IRS Abuse Reports #94-#97
IRS Abuse Reports
IRS Abuse Reports Web Site:
http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/
also see
http://www.neo-tech.com
and
The Golden-Helmet Revenue System
http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/book/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These IRS Abuse Reports are Sent Daily
to all
U.S. Congressmen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Abuse Report #94
Date: Tue Apr 30 11:16:24 1996
To: s...@irs.class-action.com
From: MR
I was a member of a partnership that was audited back in 1984.
The case took six years to settle. I signed an agreement
accepting the settlement. Nothing happened for over a year. Then
out of the blue the IRS came at me with both guns blazing.
Assessing all kinds of penalties and claiming that the time to
reply to their claims had elapsed.
This same event happened to everyone in the partnership, however,
all members had signed and filed the paper work prior to final
agreement. Each member had to individually prove to the IRS that
the IRS had made the mistake.
It's very involved and involves several instances where the IRS
misplaced, lost or outright deceived us. This also precipitated a
nervous breakdown for me. The financial distress was enormous and
to this day I haven't recovered from the problems the IRS caused
due to their negligence.
IRS Abuse Report #95
Date: Tue Apr 30 23:26:54 1996
To: s...@irs.class-action.com
From: PM
The IRS confiscated my wages. I was working on an $80,000 year
job and had to quit, dispose of all I owned, and have not been
able to work since, except odd jobs. I did not owe IRS the money
they said. It was due to a tax shelter that went bankrupt and not
only did IRS come after me, but about 200 other people. I filed
bankruptcy against the IRS and was discharged of my debt.
However, I still owe for the past 4 years and feel it is
unconstitutional the way they harass me. I have not been able to
get a real job or own anything because of the IRS.
IRS Abuse Report #96
Date: Thu May 2 1:23:54 1996
To: s...@irs.class-action.com
From: CCl
"The IRS has harassed me for 16 years".
In 1980 a previous employer erroneously reported my income by
reporting that I earned $10,000 in 1980. I explained to the IRS
that I did not earn the $10,000 because I only worked two weeks
in 1980 at the rate of $750 bi-weekly.I further explained that I
was the accounting supervisor for that company that reported the
error and it can be very easily corrected. To no avail, the IRS
ignored my request to ascertain the facts and eagerly tried to
destroy me. the IRS subsequently seized my house, my car, my
retirement account , and everything I needed to sustain life. The
IRS has hounded me for 16 years. This year in 1996, the IRS
seized my bank account, and tax payments I made. The IRS told me
the seizures were for payments on the 1980 taxes that they say
that I still owe. The IRS seized everything I owned making it
almost impossible to cope and they are still harassing and
intimidating me.
I'm not rich nor do I own anything worth having. The IRS has
really hurt me in a very serious way. I mean in the way that you
hurt inside where the pain is so deep that all the tears stop
flowing and all that remain is the moan! I remember on one
occasion the IRS came on my job and thus caused me to lose my
job. I have not been allowed to get credit, or live a comfortable
life for 16 years. I am a Vietnam veteran and I have not been
able to use my G.I. bill to buy a house because of what the IRS
has done to me, my name, and my credit. The IRS has caused me and
my wife to suffer great depressions in our marriage and the IRS
has caused disharmony among me and my friends.
IRS Abuse Report #97
Date: Thu May 2 16:06:48 1996
To: s...@irs.class-action.com
From: Anonymous
I just received a tax examination change report for 1993 and 1994
which bills me for $25,000 due to disallowing alimony I paid. I
didn't even get a chance to show my canceled checks, court order,
etc. I was presumed guilty without the right to show proof.
--
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <neo-techE...@netcom.com>,
neo-...@netcom.com (IRS Abuse Reports) wrote:
>
> IRS Abuse Report #95
>
>
> Date: Tue Apr 30 23:26:54 1996
> To: s...@irs.class-action.com
> From: PM
>
> The IRS confiscated my wages. I was working on an $80,000 year
> job and had to quit, dispose of all I owned, and have not been
> able to work since, except odd jobs.
You didn't "have" to do anything. You should have kept working and paid
what you owed instead of company up with this sob story about how the IRS
"forced" you out of a well paying job.
> I did not owe IRS the money
> they said.
Sorry, don't believe you. How about some independent verification form
your CPA?
Roger Apex
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> In article <neo-techE...@netcom.com>,
> neo-...@netcom.com (IRS Abuse Reports) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Tue Apr 30 23:26:54 1996
> > To: s...@irs.class-action.com
> > From: PM
> >
> > The IRS confiscated my wages. I was working on an $80,000 year
> > job and had to quit, dispose of all I owned, and have not been
> > able to work since, except odd jobs.
>
> what you owed instead of company up with this sob story about how the IRS
> "forced" you out of a well paying job.
>
> > they said.
>
> your CPA?
The IRS does force people out of jobs. With compound interest and
penalties on top of the witholding taxes he probably could not live on
the amount left.
Sounds like a horror story not a sob story.
Jim Manson
Roger Apex <ap...@wallnet.com> wrote:
>Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>>
>> In article <neo-techE...@netcom.com>,
>> neo-...@netcom.com (IRS Abuse Reports) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > IRS Abuse Report #95
>> >
>> >
>> > Date: Tue Apr 30 23:26:54 1996
>> > To: s...@irs.class-action.com
>> > From: PM
>> >
>> > The IRS confiscated my wages. I was working on an $80,000 year
>> > job and had to quit, dispose of all I owned, and have not been
>> > able to work since, except odd jobs.
>>
>> You didn't "have" to do anything. You should have kept working and paid
>> what you owed instead of company up with this sob story about how the IRS
>> "forced" you out of a well paying job.
>>
>> > I did not owe IRS the money
>> > they said.
>>
>> Sorry, don't believe you. How about some independent verification form
>> your CPA?
>
>The IRS does force people out of jobs. With compound interest and
>penalties on top of the witholding taxes he probably could not live on
>the amount left.
>
>Sounds like a horror story not a sob story.
Sounds like BS actually. Did he bother to check the national
guidelines that are mandated for payment agreements? Did he contact
the Problem Resolution office? Did he contact the taxpayer rights
advocate and request a Taxpayer Assistance Order?
If not then quit whining.
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <33C021...@wallnet.com>,
Roger Apex <ap...@wallnet.com> wrote:
>Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>>
>> In article <neo-techE...@netcom.com>,
>> neo-...@netcom.com (IRS Abuse Reports) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Date: Tue Apr 30 23:26:54 1996
>> > To: s...@irs.class-action.com
>> > From: PM
>> >
>> > The IRS confiscated my wages. I was working on an $80,000 year
>> > job and had to quit, dispose of all I owned, and have not been
>> > able to work since, except odd jobs.
>>
>> what you owed instead of company up with this sob story about how the IRS
>> "forced" you out of a well paying job.
>>
>> > they said.
>>
>> your CPA?
>
>The IRS does force people out of jobs. With compound interest and
>penalties on top of the witholding taxes he probably could not live on
>the amount left.
"I can't live on what's left, so I would make any money all." Yeah, that
really makes a whole lot of sense.
>Sounds like a horror story not a sob story.
Sounds like another pack of lies to me.
Mike Wahler
In article <33c52e8a...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com says...
>
>Roger Apex <ap...@wallnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <neo-techE...@netcom.com>,
>>> neo-...@netcom.com (IRS Abuse Reports) wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Date: Tue Apr 30 23:26:54 1996
>>> > To: s...@irs.class-action.com
>>> > From: PM
>>> >
>>> > The IRS confiscated my wages. I was working on an $80,000 year
>>> > job and had to quit, dispose of all I owned, and have not been
>>> > able to work since, except odd jobs.
>>>
>>> what you owed instead of company up with this sob story about how the IRS
>>> "forced" you out of a well paying job.
>>>
>>> > they said.
>>>
>>> your CPA?
>>
>>The IRS does force people out of jobs. With compound interest and
>>penalties on top of the witholding taxes he probably could not live on
>>the amount left.
>>
>
>guidelines that are mandated for payment agreements? Did he contact
>the Problem Resolution office? Did he contact the taxpayer rights
>advocate and request a Taxpayer Assistance Order?
>
>If not then quit whining.
>
>
Funny how so many folks think rules and regulations
take precedence over reality. How many people *willingly*
give up a percentage of the results of their efforts?
Perhaps some do, but not many, I suspect. Everyone else
is the victim of IRS' *confiscation* of their earnings.
The IRS rules say that this must be done, but reality says
that the IRS is *robbing*, *coercing* payment of money
they did not earn. They also use *terrorism* to enforce
their *rules*. Terrorism. Isn't that what killed all
those innocent people in Okla. City?
-Mike
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <5ptf8m$b...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
mkwa...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Wahler) wrote:
[snip]
>>>The IRS does force people out of jobs. With compound interest and
>>>penalties on top of the witholding taxes he probably could not live on
>>>the amount left.
>>>
>>>Sounds like a horror story not a sob story.
>>
>>Sounds like BS actually. Did he bother to check the national
>>guidelines that are mandated for payment agreements? Did he contact
>>the Problem Resolution office? Did he contact the taxpayer rights
>>advocate and request a Taxpayer Assistance Order?
>>
>>If not then quit whining.
>>
>>
>
>Funny how so many folks think rules and regulations
>take precedence over reality.
What's that got to do with neo-tech falsifying IRS Abuse reports?
>How many people *willingly*
>give up a percentage of the results of their efforts?
>Perhaps some do, but not many, I suspect.
And your point is?
>Everyone else is the victim of IRS' *confiscation* of their earnings.
Nobody likes to pay taxes, but so what?
>The IRS rules say that this must be done, but reality says
>that the IRS is *robbing*, *coercing* payment of money
>they did not earn.
No, the IRS collects taxes in accordance with laws that our passes, a
government that we elected.
>They also use *terrorism* to enforce their *rules*. Terrorism.
Evidence please.
>Isn't that what killed all those innocent people in Okla. City?
Yes, McVeigh is a terrorist and not a patriot.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5ptja7$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Carl H. Starrett II <chs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <5ptf8m$b...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> mkwa...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Wahler) wrote:
>No, the IRS collects taxes in accordance with laws that our passes, a
>government that we elected.
Irrelevent.
Neither legislative act nor majority vote make virtue of theft and
extortion.
A is A.
A thing is what it is regardless of the trappings one uses to hide its true
identity.
Taxation is the involuntary, coerced extrosion of wealth produced and earned
by others.
You may secure a vote of 100 trillion to 0, and it doesn't make it *not*
extrotion and theft.
Our minds do not create reality.
Likewise, the fact that Hitler and Stalin had the democratic support of the
people does not nullify the criminality of their acts.
Nicholas Rich - n...@ss-n.com - http://www.ss-n.com/nick
Is your desire to help those in need great enough to cause
you to actually help them? Or, is the desire only so great
as to cause you to force others to help them?
- Anonymous <nob...@nowhere.net>, April 8, 1997
Wesley Serra
In article <5ptl1e$ds6$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>In article <5ptja7$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Carl H. Starrett II <chs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>No, the IRS collects taxes in accordance with laws that our passes, a
>>government that we elected.
>
>Irrelevent.
>
>Neither legislative act nor majority vote make virtue of theft and
>extortion.
No one said anything about virtue, but it is hardly "irrelevent". Do you
recall the history of the income tax in this country? Due to various
Supreme Court rulings, it had to be accomplished by *constitutional
amendment*. Are you aware of that process? A supermajority of both
houses of Congress, followed by ratification by two-thirds of the states.
Every last blessed person who voted on the issue was elected by the
public. Now, it surely seems to be that the feebleminded, the avaricious
and the dishonest are overrepresented in the ranks of politicians. But
how would *you* determine the outcome of the great issues of the day? Let
Neo-Tech decide?
>A is A.
>
>A thing is what it is regardless of the trappings one uses to hide its true
>identity.
And who decides "true identity"? I guess not the voters. Oh, yeah,
Neo-Tech.
>Taxation is the involuntary, coerced extrosion of wealth produced and earned
>by others.
>
>You may secure a vote of 100 trillion to 0, and it doesn't make it *not*
>extrotion and theft.
Yep, Neo-Tech. Not sure what "extrosion" is, though.
>Our minds do not create reality.
>
>Likewise, the fact that Hitler and Stalin had the democratic support of the
>people does not nullify the criminality of their acts.
I think you need to meet Hitler or Stalin, up close and personal. Then
maybe you wouldn't make ludicrous comparisons to the IRS, which only
trivialize the memories of the tens of millions who *died* in the
Holocaust, the pogroms and the purges.
--
Wesley Serra Nothing you can't spell will ever work.
wse...@panix.com - Will Rogers.
PGP public key available from SLED or by finger
Jim Manson
n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>In article <5ptja7$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Carl H. Starrett II <chs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <5ptf8m$b...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>> mkwa...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Wahler) wrote:
>
>>No, the IRS collects taxes in accordance with laws that our passes, a
>>government that we elected.
