RoR: Forum

Jonathan wrote:

For the same reason that I view quotas as an unjust version of the collectivist mentality, so too is the idea that a politician can somehow "represent" me (and thousand of others).

Jonathan, would you not consider that people are capable of choosing an agent to represent their interests? For example, when you hire an attorney to represent you, he speaks on your behalf and for your interests. Although this is not exactly the same as a politician as you say (or representative) because you are not hiring the representative but voting for one, and you must settle for the one that receives a majority vote (although in some cases the minority winner can win e.g. electoral college) it is a similar concept. Since we both agree rights are objective not subjective, the laws with which are passed to protect our rights must too be objective, then those representatives that would govern us, that would pass and choose the laws to protect those rights, must be objectively chosen. We do so through a democratic vote. If there is a better way you are aware of to choose these representatives I'm more than willing to listen.

We don't all agree with each other 100% what these laws should be, we do not all agree 100% what a fair, just due process should look like, but we must achieve an objective code of laws to insure a reasonable level of peace and tranquility, so we must resolve these disagreements somehow and come to a peaceful agreement, which we have chosen in today's western democracies to do so through voting in a representative government with fragmented power, and not through violence or brute force.

But since we need a final arbiter for disputes to keep peace and tranquility, so too do we need to choose a system to objectively choose our representatives in government. But as our government is set up, it is structured so that no one individual or individuals yields all the power. If we did not objectively choose our representatives, but instead each individual demanded their own representative, and their subsequent own set of laws, this would be a chaotic system and is again, nothing short of anarchy.

And as for not considering taxation coercion, consider: What if I don't want to pay for the services of the publicly funded police department (let's say I consider them inept and ineffective). What happens if I choose not to pay my taxes, and instead engage a private security force to defend my property? I will be hauled off to jail at gunpoint. How is that not coercion?

You do have the right to hire your own security force to protect your home, you have this right now in America. But you would not have the right to start your private militia because you were unhappy with the results of your government's decision of final arbitration. (Unless the government became oppressive enough to the point exercising your right to free speech and redress from your government was no longer an option, and you had to take up arms) If you were unhappy with how much taxes you paid, or that your police department was inept, you still have other recourses of action to take before you decide to stop paying taxes and hire a militia. Indeed I think this would be a choice only in extreme circumstances where government is so oppressive it requires that level of violence. You can choose to vote for someone that agrees with you, or you may exercise your right to free speech and let your fellow citizens know of this ineptness and demand redress to your government representative. You also have a right to take that police department to court, and demand your rights are upheld with a level of satisfactory competence and seek damages. But again, if government is not 100% competent (who is really) then you cannot reasonably say it should therefore be thrown out. For again, what is the alternative to a semi-competent police force to which you have the opportunity as a citizen to remedy by the actions I have outlined here? Anarchy? Which is a far worse scenario. And if government can be funded purely through voluntary means then so be it, I would agree this would be far better but I'm not confident this would work considering my knowledge of Economics and the free rider problem. You pay your taxes but you have some rights to redress from your government.

To sum it up:

- Rights are objective

- Laws must be objective to ensure rights are objectively protected

-The people we choose to protect our rights and pass these laws must be objectively chosen for us to have objectively applied laws

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/16, 7:09pm)

Post 21

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 4:51am

Although this is not exactly the same as a politician as you say (or representative) because you are not hiring the representative but voting for one, and you must settle for the one that receives a majority vote (although in some cases the minority winner can win e.g. electoral college) it is a similar concept.

Similar? Perhaps, but you've already admitted it's not the same (for one I can choose to hire an attorney, there is no choice whether I should have a rep. or not). But I'm actually not too concerned with that aspect right now.

I'm still having a problem with your earlier assertion that taxation is not coercive as long as you have a representative. You've done a fine job explaining why you feel that there must be taxation (and I will address those points), but you have to admit, that by definition taxation is coercive. That's what seperates it from user fees etc.

