The immorality of taxation

[spidermantx]

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_2_feser.pdf

I have removed my poor attempt at summarizing a 17 page article, since apparently this leads to criticisms of my summation rather then on the article itself. Please feel free to comment on the article directly.

[laughing dog]

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_2_feser.pdf

In essence, either individuals have property rights or the state has property rights. False dichotomy, since property rights are not absolute. Since your premise is false, the rest of the syllogism falls apart.

[chapka]

If you define taxation as immoral, then of course you conclude that it's immoral.

In the real world, property rights are not absolute. The reason your argument is a false dichotomy is that it presumes that they are.

[Black_Lotus]

Moved to PE&ST.

Black_Lotus
WE&GP Moderator.

[ZouPrime]

Rights are defined by the state. Property rights exist because they are a useful concept, greatly facilitating ressource allocation mechanism for example. But, like all rights, it is perfectly normal for states to legislate around edge cases were they lose their usefulness. Taxation is one of these case.

[Preno]

In essence, either individuals have property rights or the state has property rights.That's quite possibly the least convincing argument since "either you're with us or you're a terrorist".

[Nice Squirrel]

In essence, either individuals have property rights or the state has property rights. Let's assume this dichotomy is true. Can their be any state ownership of things such as parks and government buildings? Can individuals own one another? Do parents own their children? So many questions for absolutes.

If the state has the property rights, then the state owns everything, including its citizens, which then makes the citizens slaves.How so? If the state has property rights that is all it has. It may own individuals, or charge them rent for using state services and goods.

If individuals own everything, then individuals own themselves and the fruits of their labors.But if individuals own all can they not sell themselves to others as slaves? And if they work in a factory do they earn a wage or own part of the products? Because if they make the factory 17 widgets can they keep the widgets?

If the state takes property from the citizens through use of force that which a citizen does not want taken, then it is stealing.But what if they don't own the property? And since both stealing and slavery are immoral,How so you haven't proven that either are immoral? You take that they are at face value due to societal conditioning.

[spidermantx]

I have deleted my interpretation of the document. Anyone have any comments about the article itself?

[laughing dog]

Nozick's and Rothbard's arguments against taxation are old hat. Nozick's theory of self-ownership and taxation as forced labor contradicts his own thesis about the moral legitimacy of supporting the minimal state. His notion that taxation is forced labor ignores the mobility of the worker - one can always move if one dislikes a tax regime, or one can try and change it.

I haven't paid too much attention to Rothbard's "ideas" in a very long time - they are usually have nonsenical implications.

[general_koffi]

Taxes are a necessary evil.

The world isn't divided into black and white, right and wrong... All that stuff...

[spidermantx]

Nozick's and Rothbard's arguments against taxation are old hat. Nozick's theory of self-ownership and taxation as forced labor contradicts his own thesis about the moral legitimacy of supporting the minimal state. His notion that taxation is forced labor ignores the mobility of the worker - one can always move if one dislikes a tax regime, or one can try and change it.

I haven't paid too much attention to Rothbard's "ideas" in a very long time - they are usually have nonsenical implications.

One can move, but if there is not a more favorable tax regime/location, then there is no real choice.

Also, in a democracy, the voice of one has no real sway on that of the majority. In an oligarchy, then the voices of most have no sway whatsoever.

That his theory contradicts his own thesis about the moral legitimacy of supporting the minimal state is irrelevant. It does not diminish the power of the argument.

[spidermantx]

Taxes are a necessary evil.

The world isn't divided into black and white, right and wrong... All that stuff...

Untrue, taxes are not a necessary evil. Government has other forms of raising funds, the least of which is not donations.

[Nice Squirrel]

Government has other forms of raising funds, the least of which is not donations.
Puppy Mills? How will they raise money without taxation?

[laughing dog]

One can move, but if there is not a more favorable tax regime/location, then there is no real choice. There always is.

Also, in a democracy, the voice of one has no real sway on that of the majority. In an oligarchy, then the voices of most have no sway whatsoever. Then move to one's own island. Otherwise, this sounds like whining about the weather.


That his theory contradicts his own thesis about the moral legitimacy of supporting the minimal state is irrelevant. It does not diminish the power of the argument. Actually, it does.

[spidermantx]

One can move, but if there is not a more favorable tax regime/location, then there is no real choice. There always is.

Also, in a democracy, the voice of one has no real sway on that of the majority. In an oligarchy, then the voices of most have no sway whatsoever. Then move to one's own island. Otherwise, this sounds like whining about the weather.


That his theory contradicts his own thesis about the moral legitimacy of supporting the minimal state is irrelevant. It does not diminish the power of the argument. Actually, it does.

Moving to another country, is not so easy as you make it. Look at how "illegal" immigrants are treated in the United States.

As to moving to an island, first of all, there are very few that could afford an island. Second of all, why should I have to move in the first place. You think majority rule is a good thing? You think the minority should be made slaves to the majority? That if they do not like it they should simply move to another country where they are made slaves to the minority or majority of wherever they move to?

[laughing dog]

You think majority rule is a good thing? You think the minority should be made slaves to the majority? That if they do not like it they should simply move to another country where they are made slaves to the minority or majority of wherever they move to?
To some degree, one can choose where one lives. However, just like with many multi-dimensional choices, there may not be one that exactly fits one's preferences - that is called life. Despite assertions to the contrary, taxation is a necessary to raise resources for a gov't: donations are subject to the free rider effect, and the only other possible avenues are the sale of assets (which begs the question of acquisition) or monetary creation (which leads to inflation).

One can whine about the alleged immorality of taxes and it will have as much effect as whining about the immorality of natural disasters or Brittany Spears.

[spidermantx]

You think majority rule is a good thing? You think the minority should be made slaves to the majority? That if they do not like it they should simply move to another country where they are made slaves to the minority or majority of wherever they move to?
To some degree, one can choose where one lives. However, just like with many multi-dimensional choices, there may not be one that exactly fits one's preferences - that is called life. Despite assertions to the contrary, taxation is a necessary to raise resources for a gov't: donations are subject to the free rider effect, and the only other possible avenues are the sale of assets (which begs the question of acquisition) or monetary creation (which leads to inflation).

One can whine about the alleged immorality of taxes and it will have as much effect as whining about the immorality of natural disasters or Brittany Spears.

And taxes are not subject to the free rider effect now?

Discussing the immorality of taxes can have much more effect then discussing the immorality of natural disasters or Brittany Spears, since we can stop taxation, if we so chose.

[Nice Squirrel]

And taxes are not subject to the free rider effect now?

Discussing the immorality of taxes can have much more effect then discussing the immorality of natural disasters or Brittany Spears, since we can stop taxation, if we so chose.

But we cannot stop the Brittany! :devil1: Seriously, how can we "stop" taxation? Larger societies need governments and governments require some form of taxation to be strong economically and militarily.

[laughing dog]

And taxes are not subject to the free rider effect now? Not legally. Or perhaps you can explain how one can not pay one's taxes legally just because others are.

Discussing the immorality of taxes can have much more effect then discussing the immorality of natural disasters or Brittany Spears, since we can stop taxation, if we so chose. We can stop Brittany Spears.

[spidermantx]

And taxes are not subject to the free rider effect now?

Discussing the immorality of taxes can have much more effect then discussing the immorality of natural disasters or Brittany Spears, since we can stop taxation, if we so chose.

But we cannot stop the Brittany! :devil1: Seriously, how can we "stop" taxation? Larger societies need governments and governments require some form of taxation to be strong economically and militarily.

Sorry, but just because you say it is so, does not make it so. Governments do not "need" taxation to be strong enough to provide the necessary services. Really, would you rather donate to The Red Cross or FEMA? If the services provided by government are worthwhile, people will donate the money. The United States was fine for 120 years without a strong central government or the power to collect income taxes.

[theyeti]

One can move, but if there is not a more favorable tax regime/location, then there is no real choice.

That's sort of like saying that if I can't find a car that goes from zero to sixty in under 3 seconds, gets 100 mpg, and costs under $5000, then there's no real choice.

Having a choice does not mean being able to get whatever you want. Choices are constrained by reality. If you are looking for a tax regime that has both extremely low (or non-existent) taxation and is a half-way decent place to live, you're not likely to find it. It's not as if nobody would like to live in such a place (everyone would, obviously) it's just that it's not realistic.

There are more countries in the world to choose from than there brands of detergent at the supermarket. Lots of countries have lower taxes than where you live now. If those places are hellholes, it's probably because taxation is necessary in order to have a safe, prosperous, and happy society.

theyeti

[Draconis]

"We can stop Brittany Spears"

Please tell us how

[theyeti]

The United States was fine for 120 years without a strong central government or the power to collect income taxes.

The United States has always had a strong central government and federal taxation. It wasn't always as strong as it is today, and the levels of types of tax were different, but they have always been there. Perhaps you think we should do things more like we did in the early 19th century, but that's completely different than saying we can and should get rid of all taxation. Taxes are one of two certainties in life -- just ask Ben Franklin.

The idea that a government could be run on voluntary donations is laughable. If the Founding Fathers could have found a way to do so, I'm sure they would have, but they quickly found themselves running into serious revenue problems thanks to outstanding war debts. And so they started levying taxes.

theyeti

[Metaphor]

If those places are hellholes, it's probably because taxation is necessary in order to have a safe, prosperous, and happy society.

theyeti

I'm waiting for a libertarian to tell us of the unadulterated utopia that awaits when we eliminate all forms of income tax.

[Loren Pechtel]

Untrue, taxes are not a necessary evil. Government has other forms of raising funds, the least of which is not donations.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

[Loren Pechtel]

"We can stop Brittany Spears"

Please tell us how

She would probably run in fear from a burqa.