>
>Irrelevent.
>
>Neither legislative act nor majority vote make virtue of theft and
>extortion.
>
Which of course means that all governments since the dawn of time have
been thieves.
So what's you point?
Mike Wahler
In article <5ptja7$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, chs...@ix.netcom.com
says...
>
>>>>The IRS does force people out of jobs. With compound interest and
>>>>penalties on top of the witholding taxes he probably could not live on
>>>>the amount left.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like a horror story not a sob story.
>>>
>>>Sounds like BS actually. Did he bother to check the national
>>>guidelines that are mandated for payment agreements? Did he contact
>>>the Problem Resolution office? Did he contact the taxpayer rights
>>>advocate and request a Taxpayer Assistance Order?
>>>
>>>If not then quit whining.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Funny how so many folks think rules and regulations
>>take precedence over reality.
>
>What's that got to do with neo-tech falsifying IRS Abuse reports?
>
Specifically, which reports were falsified, and how do you know?
>>How many people *willingly*
>>give up a percentage of the results of their efforts?
>>Perhaps some do, but not many, I suspect.
>
>And your point is?
>
My point is that people's earnings are being *coerced* from them.
>>Everyone else is the victim of IRS' *confiscation* of their earnings.
>
>Nobody likes to pay taxes, but so what?
>
Nobody likes to be coerced. I would gladly pay any taxes
that *I* voted for.
>>The IRS rules say that this must be done, but reality says
>>that the IRS is *robbing*, *coercing* payment of money
>>they did not earn.
>
>No, the IRS collects taxes in accordance with laws that our passes, a
>government that we elected.
>
*I* did *not* elect them.
>>They also use *terrorism* to enforce their *rules*. Terrorism.
>
>Evidence please.
>
Speak to someone who has been audited, or *threatened* with an audit.
>>Isn't that what killed all those innocent people in Okla. City?
>
>Yes, McVeigh is a terrorist and not a patriot.
>
Terrorists are the epitome of evil, and patriots don't impress me
either.
>
-Mike
A law does not justice make.
-Me
Nicholas Rich
In article <33c4c93d...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>>In article <5ptja7$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Carl H. Starrett II
> <chs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> mkwa...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Wahler) wrote:
>>
>>>No, the IRS collects taxes in accordance with laws that our passes, a
>>>government that we elected.
>>
>>
>>Neither legislative act nor majority vote make virtue of theft and
>>extortion.
>Which of course means that all governments since the dawn of time have
>been thieves.
Yes, it does.
>So what's you point?
That is my point. That's the fundamental nature of government as we know it,
as it ever has existed.
Time for a new invention.
Steven Butler
Perishable.
Just say your three "HEIL MASTER"s and be off with you.
Jim Manson wrote:
>
> Roger Apex <ap...@wallnet.com> wrote:
>
> >Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <neo-techE...@netcom.com>,
> >> neo-...@netcom.com (IRS Abuse Reports) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > IRS Abuse Report #95
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Date: Tue Apr 30 23:26:54 1996
> >> > To: s...@irs.class-action.com
> >> > From: PM
> >> >
> >> > The IRS confiscated my wages. I was working on an $80,000 year
> >> > job and had to quit, dispose of all I owned, and have not been
> >> > able to work since, except odd jobs.
> >>
> >> You didn't "have" to do anything. You should have kept working and paid
> >> what you owed instead of company up with this sob story about how the IRS
> >> "forced" you out of a well paying job.
> >>
> >> > I did not owe IRS the money
> >> > they said.
> >>
> >> Sorry, don't believe you. How about some independent verification form
> >> your CPA?
> >
Jim Manson
mkwa...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Wahler) wrote:
>>
>
>Nobody likes to be coerced. I would gladly pay any taxes
>that *I* voted for.
>
So in other words you see no reason to obey any laws that you
personally had no part in implementing.
Interesting.
Jim Manson
n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>In article <33c4c93d...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
>Manson) wrote:
>>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5ptja7$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Carl H. Starrett II
>> <chs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <5ptf8m$b...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>> mkwa...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Wahler) wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, the IRS collects taxes in accordance with laws that our passes, a
>>>>government that we elected.
>>>
>>>Irrelevent.
>>>
>>>Neither legislative act nor majority vote make virtue of theft and
>>>extortion.
>
>>Which of course means that all governments since the dawn of time have
>>been thieves.
>
>Yes, it does.
>
>>So what's you point?
>
>That is my point. That's the fundamental nature of government as we know it,
>as it ever has existed.
>
>Time for a new invention.
Which you, of course, have no idea of how to implement.
If I'm wrong please correct me and tell me how you will set up
something to take care of central issues like transportation and
communications.
Steven Butler
Cut off your left foot if it's the law.
Say your three "HEIL MASTER"s and be off with you.
Mike Wahler
In article <33cb2051...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com says...
>
>mkwa...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Wahler) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>>Nobody likes to be coerced. I would gladly pay any taxes
>>that *I* voted for.
>>
>
>So in other words you see no reason to obey any laws that you
>personally had no part in implementing.
>
Can you give me a reason? Other than threat of force? Remember you
said "any laws." It seems to me that you are promoting the observance
of laws simply because they are called "laws", and others have agreed
to them.
>Interesting.
OK, since you're interested...
The only valid, objective reason for laws is to protect individual rights.
Laws that do that, I observe, whether I had a part in implementing them
or not. Any other bogus "laws" are simply designed to defraud and coerce
people into "conformity", and to usurp the fruits of their labor. Yes, I
often observe many of these invalid, immoral "laws," but only when it looks
like disobeying would disrupt my life and waste my time. Other than that, I
ignore them. But I always recognize and point out the immorality of those
"laws" to anyone who questions my actions.
-Mike
A free man in an unfree world (paraphrasing Harry Browne)
Nicholas Rich
In article <5pukmc$a...@panix3.panix.com>, wse...@panix.com (Wesley Serra)
wrote:
>In article <5ptl1e$ds6$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>>In article <5ptja7$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Carl H. Starrett II
> <chs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No, the IRS collects taxes in accordance with laws that our passes, a
>>>government that we elected.
>>
>>Irrelevent.
>>
>>Neither legislative act nor majority vote make virtue of theft and
>>extortion.
>
>recall the history of the income tax in this country? Due to various
>Supreme Court rulings, it had to be accomplished by *constitutional
>amendment*. Are you aware of that process? A supermajority of both
>houses of Congress, followed by ratification by two-thirds of the states.
>Every last blessed person who voted on the issue was elected by the
>public.
You're sidestepping. You're not claiming that the government is not engaged
in extortion. You're simply saying that they have the support of the people.
So did Hitler.
And for some reason, the Mafia always seems to get plenty of support from
its victims as well. So, presumably, you're all for extortion, or
*WHATEVER,* so long as there's some semblance of "officialdom," such as
elections and civic procedure.
>Now, it surely seems to be that the feebleminded, the avaricious
>and the dishonest are overrepresented in the ranks of politicians. But
>how would *you* determine the outcome of the great issues of the day? Let
>Neo-Tech decide?
I propose to let individuals decide--by employing other individuals and
businesses to provide the values that each will voluntarily pay for. There
is absolutely no need for a "government" of any sort, as we currently
understand it. Everything truly needed, including police protection and the
courts, can be provided through competitive business.
Let me be clear: I am for anarchy, which is simply the absence of
government, and not for hihilism. The argument is not over results, and we
could probably agree that we wish everyone were happy, prosperous, and
protected from injustice. My argument is with the *means* employed to
achieve those results. I am conviced that such results can come about only
through unbridled individual honesty, effort, and responsibility--and
private protection from those who would *forcefully* interfere.
>>A is A.
>>
>>A thing is what it is regardless of the trappings one uses to hide its true
>>identity.
>
>And who decides "true identity"? I guess not the voters. Oh, yeah,
>Neo-Tech.
With the exception of two things, everything is pretty much decided by each
separate individual--and those decisions take form in the manner individuals
accumulate and spend assets, and interract and relate with other individuals
and businesses.
The two exceptions are (1) intitiating force against others, and (2) the
*irrevocable* responsibility one assumes for their own dependent children.
A good example of how we've come to live in a society where everyone seems
to think everyone else's business is their business is the recent Tyson
fiasco. Now, I certainly think Tyson's actions in the ring are deplorable,
and without some clear act of restitution on his part (like perhaps
voluntarily giving Holyfield half his purse and his fans the other half),
then people shouldn't support him.
But what are these calls to "ban him from boxing for life?" How silly. If
Tyson finds someone willing to go into the ring with him, promoters willing
to promote the bout, and fans willing to pay, then what the hell business is
it of anyone else?
>>Taxation is the involuntary, coerced extrosion of wealth produced and earned
>>by others.
>>
>>You may secure a vote of 100 trillion to 0, and it doesn't make it *not*
>>extrotion and theft.
>
>Yep, Neo-Tech. Not sure what "extrosion" is, though.
No one has yet been able to provide a clear and essential distinction
between "extortion" (typo above) by the mob and taxation by the government.
A few have tried. One attempted to use the definition of extrotion, and I'll
append the reply of Jimbo Wales at the end of this. Others, like yourself
and JG Adams have claimed that it's the sanction of the people and official
procedures which make the difference--which I've pointed out doesn't at all
point out an essential distinction, but in fact AFFIRMS THE FACT THAT
EXTORTION IS TAKING PLACE--but is sanctioned by the public-at-large (I'll
point out that the public-at-large used to believe the Earth was the center
of the universe and flat--in spite of contradictory evidence which had
existed for over 1000 years!).
>>Our minds do not create reality.
>>
>>Likewise, the fact that Hitler and Stalin had the democratic support of the
>>people does not nullify the criminality of their acts.
>
>I think you need to meet Hitler or Stalin, up close and personal. Then
>maybe you wouldn't make ludicrous comparisons to the IRS, which only
>trivialize the memories of the tens of millions who *died* in the
>Holocaust, the pogroms and the purges.
You're not grasping the analogy, or purposely ignoring the priciple at work.
I'm certainly not comparing the death--although I would say that the
historical sum-total of the financial destruction perpetuated by this
government far exceeeds that of WWII Germany.
At any rate, the analogy if for the purpose of pointing out the difference
between law and morality. People easily see the distinction upon realizing
that Hitler, to some extent, had the backing of democratic process, yet that
didn't change the nature of his acts. The war-crimes trials were all about
the same thing--wrong is wrong.
We also all understand that theft and extrotion are wrong, but most have yet
to understand that such is exactly what out government does--under the
authority of democratic process--and as I've pointed out, that may give some
of us comfort, but it does not change the nature of what's going on.
****
Here's Jimbo's reply concerning the *identity* of extortion:
From: jwa...@MCS.COM (Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: IRS Abuse Reports #166-#168
Date: 19 Jun 1997 08:09:56 -0500
Organization: MCSNet, Chicagoland's finest Internet Service Provider
312-803-6271
Newsgroups:
alt.irs.class-action,misc.taxes,misc.legal,us.taxes,us.legal,alt.society.
civil-liberty,alt.neo-tech
References: <mattkeysE...@netcom.com> <5o9aod$m6d$1...@hecate.umd.edu>
<5o9dt0$nf8$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com> <5o9ibm$b...@scoop.eco.twg.com>
Charles Don Hall <ch...@eco.twg.com> wrote:
>In an extortion racket, the extorter isn't providing anything of
>value. He's being paid for *refraining* from a particular action.
Actually, this isn't the foundation of most 'successful' extortion
rackets.
Traditionally, there have been basically 2 types of extortion
rackets: "Black Hand" extortion, which has never been particularly
successful, and "Mafia-style" extortion, which has been quite
profitable.
The distinction is this: the Black Hand extortionist makes a threat "Pay
me a lot of money or I will hurt you and your children." There is no
_positive_ incentive to go along, although there is of course the very
strong _negative_ incentive. The Mafia-style extortionist says "Raise
your prices by 40% and pay met half of your additional profits, or I will
hurt you and your children. I am going to cartelize this industry
(trucking, the garment district in New York, construction) and we are
all going to make a lot of money together."
Mafia-style extortion works because the extortionist provides a
"valuable service".
This is exactly the same thing the government does in, for example,
the Medical industry, although they do it with general approval from
society at large, and they generally make a show of following a set
of bureaucratic procedures, rather than the point-by-point pragmatism
of the mob.
>Now, none of these things are free. It takes money to pay for
>them. And it's either very difficult or else impossible for
>these things to be supplied by the free market. (Because of
>the "Tragedy of the Commons" effect; let me know if you need
>a more detailed explanation.)
If you limit the government to a narrow role (including only things
having to do with protecting individual rights, not stuff like
building roads, and so on) the amount of money necessary to pay
for it should be easy to raise without resorting to coercive
techniques. User fees for services (contract insurance fees)
offer a promising route.