You do have the right to hire your own security force to protect your home, you have this right now in America. But you would not have the right to start your private militia because you were unhappy with the results of your government's decision of final arbitration.

You do have the right to seek private medical care, you just don't have the right to avoid paying for socialized medicine.

You do have the right to seek private nutrition, you just don't have the right to avoid paying for those who can't afford it on their own.

You do have the right to seek private education, you just don't have the right to avoid paying for those who can't afford it on their own.

You do have the right to seek private housing, you just don't have the right to avoid paying for those who can't afoord it on their own.

I'm not following your logic.

Post 22

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 8:00am

Jonathan that just seems like you're telling me the slippery slope fallacy. That according to you by my logic, if taxation for the purpose of protecting individual rights is justified, so is taxation for the purpose of violating individual rights, such as taxation for welfare, socialized medicine, socialized education, and public housing. You seem to think there is no distinction between taxation for the sole purpose of protecting your rights, to taxation for the purpose of taking them away. I don't buy the slippery slope argument, they are not the same morally. We can make a distinction with which kind of taxation is moral and which is not.

Post 23

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 8:13am

You seem to think there is no distinction between taxation for the sole purpose of protecting your rights, to taxation for the purpose of taking them away. I don't buy the slippery slope argument, they are not the same morally. We can make a distinction with which kind of taxation is moral and which is not.

Ok, but you haven't, or did I miss something?

Post 24

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 8:23am

I did say the purpose of government was to protect individual rights, to use retaliatory force against those that would initiate it, thus I thought it was implicit in that statement that whatever taxes are to be levied they would be only to serve that purpose. My apologies I did not make that explicit in my prior posts.

Post 25

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 8:43am

No, I got that part, just not the reasoning behind it. You say there is a moral distinction between the two, but I didn't see any explicit reasoning behind that statement.

Post 26

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 9:29am

Taxation is theft - the end does not justify the means, so taxation could never be moral.....

and 'voluntary taxation' is a contradiction in terms.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/17, 9:37am)

Post 27

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 10:12am

Robert, if you consider any kind of taxation theft, which I don't agree, then you have to make a distinction between different kinds of theft. If you consider taxation for the purpose of administering justice and keeping the peace, i.e. protecting individual rights to be considered theft, then I would say this kind of theft is moral, not immoral. If it's a choice between living in a state of anarchy or in a state of peace, it would be immoral to not achieve a state of peace and justice because we thought all taxation was evil.

Post 28

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 1:47pm

I maintain that until such time that the majority of the world is civilized, the cost of maintaining defense alone will necessitate a base, flat tax. It is voluntary in the sense that by living in the nation you benefit from the defense and safety provided. As long as it is not used for a purpose that is not 100% equal among citizens, I have no problem with it. I think a flat % tax is fair - it could be on income or on consumption. I favor the latter - a flat sales tax on everything purchased. It would not be too high, there would be little enforcement needed as most businesses will not need extensive policing, and it would be less of a privacy violation, plus it even taxes criminals equally for the most part. Rich people buy more, but investments, corporate taxes, would all be non-existant. It still has problems here and there - so does a flat income tax - but bottom line is some fair, equal way in which to tax people for the benefits they receive.

Post 29

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 1:54pm

Kurt, what do you make of some of Rand's ideas for a voluntary tax? I don't see how this could work knowing the principle of the free rider problem. For why would I bother contributing my money to a government if others will do it for me? I'd like to know what others on this forum think unless this has already been discussed in the past? I'd like to here what Bill thinks as well.

Post 30

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 1:57pm

I am reading Terry Goodkind and in the 3rd novel, Richard requires a flat tax from everyone who lives in the kingdom and surrenders to fund the defense, no exceptions. All else are free to leave and try their luck with the other power who will not be as kind - we do exist in a similar situation now, is the fact of the matter, and its all the add-ons that are the real problem (social security, unnecessary regulations, education being taxed, etc).