[Bonniedundee]

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_2_feser.pdf

I have removed my poor attempt at summarizing a 17 page article, since apparently this leads to criticisms of my summation rather then on the article itself. Please feel free to comment on the article directly.In general you are correct, unless the local community wants a georgist land value tax or something similar.

There are far better links that you could have chosen though, Chodorov, Herbert Spencer, Tucker, Auberon Herbert etc etc.

http://www.panarchy.org/spencer/ignore.state.1851.html
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0146.php
http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f24r1.html
http://www.mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp

Property and taxation are complex issues and it is not really good enough to declare taxation theft, but certainly when it is a national or state government doing it, it is as good theft, the local community is slightly different, and after all there are several different types of property that are legitimate with self-ownership.

[spidermantx]

The United States was fine for 120 years without a strong central government or the power to collect income taxes.

The United States has always had a strong central government and federal taxation. It wasn't always as strong as it is today, and the levels of types of tax were different, but they have always been there. Perhaps you think we should do things more like we did in the early 19th century, but that's completely different than saying we can and should get rid of all taxation. Taxes are one of two certainties in life -- just ask Ben Franklin.

The idea that a government could be run on voluntary donations is laughable. If the Founding Fathers could have found a way to do so, I'm sure they would have, but they quickly found themselves running into serious revenue problems thanks to outstanding war debts. And so they started levying taxes.

theyeti

I appreciate your comments, theyeti. Yes, I concede, government may cease to function without taxation. However, I cannot find a morally plausible argument for taxation, since it simply makes slaves out of individuals to whatever person or persons that are in power. Because, just like a master lets the slave keep some of the fruit of his labors so he can keep working to produce for the master, the citizen is allowed by the state to keep some of the fruits of his labors, so he can keep producing for the state. To suggest that citizens are not like slaves because they can move to a different country is simply untrue. How is one not a slave if he simply leaves one master for another?

[toth8]

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_2_feser.pdf

I have removed my poor attempt at summarizing a 17 page article, since apparently this leads to criticisms of my summation rather then on the article itself. Please feel free to comment on the article directly.

It's quite clear that taxation is theft. Who is the government to come and force me to pay tax? All governmental services should be provided by the free market, without the threat of force.

[Bonniedundee]

It's quite clear that taxation is theft. Who is the government to come and force me to pay tax? All governmental services should be provided by the free market, without the threat of force.This is a little too sweeping and relies on lockean rights being the only property rights conducive with self-ownership, which they are not, in fact without the two provisos(about there being enough natural resources to go around and them not going to waste.)they are not conducive with self-ownership at all.

The local community must choose the rights system, and if it choose georgism then the community collection of site and ground rent is completely valid.

[spidermantx]

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_2_feser.pdf

I have removed my poor attempt at summarizing a 17 page article, since apparently this leads to criticisms of my summation rather then on the article itself. Please feel free to comment on the article directly.In general you are correct, unless the local community wants a georgist land value tax or something similar.

There are far better links that you could have chosen though, Chodorov, Herbert Spencer, Tucker, Auberon Herbert etc etc.

http://www.panarchy.org/spencer/ignore.state.1851.html
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0146.php
http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f24r1.html
http://www.mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp

Property and taxation are complex issues and it is not really good enough to declare taxation theft, but certainly when it is a national or state government doing it, it is as good theft, the local community is slightly different, and after all there are several different types of property that are legitimate with self-ownership.

I will definitely check these out. Thank you.

[laughing dog]

Yes, I concede, government may cease to function without taxation. However, I cannot find a morally plausible argument for taxation, since it simply makes slaves out of individuals to whatever person or persons that are in power.
This is untrue. If a person agrees to pay taxes, then one is not a slave - slaves had no choices in those matters. A slave is someone who is owned by someone else.


Because, just like a master lets the slave keep some of the fruit of his labors so he can keep working to produce for the master, the citizen is allowed by the state to keep some of the fruits of his labors, so he can keep producing for the state.
This is an ahistorical observation. Until the US income tax, the Federal gov't operated in tax revenue - excise taxes and import duties. Were US citizens slaves then? Why?


To suggest that citizens are not like slaves because they can move to a different country is simply untrue. How is one not a slave if he simply leaves one master for another? Slaves could not voluntarily change masters by moving or voting. Slaves could not change the rules of slavery. So your analogy is inaccurate.

[toth8]

Nozick's and Rothbard's arguments against taxation are old hat. Nozick's theory of self-ownership and taxation as forced labor contradicts his own thesis about the moral legitimacy of supporting the minimal state. His notion that taxation is forced labor ignores the mobility of the worker - one can always move if one dislikes a tax regime, or one can try and change it.

I haven't paid too much attention to Rothbard's "ideas" in a very long time - they are usually have nonsenical implications.

Why is this? A limited government can, in theory, be funded by non-coercive means. but I suppose a libertarian speaking out for government is logically inconsistent. Aren't I right minarchists? :grin: ;)

[Bonniedundee]

This is untrue. If a person agrees to pay taxes, then one is not a slave -
Who agrees to pay taxes, except for the most flimsy social contract arguments, how do people choose?(please lets move on from the "you don't like it, change countries" crap.)

If you agree you have the right to remove your consent and remove yourself and you property from the state, otherwise you cannot be said to consent or agree to being taxed.

Now of course it is important to know what is your property. Those that say it is the state which decides this, please show us why, I'm sure it is some silly argument.

First they will of course falsely equate our current plutocratic oligarchies with the democratic will of society, once this is easily shot down their arguments fall apart.

Then they have to show that the will of the majority is somehow where rights derive from and why democracy is so great, they are likely to be lead right back to the fact it is formed by consent and popular sovereignty and hence to the fact that to really consent people must be able to withdraw from the state with their property and that people have rights before they enter into society, hence the need for consent, and it is from these that the right to property, however ill-defined and needing community input it is, comes from.

slaves had no choices in those matters. A slave is someone who is owned by someone else. We are basically owned by the state, in perhaps the way of a serf not a chattel slave, but still, we have the strange positon of being able to change masters though.


This is an ahistorical observation. Until the US income tax, the Federal gov't operated in tax revenue - excise taxes and import duties. Were US citizens slaves then? Why?
They were unfree to a degree. Perhaps less so, perhaps more so, it is hard to say, power has been shifted around and material circumstances have certainly changed.

Slaves could not voluntarily change masters by moving or voting. Slaves could not change the rules of slavery. So your analogy is inaccurate
Slavery means many things historically, they could certainly be called unfree if they rely on the state for their rights.

What gives the state(ie our current states.) the right to tax? Most of the arguments seem to rely on the idea that the state gives us rights, and that the state is democratic and the will of a majority is sacrosanct.

None of these is true, we can argue about the will of the majority and rights coming from the state but it is pretty clear to most people who think about it for even a second that our states are not democratic, hence the argument that most pro-tax people will use falls apart there.

[laughing dog]

Who agrees to pay taxes, except for the most flimsy social contract arguments, how do people choose?(please lets move on from the "you don't like it, change countries" crap.) It is part of the deal in living a country.

If you agree you have the right to remove your consent and remove yourself and you property from the state, otherwise you cannot be said to consent or agree to being taxed. You can - it is called leaving.
We are basically owned by the state, in perhaps the way of a serf not a chattel slave, but still, we have the strange positon of being able to change masters though. So, we are not slaves.

None of these is true, we can argue about the will of the majority and rights coming from the state but it is pretty clear to most people who think about it for even a second that our states are not democratic, hence the argument that most pro-tax people will use falls apart there. Our states are not democratic - then what are they?

[Nitrousoxide]

Who agrees to pay taxes, except for the most flimsy social contract arguments, how do people choose?(please lets move on from the "you don't like it, change countries" crap.)

But countries really do compete with one and other for citizens EXACTLY like how you envision different private cities offering sorts of benefits like education, clean streets, or a nearby beach.

Different nations offer different benefits packages. Some offer public health services, some offer a strong military, some only allow certain sorts of speech, some help out farmers.

They each offer a specific benefits package like that of a city which tries to appeal to people. In no way is this different from an individual choosing between city "A" which is privately owned and has good schools, and city "B" which has crappy schools but a nice health care system.

[Nice Squirrel]

But we cannot stop the Brittany! :devil1: Seriously, how can we "stop" taxation? Larger societies need governments and governments require some form of taxation to be strong economically and militarily.

Sorry, but just because you say it is so, does not make it so.
Can you please provide an example of an economically and militarily strong nation without any taxation? I know that on the surface it is not causality, but without the finances to pay for infastructure and defense how can a society pay for such expenses as infastructure and defense.

Governments do not "need" taxation to be strong enough to provide the necessary services. What do you mean by "necessary" services?

Really, would you rather donate to The Red Cross or FEMA? Unrelated non sequitor.

If the services provided by government are worthwhile, people will donate the money. The United States was fine for 120 years without a strong central government or the power to collect income taxes.So now you are shifting the goalpost to income tax? I thought all taxes were immoral, or is it just the ones that you pay directly?

[theyeti]

Yes, I concede, government may cease to function without taxation. However, I cannot find a morally plausible argument for taxation, since it simply makes slaves out of individuals to whatever person or persons that are in power.

Have you considered the Social Contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract)? If you concede that government ceases to function without taxes, and if you're willing to concede that some minimum level government is necessary, then you're apparently willing to pay taxes. The point of contract theory is that citizens willingly give up some small amount of freedom in order to stave off anarchy, which would threaten freedom even more.

To suggest that citizens are not like slaves because they can move to a different country is simply untrue. How is one not a slave if he simply leaves one master for another?