Fact is, much of what people would have you believe are public goods,
are actually *not* public goods. AND, it is a common fallacy that
there is no way for public goods to be privately provided. (Consider
this argument: since there is no way for broadcasters to keep anyone
from a t.v. set from viewing their signal, there is no way to charge
people for television broadcasts, so they will not be produced on a
free market. Bogus, because (in this case) advertising pays for it.)
--Jimbo
****
Nicholas Rich
In article <33ca1faf...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
Manson) wrote:
>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>In article <33c4c93d...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
>>Manson) wrote:
>>>Which of course means that all governments since the dawn of time have
>>>been thieves.
>>
>>Yes, it does.
>>
>>>So what's you point?
>>
>>That is my point. That's the fundamental nature of government as we know it,
>>as it ever has existed.
>>
>>Time for a new invention.
>
>Which you, of course, have no idea of how to implement.
Au contraire...
The irony is that no systematic "implemetation" is needed--but simply the
natural freedom for individuals and businesses to keep every cent of wealth
and property they create and earn, and freely use a portion of it to
contract with other individuals and businesses to provide goods and
services, which, in addition to the current fair, would naturally include
civil protection and due-process justice, those things being of value, and
thus marketable in the private sector.
The only "implementation" necessary is a recognition by all that the
initiation of force is wrong. As NT's "Universal Constitution" put it (my
reply to the rest of your post is included after this excerpt):
****
Neo-Tech Advantage #83
DISMISSING 3000 YEARS OF MYSTICISM
for a life of
PERSONAL POWER, PROSPERITY, AND HAPPINESS
The purpose of each individual human life is to prosper and live happily.
Anyone can achieve that prosperity and happiness when free of force, fraud,
or coercion by others.
The Neo-Tech Constitution forbids initiatory force, threat of force, or
fraud by any individual, group of individuals, or government. No other law
or rule is needed for a moral, rational society.
Forbidding initiatory force and coercion is the only political law
compatible with the prosperity and happiness of human beings. Thus, the
Neo-Tech Constitution leaves everyone with the conditions for prosperity and
happiness. No other constitution or laws are needed or valid.
The Neo-Tech Constitution stated below obsoletes the constitutions of all
nations:
THE NEO-TECH CONSTITUTION
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily. The function of
society is to protect those conditions that let all individuals achieve
prosperity and happiness. Those conditions can be delivered by a
constitution that prohibits the use of initiatory force or coercion by any
person, group, or government against any individual:
The Constitution
Article 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force,
threat of force, or fraud against the person or property of any individual.
Article 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in defense against
those who violate Article 1.
Article 3: No exception shall ever exist to Articles 1 & 2.
The Neo-Tech Constitution rests on six axioms:
1. Values exist only relative to life.
2. Whatever benefits a living organism is a value to that organism. Whatever
harms a living organism is a disvalue to that organism.
3. The basic value against which all values are measured is the conscious
individual.
4. Morals relate only to conscious individuals.
5. Immoral actions arise from individuals choosing to harm others through
force, fraud, deception, coercion -- or from individuals choosing to usurp,
attack, or destroy values earned by others.
6. Moral actions arise from individuals choosing to benefit others by
competitively producing values for them.
How would the Neo-Tech Constitution be enforced? Through (1)
self-defense/deterrent forces and (2) organized ostracizing systems
..Effective ostracisation is a much more powerful mechanism for justice,
restitution, and deterrent than any form of force. And the severest, fully
integrated ostracisation can eventually deliver capital punishment through
suicide.
Background for The Neo-Tech Constitution
The purpose of human life is to prosper happily. By integrating the human
mind with reality, anyone can prosper happily by making one's self
increasingly valuable to others. But what keeps most people from doing that
-- from fulfilling their own nature? What has kept most people throughout
history from experiencing the prosperity and happiness that they are fully
qualified to earn?...The answer lies in three words: Force, Mysticism,
Neocheating:[ 45 ]
Force
Force is the instrument used to usurp or expropriate values earned by
others: Directly or indirectly, all initiated force supports stagnated
status quo, laziness, and incompetence at the expense of competitive growth,
productivity, and ability. Criminals, mystics, neocheaters, governments, and
religions use force, threat of force, or fraud to drain life, values, and
happiness from the producers and society. But those who live by force or
fraud live in discord with reality. They offer nothing to others except
dwarfed lives, diminished happiness, and lost values.
Professional mystics and neocheaters depend on force or deception to
survive. But, the value producer never needs to use force or deception to
prosper.
Once value producers identify the nature of initiatory force, they will
reject its use as criminal and harmful under any conditions. From that point
on, the value producers can guiltlessly collect their earned prosperity and
happiness. And all who have lived by force and coercion will find they can
no longer live by usurping values. Instead, they too will have to produce
competitive values for others or perish.
Mysticism
Mysticism is defined as: 1. Any attempt to use the mind as a "reality"
creating device rather than a reality integrating organism. 2. Any attempt
to recreate or alter reality through dishonesty, feelings, non sequiturs, or
rationalizations. 3. Any attempt to ignore, evade, contradict, or fake
reality. 4. Any creation of problems where none exist.
Mysticism is the tool used by neocheaters to manipulate or hide the force,
fraud, or coercion used to usurp power and values from others. Mysticism is
used to create specious standards for projecting undeserved guilt onto
others. Why? To beguile value producers into surrendering their earned power
and values to the value destroyers.
Neocheating
Neocheating is defined as: Any intentional use of mysticism to create false
realities and illusions in order to extract values or power from others.
Neocheating is the technique for usurping values, money, power by using
mysticism to manipulate others.
Neocheating is the essential technique politicians, clergymen, bogus-job
bureaucrats, and white-collar-hoax business quislings use to usurp jobs,
power, money, and pseudo self-esteem from others.
The Nature of Mysticism Used by Neocheaters
Mysticism is an evasion of reality that is never supported by honesty or
objective reality. Mysticism, the stupidness disease, harms human beings in
five ways:
1.Mysticism cripples the integration capacities required to accurately
understand reality. That accurate understanding is necessary to make
decisions competently, to solve problems effectively, and to live
competitively.
2.Mysticism short-circuits or blocks the mind to prevent unlimited, wide
integrations that let one know and understand everything in the universe
without limits.
3.Mysticism drains one's intelligence, efficacy, and ability to live
competitively.
4.Mysticism blocks the long-range thinking integrations needed to prosper
continuously, love romantically, and live happily.
5.Mysticism subjects individuals increasingly to the control of professional
mystics and neocheaters.
Mysticism is arbitrary, has no link to reality, and is based on nothing.
Thus, mysticism is nothing. Yet, by manipulating rationalizations, non
sequiturs, aphorisms, parables, superstitions, modern art, poetry, songs,
rock music, chants, slogans, newspeak, quotes, or facts out of context, a
professional mystic or neocheater can create illusions to seemingly justify
almost any harmful action, including thefts and murder. Such
"justifications" are essential for their unjustifiable pillagings of value
producers.
Mysticism and neocheating have been used for 2000 years to create illusions
that "external authorities" protect the lives of individuals, can solve
problems for others, and can provide livings for non-producers. But, in
reality, all such "authorities" are merely neocheaters using deception,
force, or coercion to extract their bogus livelihoods from the value
producers. And those neocheaters are the fountainhead of crimes and
human-imposed suffering.
Mysticism and neocheating are the main causes of pain and failure among
human beings. Mysticism and neocheating are anti-life -- death-oriented. The
core of mystics and neocheaters is dishonesty and laziness. Their task is to
beguile value producers into supporting the value destroyers.
The Morality of Mystics and Neocheaters
Morality is defined as: Conscious actions that purposely benefit people and
society are moral. Conscious actions that purposely harm people and society
are immoral. Thus, value destroyers such as mystics, neocheaters, and their
agents of force, coercion, and deception are immoral. For, they purposely
harm others and society by choosing to usurp values from others rather than
produce values for others. By contrast, value producers are moral. For, they
purposely benefit others and society by choosing to competitively produce
more values for others than they consume.
Mystics violate morality: They harm both their own and every other person's
life. They are destructive, silly, immature, childish. By choosing to evade
reality, they undermine their ability to identify reality, to think clearly,
to produce values, to live happily, to compete honestly -- to survive. As a
result, they increasingly transfer responsibilities for their failures onto
others. They routinely lay blame and guilt on others for their own
problems.[ 46 ]
Neocheaters violate morality: They purposely expand their harm by
orchestrating mystical illusions to plunder others and society. Moreover,
they design their illusions to make themselves appear as innocent
benefactors and their victims appear as the guilty malefactors. But the
opposite is true: The neocheaters are the guilty malefactors; their victims
are usually the innocent value producers. Yet, as long as most people allow
themselves to accept those mystical inversions of honesty, the neocheaters
will keep pillaging them and society. As a result, such neocheaters always
harm society by draining prosperity and happiness from everyone.
Agents of Force violate morality: They purposely harm others by
expropriating values through force or threat of force. Moreover, by choosing
to expropriate rather than earn values, agents of force destroy their own
lives by demolishing their competence, self-esteem, and happiness.
By Contrast
Nonmystics are moral: They accept the responsibility to think and act for
themselves in order to produce objective values for others. With a loyalty
to honesty, they act in accord with objective reality. They are mature,
evolved people who strive to integrate their words and actions with honesty
and reality, regardless of anyone's opinions, dictates, wishes, or emotions.
As a result, nonmystics always benefit others and society.
Rejecting Losers
Mystics, neocheaters, and agents of force are losers. They are immature,
unevolved people with self-arrested character development. They function
through dishonesty and deception. For those reasons, they must depend on the
producer for survival. But, they resent and envy the producer in knowing
that they cannot experience his or her competence and happiness, no matter
how much they extract from others. Mystics and neocheaters live unhappy,
shrinking lives. Living through huckstered faith enforced by deception or
force, they steadily lose respect for honesty, happiness, and the purpose to
live. They increasingly move toward failure and death. And often, steeped in
envy, they want everyone else to fail and die with them. ...Thus, anyone can
benefit by immediately rejecting losers such as mystics, neocheaters, and
agents of force.
Free Choice
All people must continually choose between dishonesty or honesty, between
laziness or effort, between accepting or rejecting mysticism from both
within and without. Accepting mysticism means evading honesty and denying
reality in favor of feelings, wishes, or external "authorities". And those
consistently choosing mysticism become dependent on others or "authorities"
to think for them, to lead them, to neocheat for them. But rejecting
mysticism upholds honesty, rejects neocheaters and dependence on them,
builds competence and independence, and finally enhances life for everyone.
Four Facts
1. No one can give another person self-worth or happiness. Yet anyone can
achieve those two prime values by (a) producing more competitive values for
others than consumed by oneself; and (b) rejecting mystics, neocheaters, and
their schemes to usurp power and values from others.
2. Loyalty to honesty and rationality must replace mysticism in order to
harness one's natural power. By remaining loyal to honesty and rationality,
a person can (a) disarm mysticism, (b) render neocheaters impotent, and (c)
create the conditions that allow personal prosperity and happiness to
flourish.
3. People who resist mysticism from within and reject neocheating from
without will gain prosperity and happiness. But others who remain foundering
in the seas of mysticism and neocheating will become uncompetitive and lose
the values of life.
4. If everyone were a mystic, human life would end. If everyone were a value
destroyer, an agent of force, a neocheater, human life would end. But if
everyone were an honest value producer, human life and happiness would
flourish beyond imagination.
The Intertwining Dependency of Force and Fraud on Mysticism
Mysticism destroys from within; force destroys from without. Yet, both
mysticism and force are unnatural and disposable. Neither are rooted in
reality or have any inherent power. Still, all unearned power and
expropriated values depend on mystical illusions backed by coercion, force,
fraud, or deception. Mystics, neocheaters, and other value destroyers need
those illusions to beguile, flimflam, or force values from others. But once
that intertwining dependency of mysticism and force is unraveled, the
rationalizations crumble and illusions vanish. ...Without their illusions,
mystics and neocheaters are powerless.
When value producers understand that intertwining dependency of force and
fraud on mysticism, they will stop supporting mystics and neocheaters who
live off the efforts of others. Those mystics and neocheaters will then be
powerless. Their only means of survival will be to produce rather than usurp
values. Once they become value producers, their self-esteems and
competencies will soar. And then, they too can evolve into self-responsible
human beings who earn their prosperity and happiness.
Abolishing Initiatory Force by Ending Mysticism
The Neo-Tech Constitution forbids initiatory force or fraud. Without force
or fraud, mysticism and thus neocheaters become impotent. Without mysticism,
force becomes ineffective for extracting values from others. The axioms of
the Neo-Tech Constitution are real and cannot be contradicted. They are
based on human nature. By contrast, all mystical illusions are capricious
and contradictory. They are based on nothing. And that nothingness is why
force, fraud, or coercion are required to make others accept the dishonest
illusions of mystics and neocheaters. Thus, by forbidding force, fraud, and
coercion, the Neo-Tech Constitution vanquishes mystics and neocheaters.
