which you are convinced by (by you are Molynuts). Present your arguments here, in summary for all to critique (along with the source documentation to back them up). In response to the supermarket example, supermarkets are not part of a “free market”. They are regulated by the federal government (we the people and our elected respresentatives) to ensure food safety (and in my view rightfully so), just as many other businesses such as the pharmaceutical industries are. Your argument though is a strawman b/c I did not state that businesses, companies, or corporations “could not work” without laws or governing bodies. Enron, Bernie Madoff (among many entities ran by cunning sociopathic people) existed for a long time too. But none of those has anything to do with whether taxation is “theft” or whether regulation is necessary.

“So? Did you know that there has never been a perfect laboratory setting for ANY physical law derived, like f=ma? That doesn't mean we shouldn't observe basic facts, such as that prosperity is a result of the level of economic freedom? You would know that if you watch the 2:00 minute economic freedom video. There may have never been a perfectly free market. So what? We can see the effect of increasing economic freedom and realize that there is a trend. Duh. “

As I stated before, your Koch brothers video didn’t demonstrate anything. It made unsupported claims with no source documentation to back anything up (just as you have been doing here). So as far as I’m concerned, these videos are just propaganda pieces. However, I’m happy that you are willing to admit that free markets don’t exist, and haven’t. That’s a good start. Two thumbs up.

“No. The data is clear that economic freedom produces prosperity. Irrefutable.”

More unsupported claims. Am I supposed to just take your word for it? And what is meant by “economic prosperity”? Prosperity for whom and by whose definition?

“Again, you obviously have no entrepreneurial experience whatsoever. There's this thing called "competition" and "pleasing your customers so that they voluntarily pay you".”

You shouldn’t be so quick to make such gross assumptions when you don’t know anything about a person. If it’s any consolation, over the past 17 years I have bought, ran, managed, and sold three different businesses and have plenty of experience in the business world. So your claim is just false. However, this response didn’t actually deal with my rebuttal completely, since I asked quite a few questions and was responding to the assertion that an “all voluntary” thing would be better than what we have now. Again, the burden of proof is on you and I have seen no convincing evidence that pure competition will cure all of our ales and maintain the most stable society.

“NAA (not an argument). “

Actually, I did present an argument in that response. But your dismissive attitude here is pretty ironic since your assertion of “despicable human being” was not an argument either, just an assertion. Can you say, “The pot calling the kettle black.”? I’m not sure how much more can be discussed if you’re just going to ignore my rebuttals but my point was to note how such assertions don't move the discussion forward in any way.

“OK. I have the right to rape you, according to... me and my gang of thugs. We're bigger and stronger than you, so your opinion doesn't matter. We'll see you tonight!”

Sounds good! And by that same token I (and many others) have a right to defend ourselves. So keep in my mind that you will be meeting my paramilitary group called “the police”, which are stronger, more technologically advanced, and better funded than your gang of thugs. So too, we are bigger and stronger since our goal is to generally keep the peace and put rapists away and we are funded by the consenting majority of people in society who want peace too. See how rights work?

If you’d like to defend your position that there is some such thing as “natural rights” please do.


“I'm surprised that you even care about the majority opinion. According to you, people don't have natural rights, and... as you so eloquently said, "tough". The fact is that evil people operating under your beloved "might makes right" ideology got away with slavery for thousands and thousands of years of human history.

 

But if you want documentation, here you go:

http://americanaboli...i.edu/brief.htm"

First, the link you provided gives no argument at all, nor any attempted justification, for slavery as “necessary for the economy and for the greater good.” So that argument remains unsupported. Secondly, you’ve misrepresented my position once again by putting words in my mouth about “might makes right”. Nowhere have I argued for or implied that I hold that position. So you are arguing against a straw man - not me. Now, my using the word ‘tough’ was in response to your comment regarding what you personally ‘want’ (i.e. - the fictional world you have created in your mind where everything is just grand and voluntary). Well, you don’t live in that world and there is simply no sound evidence to support that such a world is anywhere near plausible.

[median]

“If you believe that people have an obligation to help others in society, then clearly you should believe that there is no problem with forcing people into the "most effective" professions to serve the greater good, right? Sacrifice the individual for the collective.