If you get to choose your "master", then the so-called master has no mastery over you. Again, just because you don't like the choices being offered doesn't mean you don't have a choice. In the real world, all of the planet's territories are controlled by sovereign states; none of it is controlled by you. You contract with the state for the right to live within its territory in peace, and part of your contractual obligations consist of paying taxes.

And you might want to be more careful when casually tossing around terms like "slavery". To equate paying taxes with slavery is absurd, not to mention a slap in the face to those people who had to endure real slavery. It's also more than a little ironic. Slavery was the result of an unregulated free market; democratic governments have been history's greatest emancipators.

theyeti

[spidermantx]

Have you considered the Social Contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract)? If you concede that government ceases to function without taxes, and if you're willing to concede that some minimum level government is necessary, then you're apparently willing to pay taxes. The point of contract theory is that citizens willingly give up some small amount of freedom in order to stave off anarchy, which would threaten freedom even more.

First of all, I am not conceding that governments cease to function without taxes. I conceded it is a possibility. But since it has never been tried, we do not know.

Second of all, even if I concede that a minimum level of government is necessary, that is a far cry from the behemoth of what we have today. Regardless, even if we can get past the immorality of taxation, how can one justify forcefully taking from one to give to another (i.e. socialist programs)?

If you get to choose your "master", then the so-called master has no mastery over you.
Just because you get to choose your master, does not reduce the masters mastery over you. But let's take a step back. Really, how easy is it to choose your "master" or country? I know millions of Mexicans that will tell you how difficult it is to become a member in the United States.

Again, just because you don't like the choices being offered doesn't mean you don't have a choice. In the real world, all of the planet's territories are controlled by sovereign states; none of it is controlled by you.
My point exactly.

You contract with the state for the right to live within its territory in peace, and part of your contractual obligations consist of paying taxes.
I have never in my life contracted any such thing with the United States of America. I can guarantee you never have either.

And you might want to be more careful when casually tossing around terms like "slavery". To equate paying taxes with slavery is absurd, not to mention a slap in the face to those people who had to endure real slavery.
How is it absurd? If I do not own anything, and it is only by the good graces of the state that I get to keep anything, and if all my labors are owned by the state, as such, I am simply working for the state, then how is that any different? Or do you think that all slaves were treated poorly? Are you one of those that buys into the few stories of slave abuse and extrapolate that to all the slave owners?

It's also more than a little ironic. Slavery was the result of an unregulated free market; democratic governments have been history's greatest emancipators.

theyeti
Oh, now this is too funny. Slavery has been with mankind throughout history, and all kinds of governments.

[spidermantx]

It is part of the deal in living a country.
What deal? The deal that you pay taxes or die?

You can - it is called leaving.
Have you noticed how difficult it is for Mexicans to leave and go to the United States...

So, we are not slaves.
The qualification for being a slave, is that one is "owned" by another. Now, if the fruits of my labors are not mine but instead, are the governments, then how am I "free"? If I am not "free", then I must be a "slave".

Our states are not democratic - then what are they?

Democratic Republics.

[spidermantx]

Can you please provide an example of an economically and militarily strong nation without any taxation? I know that on the surface it is not causality, but without the finances to pay for infastructure and defense how can a society pay for such expenses as infastructure and defense.

Now you know I do not have an example, because it has not been tried...

What do you mean by "necessary" services?

I think this is a discussion for another thread.

Unrelated non sequitor.
Just pointing out a fallacy does not relinquish your responsibility from explaining why.

So now you are shifting the goalpost to income tax? I thought all taxes were immoral, or is it just the ones that you pay directly?

They all are. It is just much more difficult for the government to raise sales taxes, as such, the government was not able to collect as much.

[laughing dog]

What deal? The deal that you pay taxes or die? Non-payment of taxes is not subject to capital punishment.

Have you noticed how difficult it is for Mexicans to leave and go to the United States... Are you claiming Mexicans are trying to come here to reduce their tax liabilities? And the US is not the only possible destination for them.


The qualification for being a slave, is that one is "owned" by another. Now, if the fruits of my labors are not mine but instead, are the governments, then how am I "free"? If I am not "free", then I must be a "slave". Absolute rhetorical nonsense. Are you a slave to the grocery store where you buy your food?


Democratic Republics. Yes. And how does that affect the argument. That's right, it doesn't.

[spidermantx]

Can you please provide an example of an economically and militarily strong nation without any taxation? I know that on the surface it is not causality, but without the finances to pay for infastructure and defense how can a society pay for such expenses as infastructure and defense.

Now you know I do not have an example, because it has not been tried...

What do you mean by "necessary" services?

I think this is a discussion for another thread.

Unrelated non sequitor.
Just pointing out a fallacy does not relinquish your responsibility from explaining why.

So now you are shifting the goalpost to income tax? I thought all taxes were immoral, or is it just the ones that you pay directly?

They all are. It is just much more difficult for the government to raise sales taxes, as such, the government was not able to collect as much.

[laughing dog]

Now you know I do not have an example, because it has not been tried... Might you guess as to why that is the case?

[spidermantx]

What deal? The deal that you pay taxes or die? Non-payment of taxes is not subject to capital punishment.
Of course it is. If you do not pay, the government will come for you. And if you try to defend your property, they will shoot you.

Are you claiming Mexicans are trying to come here to reduce their tax liabilities? And the US is not the only possible destination for them.
No, just that they are trying to move to a country with a better "masta".

Absolute rhetorical nonsense. Are you a slave to the grocery store where you buy your food?
Of course not. It is a voluntary exchange of goods. Taxation does not have "voluntary" attached to it anywhere. It is taken through brute force.


Democratic Republics. Yes. And how does that affect the argument. That's right, it doesn't.

Oh, I agree. The point he was trying to make though, is that just because it is a democratic process, does not mean it is a "fair" process. It just means it is the rule of the majority over the minority instead of the rule of a minority over the majority. And the only way to keep the "rulers" from abusing the "ruled" is to limit government powers and services.

[spidermantx]

Now you know I do not have an example, because it has not been tried... Might you guess as to why that is the case?


Most likely the fear of it failing.

[Nitrousoxide]

Of course it is. If you do not pay, the government will come for you. And if you try to defend your property, they will shoot you.

I highly doubt that the government will attack you unless you assult them as they try to arrest you.

And of course, they would be justified by self-defence at that point anyway so it's not as if they've done something wrong.


No, just that they are trying to move to a country with a better "masta".


It's been said before, and it'll be said again. A slave cannot leave the service of his master without the master's permission. Most any citizen can leave his country any time he wishes. Here's an experiment for you. Buy a boat and take it 50 miles off the East Coast. I'm willing to bet you money that the government will not prevent you from doing so. They might stop you and make sure you aren't smuggling or running from the law, but if you're in the clear they send you on your way.

[Autonemesis]

It's quite clear that taxation is theft. Who is the government to come and force me to pay tax? All governmental services should be provided by the free market, without the threat of force.

So if you enter into a contract with a party, and that party breaches the contract, in what court will you sue him? If the free market provides civil judicial services, please tell me why any defendant should respect the jurisdiction of a civil court hired by the plaintiff? How will you get him to honor his contract against his will, or to cough up the stipulated penalty for non-performance, without employing force of some kind?

[torquemada]

IT'S ALWAYS AMUSING when conservatives try to justify their outlandish beliefs.

[Savagemutt]

Really, would you rather donate to The Red Cross or FEMA?

An apple and an orange. The Red Cross is an emergency response organization. FEMA is a recovery organization. A charity can handle short term response. Long term recovery requires cooperation between agencies and private resources that a single charity couldn't possibly handle.

[RED DAVE]

From spidermantx:
how can one justify forcefully taking from one to give to another (i.e. socialist programs)One more genius who doesn't know what sociaiism is.

RED DAVE

[spidermantx]

I highly doubt that the government will attack you unless you assult them as they try to arrest you.

And of course, they would be justified by self-defence at that point anyway so it's not as if they've done something wrong.

The question is, does the property belong to the individual or the state. If the individual, then they would not be justified in self-defense, since they are then trying to take property forcefully from someone who rightfully owns it. If it is the state's, then they would be justified in self-defense. If the property is the state's and not the individuals, then the individual is a slave, and has no rights, except those the state deems to give to him.

It's been said before, and it'll be said again. A slave cannot leave the service of his master without the master's permission.

And, my response to this, is that a person cannot leave his country without his countries permission. If he does not have his countries permission, the country can have him forcefully brought back.

[Nice Squirrel]

I highly doubt that the government will attack you unless you assult them as they try to arrest you.

And of course, they would be justified by self-defence at that point anyway so it's not as if they've done something wrong.

The question is, does the property belong to the individual or the state. If the individual, then they would not be justified in self-defense, since they are then trying to take property forcefully from someone who rightfully owns it. If it is the state's, then they would be justified in self-defense. If the property is the state's and not the individuals, then the individual is a slave, and has no rights, except those the state deems to give to him.
Are you saying that property rights are absolute and trump the right to life?

[Nitrousoxide]

The question is, does the property belong to the individual or the state. If the individual, then they would not be justified in self-defense, since they are then trying to take property forcefully from someone who rightfully owns it. If it is the state's, then they would be justified in self-defense. If the property is the state's and not the individuals, then the individual is a slave, and has no rights, except those the state deems to give to him.

Of course the individual owns the property, but that person also makes use of various services and products provided by the state, local, and Federal government. Among them are roads, defence, police, fire, and education.

In making use of these services and products, a person provides their Tacit Consent to abide by the rules of the person or organization operating them, in this case the government. One of the rules which the operator of these services is that the users or people under the protection of those services must pay a certain sum to the owner. That sum paid is the tax.

It's justified because of Tacit Consent for people born here in the country, or Explicit Consent for those who moved here from another.



And, my response to this, is that a person cannot leave his country without his countries permission. If he does not have his countries permission, the country can have him forcefully brought back.