Policies for Ending Mysticism and Neocheating
Most people unknowingly let mysticism have disastrous effects on their lives
and society. As throughout history, people unnecessarily accept the
dishonesties of mysticism in allowing neocheaters to pillage them materially
and spiritually. But, once the mystical illusions are identified and the
neocheating hoaxes are rejected, destructive mystics and neocheaters will be
powerless because they have no reality-based, earned power. Rejecting
mysticism and its dishonesty means rejecting neocheaters and their agents of
force. That rejection requires a policy of never knowingly giving values to
or doing business with those who live by force, fraud, coercion, or
deception. Such people include:
1. Politicians.
2. Clergymen.
3. Agents of force who extort values from individuals, businesses, and
society.
4. Bureaucrats and "authorities" who impede the value producer.
5. Academe, journalists, cartoonists, and media people who purposely distort
facts and consciously undermine objective values to sustain pseudo
self-esteems and destructive careers.
6. Quisling business executives and professionals who neocheat and destroy
within their own businesses and professions for fake power and unearned
livelihoods.
7. Other mystics and neocheaters who expropriate values while diminishing
the prosperity and happiness of others.
With wide-spread rejection of mysticism and neocheaters, violations of
individual rights become unacceptable, pillaging becomes impractical, and
waging war becomes impossible. ...People will then be free to live
prosperously and happily forever.
Implementing the Neo-Tech Constitution
People could implement the Neo-Tech Constitution if they voted not for
politicians, but, voted only for "The Neo-Tech Constitution". The Neo-Tech
Constitution fully meets the responsibility of any government to its
citizens. The sole purpose of The Neo-Tech Constitution is to protect
individual rights through the abolition of all initiatory force.
The Neo-Tech Constitution not only provides impenetrable armor for
individual rights, but embodies the principles of prosperous living. People
one by one will recognize the consummate advantages of The Neo-Tech
Constitution. Then, with increasing momentum, those people will reject
mysticism and neocheating. Those who do not reject mysticism will be left
behind, unable to compete for power, prosperity, and romantic love among the
rising army of Neo-Tech value producers.
Footnotes:
[ 45 ] Without initiatory force, mysticism, and neocheating, everyone would
be compelled by the dynamics of competition to live by producing honest,
competitive values for others and society.
[ 46 ] Everyone must fight mysticism both from within and from without. Each
who quits fighting lets mysticism take over his or her life. Each who
surrenders or stops struggling against mysticism becomes a part of the
dishonest, quasi-dead world of mystics and neocheaters. And that unhappy
world parasitically feeds on the destruction of values.
****
>If I'm wrong please correct me and tell me how you will set up
>something to take care of central issues like transportation and
>communications.
I personally don't take time coming up with specific mechanisms, as I think
those will be all worked out by businesspeople and investors with a vested
interest in profiting through delivering the various values people will
voluntarily pay for in the long run. The principle to remember is that
values exist becasue valuers exist, which is to say that transportation and
communications are values because people value them, and thus, people will
trade values in order to acquire such goods and services.
For more information on specific mechanisms, I recommend looking into the
work of Milton Friedman's son, David Friedman, a Harvard PhD Physicist,
Anarcho-Capitalist, and Professor of Economics at Stanford and Santa Clara U
Law School. He's authored an important work on this subject, _The Machinery
of Freedom_. His website:
Jim Manson
n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
In other words we trust to the good will of everyone.
You seem to forget that the very things that you decry were caused by
PEOPLE.
Of course this time there will be no congomerates or monopolies of
industry. The robber barons in transportation didn't really exist.
Obviously anyone could build their own railroad and the larger boys
would simply watch and wish them well. Let's face it DeBeers just
loves competition in the diamond industry. Those unexplained
explosions were nothing to worry about.
So as long as everyone is sweet and non-violent and respects
everyone's rights with no problem we will have utopia.
Uh-huh.....
pretty much what I thought.
Jim Manson
mkwa...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Wahler) wrote:
>>So in other words you see no reason to obey any laws that you
>>personally had no part in implementing.
>>
>
>Can you give me a reason? Other than threat of force? Remember you
>said "any laws." It seems to me that you are promoting the observance
>of laws simply because they are called "laws", and others have agreed
>to them.
In this case there is no alternative that rationally has been proposed
to replace it. Obviously there are some severe problems with
government and specific actions but until you have an alternative that
doesn't depend on mythical things like all people suddenly becoming
non-violent and sweet of nature there's not much point to debating it.
>
>>Interesting.
>
>OK, since you're interested...
>
>The only valid, objective reason for laws is to protect individual rights.
>Laws that do that, I observe, whether I had a part in implementing them
>or not. Any other bogus "laws" are simply designed to defraud and coerce
>people into "conformity", and to usurp the fruits of their labor. Yes, I
>often observe many of these invalid, immoral "laws," but only when it looks
>like disobeying would disrupt my life and waste my time. Other than that, I
>ignore them. But I always recognize and point out the immorality of those
>"laws" to anyone who questions my actions.
So you reject all laws that don't have a direct coercive effect on
stopping someone from harming someone else.
So you have no problem with people dumping toxic stuff in your food
supply or your water system. If you do how are you going to regulate
it with no government?
Christopher J. Carrell
>
> You seem to forget that the very things that you decry were caused by
> PEOPLE.
>
> Of course this time there will be no congomerates or monopolies of
> industry. The robber barons in transportation didn't really exist.
> Obviously anyone could build their own railroad and the larger boys
> would simply watch and wish them well. Let's face it DeBeers just
> loves competition in the diamond industry. Those unexplained
> explosions were nothing to worry about.
>
> So as long as everyone is sweet and non-violent and respects
> everyone's rights with no problem we will have utopia.
>
> Uh-huh.....
>
> pretty much what I thought.
That's right. And the "good will" that all will have is illustrated
by Nicholas Rich, Mr. Good Will himself...
"You're a scum-sucking, bootlicking, IRS lackey butt-fucking layer of
pond scum. Even enemies of Neo-Tech would laugh over watching you suck
IRS
cock.
For the Dejanews Archive: Carl H. Starrett II sucks the big one, the big
IRS
dick. (probably lets field agents give it to him up the kazoo too)."
Nothing like good will, eh?
Conclusion, either Neo-techies are incredibly naive about how
human beings will use power, or they are lying jackbooted thugs.
Seeing the display of Mr. Rich, is there any reason I should
believe neo-techie babble?
Chris
--
Chris Carrell - Replace each _dot_ with . if you want to email me
They say the meek shall inherit
Because they stay up late and change the will. - Heywood Banks
Nicholas Rich
In article <33c874b7...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim Manson) wrote:
>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>Au contraire...
>>
>>The irony is that no systematic "implemetation" is needed--but simply the
>>natural freedom for individuals and businesses to keep every cent of wealth
>>and property they create and earn, and freely use a portion of it to
>>contract with other individuals and businesses to provide goods and
>>services, which, in addition to the current fair, would naturally include
>>civil protection and due-process justice, those things being of value, and
>>thus marketable in the private sector.
>>
>>The only "implementation" necessary is a recognition by all that the
>>initiation of force is wrong. As NT's "Universal Constitution" put it (my
>>reply to the rest of your post is included after this excerpt):
>
>In other words we trust to the good will of everyone.
Au contraire.
Note above where I've indicated that various civil protections/services and
due-process are values which people desire (things are *only* values because
people are willing to give values in exchange to possess them). Thus, such
services will be provided.
That means that there will be private competitive businesses providing
police/fire/courts/jails, etc.
>You seem to forget that the very things that you decry were caused by
>PEOPLE.
True, and don't forget that protection, enforcement, justice, etc. are also
performed by PEOPLE. There is no need, however, for them to be cloaked under
the "officialdom" of state. If what they provide is a value to people, then
people will voluntarily pay for it--it's as simple as that. And, with
hard-nosed business competition underlying it all, the values accrue to us,
the consumers.
>Of course this time there will be no congomerates or monopolies of
>industry. The robber barons in transportation didn't really exist.
>Obviously anyone could build their own railroad and the larger boys
>would simply watch and wish them well. Let's face it DeBeers just
>loves competition in the diamond industry. Those unexplained
>explosions were nothing to worry about.
Here's an account you should read. It addresses two issues. One is the
Robber Baron fallacy and the other is corporations which are protected by
the corercive force of government (such as DeBeers). Incidentally, in a free
society (i.e., without the possibility of coercive force), the only way to
establish a monopoly is to be of such a benefit to consumers that no one can
beat you. All true monopolies are state-sponsored.
****
James J. Hill was a 19th-century railroad entrepreneur. Hill was an
integrated thinker who broke out of a restricted, one-country mode and began
pushing into a worldwide mode. Unfortunately, just as Hill achieved great
success in the American railroad industry and began spearheading an
international expansion, his worldwide growth was snuffed out by
glory-seeking politicians. The story of James J. Hill is documented in the
book The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton W. Folsom, Jr.
Political Entrepreneurs Versus Market Entrepreneurs
In that book, Folsom identifies how throughout history there have been two
distinct types of entrepreneurs: political entrepreneurs and market
entrepreneurs. Political entrepreneurs seek profits by working with the
government to get subsidies, grants, and special privileges. In other words,
political entrepreneurs seek success through political pull. In contrast,
market entrepreneurs seek success by producing increasingly improved
products and services at increasingly lower costs.
The Transcontinental Railroads
The building of America's transcontinental railroads provides a dramatic
example of political entrepreneurs versus market entrepreneurs. In the 1860s
railroads began expanding rapidly throughout America. Thus, political
entrepreneurs seeking easy dollars teamed up with Congressmen seeking
self-glory. Those political entrepreneurs and Congressmen lobbied the
federal government to subsidize the building of America's first
transcontinental railroad.
That situation presented a perfect combination for the parasitical-elite
class. (See The Neo-Tech Discovery for a definitive analysis of the
parasitical-elite class.) White-collar-hoax political entrepreneurs could
line their pockets with lavish government subsidies while the Congressmen
handing out those subsidies could garner self-glory and justify their jobs.
"Look how beneficial we are to the American people," those Congressmen
proclaimed. "We are financing America's first transcontinental railroad."
Thus, a criminal-mind deception was woven by that parasitical-elite class.
The deception was that only the government could finance an undertaking as
large and expensive as the building of a transcontinental railroad. That
deception is still promoted in history books to this day.
With great fanfare, enormous subsidies were granted to the Union Pacific and
the California Pacific to build the first transcontinental railroad across
America. Thus, hordes of political entrepreneurs seeking easy dollars rushed
to the scene. The California Pacific started building track from the west
coast, the Union Pacific from the east coast. Those companies were paid by
the government according to how many miles of track each laid. So, instead
of carefully studying routes and then building track along the shortest,
most efficient routes, both companies built along the longest, most
out-of-the-way routes they could justify. That way, each could collect the
maximum amount of government money.
Congressmen, who were spending money they controlled but did not earn, were
quick to claim credit for the financing of America's first transcontinental
railroad. But, unlike essence-building businessmen spending their own money,
those Congressmen were not about to exert the nitty-gritty effort required
to make sure that good value was received for each dollar spent. Thus, the
building of that government-financed transcontinental railroad turned into
an orgy of parasitical-elite fraud.
Instead of carefully laying railroad track to achieve high quality and good
efficiency, such as searching out routes to build over that contained the
lowest grades of hills, buying top-quality material, closely supervising
workmanship, and so on, the California Pacific and the Union Pacific merely
laid railroad track as fast as they could. Each builder ignored quality and
economy in order to get the most track laid before the other in a race to
collect the most government subsidies.
As a result, after that first transcontinental railroad was built,
subsequently called the Union Pacific, it had enormously high operating
costs. Because extra long routes had been built on purpose, because time had
not been taken to locate and build over routes containing the lowest grades
of hills, it took an extra long time for each train to complete its journey.
Thus, more fuel had to be burned, more wages had to be paid, and more
equipment was tied up. In addition, because the railroad track had been laid
so hastily, thousands of miles of shoddy track had to be pulled up and
re-laid before the first train could even be run over it. Right from the
start the Union Pacific could not make a profit. The federal government had
to continue doling out subsidies to the Union Pacific just to enable it to
operate after the line had been completed.
Soon after the Union Pacific had been financed by the federal government,
other political entrepreneurs ganged up with local politicians to demand
that the federal government finance transcontinental railroads in their area
of the country. Thus, the federal government next financed a
transcontinental railroad in the North, the Northern Pacific, and a
transcontinental railroad in the South, the Santa Fe. The building of those
two government-financed railroads followed the same course as the building
of the Union Pacific. The lines were poorly constructed. Builders had
focussed on obtaining maximum government subsidies, not on achieving quality
and economy. After the Northern Pacific and Santa Fe transcontinental
railroads had been completed, they too had unnecessarily high operating
costs. Both lost money right from the start. Both had to continue receiving
government subsidies just to operate.