Post 31

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 2:03pm

I think the reason Rand never pursued it is because she probably realized it was not likely to work. I tend to agree. I don't think there is a solution except that of better technology and a better, more civilized world. In about 100 years, if things go well, we should be able to reduce our military to very little - eventually, we could only need small numbers as sort of an overall federal police. Better technology could improve personal protection (such as some kind of personal shield) - or apprehension of criminals - but likely thousands of years will be required before we can get rid of it all, if ever for that matter. Maybe some world-wide computer like John Ringo postulated to prevent mass violence and see to needs - even then in his book a war happened, but of course it wouldnt be a good book otherwise.

Post 32

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 2:04pm

If you consider taxation for the purpose of administering justice and keeping the peace, i.e. protecting individual rights to be considered theft, then I would say this kind of theft is moral, not immoral.

How can theft be moral? It can't be. The ends don't justify the means. Taxation is by definition theft!

Robert, if you consider any kind of taxation theft, which I don't agree

Why not?!? You keep claiming that taxation is not theft, but you're not offering any evidence to support that claim, other than the things you want people taxed for, are things which you consider good.

Post 33

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 2:09pm

Why would taxation to support your rights be theft? The reason it would not be is because your safety is protected, your rights are guaranteed and enforced, and the military protects you against foreign invasion or attacks. Therefore, it is providing you a benefit. This is unlike the other items mentioned, which do not, and unlike those, it cannot be replaced by a private enterprise. Healthcare, Housing, Food, and Education can all be provided this way and compete. The government is simply the arbiter that prevents someone from burning your house down, stealing your food, etc... As long as this were the case, it would be just.

Post 34

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 7:09pm

John Armaos writes (post #15):

You can't have a government and anarchy at the same time.

That is certainly true.

If we understand what anarchy is, it is defined as the breakdown of law and order, the disentegration of a unified government of codified laws.

But that is most certainly false.

Anarchy simply means no ruler. In other words, anarchy is the absence of masters and slaves. Anarchy is the trader principle fully implemented.

The chaos and strife you describe is evidence that the idea of government, of a ruler, still infects the people involved.

Government apologists, would-be rulers, have tried and continue to try to redefine anarchy as chaos. Unfortunately far too many people have accepted their corruption of language.

Anarchy is a result, a goal. It is not a means.

Post 35

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 4:49am

Why would taxation to support your rights be theft?

Because the ends do not justify the means. If I force you at gunpoint to give me money, and then give you something in return, is it theft? Yes, because I forced you. And taxation is implemented through force.

The reason it would not be is because your safety is protected, your rights are guaranteed and enforced, and the military protects you against foreign invasion or attacks. Therefore, it is providing you a benefit. This is unlike the other items mentioned, which do not

So healthcare, education, sustenance, and housing do not benefit you?
The government is simply the arbiter that prevents someone from burning your house down, stealing your food, etc

But the government doesn't always prevent this, and to the extent that it does prevent it, that prevention could have been offered by a private security firm, and more efficiently as well. The only thing that government promises to do is arrest someone they think is guilty. That won't bring your property back or rebuild your house.

Post 36

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 8:09am

I happen to think arresting people is very important. Otherwise, the same person will continue to loot and pillage. And no, private security people cannot arrange for an objective justice system that would arrest and incarcarate such people and hold them accountable for their crimes. Taxation for a common defense and a common application of an objective law is justified because there is no alternative to it. Until someone can find new lands to live in and prove otherwise, there simply is no other option. After all, without that security, you would not have what you own to begin with. It is just all the rest of what government does that I object to - and that amounts to probably 75% of what they do.

Why not work on the 75% first and worry about the rest later? A 75% reduction would be a frigging miracle as it stands.

And no, public housing, education, etc... don't benefit me, nor does it benefit every person equally, as does justice and defense. They represent re-distribution of resources and wealth, which is anethma to all of us.