Well, you're wrong. You are always free to leave the country. Whether you can enter the territory of another nation which you do not belong to is up to that nation. That is why I presented the example of the open ocean which no one owns. You are free to leave the borders of our nation and enter the open ocean with some small conditions like I mentioned and the government will not stop you. This proves that leaving a nation is always within the power of a law-abiding citizen. And, of course, being able to leave a nation is all that is needed to prevent the citizen from being owned by that nation as you seem to think he is.

Whether other nations which you don't belong to will or won't accept you into their own borders is irrelivent to the question.

[theyeti]

First of all, I am not conceding that governments cease to function without taxes. I conceded it is a possibility. But since it has never been tried, we do not know.

It's not that it's never been tried, it's that it's never worked. The original US government under the Articles of Confederation lacked the ability to levy taxes. It failed. It was replaced by a Constitution that did allow taxation, and it has succeeded admirably. The reason you don't find governments that function without taxes is the same reason that you don't find people who function without food.

Second of all, even if I concede that a minimum level of government is necessary, that is a far cry from the behemoth of what we have today.

This is irrelevant. You're not making a quantitative argument that we've exceeded some threshold of taxation such that it has become oppressive, you're making a qualitative argument that all taxation is oppressive, and that it should therefore be done away with entirely. You must first justify this position before moving on to the much weaker and squishier claim that our taxes are simply too high.

Just because you get to choose your master, does not reduce the masters mastery over you.

What I was trying to get at is that you do not have a "master" if you can simply walk away. It is a contradiction in terms. Your employer, although he almost certainly has more control over your life than the federal government, is not generally referred to as your "master". That's because you can always quit your job.

It's ironic that the same people who argue strenuously against interfering with an employer's ability to lord over his employees, under the ostensible rationale that the employee is free to leave his job, simultaneously argue that being free to leave a country does not present one with a desirable array of choices and hence doesn't make one free. If that's the case, then your employer, the places you shop, and your friends and family have all enslaved you too.

But let's take a step back. Really, how easy is it to choose your "master" or country? I know millions of Mexicans that will tell you how difficult it is to become a member in the United States.

The fact that it's not easy is not relevant. The government does not owe you an array of easy choices should you decide you're unhappy with the current arrangement. All it owes you is the ability to leave the current arrangement. If you do not like the alternatives, that is your problem, not something that the state is obligated to redress.

Again, just because you don't like the choices being offered doesn't mean you don't have a choice. In the real world, all of the planet's territories are controlled by sovereign states; none of it is controlled by you.

My point exactly.

So you agree that you have no sovereignty over any piece of territory in the world, yet you're expecting... what? That those who have sovereignty will grant it to you free of charge (when they had to pay dearly for it themselves) and that they and everyone else will spontaneously respect your sovereignty and never attempt to take it away, in complete contradiction of the norms of human behavior?

If this is what you think, you live in fantasy land. In the real world, the sovereignty of a nation requires that one contract with a nation for rights and privileges associated with citizenship. And that comes with obligations.

I have never in my life contracted any such thing with the United States of America. I can guarantee you never have either.

Yes you have. If you are a naturalized citizen, you have done so explicitly. If you were born in the US, then your parents contracted for you, and upon reaching your 18th birthday, you implicitly continued the contract by accepting the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. You can void the contract at any time by renouncing your citizenship and leaving sovereign US territory.

How is it absurd? If I do not own anything, and it is only by the good graces of the state that I get to keep anything, and if all my labors are owned by the state, as such, I am simply working for the state, then how is that any different?

I'm not sure what state you're trying to describe here, but it has nothing in common with the country I live in.

In the actual United States of America however, it is quite blatantly absurd to equate paying taxes -- an obligation which you as a member of the voting public can change, and about which you have numerous legal rights -- with slavery. If the government took all of the fruits of your labor and forbade you the right to leave this arrangement, then the analogy to slavery would be apt. As it is, it's stupid.

It's also more than a little ironic. Slavery was the result of an unregulated free market; democratic governments have been history's greatest emancipators.

[quote]Oh, now this is too funny. Slavery has been with mankind throughout history, and all kinds of governments.

Yes, slavery has been with mankind throughout history -- even before centralized governments existed. However, it has only been ended by the actions of governments. If you disagree, name one act of emancipation that occurred without government. I can't think of a single one myself.

No unregulated market has ever ended slavery or any other moral wrong on its own volition, and it never will. This is what is so mind boggling about those who argue in vain that governments are immoral and take away their rights -- without the government you would have no rights, and unenforced morality would be as useless as it ever was in preventing slavery and other atrocities.

theyeti

[laughing dog]

Of course it is. If you do not pay, the government will come for you. And if you try to defend your property, they will shoot you. Evidence please for this outrageous assertion?


Of course not. It is a voluntary exchange of goods. Taxation does not have "voluntary" attached to it anywhere. It is taken through brute force. Nonsense. If you don't want to pay sales taxes, don't buy those items. If you don't want to pay local or state income taxes, move to a locality or state without income taxes. If you don't want to pay federal income taxes, move to another country without income taxes.

[laughing dog]

Most likely the fear of it failing. And why would anyone fear that a gov't that could not tax would fail?

[Bonniedundee]

Oh come Laughing dog, I was expecting better than this, I was looking for a proper debate, not one side simply saying this is the social contract without any further basis and the other saying taxes are theft with equally poor back up.

It is part of the deal in living a country.
You can - it is called leaving.
So, we are not slaves.
You have to supply an actual basis for you views on the social contract.

And we are not slaves as in chattel slaves, but we are not free either.
Our states are not democratic - then what are they?Obviously they are not, officially they are a representative republic, which is far from a real democracy, in reality they are plutocratic oligarchy.

[Bonniedundee]

But countries really do compete with one and other for citizens EXACTLY like how you envision different private cities offering sorts of benefits like education, clean streets, or a nearby beach.

Different nations offer different benefits packages. Some offer public health services, some offer a strong military, some only allow certain sorts of speech, some help out farmers.

They each offer a specific benefits package like that of a city which tries to appeal to people. In no way is this different from an individual choosing between city "A" which is privately owned and has good schools, and city "B" which has crappy schools but a nice health care system.This does not show they have the right to tax, it simply shows different nations tax and spend in different ways.

Even if any other nation had no taxes it would still not an argument that one is allowed to tax.

[Bonniedundee]

IT'S ALWAYS AMUSING when conservatives try to justify their outlandish beliefs.
I'm not a conservative, in fact I'm probably more left than right, although such labels are largely irrelevant.

And no one seems to have shown why it is right to tax, all that has been given are the flimsiest kinds of social contract arguments, which is saying something as all social contract arguments are rather weak.

[laughing dog]

You have to supply an actual basis for you views on the social contract. Actually, I don't. When one lives in a region, one is implicitly agreeing to abide by the laws of that region. If one does like the laws one can a) try to change the laws b)violate the laws and expect the stated consequences, or c) leave.



And we are not slaves as in chattel slaves, but we are not free either. Your point being?

Obviously they are not, officially they are a representative republic, which is far from a real democracy, in reality they are plutocratic oligarchy. Oh, come on now, you have to do better than that old saw.

[Nitrousoxide]

And no one seems to have shown why it is right to tax, all that has been given are the flimsiest kinds of social contract arguments, which is saying something as all social contract arguments are rather weak.

The social contract argument isn't really assailable. One can't conclude anything unbecoming from it like the allowance of genocide. Really the only way you can assault it is by asserting that it isn't at all obvious that it is true. But then you can do that to any statement really.

[Bonniedundee]

Actually, I don't. When one lives in a region, one is implicitly agreeing to abide by the laws of that region. If one does like the laws one can a) try to change the laws b)violate the laws and expect the stated consequences, or c) leave.This doesn't explain where the right or authority for this comes from?

The social contract is not a historical event and it is contrary to basic logic and contract theory, so you need to show where this actual authority.

Btw If you like I could just assume you have chosen the only possible option ie its comes from the democratic will of society?

Then we are faced with two problems, firstly the fact our states are not remotely demoratic and the only real, practical way to make them so would be to radically decentralise them and put in place direct democracy, this I could live with actually. And secondly you'd also have to explain where the democratic will of society gets its authority from.

Oh, come on now, you have to do better than that old saw.And you can just claim what you like about social contract theory?

At least mine was obviously true, our gov'ts are ruled by a group of people, mainly from the same class who are elected once every few years and get to do whatever they want once elected, which is usually what corporations and the wealthy want or at least some of them. And the only electable candidates are all the same.

[Bonniedundee]

The social contract argument isn't really assailable.
How so? I'm not sure what you mean, but I'd say it was undefendable not unassailable.

One can't conclude anything unbecoming from it like the allowance of genocide. One can conclude it is an absurdity, you are randomly believed to have consented when you have no choice to not be governed.

Really the only way you can assault it is by asserting that it isn't at all obvious that it is true. But then you can do that to any statement really.Right... it is pretty easy to assault, it assumes that people with prior rights consent to join the state for their own protection and benefit and be taxed in return, therefore to be true you must be able to remove you consent and still retain the rights you had before you joined.

If you have no rights except what the state gives you then the social contract theory is not needed and also you'd have to explain why rights are derived from a random group of individuals who happen to have a local monopoly on legitimised coercion.

If you leave behind this childish absurdity and realise to be able to consent people must be able to withdraw their consent and that rights exist before the state then you have as Herbert Spencer said a right to ignore the state and not pay taxes, and forced taxes are coercion and theft.

Also any defence of the social contract I know boils down to the democratic will of society being where rights and authority derive from, this is pretty important, because even if it were true our societies are far from democratic.