A Deception Is Woven
A parasitical-elite class consisting of white-collar-hoax political
entrepreneurs, job-justifying politicians, and government-salaried
university professors has propagandized to this very day that only the
federal government could have financed the building of America's first
transcontinental railroads. The story of James J. Hill is ignored.
James J. Hill was a market entrepreneur. He was an integrated-thinking,
forward-essence mover. (See Eric Savage's book Global Wealth Power! to learn
how to apply integrated thinking and forward-essence movement to get rich.)
Hill was born in a log cabin to a working class family in Ontario, Canada.
Hill got a job with a railroad when he was a teenager. He loved railroads
and integrated his life with them. Hill moved up quickly. He soon became
involved in the building of local railroads. In 1880, Hill decided to build
a transcontinental railroad privately, without any government subsidies. He
would call his line the Great Northern.
Hill's plan to build a transcontinental railroad across the northern border
of America was labelled "Hill's folly." Why? First of all, Hill was building
a railroad way up north in unsettled wilderness. Where would his business
come from? Secondly, Hill would have to compete with three transcontinental
railroads to the south: the Northern Pacific, the Union Pacific, and the
Santa Fe. All three of those railroads had been financed by the federal
government. How could a private railroad compete with three other railroads
that had their expenses paid for by the government?
But, James J. Hill was forced to meet the disciplines of a bottom line. He
had to stay within red-to-black business dynamics. Instead of "rushing into
the wilderness to collect government subsidies," as had happened with the
construction of the three government-subsidized transcontinentals, Hill
built his railroad westward into the northern wilderness one extension at a
time. Hill would build an extension westward a few hundred miles, then move
in farmers from the East free of charge in order to settle the land along
his railroad. Those farmers would then start using Hill's railroad to ship
their produce back East to market. Because Hill received no government
money, each extension constructed westward would have to build up
red-to-black business before another westward extension could be built.
Within ten years Hill completed his transcontinental railroad, the Great
Northern, without receiving one cent of government money.
Hill exerted detailed planning before building each westward extension. He
personally mapped out and built along the shortest, most direct routes. Hill
also carefully surveyed land to find routes that would contain the lowest
grades of hills over which to build. Thus, Hill's Great Northern was able to
run with minimum operating costs once it was completed. And, with Hill
spending hard-earned private money, the highest standards of workmanship and
materials were insisted upon.
It is easy to see why people initially labelled Hill's undertaking as folly.
The three government-financed transcontinental railroads south of Hill's
Great Northern were in the heart of the country, and none of them could earn
a profit. All three government-financed transcontinentals had been forced
into bankruptcy and required government bail-out money to continue running.
Yet, what actually happened once Hill's privately-financed railroad reached
the Pacific? That railroad flourished from its very start. The Great
Northern produced a profit, even during recession years. In complete
contrast, the three government-financed trans-continental railroads had such
high operating costs and poor quality workmanship that they could not
compete with Hill's Great Northern line.
A Spiral of Inefficiencies
Because the federal government had to continue subsidizing the money-losing,
government-financed transcontinentals, each of those railroads had to obtain
government approval to build any new extensions. On the other hand, once
James J. Hill's transcontinental railroad was running, he built up business
with extensions called feeder lines. For example, if coal was discovered a
hundred miles to the north of Hill's line, he built a feeder line to service
that mine. If good trees were available for lumber on a nearby mountain,
Hill would build a feeder line to that mountain so that a lumber company
could move in and use Hill's railroad to ship its lumber to market. If a
suitable valley for cattle-ranching existed a few miles to the south, Hill
would build a feeder line to service that valley. Railroads discovered that
feeder lines were crucial to their profitability. But, whenever one of the
government-subsidized transcontinental railroads wanted to build a feeder
line, it had to get Congress' approval since Congress was providing the
financing.
Well, everyone knows what happens when politicians run things. A simple
business decision can get hung up for months, even years, before receiving
approval. Thus, the government-subsidized railroads could not operate
effectively. They could not compete with Hill's Great Northern railroad.
What had initially been labelled "Hill's folly" by the establishment ran
circles around the government-subsidized, white-collar-hoax managed
railroads. (See Mark Hamilton's book Neo-Tech Business Control for examples
of how the white-collar hoax has penetrated large segments of American
industry today.)
Fraud Is Inherent in the
Low-Effort, Parasitical-Elite Class
Over time, the corruption that was inherent in the government-financed
transcontinental railroads began unraveling. Unlike James J. Hill's
privately-financed transcontinental railroad, the government-financed
trans-continental railroads were not operating by the disciplines of a
bottom line. Thus, white-collar-hoax political entrepreneurs did not exert
the discipline required to closely supervise the construction of their
railroads for quality and efficiency. The survival of those political
entrepreneurs did not depend upon that. Their survival, instead, depended
upon exerting political pull. Consequently, the government-financed
railroads were left wide open to fraud. Managers often formed their own
supply companies in order to sell substandard materials at inflated costs to
the very railroads they worked for. Payoffs and sellouts were rampant.
As those fraudulent practices began surfacing the public got fed up with
that situation. Thus, glory-seeking politicians in Washington once again
rushed in to grab attention. A new deception was woven. Congressmen now
claimed that they were going to be the defenders of the American people by
exposing the corruption in the government-subsidized transcontinental
railroads. Glory-seeking Congressmen began conducting investigations into
the nation's railroad business. In reality, those glory-seeking politicians
were the root cause of that corruption.
Meanwhile, consider what James J. Hill, the market entrepreneur, was
accomplishing. After completing his profitable transcontinental railroad,
Hill continued his integrated thinking and forward-essence movement. Hill
promoted entire new industries in the Northwest, such as lumber companies in
Oregon, apple farms in Washington, mining industries in Montana, cattle
ranches in the plains. Hill would help a business move to the Northwest and
then give that business special rates to ship its products back East until
it became established. That policy quickly built up business along Hill's
railroad.
Next, Hill began thinking about business beyond America. Hill started
exploring opportunities in the Orient. Hill calculated that if the Chinese
of a single major province substituted one ounce of rice a day in their
diets for American wheat this could result in 50,000,000 bushels or more of
wheat a year being sold and transported to China. Hill began doing
wide-scope integrated thinking. He began moving beyond the boundaries of a
restricted, single-nation mode and into a worldwide, heliocentric-like mode.
(See Global Wealth Power! for techniques on how to break out into a
worldwide business mode.)
James J. Hill decided that he was going to promote American trade in Asia,
just as he had promoted trade in the Northwest. So, Hill bought cargo ships
and formed his own steamship company to ship American goods to China and
Japan. He then sent agents abroad to promote American goods to Asians.
While the white-collar-hoax political entrepreneurs were trying to figure
out how to get more subsidies from the federal government, James J. Hill was
turning his attention toward world business. Hill was figuring out how to
deliver increasing values to the world. He realized that the key to tapping
the vast markets of Asia was to build up trade by offering to ship American
products for free on his railroad and steamships until trade could become
established. Hill began racing his steamships back and forth between Japan,
China, and America.
James J. Hill was a real forward-essence mover. Hill offered a group of
Japanese industrialists low-cost American cotton in place of the cotton that
the Japanese traditionally imported from India. If the Japanese did not like
the American cotton, Hill offered to let them keep it free of charge. This
worked. Soon Hill's boxcars were filled with cotton bales heading to Japan.
Utilizing this same technique, Hill got both the Japanese and the Chinese to
start buying American textiles from New England.
James J. Hill Was Spearheading an
American Dominance of Asian Trade
In 1896 American exports to Japan totalled 7.7 million dollars a year. Nine
years later James J. Hill had pushed that figure to 51.7 million dollars a
year. Hill was spearheading an American dominance of Asian trade -- nearly
one-hundred years ago!
James J. Hill diligently promoted American goods in Asia. For example,
starting around 1900, Japan began a railroad building boom. England and
Belgium were the traditional suppliers of rail. American rail-makers were
still fledgling in the Pittsburgh area. Hill recognized the importance of
the Asian market for steel and rails. So, Hill personally underbid the
Europeans to capture Japanese orders for American rail-makers.
Hill also promoted in Asia lumber from the Northwest, wheat from the
Midwest, copper from Montana, apples from Washington, and so on. While the
white-collar-hoax political entrepreneurs of the government-subsidized
railroads were being closed in upon, Hill was blossoming into an
international dynamo.
So what happened next? Attention-seeking politicians began parading the
corrupt political entrepreneurs infesting government-subsidized railroads
before the public through Senate investigation hearings. Yet, it was
Congress that created that corruption in the first place by self-righteously
giving away money it controlled but did not earn. Instead of identifying and
eliminating that root cause, Congress began clamoring for strict regulation
of the railroad industry. Thus, Congress could now come in with a strong-arm
approach and proclaim to the public how they were earning their jobs by
protecting the American public from greedy and corrupt railroad executives.
Congress proposed creating the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate
and control the railroads and the Sherman Antitrust Act designed to threaten
and punish the railroad industry. Well, James J. Hill realized what was
occurring. He travelled to Washington to testify before Congress. Hill
meticulously explained what had happened with the government-subsidized
railroads versus his privately-financed railroad and how the solution was
for the government to get out of the railroad business altogether.
But Hill was ignored. Politicians and bureaucrats could not increase their
power nor garner self-glory if they admitted that the root of the railroad
problem was caused by the government getting into the railroad business in
the first place -- a place the government never belonged.
Conscious Destruction
Congress ignored James J. Hill and went ahead to create the Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC) and pass the Sherman Antitrust Act that heavily
regulated and punished the railroad industry. Thus, the techniques Hill had
used to build up trade in the Northwest and was now using to build up
American trade to Asia became illegal. The ICC and antitrust laws forbid
giving any special deals to customers. As a direct result of that
legislation, James J. Hill had to give up pursuing the Asian market
altogether. One year after Congress created the Interstate Commerce
Commission and passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, Hill sold his steamship
line. Hill's foresighted, integrated methods could no longer work. America's
trade to Japan and China dropped forty percent within two years.
What happened in Congress was not a case of ignorance. James J. Hill
actually set up residence in Washington and lobbied Congress and its
investigative committees intensively. Hill made sure those Congressmen knew
what had really happened in the railroad industry and why. Hill even wrote a
book about the situation and published that book himself. Still, Hill's
arguments were ignored. Congress could garner more support and more money by
attacking and regulating the railroad industry than by admitting that they
were the root cause of that railroad corruption.
What Are the Implications?
What are the implications of that event that occurred nearly one-hundred
years ago? Today, America's great economic weakness is foreign trade --
particularly trade with Asia. The President makes speeches about and creates
commissions to study this problem. The heads of America's Corporate 500
companies, top economists, professors, even management gurus issue grave
warnings about America's waning international competitiveness and its trade
imbalance with Asia. Everyone then points to certain mistakes made along the
way since World War II -- management laziness, excessive union demands,
burdensome government regulations, and so on.
But, how many people today have the slightest idea about what was happening
one hundred years ago with James J. Hill? How many people today know what
was started by a single integrated thinking, forward-essence mover? How many
people today know that James J. Hill was spearheading an American dominance
of trade in Asia nearly one hundred years ago!
All of that incredible forward-essence movement was cut off in the bud
because a handful of politicians, seeking to advance their own careers,
stopped James J. Hill and his push into Asia through malicious regulation of
the railroads and interstate commerce. Hill's master plan was destroyed by a
handful of pip-squeaks and clowns in Congress. And those Congressmen knew
what they were doing. Hill diligently informed them of the real situation,
what he had done with his privately-financed railroad, whose fault it was
for the corruption that occurred within the government-financed railroads,
and what his railroad was doing for America's international trade by its
freedom to act independently and nurture new business. Yet, those smart,
college-educated Congressmen proceeded to pass their self-serving laws in
order to protect and enhance their own bogus-job empires.
What Really Happened a Hundred Years Ago?
Let's examine this situation even closer. Just what was smashed in the bud
by the parasitical-elite class in Washington?
James J. Hill was not only spearheading an American dominance of trade in
Asia a hundred years ago; Hill was spearheading the industrialization of
Asia. Hill was pushing American business into Asia, causing railroads to be
built, causing factories to be built, causing new businesses to be created.
Hill nurtured American business in Asia, and that business was beginning to
follow its natural course of flooding in and dominating trade. That, in
turn, would have led to a rapid industrialization of Asia.
What are the implications of that? Consider the spread of communism in Asia.
Communism cannot take over an affluent, industrialized nation. Communism
only takes over poor, nonindustrialized nations.
James J. Hill's spearheading of American trade with Asia was sparking
industrialization in Asia one hundred years ago. But, because Hill was cut
off by Congress, that expansion was halted. Thus, forty-five years later,
China, the largest Asian country, was still a poor, nonindustrialized,
peasant country.