 

Let's say one person would better serve society as a doctor, but he doesn't much want to become a doctor.

 

Do I have the right to force this person to become a doctor if it will increase overall well-being in society? After all, he SHOULD choose the career that best serves society. He has an obligation, no? Obviously I do not have the right to force him to become a doctor. The same goes towards paying to help the poor But why not? Well, respect for individual rights (in this case, the right to choose whatever career you want) is rooted in the idea that humans are not godlike- if they could predict the future perfectly, that would be an argument for complete totalitarianism and central planning. But this doesn’t really work well as history has demonstrated again and again. We all know that humans are not perfect, we have come up with some really basic moral principles that happen to work really well in organizing society, such as “don’t hit, don’t steal”, etc. instead of trusting every person to be able to weigh the utilitarian pros and cons of every single situation (as this is very conducive to justifying evil, etc.)”

Are you deliberately trying to derail the topic now in switching to talking about jobs and what role the government should play in human affairs? If you’re finished arguing that taxation is theft then by all means, let’s move on to other topics.

 

“The reason we call these principles is that we try to apply them universally even when they don’t seem to serve the utilitarian purpose (we don’t simply kill people even if we truly believe them to be a net drain on society, such as a deaf and blind quadriplegic who will never generate value in society. Why? Because we are universally applying the principle of “do not murder” because, on the whole, this principle works well when we adhere to it. When we throw the principles out the window, society tends to collapse into chaos. Moral principles are not perfect and do not apply to every single conceivable situation, but we trust them and stick to them 99.9% of the time.”

I will direct you to Vlerchan’s response to you on this one b/c I think he stated it quite well. Your “principles” are clearly different from my own (as they are from Vlerchan’s and others here). That much is evident. Have you formally studied ethics and the varying moral theories in philosophy (deontology, consequentialism, utilitarianism, etc)? Such debates go back millennia. Applying nearly any ethical principle universally is almost always problematic.

 

“So, how does this relate to taxation? I, and many others, strongly believe that abiding by the non-aggression principle (don’t hit, don’t steal, don’t rape, don’t murder, don’t initiate force, etc.) FAR better serves society and the disadvantaged than the initiation of force that is government.”

 

The words “strongly believe” just make you sound that much more like a cultist religious follower of the ideology you are promoting (i.e. - The Church of Stefan Molyneux). “I strongly believe” has no relevance here. The NAP can be quietly put to bed for a nap if “I strongly believe” is your only reasoning. Now, things like “don’t hit”, “don’t steal”, etc are not universal, and in my view shouldn’t be (an example would be Anne Frank lying to the SS to save her family). Ethics are situational and subjective based upon what a person values.

 

“I disagree with your vision of society, so I hope that you will grant me the common courtesy of NOT taking my property by force to fulfill your worldview.

So, on your point that it’s not stealing to make someone pay for the sick, elderly, etc. because it is their obligation: Firstly, the very definition of theft disagrees with you.”

What definition of “theft”, and whose? We haven’t begun to discuss that debate (although you have begun that debate with others here). Perhaps more importantly though, the definition you provided above (Theft is wrongful or unauthorized appropriation of property), even if agreed upon, makes the implicit assumption that taxes are “wrongful”, and that is something for which you have not demonstrated either. I believe my worldview is based on reality and that yours is based in non-existent fiction of a world that doesn’t exist, hasn’t existed, and for which we have no reason to think ever will. As Vlerchen stated, “Just by existing you're accessing services like "policing" and "the defence forces" and as such you owe for them since you live in society and benefit from their kind. Just because you CLAIM that you ought to have the alleged “right” to opt out doesn’t mean that you do. It’s just another claim that stems from your philosophical presuppositions. If you’d like to discuss those underpinnings we can do that in a different thread.

http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html

[Dsengere]

“A stateless society on a big island with no government is fiction (just like the alleged "free market" is and like the concept of “freewill” is) but I will respond anyhow. “

Yes, I know that it’s fiction. It’s called a “hypothetical situation” to illustrate this thing called a “point”.