[Canard DuJour]

The social contract
Right... it is pretty easy to assault, it assumes that people with prior rights <snip>Wrong - it makes no assumptions about prior rights. Natural rights are an article of faith. The social contract simply acknowledges the reality that we have no rights other than those we can enforce.


If you have no rights except what the state gives you then the social contract theory is not needed and On the contrary, if you have no rights except what can be enforced, you have the social contract.


also you'd have to explain why rights are derived from a random group of individuals who happen to have a local monopoly on legitimised coercion.So that you don't get fucked by a group of indivduals who have a local monopoly on unlegitimised coercion.


If you leave behind this childish absurdity and realise to be able to consent people must be able to withdraw their consent and that rights exist before the state then you have as Herbert Spencer said a right to ignore the state and not pay taxes, and forced taxes are coercion and theft.Go live in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits come onto your homestead, try telling them about your rights to person and property. Then see where the childish absurdity is.

If you don't like the local social contract, you are free to leave. You dont get to impose another one on everyone else.

Also any defence of the social contract I know boils down to the democratic will of society being where rights and authority derive from, this is pretty important, because even if it were true our societies are far from democratic.It's a damn sight more democratic than a group of indivduals who have a local monopoly on unlegitimised coercion.

[Bonniedundee]

Wrong - it makes no assumptions about prior rights. Natural rights are an article of faith. The social contract simply acknowledges the reality that we have no rights other than those we can enforce.In order to make a contract you must have rights in the first place.

You realise most major social contract theorists were natural rights theorists as well?

On the contrary, if you have no rights except what can be enforced, you have the social contract.
No you don't, you have the rule of the strongest, you aren't proposing any contract just that the state has all the power it can enforce.


So that you don't get fucked by a group of indivduals who have a local monopoly on unlegitimised coercion.But this has nothing to do with the social contract, it is simply rule of the strongest.

Go live in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits come onto your homestead, try telling them about your rights to person and property. Then see where the childish absurdity is. How about you try and debate like an adult in the upper forums or meet my ignore list.

If you don't like the local social contract, you are free to leave. You dont get to impose another one on everyone else.
This is not an adequate basis for the rights and authority you give to the state.
You are not defending a social contract at all but the power of the strongest group of individuals in the local area or can do what they want as long as they can keep power.

It's a damn sight more democratic than a group of indivduals who have a local monopoly on unlegitimised coercion.
You never studied logic did you.

[Canard DuJour]

In order to make a contract you must have rights in the first place.

You realise most major social contract theorists were natural rights theorists as well?Yes, the natural "right to all things" i.e. the right to take anything you like and do anything you like to anyone else in the process.

That's the opposite of rights to person and property which can only be social convention. Hence the social contract.


No you don't, you have the rule of the strongest, you aren't proposing any contract just that the state has all the power it can enforce.


But this has nothing to do with the social contract, it is simply rule of the strongest.No it means democratic rule - consensus by force of numbers, not imposition by the strongest individual.


How about you try and debate like an adult in the upper forums or meet my ignore list.Please yourself. I'm serious. Go live in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits come onto your homestead, try telling them about your natural rights to person and property. Then see where the "childish absurdity" is.


This is not an adequate basis for the rights and authority you give to the state.Correct. The alternative - rule by a group who have a local monopoly on illegitimate coercion - is the adequate basis. The right to leave further legitimises democratic consensus


You are not defending a social contract at all but the power of the strongest group of individuals in the local area or can do what they want as long as they can keep power.No I'm defending enforcement of consensus by force of numbers so that the strongest group of individuals in the local area or cannot do what they want.

It's a damn sight more democratic than a group of indivduals who have a local monopoly on unlegitimised coercion.
You never studied logic did you. Address the issue please, not me.

[Bonniedundee]

Yes, the natural "right to all things" i.e. the right to take anything you like and do anything you like to anyone else in the process.

That's the opposite of rights to person and property which can only be social convention. Hence the social contract.This proves nothing, you have not shown what gives the social contract or society its authority. You must show this or you are simply engaged in tautology.

No it means democratic rule - consensus by force of numbers, not imposition by the strongest individual.
Ahh, so here we are at the core of the issue, this is what I was getting at.

So firstly where does the demoratic will of society derive its authority from?

And how do you deal with the fact the current state is not democratic?

To make it really so it would have to be direct and radically decentralised, which is almost what I want anyway.

Correct. The alternative - rule by a group who have a local monopoly on illegitimate coercion - is the adequate basis. The right to leave further legitimises democratic consensus
This is not an adequate basis at all. Where does this democratic consensus get its authority from?

No I'm defending enforcement of consensus by force of numbers so that the strongest group of individuals in the local area or cannot do what they want. I know, you did not make that clear.

Address the issue please, not me.Says the poster who posted this.

Go live in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits come onto your homestead, try telling them about your natural rights to person and property. Then see where the "childish absurdity" is.

I just can't help thinking your random and ill thought out attacks on me are due to the fact you think I'm a rightwinger and are just trying to revive the old socialist VS American style libertarian flamewars, you realise I'm not one of those and I consider myself leftwing and a socialist?

[Canard DuJour]

Yes, the natural "right to all things" i.e. the right to take anything you like and do anything you like to anyone else in the process.

That's the opposite of rights to person and property which can only be social convention. Hence the social contract.This proves nothing, you have not shown what gives the social contract or society its authority. You must show this or you are simply engaged in tautology.


Ahh, so here we are at the core of the issue, this is what I was getting at.

So firstly where does the demoratic will of society derive its authority from?

And how do you deal with the fact the current state is not democratic?

To make it really so it would have to be direct and radically decentralised, which is almost what I want anyway.


This is not an adequate basis at all. Where does this democratic consensus get its authority from?From the fact that the alternative is imposition by the strongest individual - the opposite of rights to person and property. Any deontological right or authority beyond that is a fairy tale.

Address the issue please, not me.Says the poster who posted this.

Go live in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits come onto your homestead, try telling them about your natural rights to person and property. Then see where the "childish absurdity" is.Imagine a Person Other Than Yourself (POTY) living in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits come onto POTY's homestead, imagine POTY tries telling them about his natural rights to person and property. POTY will soon discover where the "childish absurdity" is.

I just can't help thinking your random and ill thought out attacks on me are due to the fact you think I'm a rightwinger and are just trying to revive the old socialist VS American style libertarian flamewars, you realise I'm not one of those and I consider myself leftwing and a socialist? Yes. I'm not randomly attacking you - no doubt you're one of the good guys. But having read lots of Libertarian lit, I consider it to be garbage and irreconcilable with any realistic socialism.

[Bonniedundee]

From the fact that the alternative is imposition by the strongest individual - the opposite of rights to person and property. Any deontological right or authority beyond that is a fairy tale.This is not an argument.

Of course you must have realised that the democratic will gets its authority from the consent of individuals, hence rights come before society.

And to consent to a democratic will you must by its very nature have the right to not concent and keep your prior rights in tact.

Imagine a Person Other Than Yourself (POTY) living in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits come onto POTY's homestead, imagine POTY tries telling them about his natural rights to person and property. POTY will soon discover where the "childish absurdity" is.
Imagine the police coming in and taking off to the concentration camp or gulag, you will discover then where the slippery slope you are on leads.

The only defence you have is that the current population will not quite give in to this yet.

Yes. I'm not randomly attacking you - no doubt you're one of the good guys. But having read lots of Libertarian lit, I consider it to be garbage and irreconcilable with any realistic socialism.
That is your choice, ignore American style libertarians and ancaps, libertarian socialists and social anarchists like Kropotkin reject the social contract too, it is certainly not a reactionary or rightwing thing to reject it. In fact I can't think of a more leftwing person than Peter Kropotkin.

The state is and has only ever been founded by conquest, its function and the reason its uses taxation is to ultimately redistribute wealth and power from the bottom to the top of society, you will find no friend for your socialism in the state.

[Canard DuJour]

From the fact that the alternative is imposition by the strongest individual - the opposite of rights to person and property. Any deontological right or authority beyond that is a fairy tale.This is not an argument.Sure it is. Just not a deontological one.

Of course you must have realised that the democratic will gets its authority from the consent of individuals, hence rights come before society.Non sequitur. I could assert droit de segneur in your neighbourhood. The fact that I am an individual neither ligitimises it nor enables me to realise that right. The fact that neighbourhood virgins are indivduals will not protect them if I am the stronger, unless they have recourse to some enforceable social convention.

And to consent to a democratic will you must by its very nature have the right to not concent and keep your prior rights in tact.You do have the right not to consent. You can either leave or press for change. The only prior right is the right of all to all, i.e. the right of the strong, i.e. no rights.


Imagine the police coming in and taking off to the concentration camp or gulag, you will discover then where the slippery slope you are on leads.Possibly, but my telling my captors about my natural rights wont make any difference. Any more than telling bears or bandits.

The only defence you have is that the current population will not quite give in to this yet.Yes, without the "yet".


That is your choice, ignore American style libertarians and ancaps, libertarian socialists and social anarchists like Kropotkin reject the social contract too, it is certainly not a reactionary or rightwing thing to reject it. In fact I can't think of a more leftwing person than Peter Kropotkin.

The state is and has only ever been founded by conquest, its function and the reason its uses taxation is to ultimately redistribute wealth and power from the bottom to the top of society, you will find no friend for your socialism in the state.There's sometimes some truth in that. States also sometimes redistribute from top to bottom and enforce democratic consensus. Some kind of state is merely a logistic inevitability before any ideology is invoked. That doesn't mean left = non-state while right = state any more than the converse.

[laughing dog]

Monopolies exist because of government. Some do. Some exist because the demand can be satisified by one firm.

[Nitrousoxide]

Lower prices than what? There are bound to be people who can't afford it. What to do with them?