So what happened? Communism swept through China and killed 30 million
people! Communism spread into Korea and Vietnam. One hundred and ten
thousand Americans died attempting to stop that spread. Why? Because a
hundred years ago a few pip-squeaks and clowns in Congress, trying to fake
their own importance, cut off something magnificent in the bud. They smashed
down an integrated thinker who was sparking the industrialization of China.
Through the efforts of one integrated-thinking, forward-essence mover, the
deaths of 30 million Chinese and one hundred and ten thousand Americans
could have been prevented.
The full tragedy will never be known. For instance, imagine the business
dynamics that were cut off. Today, nearly a hundred years later, China is a
nation of one billion people -- a quarter of the world's population. Yet,
until recently, China contributed almost nothing to the advancement of the
world economy, technology, industry, science. The Chinese have been
completely stagnated and smashed down by communism.
If James J. Hill had been left free to continue spearheading an
industrialization of China a hundred years ago, the world would be far
different today. What kind of creative energies would have been released if
China had industrialized a hundred years ago?
A sense of what could have been can be obtained by examining the "little
dragon" countries of Asia today. They are the small countries around China
that did not get swept away by communism -- South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore,
Hong Kong. Those little, fragmented countries have races and cultures
similar to China. But, those countries managed to escape communism. They
industrialized after World War II, and they have made major contributions to
the world economy, to industry, to technology, to science. Yet, those tiny
countries contain just a few million people. China contains one billion
people! China dwarfs those "little dragon" countries in every aspect.
Consider Japan. Japan also has a culture and history similar to the Chinese.
Japan escaped communism, industrialized, and then boomed after World War II.
Japan is a world leader today. Japan makes mighty contributions to the world
economy, to industry, to technology, to science, to art, to culture. Yet,
Japan is dwarfed by China. China is seven times larger than Japan. Just
imagine the potential of China if it had industrialized one hundred years
ago.
What if James J. Hill had not been smashed down? What if James J. Hill had
sparked an industrialization of China -- a country of one billion people?
Where would civilization be today? Would we have cures for cancer, heart
disease, AIDS? Would we be building cities in the oceans and on the moon?
The contributions that the Chinese could have made to science, to
technology, to the world economy are mind-boggling. But no. All of that
potential was smashed down. All because a handful of pip-squeaks and clowns
in Congress one hundred years ago wanted to exercise power!
We're Being Used and Used Up
A hundred years ago one man learned how to integrate. He started moving up.
He learned how business worked; he learned how the American economy worked.
Then, he learned how the world economy worked. He began learning how the
whole up-rising of civilization worked. One man, a hundred years ago,
learned how to integrate. He began pushing the lid up on society. If that
man had been left alone, if he had not been cut off, he would have swung
open that lid, China would have industrialized, all of Asia would have
industrialized, the whole world would have risen up, and America would have
been sitting on the top of it all.
A jack-in-the-box like springing up of value creation would have occurred,
and that would have taken everyone up with it! It would have cured all the
major problems of today. Good-bye to thousands of Americans losing their
jobs, good-bye to poverty, good-bye to communism in Asia, good-bye to the
Korean war, good-bye to the Vietnam war, good-bye to starving people in the
third world! Everyone would have been pushed up. And it all would have
started because one man learned how to integrate a hundred years ago.
But what happened instead? James J. Hill was smashed down. The
parasitical-elite class consisting of politicians, bureaucrats, and
political entrepreneurs will eventually smash down whatever threatens their
nonproductive livelihoods. As Mark Hamilton, author of Neo-Tech Business
Control, stated, "We, the productive working class, are being used and used
up!"
Nicholas Rich
In article <33c975e5...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim Manson) wrote:
>mkwa...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Wahler) wrote:
>
>>>So in other words you see no reason to obey any laws that you
>>>personally had no part in implementing.
>>>
>>
>>Can you give me a reason? Other than threat of force? Remember you
>>said "any laws." It seems to me that you are promoting the observance
>>of laws simply because they are called "laws", and others have agreed
>>to them.
>In this case there is no alternative that rationally has been proposed
>to replace it. Obviously there are some severe problems with
>government and specific actions but until you have an alternative that
>doesn't depend on mythical things like all people suddenly becoming
>non-violent and sweet of nature there's not much point to debating it.
Just because you are ignorant and unfamiliar with rational alternatives to
coercive force does not mean they do not exist. They do. For instance, see:
..for one.
For another, no rational alternative rejects the fact that there are a small
percentage of lawless in society.
The differnce between rational alternatives and our current irrational
system is not in the results desired by supporters of a rational system and
those of a status-quo irrational one. We all desire similar results.
The difference is in the *means* of achieving them.
In a rational society, one deals with criminals in the same manner one deals
with any problem--they treat it as a business, profit/loss problem,
delivering values that people will voluntarily pay values for in exchange.
>>>Interesting.
>>
>>OK, since you're interested...
>>
>>The only valid, objective reason for laws is to protect individual rights.
>>Laws that do that, I observe, whether I had a part in implementing them
>>or not. Any other bogus "laws" are simply designed to defraud and coerce
>>people into "conformity", and to usurp the fruits of their labor. Yes, I
>>often observe many of these invalid, immoral "laws," but only when it looks
>>like disobeying would disrupt my life and waste my time. Other than that, I
>>ignore them. But I always recognize and point out the immorality of those
>>"laws" to anyone who questions my actions.
>
>So you reject all laws that don't have a direct coercive effect on
>stopping someone from harming someone else.
>
>So you have no problem with people dumping toxic stuff in your food
>supply or your water system. If you do how are you going to regulate
>it with no government?
Are you awake, or just playing dumb?
Why not go back and read your two paragraphs in reverse. First, read the
second one. Then, read the first one.
Do you see your stupidity?
Hint: Dumping toxic stuff *is* coercively harming someone else.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5q47nd$1...@elaine8.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>>Note above where I've indicated that various civil protections/services and
>>due-process are values which people desire (things are *only* values because
>>people are willing to give values in exchange to possess them). Thus, such
>>services will be provided.
>>
>>That means that there will be private competitive businesses providing
>>police/fire/courts/jails, etc.
>
>How could a private business be ultimately responsible for police,
>courts, and jail?
>
>Example: I'm a bad person and I kill people who don't agree with me.
>So, people who desire value hire private police to apprehend me,
>private courts to try me, and private jails to lock me up. The only
>problem is that I'm not too keen on the idea of doing time, so I hire
>private agencies to kill those people too.
JG Adams at least comes through with some well-thought objections and
counter-arguments. Other would do well to emulate and stop wasting my time
with silliness.
To answert this objection, David Friedam has a chapter from his book, _The
Machinery of Freedom_ on the web at:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.
html
This is not really comprehensive to the question/objection, but is a good
start. If this interests you, then I recommend getting the book.
****
POLICE, COURTS, AND LAWS---ON THE MARKET
How, without government, could we settle the disputes that are now settled
in courts of law? How could we protect ourselves from criminals?
Consider first the easiest case, the resolution of disputes involving
contracts between well-established firms. A large fraction of such disputes
are now settled not by government courts but by private arbitration of the
sort described in Chapter 18. The firms, when they draw up a contract,
specify a procedure for arbitrating any dispute that may arise. Thus they
avoid the expense and delay of the courts.
The arbitrator has no police force. His function is to render decisions, not
to enforce them. Currently, arbitrated decisions are usually enforceable in
the government courts, but that is a recent development; historically,
enforcement came from a firm's desire to maintain its reputation. After
refusing to accept an arbitrator's judgment, it is hard to persuade anyone
else to sign a contract that specifies arbitration; no one wants to play a
game of 'heads you win, tails I lose'.
Arbitration arrangements are already widespread. As the courts continue to
deteriorate, arbitration will continue to grow. But it only provides for the
resolution of disputes over pre-existing contracts. Arbitration, by itself,
provides no solution for the man whose car is dented by a careless driver,
still less for the victim of theft; in both cases the plaintiff and
defendant, having different interests and no prior agreement, are unlikely
to find a mutually satisfactory arbitrator. Indeed, the defendant has no
reason to accept any arbitration at all; he can only lose--which brings us
to the problem of preventing coercion.
Protection from coercion is an economic good. It is presently sold in a
variety of forms--Brinks guards, locks, burglar alarms. As the effectiveness
of government police declines, these market substitutes for the police, like
market substitutes for the courts, become more popular.
Suppose, then, that at some future time there are no government police, but
instead private protection agencies. These agencies sell the service of
protecting their clients against crime. Perhaps they also guarantee
performance by insuring their clients against losses resulting from criminal
acts.
How might such protection agencies protect? That would be an economic
decision, depending on the'-costs and effectiveness of different
alternatives. On the one extreme, they might limit themselves to passive
defenses, installing elaborate locks and alarms. Or they might take no
preventive action at all, but make great efforts to hunt down criminals
guilty of crimes against their clients. They might maintain foot patrols or
squad cars, like our present government police, or they might rely on
electronic substitutes. In any case, they would be selling a service to
their customers and would have a strong incentive to provide as high a
quality of service as possible, at the lowest possible cost. It is
reasonable to suppose that the quality of service would be higher and the
cost lower than with the present governmental system.
Inevitably, conflicts would arise between one protective agency and another.
How might they be resolved?
I come home one night and find my television set missing. I immediately call
my protection agency, Tannahelp Inc., to report the theft. They send an
agent. He checks the automatic camera which Tannahelp, as part of their
service, installed in my living room and discovers a picture of one Joe Bock
lugging the television set out the door. The Tannahelp agent contacts Joe,
informs him that Tannahelp has reason to believe he is in possession of my
television set, and suggests he return it, along with an extra ten dollars
to pay for Tannahelp's time and trouble in locating Joe. Joe replies that he
has never seen my television set in his life and tells the Tannahelp agent
to go to hell.
The agent points out that until Tannahelp is convinced there has been a
mistake, he must proceed on the assumption that the television set is my
property. Six Tannahelp employees, all large and energetic, will be at Joe's
door next morning to collect the set. Joe, in response, informs the agent
that he also has a protection agency, Dawn Defense, and that his contract
with them undoubtedly requires them to protect him if six goons try to break
into his house and steal his television set.
The stage seems set for a nice little war between Tannahelp and Dawn
Defense. It is precisely such a possibility that has led some libertarians
who are not anarchists, most notably Ayn Rand, to reject the possibility of
competing free-market protection agencies.
But wars are very expensive, and Tannahelp and Dawn Defense are both
profit-making corporations, more interested in saving money than face. I
think the rest of the story would be less violent than Miss Rand supposed.
The Tannahelp agent calls up his opposite number at Dawn Defense. 'We've got
a problem. . . .' After explaining the situation, he points out that if
Tannahelp sends six men and Dawn eight, there will be a fight. Someone might
even get hurt. Whoever wins, by the time the conflict is over it will be
expensive for both sides. They might even have to start paying their
employees higher wages to make up for the risk. Then both firms will be
forced to raise their rates. If they do, Murbard Ltd., an aggressive new
firm which has been trying to get established in the area, will undercut
their prices and steal their customers. There must be a better solution.
The man from Tannahelp suggests that the better solution is arbitration.
They will take the dispute over my television set to a reputable local
arbitration firm. If the arbitrator decides that Joe is innocent, Tannahelp
agrees to pay Joe and Dawn Defense an indemnity to make up for their time
and trouble. If he is found guilty, Dawn Defense will accept the verdict;
since the television set is not Joe's, they have no obligation to protect
him when the men from Tannahelp come to seize it.
What I have described is a very makeshift arrangement. In practice, once
anarcho-capitalist institutions were well established, protection agencies
would anticipate such difficulties and arrange contracts in advance, before
specific conflicts occurred, specifying the arbitrator who would settle
them.
In such an anarchist society, who would make the laws? On what basis would
the private arbitrator decide what acts were criminal and what their
punishments should be? The answer is that systems of law would be produced
for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today.
There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is
competition among different brands of cars.
In such a society there might be many courts and even many legal systems.
Each pair of protection agencies agree in advance on which court they will
use in case of conflict. Thus the laws under which a particular case is
decided are determined implicitly by advance agreement between the
protection agencies whose customers are involved. In principle, there could
be a different court and a different set of laws for every pair of
protection agencies. In practice, many agencies would probably find it
convenient to patronize the same courts, and many courts might find it
convenient to adopt identical, or nearly identical, systems of law in order
to simplify matters for their customers.
Before labelling a society in which different people are under different
laws chaotic and unjust, remember that in our society the law under which
you are judged depends on the country, state, and even city in which you
happen to be. Under the arrangements I am describing, it depends instead on
your protective agency and the agency of the person you accuse of a crime or
who accuses you of a crime.
In such a society law is produced on the market. A court supports itself by
charging for the service of arbitrating disputes. Its success depends on its
reputation for honesty, reliability, and promptness and on the desirability
to potential customers of the particular set of laws it judges by. The
immediate customers are protection agencies. But the protection agency is
itself selling a product to its customers. Part of that product is the legal
system, or systems, of the courts it patronizes and under which its
customers will consequently be judged. Each protection agency will try to
patronize those courts under whose legal system its customers would like to
live.