“ The analogy is another false one, since you're having a car (in this little scenario) is not a necessity for keeping the general welfare of all peoples living among one another in a society (unlike something like clean water which is). So there is no rightful or accurate correlation there and in my view you are putting way too much trust in people's 'good graces' to keep society functioning smoothly (unrealistically).”

Like I said multiple times, then instead of referring to a car, let’s refer to food or protection services or roads or whatever.

You are completely missing the main point. The main point is that the good or service in question does not change the fundamental mathematics of being able to have these things without any “debt to society”.

“Many people (if not most people), when left to their own devices, exhibit selfish, greedy, narcissistic, and sociopathic tendencies and this is one of the reasons why I (and many others) believe that collective action and regulation is necessary. “

Which is exactly why we can’t have a government because the most evil people will be drawn to it, but that’s a side point. This doesn’t address the fact that taxation is theft though.

“Secondly, your mafia analogy (although very common) is also a false one b/c mafias are by definition illegal entities that have no legitimate authority in society to enforce collective rules (especially since we live in a democracy where each can work and vote toward change if we wish to).”

Ah, so you believe legality grants legitimacy? I’m assuming you were cool with the fugitive slave act (a product of a democratic republic), right?

“Mafias are also not elected officials, nor are they working toward the benefit of people in society.”

This assumes that government is working toward the benefit of people in society. It isn’t. Anyways, you’re again missing the fundamental point, which is that government, like the mafia, initiates force and does not allow people to choose whether they want to pay for a good or service.

“Regarding your comment on “double pay” I think you presented yet another false analogy. The services from which we benefit, in virtue of living in society, require ongoing maintenance, upkeep, workers to do those jobs, and sometimes new equipment (for starters); not to mention payment (from which all of us benefitted prior to our births and which our collective contribution has allowed for all to benefit and not just some who can afford it) . So the situation is not at all like a one time transaction of buying a car. We are paying for the continued upkeep of the basic services that are generally required for the general well-being of all.”

Yes, which is easily captured in the price of paying for something. Do you think that somehow, when we give people the choice on whether they want to use a good or service, that somehow paying for maintenance becomes impossible? Did you know that the cost of maintaining a water treatment plant (or electrical infrastructure or roads or police services or any other service) can be part of the price of using it? The fact that you can’t see this is truly amazing to me.

You do realize that the relationship between parent and child is fundamentally different than the relationship of two adults? While it’s aside the point, parents DO NOT have the right to treat their children like slaves as you describe; If anything, parents owe their children the utmost good treatment because of the extremely large disparity in power, autonomy, and choice. Parents should strive as much as possible to treat their children as full human beings when possible. You’re saying that you have the right to treat adults like children because we grant parents SOME limited authority due to the helplessness of children.

“It is not my job to assist your argument by replacing the words in your assertion with something else. My response was meant to address the false analogies you keep trying to use in your reasoning that absolutely no coercion can be ethical. “

Ok idiot, don’t address the fundamental argument, that’s fine. You’ve forfeited that point.

“ I will wait for you to produce actual unbiased data on both the claims that charity will somehow be sufficient and that the majority of people are actually contributing enough. “

I did in the form of a 30 minute video packed full of data on poverty. If you don’t want to watch it, then simply leave the conversation.

“They are regulated by the federal government (we the people and our elected respresentatives) to ensure food safety (and in my view rightfully so), just as many other businesses such as the pharmaceutical industries are. “

What you’re saying is that because food suppliers are touched by regulation, we cannot use their existence to describe the free market at all. Very “reductionist” logic (to quote you).

“More unsupported claims. Am I supposed to just take your word for it? And what is meant by “economic prosperity”? Prosperity for whom and by whose definition? “

Oh, you didn’t watch the 2 minute video? Figures. Here’s a chart illustrating the correlation between economic freedom and prosperity.

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/ALaChart/017/ALC_017_3col_c.jpg

Look, if you don't want to put in the time, that's fine. Just stop being lazy and claiming that a claim is unsupported just because it's in video format.

“Sounds good! And by that same token I (and many others) have a right to defend ourselves. So keep in my mind that you will be meeting my paramilitary group called “the police”, which are stronger, more technologically advanced, and better funded than your gang of thugs. So too, we are bigger and stronger since our goal is to generally keep the peace and put rapists away and we are funded by the consenting majority of people in society who want peace too. See how rights work?”