To be fair, I’ve heard a better proposal which has the investigators, bounty hunters, victims, and incarcerators being paid by the perpetrator either in cash or in work if he can’t pay in cash. If the courts find him guilty then they get paid by the perpetrator some sum or, if he can’t afford that, he must spend time working off his debt to those parties involved. If he isn’t found guilty, then the agencies involved get nothing.

I still don’t like this solution either as really rich people like Bill Gates could kill a hooker every month and just pay the fine, but it at least avoids the problem of victims not being able to pay for the investigation.


------

Euro_agnostic, I’m somewhat confused as to why having existing rights, some of which you surrender to the government, is a problem.

You have some set of rights but are in a state of anarchy and find that you cannot maintain all of those rights. You find others wishing to protect as many rights as possible so you band together and agree to surrender those rights to a government with the authority to make and enforce laws (that authority being granted by this group).

This group is free to leave the arrangement at any time, so long as they don’t have outstanding violations of some rules set out by the government. This makes the arrangement unanimous for those which give their Explicit Consent.

For those which only give their Implicit Consent, they make use the protections and services offered by the government and upon reaching an age at which they are competent decision makers, they then have the option to leave the agreement at their leisure (again, assuming there isn’t some breach of the agreement on their part). This too makes Implicit Consent unanimous agreement for all relevant parties.

Where exactly is the problem?

[Nice Squirrel]

Private security firm discussion split.

[Gamera]

To some degree, one can choose where one lives. However, just like with many multi-dimensional choices, there may not be one that exactly fits one's preferences - that is called life. Despite assertions to the contrary, taxation is a necessary to raise resources for a gov't: donations are subject to the free rider effect, and the only other possible avenues are the sale of assets (which begs the question of acquisition) or monetary creation (which leads to inflation).

One can whine about the alleged immorality of taxes and it will have as much effect as whining about the immorality of natural disasters or Brittany Spears.

And taxes are not subject to the free rider effect now?

Discussing the immorality of taxes can have much more effect then discussing the immorality of natural disasters or Brittany Spears, since we can stop taxation, if we so chose.

It is immoral not to tax the rich. Since the rich benefit from taxes, and indeed, the whole notion of property rights is a state defined function, for the rich to complain about taxes is absurd.

There can be no wealth (property) without government functions (courts, a recorder's office, sheriff's to enforce the "rights," etc.). Since those with property have taken the benefit of this state action, it is immoral for them not to pay for it.

This is especially true of those with wealth producing property (capital), since their wealth is not only protected by the state, but their means of exploiting others to obtain wealth is protected by the state (assuming the system is like ours and it has rules that protect owners more than workers).

Those without property of course have a genuine argument to make that they should not pay taxes, since they recieve little benefit from the state system of property rights.

To summarize, the article's argument reduces to the desire to get something (the beneift of property rights) for nothing. It's not different from saying that paying your light bill is forced labor and theft because if you don't pay it, the light company will take your money through a judicial action (i.e., state action). The only difference is that the market fundamentalists pretend that there is no benefit derived from the state, and try to obsfucate that whole ridiculous premise, given that the very wealth that the taxpayer has is the result of a state function.

[Bonniedundee]

This is not an argument.Sure it is. Just not a deontological one.It is an assertion not an argument, you can't just say their is a social contract you must say how it originates.

Non sequitur. I could assert droit de segneur in your neighbourhood. The fact that I am an individual neither ligitimises it nor enables me to realise that right. The fact that neighbourhood virgins are indivduals will not protect them if I am the stronger, unless they have recourse to some enforceable social convention.Of course it is not a non sequitur, you are claiming the social contract comes from the democratic will of society, you must say where this will gets it authority from, otherwise you just have a random assertion.

You do have the right not to consent. You can either leave or press for change. The only prior right is the right of all to all, i.e. the right of the strong, i.e. no rights.
Okay then you aren't following a social contract theory, you are claiming that the rule of strongest is legitimate whatever.
You are simply not providing the theoretical basis for your support for the social contract theory.

Possibly, but my telling my captors about my natural rights wont make any difference. Any more than telling bears or bandits.If society or the state(this is impossible by the very nature of the state as class state.) defends natural rights, or self-ownership it would never happen and crime would be far less.

Yes, without the "yet".No with the yes, the state in the west is increasing its power, and the state to quote Marx is the exuective committee of the ruling classes, so they would not hesitate to use the power when they get it.


There's sometimes some truth in that. States also sometimes redistribute from top to bottom and enforce democratic consensus. Some kind of state is merely a logistic inevitability before any ideology is invoked. That doesn't mean left = non-state while right = state any more than the converse.Most leftists are anti-state, Marxists want no state in the end and libertarian socialists want no state now, only social democrat and liberals who barely deserve to be called leftist want a state.

[Chuck Rightmire]

We can, of course, have a government that doesn't live off of taxes. In some parts of this country we have had private fire departments that had subscribers. When a home out in the county was burning that wasn't a subscriber, the fire department would stand by to protect any nearby property that belonged to a subscriber while the burning property went down. Now we have formed fire district, with a vote of the property owners, which collect taxes from everyone in the district to pay the costs of that fire protection. We could also sell various forms of protection in other areas as well. If i subscribe to police services, I get protected; if you don't you get robbed. Simple.

As our understand it Libertarians believe that if people believe they see a need for combined efforts, they get together and pay for it. In most of the world, we call it government. In the U.S. cattlemen pay $1 a head into a fund to promote their product. It's called the beef checkoff. It is not voluntary. It is done by the USDA after the beef owners voted a number of years ago to have it and have voted in its favor several times since. I want my property protected by having a registry of deed to my house and yard. That's a government service. I want a (generally) fair and impartial court to hear my case. When a group of people want to get together and form a group for a service, it is unfair if some members of the group benefit without payment. I would say it is immoral. That's what we deal with in taxation. You may cry about the taxing authority. This is the first year in five that voters in my community voted extra money for schools. The sort of things that I'm hearing here is the sort of crap that I hear by the nay sayers.

You can argue the immorality of taxation all you want, but I don't hear anyone arguing about the regulators setting rates for utilities high enough that stockholders earn dividends for things we need. My taxes each year, property and income to state and federal, are less than what I pay for utilities. Water is the cheapest utility and it is owned by government, not by stockholders. And I need electricity and natural gas if I am to survive. We have to have taxes if each of us is to pay as we should to maintain the type of society in which we live. If you don't like the society, then become a Philip Nolan, the Man Without a Country.

[Bonniedundee]

It is immoral not to tax the rich. Since the rich benefit from taxes, and indeed, the whole notion of property rights is a state defined function, for the rich to complain about taxes is absurd.
While I don't care about the rich, as Proudhon said their possessions are stolen, it is counterproductive to tax them, they need state support to exist just remove this help and you'd have no problem.

And while property rights need some community input in practical terms they are certainly not defined by the state.

There can be no wealth (property) without government functions (courts, a recorder's office, sheriff's to enforce the "rights," etc.). You are talking of enfocring negative liberties far from what our states do or are meant to do.

Since those with property have taken the benefit of this state action, it is immoral for them not to pay for it.
The whole point of the state is to redistribute wealth up the ladder from the bottom to the top. This wealth isn't legitimate property by any liberal property rights theory though like Locke's.

This is especially true of those with wealth producing property (capital), since their wealth is not only protected by the state, but their means of exploiting others to obtain wealth is protected by the state (assuming the system is like ours and it has rules that protect owners more than workers).This property is not property in a legitimate way, it is just held by legal title like almost all the rich possess, it is stolen property.

Those without property of course have a genuine argument to make that they should not pay taxes, since they recieve little benefit from the state system of property rights.
They recieve negative effects from it.

To summarize, the article's argument reduces to the desire to get something (the beneift of property rights) for nothing. It's not different from saying that paying your light bill is forced labor and theft because if you don't pay it, the light company will take your money through a judicial action (i.e., state action). The only difference is that the market fundamentalists pretend that there is no benefit derived from the state, and try to obsfucate that whole ridiculous premise, given that the very wealth that the taxpayer has is the result of a state function.
There are benefits from the state, but almost all that couldn't be done just as well without it go to the rich and powerful.

[premjan]

Property in the modern capitalist sense, is often too narrowly construed. Whereas there is the primitive reptilian brain sense of property being whatever region of territory I have peed on, there is the larger sense of property being the region over which I have some legitimate claim by virtue of personal presence, contribution to community or nation etc.

[Derrick Lang]

1. No doubt taxation is theft in a society that professes the right to private property, but it is actually one that can be good within reason. But "theft" has emotional connotations, usurpation or divestment is more neutral.

- The poor and other elements of society tend not to be the most moral citizens (ex: the old folk dilemma of a starving man stealing bread). While Americans are some of the most charitable people on Earth, the masses can easily be stirred by the perception that no taxes = the source of their problem. At least now one can always point out that the government is taking half their income, so they have no moral obligation to assist anyone, in anything, for any reason, if it doesn't suit them (this is why Ayn Rand has a following here, it is a reasonable conclusion). The fault for having downtrodden people rests with the government; if the government can't take care of the people then what are we paying for?. I think we can agree that Sweden takes better care of its poor than America does and they don't have a charitable society like we do: they have a less corrupt government (and of course racial makeup helps, but immigrants are coming, so I doubt they will sustain their current welfare system)

2. The slavery argument doesn't work so well. Namely, because the "slave masters" also have to pay taxes. Now it is slavery in some countries (dictatorships for example) where strongmen are looting. In America, and Western Europe, every consumer or citizen with an income is subject to taxation. You run into an Allegory of the Cave type situation, if most of the "slaves" don't feel like slaves,

3. I'm not a libertarian, but you will get more sympathy by supporting ideas such as the fair tax, or a reduction in tax. You can still have a minimal state, but donations will not work. I understand where you are coming from though. You will not find too many wealthy supporters of the idea. Most of the support for abolishment of taxation comes from middle class intellectuals who, rightfully, see the parasitic lower classes and corrupt rich people both feeding off their hard work. The lower classes don't think abolishment serves them, and the rich don't want their heads lopped off in a revolution, and they don't want to lose the power of the state, corporations and monopolies can't exist without the government.