Consider, as a particular example, the issue of capital punishment. Some
people might feel that the risk to themselves of being convicted, correctly
or incorrectly, and executed for a capital crime outweighed any possible
advantages of capital punishment. They would prefer, where possible, to
patronize protection agencies that patronized courts that did not give
capital punishment. Other citizens might feel that they would be safer from
potential murderers if it was known that anyone who murdered them would end
up in the electric chair. They might consider that safety more important
than the risk of ending up in the electric chair themselves or of being
responsible for the death of an innocent accused of murder. They would, if
possible, patronize agencies that patronized courts that did give capital
punishment.
If one position or the other is almost universal, it may pay all protection
agencies to use courts of the one sort or the other. If some people feel one
way and some the other, and if their feelings are strong enough to affect
their choice of protection agencies, it pays some agencies to adopt a policy
of guaranteeing, whenever possible, to use courts that do not recognize
capital punishment. They can then attract anti-capital-punishment customers.
Other agencies do the opposite.
Disputes between two anti-capital-punishment agencies will, of course, go to
an anti-capital-punishment court; disputes between two
pro-capital-punishment agencies will go to a pro-capital-punishment court.
What would happen in a dispute between an anti-capital-punishment agency and
a pro-capital-punishment agency? Obviously there is no way that if I kill
you the case goes to one court, but if you are killed by me it goes to
another. We cannot each get exactly the law we want.
We can each have our preferences reflected in the bargaining demands of our
respective agencies. If the opponents of capital punishment feel more
strongly than the proponents, the agencies will agree to no capital
punishment; in exchange, the agencies that want capital punishment will get
something else. Perhaps it will be agreed that they will not pay court costs
or that some other disputed policy will go their way.
One can imagine an idealized bargaining process, for this or any other
dispute, as follows: Two agencies are negotiating whether to recognize a
pro- or anti-capital-punishment court. The pro agency calculates that
getting a pro-capital-punishment court will be worth $20,000 a year to its
customers; that is the additional amount it can get for its services if they
include a guarantee of capital punishment in case of disputes with the other
agency. The anti-capital-punishment agency calculates a corresponding figure
of $40,000. It offers the pro agency $30,000 a year in exchange for
accepting an anti-capital-punishment court. The pro agency accepts. Now the
anti-capital-punishment agency can raise its rates enough to bring in an
extra $35,000. Its customers are happy, since the guarantee of no capital
punishment is worth more than that. The agency is happy; it is getting an
extra $5,000 a year profit. The pro agency cuts its rates by an amount that
costs it $25,000 a year. This lets it keep its customers and even get more,
since the savings is more than enough to make up to them for not getting the
court of their choice. It, too, is making a $5,000 a year profit on the
transaction. As in any good trade, everyone gains.
If you find this confusing, it may be worth the trouble of going over it
again; the basic principle of such negotiation will become important later
when I discuss what sort of law an anarcho-capitalist society is likely to
have.
If, by some chance, the customers of the two agencies feel equally strongly,
perhaps two courts will be chosen, one of each kind, and cases allocated
randomly between them. In any case, the customer's legal preference, his
opinion as to what sort of law he wishes to live under, will have been a
major factor in determining the kind of law he does live under. It cannot
completely determine it, since accused and accuser must have the same law.
In the case of capital punishment, the two positions are directly opposed.
Another possibility is that certain customers may want specialized law,
suited to their special circumstances. People living in desert areas might
want a system of law that very clearly defines property rights in water.
People in other areas would find such detailed treatment of this problem
superfluous at best. At worst, it might be the source of annoying nuisance
suits. Thus the desert people might all patronize one protection agency,
which had a policy of always going to a court with well-developed water law.
Other agencies would agree to use that court in disputes with that agency
but use other courts among themselves.
Most differences among courts would probably be more subtle. People would
find that the decisions of one court were prompter or easier to predict than
those of another or that the customers of one protection agency were better
protected than those of another. The protection agencies, trying to build
their own reputations, would search for the 'best' courts.
Several objections may be raised to such free-market courts. The first is
that they would sell justice by deciding in favor of the highest bidder.
That would be suicidal; unless they maintained a reputation for honesty,
they would have no customers--unlike our present judges. Another objection
is that it is the business of courts and legislatures to discover laws, not
create them; there cannot be two competing laws of gravity, so why should
there be two competing laws of property? But there can be two competing
theories about the law of gravity or the proper definition of property
rights. Discovery is as much a productive activity as creation. If it is
obvious what the correct law is, what rules of human interaction follow from
the nature of man, then all courts will agree, just as all architects agree
about the laws of physics. If it is not obvious, the market will generate
research intended to discover correct laws.
Another objection is that a society of many different legal systems would be
confusing. If this is found to be a serious problem, courts will have an
economic incentive to adopt uniform law, just as paper companies have an
incentive to produce standardized sizes of paper. New law will be introduced
only when the innovator believes that its advantages outweigh the advantages
of uniformity.
The most serious objection to free-market law is that plaintiff and
defendant may not be able to agree on a common court. Obviously, a murderer
would prefer a lenient judge. If the court were actually chosen by the
disputants after the crime occurred, this might be an insuperable
difficulty. Under the arrangements I have described, the court is chosen in
advance by the protection agencies. There would hardly be enough murderers
at any one time to support their own protective agency, one with a policy of
patronizing courts that did not regard murder as a crime. Even if there
were, no other protective agency would accept such courts. The murderers'
agency would either accept a reasonable court or fight a hopeless war
against the rest of society.
Until he is actually accused of a crime, everyone wants laws that protect
him from crime and let him interact peacefully and productively with others.
Even criminals. Not many murderers would wish to live under laws that
permitted them to kill--and be killed.
****
Jim Manson
n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>In article <33c874b7...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim Manson) wrote:
>>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>>>Au contraire...
>>>
>>>The irony is that no systematic "implemetation" is needed--but simply the
>>>natural freedom for individuals and businesses to keep every cent of wealth
>>>and property they create and earn, and freely use a portion of it to
>>>contract with other individuals and businesses to provide goods and
>>>services, which, in addition to the current fair, would naturally include
>>>civil protection and due-process justice, those things being of value, and
>>>thus marketable in the private sector.
>>>
>>>The only "implementation" necessary is a recognition by all that the
>>>initiation of force is wrong. As NT's "Universal Constitution" put it (my
>>>reply to the rest of your post is included after this excerpt):
>>
>>In other words we trust to the good will of everyone.
>
>Au contraire.
>
>Note above where I've indicated that various civil protections/services and
>due-process are values which people desire (things are *only* values because
>people are willing to give values in exchange to possess them). Thus, such
>services will be provided.
>
>That means that there will be private competitive businesses providing
>police/fire/courts/jails, etc.
You mean just like ancient Rome were they showed up at the fire and
asked if you wanted to sell the property cheap. If so they put it out.
If not they let it burn. Of course having private armies (read police)
for the rich wouldn't put a cramp in anyone else's style. Uh-huh.
" Gee my police can beat your police"
>>You seem to forget that the very things that you decry were caused by
>>PEOPLE.
>
>True, and don't forget that protection, enforcement, justice, etc. are also
>performed by PEOPLE. There is no need, however, for them to be cloaked under
>the "officialdom" of state. If what they provide is a value to people, then
>people will voluntarily pay for it--it's as simple as that. And, with
>hard-nosed business competition underlying it all, the values accrue to us,
>the consumers.
Pay for which? You are going to end up with 5000 different bozos
calling themselves police, putting on guns and going out to earn their
money. Sure sounds stable and workable to me.
>
>>Of course this time there will be no congomerates or monopolies of
>>industry. The robber barons in transportation didn't really exist.
>>Obviously anyone could build their own railroad and the larger boys
>>would simply watch and wish them well. Let's face it DeBeers just
>>loves competition in the diamond industry. Those unexplained
>>explosions were nothing to worry about.
>
>Here's an account you should read. It addresses two issues. One is the
>Robber Baron fallacy and the other is corporations which are protected by
>the corercive force of government (such as DeBeers). Incidentally, in a free
>society (i.e., without the possibility of coercive force), the only way to
>establish a monopoly is to be of such a benefit to consumers that no one can
>beat you. All true monopolies are state-sponsored.
DeBeers is NOT protected by government sir. Try reading some of their
history- they RAN the governments in a couple of places and killed off
their "competitors" in several cases.
All true monopolies are not state sponsored, they frequently exist by
extortion and coercion. If you think the IRS is bad try a large
multinational that has NO limits on it. Can you say bloodbath?
The other way to establish a monopoly is to kill or destroy or
threaten your competitors. Don't forget, they have more money to
buy...er....support the local free enterprise police force and judge.
Care to rethink your position?
I have to admit, you're the first person of your type that I have seen
that actually thinks that having large corporations run things would
be better than having a government. Usually most people with your
philosophy want to destroy both.
>
>James J. Hill was a 19th-century railroad entrepreneur. Hill was an
>integrated thinker who broke out of a restricted, one-country mode and began
>pushing into a worldwide mode. Unfortunately, just as Hill achieved great
>success in the American railroad industry and began spearheading an
>international expansion, his worldwide growth was snuffed out by
>glory-seeking politicians. The story of James J. Hill is documented in the
>book The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton W. Folsom, Jr.
I know, I live the Minnesota. Hill is well known here.
I didn't point out Hill in my message if you notice.
Jim Manson
n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
Arbitration only works if both sides agree. And your hero's idea that
the competing companies will "work" together is BS.
Think about it. The two companies are trying to gain customers. They
decide to allow Joe and his friends to get the TV and they are going
to lose customers. The average person isn't going to care if Joe was
right or if he was wrong, they are going to care if the company
protected their customer or not.
Geez- look at history. Companies fought all the time in the past and
frequently killed each other's employees, kind of like clans. ( I am
including outside the US in this). It wasn't good for profit in the
short run but it apparently worked in the long run.
Your entire philosophy is only workable if everyone and I mean
EVERYONE is reasonable and cooperates.
Not likely.
Jim Manson
n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>Do you see your stupidity?
>
>Hint: Dumping toxic stuff *is* coercively harming someone else.
Of course it is you moron. What's your point?
The question is what the hell are you going to do about it assuming
you can even discover it? It may likely be happening hundreds or
thousands of miles away from you.
Going to go storm their gates?
Under your system they would simply shoot you and throw you in the
river along with the toxins. And I seriously doubt your "private
police" are going to do squat about it.....guess who has more money to
entice them.
Wesley Serra
In article <5q2u89$j0f$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>In article <5pukmc$a...@panix3.panix.com>, wse...@panix.com (Wesley Serra)
>wrote:
[snip]
>>No one said anything about virtue, but it is hardly "irrelevent". Do you
>>recall the history of the income tax in this country? Due to various
>>Supreme Court rulings, it had to be accomplished by *constitutional
>>amendment*. Are you aware of that process? A supermajority of both
>>houses of Congress, followed by ratification by two-thirds of the states.
>>Every last blessed person who voted on the issue was elected by the
>>public.
>
>You're sidestepping. You're not claiming that the government is not engaged
>in extortion. You're simply saying that they have the support of the people.
I'm not in the least sidestepping. I just refuse to let you frame the
question in a loaded manner. If you are not newly arrived from Mars, the
following should be obvious.
The whole idea of "law" is that there are rules which society has in some
manner adopted which must be followed. If they are not followed, certain
consequences flow, usually adverse to the lawbreaker. This is not
extortion simply because that is not what the word means. You, like
Humpty Dumpty, can have a word mean whatever you wish it to mean, but the
rest of us, like Webster's, do not equate "legislate" with "extort".
The question, then, is what rationale distinguishes the legislator from
the extortionist. Jefferson wrote it best: "the consent of the
governed".
>So did Hitler.
If you are unable to distinguish the Nazis from the Democrats and
Republicans, we simply do not have enough common ground to debate. But
everybody's nuts except you and Joe Neo-Tech.
>And for some reason, the Mafia always seems to get plenty of support from
>its victims as well. So, presumably, you're all for extortion, or
>*WHATEVER,* so long as there's some semblance of "officialdom," such as
>elections and civic procedure.
I am all for a government of limited, checked powers, lawfully and
democratically elected. Only you and Neo-Tech define the products of such
a Government as extortionate.
>>Now, it surely seems to be that the feebleminded, the avaricious
>>and the dishonest are overrepresented in the ranks of politicians. But
>>how would *you* determine the outcome of the great issues of the day? Let
>>Neo-Tech decide?
>
>I propose to let individuals decide--by employing other individuals and
>businesses to provide the values that each will voluntarily pay for. There
>is absolutely no need for a "government" of any sort, as we currently
>understand it. Everything truly needed, including police protection and the
>courts, can be provided through competitive business.