You refuse to admit the fact that people have natural rights (such as the right to not be raped). Very telling.

“First, the link you provided gives no argument at all, nor any attempted justification, for slavery as “necessary for the economy and for the greater good.” So that argument remains unsupported.”

Does it even matter though? No. The important fact is that most people did not stand up against slavery.

“Now, my using the word ‘tough’ was in response to your comment regarding what you personally ‘want’ (i.e. - the fictional world you have created in your mind where everything is just grand and voluntary). Well, you don’t live in that world and there is simply no sound evidence to support that such a world is anywhere near plausible. “

Translation: I fail to realize how society can run without breaking basic moral principles such as “don’t take people’s property against their will”, so therefore it’s not wrong.

“Are you deliberately trying to derail the topic now in switching to talking about jobs and what role the government should play in human affairs? If you’re finished arguing that taxation is theft then by all means, let’s move on to other topics.”

No, idiot. I’m trying to demonstrate a point to you: That humans have individual rights.

“What definition of “theft”, and whose?

Perhaps more importantly though, the definition you provided above (Theft is wrongful or unauthorized appropriation of property), even if agreed upon, makes the implicit assumption that taxes are “wrongful”, and that is something for which you have not demonstrated either. “

What are you talking about? That’s the definition of theft, not the definition of taxation. It just happens that taxation matches the definition of theft perfectly. Take the word wrongful out and replace it with “against their will”, it means the same thing.

I know this isn’t an argument but your logic is truly godawful. Mark my words, future generations are going to spit on your grave. You should investigate peaceful human interaction.

[Dsengere]

"You do! You can kill yourself right now, if you so choose. You will then no longer be a part of society and will no longer be benefitting from it and no longer need to contribute to it."

Jesus...

I have an idea, what about getting to opt out by NOT consuming certain goods and services in society?! Why is that such a difficult concept?

We have the obvious right to opt out of buying certain types of food or certain types of cars or certain types of computers, why not government services?

Of course, you'll say "Because they're for the good of society overall". Really? I'm a human, I'm a part of society, and I as a human being am the only one who truly knows what goods and services benefit ME and at what cost is worth it to me, and every other person is the same (When you have to forcibly take money from someone against their will to pay for something that they don't want, you know for a FACT that they are experiencing a net LOSS because otherwise you wouldn't have to force them into the transaction).

That being said, some government services make certain individuals worse off. That being said, what if they want to use an ALTERNATIVE service or no service at all? What if they believe that government services are not worth their money and that other people can do it better? Do they not have the right to simply subsidize an alternative service? You have not answered this question. Again, if government services are great, then they should compete very well in the free market. Why don't people have the right to compete with government services?

And no, SUICIDE is not a viable option for "opting out"- under that logic, you can "opt out" of a thief's gunpoint demand for your wallet by refusing to hand it over and getting shot in the head.

You have stated that if you benefit from the goods and services in society, you have to pay for it. So surely, if you don't wish to benefit from said services by NOT consuming them, you should not have to pay for them.

And the idea that it is legitimate for a company to charge you for providing a service to you without giving you a choice to opt out is, well, criminal. HYPOTHETICALLY (You're going to need to think in abstracts here- I know that's difficult), let's pretend that there was a private police/defense company A. Let's say that you didn't like their policies, or the prices were way too high, or you thought they were over-hyping the threat of criminals in the area- in fact you think they make crime problems worse. For whatever reason, you don’t want to utilize their services. Now, let’s say they start patrolling around your house looking for criminals and terrorists. Then they send you a bill in the mail for patrolling your area, and they even caught a thief lurking around in the woods! You see, THEY think they provided all kinds of value to you, but value is SUBJECTIVE, and the only way to know whether that value is worth your money is to give you the choice of whether you agree to consume their services. They may think that their patrolling gave you $5,000 of value so they charged you $5,000, but you obviously disagree. Obviously you never agreed to the services, and for you the services are not worth it for you (either because the price was too high, or there was not a real need for them, etc. EVEN if they may have provided SOME value to you). Do they have the right to force you to pay them? Obviously not, because you never agreed to subscribe to their services.

[Dsengere]