This is one of those issues that stunt the growth of libertarianism. I'm not even talking about in the old sense (Oh brother it's 1776, we can't eliminate slavery, the economy needs it, if you don't like slavery, you are a free white man, leave!). I agree we are overtaxed, and I favor fair tax, but that is a different beast (and one that has support) from calling for abolition. Libertarians could probably sway 25% of America to the cause in a generation or two, if they drop the radical theory (Hoppe, Rothbard, et al.) and promote left-libertarianism (Reason.com, etc).

4. If you really want to hit the statists where it hurts and bring on some cognitive dissonance. Just point out that the military conscription is perfectly acceptable using the same arguments as the support of mandatory taxation. However, it is a stronger argument, because taxation is used to build and support a functioning society, if it is worth supporting then it is worth defending. If it is worth defending then it must be defended.

- The absolute worst argument in defense of taxation, "You can leave." American society thrives on activism, practical and intellectual, and we are already anti-intellectual enough without plugging our ears in one more way. I assume people don't think black people got their rights, post-slavery, by leaving. It was Strom Thurmond who said blacks owned more property and lived better than blacks in Africa or anywhere else in the world, and if it was so bad, why wern't they moving back to Africa or somewhere else? They were free. I just can't believe I'm hearing the "You can leave" argument on an Atheist forum from Americans when atheists are quite prone to moan about prayer in schools or the advancement of the Religious Right agenda, when they could leave. Atheists are outnumbered at every corner and will be for a long time if not forever. The just leave argument only works for people who proclaim, "I hate my country" not government, but country. Then one can reasonably ask "why are you here then?"

I'm glad it isn't 1776 anymore, but all the benefits we have now, including the actual country itself, came about from people who had revolutions, debated, and grew. If anyone could have left the colonies, it was the founding fathers. With integration, the interracial crime rate skyrocketed. When women got the vote, the power structure changed. With legalization of homosexuality, came AIDS. Really with most changes, there are downsides. No doubt if taxation were abolished there would be some, and it may be some that supporters of abolition won't like.

[Metaphor]

With legalization of homosexuality, came AIDS. Really with most changes, there are downsides.

That's a new one. Legalising homosexual activity caused the AIDS virus to appear.

And here I thought it was because god hates fags.

[Derrick Lang]

With legalization of homosexuality, came AIDS. Really with most changes, there are downsides.

That's a new one. Legalising homosexual activity caused the AIDS virus to appear.

And here I thought it was because god hates fags.

*(I shouldn't have said or implied 'appear' that is not their conclusion. 'Spread so rapidly' is what I should have said.)

It's a dubious correlation, but one I hear often from ardent social conservatives. Their reasoning is as follows.

1. When a behavior is illegal it is committed less or committed in secrecy.
2. With the legalization of homosexual rights and activism, promiscuity became easier thanks to legal establishments where they could meet and/or social ability to do it in the open.
3. Promiscuity lead to the rapid spread of AIDS amongst homosexuals.
4. Therefore, homosexual legalization caused the AIDS virus to spread rapidly.

I don't know why they just point out homosexuals though, as if heterosexuals aren't promiscuous. I would agree that promiscuity is partially at fault, but I see no reason to blame homosexuals and ignore the fact that heterosexual men aren't much better and have the benefit of marriage in all 50 states.

[Canard DuJour]

Sure it is. Just not a deontological one.It is an assertion not an argument, you can't just say their is a social contract you must say how it originates.

Of course it is not a non sequitur, you are claiming the social contract comes from the democratic will of society, you must say where this will gets it authority from, otherwise you just have a random assertion.

Okay then you aren't following a social contract theory, you are claiming that the rule of strongest is legitimate whatever.
You are simply not providing the theoretical basis for your support for the social contract theory.

It is an assertion not an argument, you can't just say their is a social contract you must say how it originates. Which is exactly what I do. People give up the natural freedom of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest. That is both the origin and justification of the social contract.

The unfounded assertion is that there must be some deontological justification beyond this.


If society or the state(this is impossible by the very nature of the state as class state.) defends natural rights, or self-ownership it would never happen and crime would be far less.On the contrary, it would simply redefine crime in ways so contrary to normal moral intuition that you'd need a massive police state to impose and enforce it.


No with the yes, the state in the west is increasing its power, and the state to quote Marx is the exuective committee of the ruling classes, so they would not hesitate to use the power when they get it.

Most leftists are anti-state, Marxists want no state in the end and libertarian socialists want no state now, only social democrat and liberals who barely deserve to be called leftist want a state.Marx wanted no state in the end but recognised that control of the state by the oppressed class was the way to get there. A state which does nothing but enforce property rights is a step in the opposite direction. Most left anarchists want a state, they just call it something different. Anarchocapitalism with private defence agencies is just gang warfare. Your pick'n'mix variant sounds more like a right-wing Amish than any cogent socialism.

[Hawkeye]

I don't know why they just point out homosexuals though, as if heterosexuals aren't promiscuous. I would agree that promiscuity is partially at fault, but I see no reason to blame homosexuals and ignore the fact that heterosexual men aren't much better and have the benefit of marriage in all 50 states.

Well, homosexual sex doesn't cause pregnancies, so those engaging in it might be overall less prone to use condoms. I don't know how close this is to reality, though.

[Gamera]

It is immoral not to tax the rich. Since the rich benefit from taxes, and indeed, the whole notion of property rights is a state defined function, for the rich to complain about taxes is absurd.

While I don't care about the rich, as Proudhon said their possessions are stolen, it is counterproductive to tax them, they need state support to exist just remove this help and you'd have no problem.

All markets have rules. It's simple naivety to suggest otherwise. So we can't help but have rules to govern economic activity. I prefer to do it democratically rather than by force.

And while property rights need some community input in practical terms they are certainly not defined by the state.

Sure they are. To "own" property means to be able to got to court to enforce your rights, to get the sheriff to kick out interlopers, and to have legal authority over someone else who claims the same land. Without these functions -- defined by the state -- you simply have the law of the jungle. Whoever is strongest, has the most guns, etc, gets the property.

You are talking of enfocring negative liberties far from what our states do or are meant to do.

"Meant to do" by whom? America jurisprudence never accepted pure property rights as a gift from God or something. As early jurisprudence stated -- property rights are a bundle of rights and responsibilities -- enforced by state action.

The whole point of the state is to redistribute wealth up the ladder from the bottom to the top. This wealth isn't legitimate property by any liberal property rights theory though like Locke's.

It is, if you say it is. If you say it isn't, and use democracy properly, it isn't.

This property is not property in a legitimate way, it is just held by legal title like almost all the rich possess, it is stolen property.

That's what property means. It has no meaing outside of jurisprudence.

There are benefits from the state, but almost all that couldn't be done just as well without it go to the rich and powerful.

Anarchy for rich people is the result.

[Gamera]

. With legalization of homosexuality, came AIDS.

Except that in Africa it is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disease.

[Bonniedundee]

All markets have rules. It's simple naivety to suggest otherwise. So we can't help but have rules to govern economic activity. I prefer to do it democratically rather than by force.Of course we need rules, but why do then support the state? It is never democratic always oligarchical.


Sure they are. To "own" property means to be able to got to court to enforce your rights, to get the sheriff to kick out interlopers, and to have legal authority over someone else who claims the same land. Without these functions -- defined by the state -- you simply have the law of the jungle. Whoever is strongest, has the most guns, etc, gets the property.Why does the state have to do this? It is never interested in property rights, only in redistributing wealth from the workers to the ruling classes.

The local community through juries and militias as well as private individuals or firms could do this better than any state who's real agenda is to defend the rich from the poor and exploit the poor.


"Meant to do" by whom? America jurisprudence never accepted pure property rights as a gift from God or something. As early jurisprudence stated -- property rights are a bundle of rights and responsibilities -- enforced by state action.No state ever enforced legitimate property rights.You mistake the state, which as Marx said is the executive committee of the ruling classes whose sole function is to dominate and exploit, with society.

I do think people have rights before they join society, but I'm willing to put with the democratic rule of society, no state today approaches this though.



It is, if you say it is. If you say it isn't, and use democracy properly, it isn't.
Well in practical terms to create a state like that it would have to be directly democratic and radically decentralised, this is the only way the state is going to be the same as society.


That's what property means. It has no meaing outside of jurisprudence.Yes it does. Have you ever read Locke? Or any other kind of liberal natural rights theorist?


Anarchy for rich people is the result.The rich need the state, the rich are the state, without legitimised coercion they would be nothing.

[spidermantx]

Of course the individual owns the property, but that person also makes use of various services and products provided by the state, local, and Federal government. Among them are roads, defence, police, fire, and education.

In making use of these services and products, a person provides their Tacit Consent to abide by the rules of the person or organization operating them, in this case the government. One of the rules which the operator of these services is that the users or people under the protection of those services must pay a certain sum to the owner. That sum paid is the tax.

It's justified because of Tacit Consent for people born here in the country, or Explicit Consent for those who moved here from another.

Well, you're wrong. You are always free to leave the country. Whether you can enter the territory of another nation which you do not belong to is up to that nation. That is why I presented the example of the open ocean which no one owns. You are free to leave the borders of our nation and enter the open ocean with some small conditions like I mentioned and the government will not stop you. This proves that leaving a nation is always within the power of a law-abiding citizen. And, of course, being able to leave a nation is all that is needed to prevent the citizen from being owned by that nation as you seem to think he is.