(Edited by Kurt Eichert on 8/18, 8:12am)

Post 37

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 8:29am

Jonathan wrote:

Because the ends do not justify the means

Jonathan this is a tiresome cliche and not really an argument. There are times when the ends do not justify the means and there are other times when the ends do justify the means. It depends on the context of the matter.

If I force you at gunpoint to give me money, and then give you something in return, is it theft? Yes, because I forced you. And taxation is implemented through force.

The governed give their consent to be governed. That's what a free democratic republic is. Which I've already talked about. People have the power to change their government.

The reason it would not be is because your safety is protected, your rights are guaranteed and enforced, and the military protects you against foreign invasion or attacks. Therefore, it is providing you a benefit. This is unlike the other items mentioned, which do not

So healthcare, education, sustenance, and housing do not benefit you?

Who is you? These social programs benefit some to the detriment of others. All of these examples are simply programs for the purpose of redistributing wealth, i.e. taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. As I stated prior, this is not the same as providing for and administering justice to all. We are all equal under the law because we all have equal rights. Due process is not relegated to the highest bidder. It must be equally applied without regard to income.

But the government doesn't always prevent this, and to the extent that it does prevent it, that prevention could have been offered by a private security firm, and more efficiently as well.

You're right Jonathan. A private militia or a lynch mob is certainly more efficient at using force than a just system of due process would. Is efficiency with the use of force the goal here? Do you know who had an efficient security firm that did not answer to any government? Hitler did. You know who else? Hezbollah. It only takes a few thugs to terrorize an entire nation. Why is it always the first order of business for any nation to disband their private militias? Because it is anarchy, there is no fair system of due process. To give people the power to start their own private militias, leads to civil war and unrest, it leads to a few thugs with the power to terrorize and hold an entire nation hostage. I'm not going to debate this aspect any further as I think the reality of this proves me right. It is well outlined in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" which I would ask you give it a try first before settling on your position of anarchy.

So is government infallible? No. It can't be, nobody is. Is anarchy worse? Yes.

The only thing that government promises to do is arrest someone they think is guilty. That won't bring your property back or rebuild your house.

Robert Bidinotto has already discussed this argument given by anarchists.

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=59

This, incidentally, is a central fallacy of anarchism (aka "anarcho-capitalism," aka "market anarchism"), which theory assumes that individuals retain a "right" to exercise retaliatory force on their own behalf--or to hire some market-driven "private protection agency" to do so.

But market competition, so appropriate for producing widgets, is not an appropriate mechanism for exercising coercion. Precisely to minimize and avoid vengeance, vindictiveness, and vendettas, and the disproportionate punishments to which they lead, a justice system must be based upon retribution, not revenge. And to enforce such distinctions, government is necessary: a constitutionally limited legal arbiter, operating under clear, objective laws, with the ultimate power to distinguish victims from victimizers, aggression from self-defense--and to enforce its verdicts against wrongdoers.

http://www.econot.com/page15.html

Post 38

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 8:38am

Rick wrote:

John Armaos writes (post #15):

You can't have a government and anarchy at the same time.

That is certainly true.

If we understand what anarchy is, it is defined as the breakdown of law and order, the disentegration of a unified government of codified laws.

But that is most certainly false.

Anarchy simply means no ruler. In other words, anarchy is the absence of masters and slaves. Anarchy is the trader principle fully implemented.

The chaos and strife you describe is evidence that the idea of government, of a ruler, still infects the people involved.

Government apologists, would-be rulers, have tried and continue to try to redefine anarchy as chaos. Unfortunately far too many people have accepted their corruption of language.

Anarchy is a result, a goal. It is not a means.

What do you call civil war other than chaos? Why would anarchy not ultimately lead to the most oppresive system of master and slave this world has seen all too often? Who in their right mind would let people like Hitler, have the power to start his own private militia? I am right when I say anarchists are not operating with a full deck here. Rick's post is just evidence of their insanity.

Post 39

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 9:03am