Whether other nations which you don't belong to will or won't accept you into their own borders is irrelivent to the question.

Thank you for your comments. After much thought and discussion with others, I have to concede that taxation is not immoral.

[Derrick Lang]

Of course the individual owns the property, but that person also makes use of various services and products provided by the state, local, and Federal government. Among them are roads, defence, police, fire, and education.


I have seen no advocate of free-riderism. Many even favor government retaining ownership, and have no problem paying for roads that they use (tolls) or any service. People have been using services and products owned by the state since its inception, all this means is that a monopoly is behaving like a monopoly. This is the equivalent to saying you received a state education, there you will do as the state says, which is what tyrannies do. Not that I am a tax abolitionist.



In making use of these services and products, a person provides their Tacit Consent to abide by the rules of the person or organization operating them, in this case the government. One of the rules which the operator of these services is that the users or people under the protection of those services must pay a certain sum to the owner. That sum paid is the tax.

It's justified because of Tacit Consent for people born here in the country, or Explicit Consent for those who moved here from another.
.

Our ultimate conclusions are the same (compulsory taxation is unavoidable and shouldn't be avoided) This is a shaky argument though, because it doesn't apply to just taxation (As taxation is not the only "tacit consent"). Taxes are not new, since the establishment of the slave owning republic they have existed. What is also subject to "tacit consent" is the social order (which is one of the main purposes of taxation) and the legal system. Every reform movement, every fight for rights (which is what tax abolitionists are, misguided and quixotic as they may be) depends on assaulting the social order. I see no more reason for a tax abolitionist to leave than a (free) slave abolitionist, the members of the civil rights movement, feminists, homosexuals, and other threats to social order and laws created by the government. Hey, I like my country, but I do not want to live by the rules of 19th century conduct.I doubt many of us pine for the days when slaves were property, because the government said it is so, and how could one rationally disagree?

Taxation is a necessity, but some defenders of it go might = right on the issue, when they wouldn't dream of telling blacks to go to Africa instead of fighting for rights. I believe this is partially because, not you personally or anyone in general, supporters of mandatory taxation, like all conservatives/defenders of status quo on an issue, fear an issue that can potentially resonate with a lot of people (socialism!!! Welfare state!!!). So it is easy to dismiss it (as religious conservatives do atheism all the time, often telling them to go move to some atheist utopia). No psychologizing is necessary, it is just a descriptive fact. I'd be the first one to freak out if I had to write a check every month in order to get the cops or courts to listen to me, it's already bad enough as it is being poor. It's a shame though, because there are so many ways to defeat the tax abolitionists without resorting to the worst copouts and sophistry. The problem with such dismissal, the worst, is that it can allow it to build steam. Prohibition is the best example of this. No one could imagine substances being outlawed, and considered prohibitionists kill joys. Lo and Behold the bastards were successful, although it didn't work out too well. Now we have a 50 billion dollar a year drug war. And of course opponents of it are often told, ironically by alcohol drinkers, to move to Amsterdam if they want their high.

Save for a handful of examples, most countries have governments. Not every nation is under some pretense of democracy. What is tacit consent in Saudi Arabia or Moldova is not tacit consent in America. Someone complaining about a strongman/party looting has a legitimate claim. This is why the might = right argument doesn't really work out. "Don't like a dictatorship, leave! Can't leave? Oh well might = right." A government can't exist without funding, but few governments are fully legitimate. Even in the West, it came about due to the very same activism that tax abolitionists engage in, and they are told the same: "Don't like it, leave." Of course, seeing as many reform movements were successful (a la mandatory prayer in public schools), I'd be slow to be dismissive.

If I wake up with a bill for $20,000 from a private defense firm, I'm going to be pissed. I've always thought about what an anarcho-capitalist society would look like. The ironic thing is that in the quest for liberty, radicals often bring about the destruction of it.

[James Madison]

All markets have rules. It's simple naivety to suggest otherwise. So we can't help but have rules to govern economic activity. I prefer to do it democratically rather than by force.Of course we need rules, but why do then support the state? It is never democratic always oligarchical.


Why does the state have to do this? It is never interested in property rights, only in redistributing wealth from the workers to the ruling classes.

The local community through juries and militias as well as private individuals or firms could do this better than any state who's real agenda is to defend the rich from the poor and exploit the poor.


No state ever enforced legitimate property rights.You mistake the state, which as Marx said is the executive committee of the ruling classes whose sole function is to dominate and exploit, with society.

I do think people have rights before they join society, but I'm willing to put with the democratic rule of society, no state today approaches this though.




Well in practical terms to create a state like that it would have to be directly democratic and radically decentralised, this is the only way the state is going to be the same as society.


Yes it does. Have you ever read Locke? Or any other kind of liberal natural rights theorist?


Anarchy for rich people is the result.The rich need the state, the rich are the state, without legitimised coercion they would be nothing.

The local community through juries and militias as well as private individuals or firms could do this better than any state who's real agenda is to defend the rich from the poor and exploit the poor.


Your assumption a local community jury, convened for the purpose of resolving property disputes and having their declarations binding on members of the community and enforced by a "militia," does not qualify as a "state" is erroneous. Furthermore, your attempt to impugne the credibility and motives of the "state" by your repeated allegations of "defend the rich from the poor and exploit the poor," is a pleasant fiction.

[Loren Pechtel]

Your assumption a local community jury, convened for the purpose of resolving property disputes and having their declarations binding on members of the community and enforced by a "militia," does not qualify as a "state" is erroneous. Furthermore, your attempt to impugne the credibility and motives of the "state" by your repeated allegations of "defend the rich from the poor and exploit the poor," is a pleasant fiction.

Oh, come on now! It's the label that matters!

If it's not labelled "state" then it's just people!

Ignore the reality, you must have faith!

[Bonniedundee]

Your assumption a local community jury, convened for the purpose of resolving property disputes and having their declarations binding on members of the community and enforced by a "militia," does not qualify as a "state" is erroneous. It is not a state in the sense that Oppenheimer showed. He showed how states were formed by conquest, this would not be, it would not be a class state like all states, hence it is no state.

Furthermore, your attempt to impugne the credibility and motives of the "state" by your repeated allegations of "defend the rich from the poor and exploit the poor," is a pleasant fiction.
I suggest you look at Oppenheimer's The State, he uses plenty of historical examples, something as David Hume pointed out, no social contract theorist has ever been able to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppenheimer

Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the State:

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation; or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)

A local community does not live up to this.

[Bonniedundee]

Oh, come on now! It's the label that matters!

If it's not labelled "state" then it's just people!

Ignore the reality, you must have faith!Loren, he's an idea, for once actually post something worth responding to.

[James Madison]

Your assumption a local community jury, convened for the purpose of resolving property disputes and having their declarations binding on members of the community and enforced by a "militia," does not qualify as a "state" is erroneous. It is not a state in the sense that Oppenheimer showed. He showed how states were formed by conquest, this would not be, it would not be a class state like all states, hence it is no state.

Furthermore, your attempt to impugne the credibility and motives of the "state" by your repeated allegations of "defend the rich from the poor and exploit the poor," is a pleasant fiction.
I suggest you look at Oppenheimer's The State, he uses plenty of historical examples, something as David Hume pointed out, no social contract theorist has ever been able to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppenheimer

Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the State:

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation; or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)

A local community does not live up to this.

You know, I might be persuaded if Oppenheimer were the final word as to what constitutes a 'state'. A lot of ink has been devoted to this subject, from Plato, to Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes, and others. Out of all of them, you rely upon one, Oppenheimer, but who is to say he is correct on this subject? In fact, I do not think he is actually making an argument as to what constitutes a "state" but rather asserting historically, the state, whatever it may be, has not been the product of a social compact but conquest. Merely conveying the historical record is replete with examples where conquest preceded the "state," is NOT the same as asserting conquest is necessary for the existence of the state. Oppenheimer is making the former assertion and not the latter but you erroneously transformed Oppenheimer's observance of the historical evidence into a strawman argument that Oppenheimer was asserting no state can ever exist without conquest but he was not making ANY such statement in the excerpt you provided.

It is not a state in the sense that Oppenheimer showed.

As I said previously, Oppenheimer was disputing the allegation that historically the state was the product of the social compact and he was not making the allegation the state could never exist without conquest. Hence, Oppenheimer does not at all contradict any of my remarks that your hypothetical example constitutes as a "state."

Furthermore, in your example, there is no longer a "state of nature" for the participants in your example but a submission, by some people, to recognize some "body" to resolve disputes and have this resolution binding not only on the parties but everyone in the "area" which has submitted to its authority to decide cases; and then have the rulings, which is now "law," enforced for all those which have consented to the "authority" of the jury.

In your example, there is a jury convened for the purpose of resolving disputes. The inference to be drawn from this statement is that some people, in a particular area, have consented to bring their disputes before a tribunal convened within the "area." The people within this "area" have then consented to a particular "authority" to decide disputes. The final judgment rendered by the jury is binding not only on the parties to the action but everyone in the "area." Their judgments are enfoced within the "area" by a militia. This jury is deciding cases and in doing so making law to be enforced by a militia within a "particular area."

This constitutes, in my opinion, as a 'state.'
He showed how states were formed by conquest, this would not be, it would not be a class state like all states, hence it is no state.


Conquest is not necessary for a state to exist and neither is the existence of "class." At BEST all you have demonstrated above is the existence of a different kind of state, a "state" different from the others in that it was forged in the absence of conquest and does not have classes. Ergo, it can be properly described as a classless "state" whose origins were not the product of conquest.

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victo