>
>Let me be clear: I am for anarchy, which is simply the absence of
>government, and not for hihilism. The argument is not over results, and we
>could probably agree that we wish everyone were happy, prosperous, and
>protected from injustice. My argument is with the *means* employed to
>achieve those results. I am conviced that such results can come about only
>through unbridled individual honesty, effort, and responsibility--and
>private protection from those who would *forcefully* interfere.
All I can say is how quickly they forget. I don't know where you live,
but I suggest that you visit Newport, Rhode Island. The "cottages" there
are the products of the system you describe. When the Vanderbilts used an
entire train to move their belongings there for the summer, one full car
was devoted just to the silverware. What the visitor to Newport does not
see - for just one example of hundreds - are the bodies of the miners who
died by the thousands in cave-ins (and the others who were shot and killed
by goons hired by the owners). Read those known at the time as
"muckrakers" - for example, Lincoln Steffens - for endless examples. What
ended the horrors was government "extortion". And do you know something?
That is precisely how any government intervention, no matter how grotesque
the abuse it ended, was described by the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, the
Mellons et al - extortion.
[snip]
>>>Our minds do not create reality.
>>>
>>>Likewise, the fact that Hitler and Stalin had the democratic support of the
>>>people does not nullify the criminality of their acts.
>>
>>I think you need to meet Hitler or Stalin, up close and personal. Then
>>maybe you wouldn't make ludicrous comparisons to the IRS, which only
>>trivialize the memories of the tens of millions who *died* in the
>>Holocaust, the pogroms and the purges.
>
>You're not grasping the analogy, or purposely ignoring the priciple at work.
>I'm certainly not comparing the death--although I would say that the
>historical sum-total of the financial destruction perpetuated by this
>government far exceeeds that of WWII Germany.
>
>At any rate, the analogy if for the purpose of pointing out the difference
>between law and morality. People easily see the distinction upon realizing
>that Hitler, to some extent, had the backing of democratic process, yet that
>didn't change the nature of his acts. The war-crimes trials were all about
>the same thing--wrong is wrong.
I grasp what you say perfectly - I just have a hard time believing that
you are serious. Nuremburg absolutely stands for the principle that there
are absolutes. You don't kill helpless people. You don't use them as
victims for grotesque medical experiments. You don't herd them like
cattle into death camps.
Your take on this is that subjecting people to mandatory taxation - after
no less than amending the Constitution and passing both houses of a
democratically elected legislature - is in the same class. If that is
what you mean - and why else would you cite Hitler, Stalin and Nuremburg
in this thread - then I simply have nothing more to say to you. But you
are dangerous.
Nicholas Rich
Sorry JG, but your post below simply demonstrates far too much ignorance on
your part of not only the theories, but the basic answers to objections
which have been dealt with for more than 25 years already. If you were to
read Dr. Friedman's book, you might not agree with his conclusions, but I
doubt the objections you would raise would be those below.
My purpose in posting this was not really to debate anarcho-capitalism with
you or anyone else unfamiliar with the basics, but simply to provide a
primer in case anyone was interested in looking themselves into alterantives
to the status-quo.
If you'd really like to debate your position below, read the book and then
let me know--that will save time.
Or, go to humanities.philosophy.objectivism where Dr. Friedman is seen
debating often. He would probably be happy to answer any objections you
have--and that would be direct from the author. You could also witness
others who are familiar with his ideas provide some objections which are
actually good ones.
In article <5qe35g$n...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <5q6pg0$p...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
>>(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>>
>>>People who steal and murder will not want to enter arbitration. They
>>>want to get away with their crimes. These points seem so obvious that
>>>I feel a bit silly even typing them. This scheme is strikingly
>>>Pollyanna-ish; I wonder what color the sky is in this guy's world.
>>
>>I'll respond in detail later, but I think your problem is that you didn't
>>read the article very closely because I think this "dilema" was dealt with.
>>
>>For one, you don't even have basic facts straight. The the thiefs and
>>murderers are not the ones who enter into arbitration. They are pursued by
>>private justice agencies. If they attempt to defend themseves by hiring an
>>agency of their own, it is the two agencies who have pre-existing
>>arbitration agreements (since these are businesses, and thus, wielding force
>>cuts into profits).
>
>But nothing forces the criminal to use the services of a private justice
>agency. It seems more likely that they would hire a renenegade agency
>willing to use force, or assemble a team of private contractors
>willing to use force, or go it alone with a lot of weapons in hopes
>of intimidating others or making the risk of getting the TV back not
>worth the benefit of actually getting it back.
>
>>If an agency attempts to set up to cater to criminals, not the 99% of the
>>law-abiding population (the vast majority of the market and revenue),
>>refuses to negotiate pre-existing arbitration agreements, and then attemps
>>to protect clientelle who are being pursued by the agencies of the
>>law-abiding populace, they face a hopeless war with the rest of society and
>>will quickly be driven out of business.
>
>I don't see this at all. First, there will always be a group of
>people willing to pay a premium to obtain things unfairly, and there
>will probably be people and groups who will accommodate them. Second,
>it won't be a hopeless war with "the rest of society." As you've
>described it, it will simply be one private agency against another.
>Society, as you conceive it, will simply be a number of private agencies
>and there will be little motivation for disinterested bystanders to
>intrude on a private quarrel. Finally, history demonstrates that
>"the rest of society" will never force out crime and fraud. That's
>simply impossible, short of a massively totalitarian police state.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5q6pg0$p...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>People who steal and murder will not want to enter arbitration. They
>want to get away with their crimes. These points seem so obvious that
>I feel a bit silly even typing them. This scheme is strikingly
>Pollyanna-ish; I wonder what color the sky is in this guy's world.
I'll respond in detail later, but I think your problem is that you didn't
read the article very closely because I think this "dilema" was dealt with.
For one, you don't even have basic facts straight. The the thiefs and
murderers are not the ones who enter into arbitration. They are pursued by
private justice agencies. If they attempt to defend themseves by hiring an
agency of their own, it is the two agencies who have pre-existing
arbitration agreements (since these are businesses, and thus, wielding force
cuts into profits).
If an agency attempts to set up to cater to criminals, not the 99% of the
law-abiding population (the vast majority of the market and revenue),
refuses to negotiate pre-existing arbitration agreements, and then attemps
to protect clientelle who are being pursued by the agencies of the
law-abiding populace, they face a hopeless war with the rest of society and
will quickly be driven out of business.
To find out the color of David Friedman's sky, pop into
humanties.philospophy.objectivism where he regularly mops the floor with the
Objectivists on political and economics issues.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5qeth7$a...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>
>>Sorry JG, but your post below simply demonstrates far too much ignorance on
>>your part of not only the theories, but the basic answers to objections
>>which have been dealt with for more than 25 years already. If you were to
>>read Dr. Friedman's book, you might not agree with his conclusions, but I
>>doubt the objections you would raise would be those below.
>
Then simply pop into humanities.philosophy.objectivism, post a message with
the subject: "Question for Dr. Friedman," and paste in your previous post
which I don't have time to respond to (I have 7 other posts ahead of yours).
You'll probably get a response directly from the author which you must admit
would be more to the source than I would give.
>It's a little curious that when someone raises a valid and fundamental
>objection to your constant "taxes are extortion" refrain, you refuse
>to talk about it.
This is, of course, untrue and unfair. On the issue of taxes as theft, I've
taken on all comers and have stayed to the very end. This particular thread
goes off the subject. During the discussion, the pragmatic objection arose
that if there were not taxes, certain desirable things could not be
financed. My response was to point people to one of many sources where you
can indeed discover viable means of private finance.
That being done, I'm continuing on with the basic thread, and no one seems
to be able to argue that taxation is not theft--only that it's "necessary
theft."
IOW, I've already won the debate flawlessly. In another post, you outright
admit that taxes are theft, "but we just need to make it as 'fair' as
possible." I guess that means to steal from everyone equally.
Talk about taking the moral high ground! NOT!
>If you weren't prepared to discuss the matter intelligently, you
>shouldn't have raised it.
You are free to treat that subject in any manner you choose. However, I know
of no way you can use it to demonstrate that taxes aren't theft.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5qgf7v$s...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
>>You are free to treat that subject in any manner you choose. However, I know
>>of no way you can use it to demonstrate that taxes aren't theft.
>
>Easy.
>
>1. Theft = the wrongful taking of someone else's property.
>
>2. Taxation is not a wrongful taking because it is necessary to maintain
>services that are vital to a sophisticated society.
Again, you sidestep the issue. A sophisticated society is created by people,
by taxpayers. And you're again not making an essential distinction. You're
simply saying that it's necessary to steal from people in order to pay for
the things they want (*their* sophisticated society).
The context dtropped is: A sophisticated society is created by its
inhabitants, and how do you know that they want the services you provide to
the extent, and in the manner you are providing them, if you must take their
money by force to pay for them?
Also, you are simply asserting that the outcomes people desire (safety,
justice, due-process, etc.) can *only* be provided by a coercive state which
steals tax money to pay for it.
So, you first fail to show that taxation is not extortion (claiming it
should be as fair as possible though), and now that taxation is not theft (a
close cousin of extortion) by simply stating that the things it pays for are
necessary and cannot be delivered any other way.
So, your argument is *not* that taxation is not theft. Your argument,
closely related to your argument as concerns extortion, is to gloss over the
fact that money is being forcibly taken from people against their will, and
to point to all the "good things" it buys, and which you claim cannot be
purchased in any other fashion.
>3. Taxation is not theft.
Jim Manson
n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>So, your argument is *not* that taxation is not theft. Your argument,
>closely related to your argument as concerns extortion, is to gloss over the
>fact that money is being forcibly taken from people against their will, and
>to point to all the "good things" it buys, and which you claim cannot be
>purchased in any other fashion.
>
Under your reasoning any mandatory expense is theft such as food.
Obviously you have the choice of which food to buy but you must
eventually purchase food. Therefore whomever you buy food from is
stealing from you. Since you have the option of not paying taxes,
which creates consequences much like starving, and you have the option
of going elsewhere to pay taxes instead of here it looks exactly the
same.
Of course this also assumes that you can grow your own food as long as
you can buy the land to farm on ( another theft from you ).
Life is full of things you have to do even if you don't want to do
them. Your system merely trades off a government that taxes you for
providing services with private companies that provide the service and
charge you too. Since you can't exist without many of the services it
works out the same. You can call it choice but it's not much different
that what you have now.
Nicholas Rich
In article <33c7b5e...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
Manson) wrote:
>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>Note above where I've indicated that various civil protections/services and
>>due-process are values which people desire (things are *only* values because
>>people are willing to give values in exchange to possess them). Thus, such
>>services will be provided.
>>
>>That means that there will be private competitive businesses providing
>>police/fire/courts/jails, etc.
>
>You mean just like ancient Rome were they showed up at the fire and
>asked if you wanted to sell the property cheap. If so they put it out.
>If not they let it burn. Of course having private armies (read police)
>for the rich wouldn't put a cramp in anyone else's style. Uh-huh.
>
>" Gee my police can beat your police"
You seem to be very ignorant of a number of viable ideas on how such
mechansisms would function in a free market.
You should at least attempt to educate yourself slightly as to the arguments
which have existed for over 25 years, and which refute your scenarios above.
Unfortunately, I dont' have time to provide you that education via
debate--but am more than happy to debate it with you once you've secured a
basic uunderstanding.
I recommend the book "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman which can
be ordered through Laissez Faire Books:
To briefly touch on your argument, the private fire department, in
competition with other private fire departments, is not very likely to
coerce you into a sale of your home for fear of losing every last one of
their monthly, dues-paying customers--as well as receiving a visit from one
of the local private police companies.
The rich are typically rich because they tend to provide things people
voluntarily pay them to possess--like food, shoes, houses, cars, etc., etc.
I see no reason to fear their private police companies. What's more, the
largest private police companies (your armies) would market themselves to
the entire poulation. For example, in a large metropol of 2 million people,
where each family pays $20 per month police subscription, and there are 4
companies with roughly 25% of the market each, that's $10 million per month
in revenue for each company.
There are few rich people who would be willing to spend that kind of money
to finance an army, and even if they did, they're still only 1/4th the size
of the combined forces of the popolation. What's this $10 million in raw
cost supposed to deliver to them?
So, the rich go back to doing what they do best--which is to get richer and
richer by designing and producing what we most desire, and providing it to
us in exchange.
>>Here's an account you should read. It addresses two issues. One is the
>>Robber Baron fallacy and the other is corporations which are protected by
>>the corercive force of government (such as DeBeers). Incidentally, in a free
>>society (i.e., without the possibility of coercive force), the only way to
>>establish a monopoly is to be of such a benefit to consumers that no one can
>>beat you. All true monopolies are state-sponsored.
>
>DeBeers is NOT protected by government sir. Try reading some of their
>history- they RAN the governments in a couple of places and killed off
>their "competitors" in several cases.
Non-essential distinction. If they ran the government, then they were the
governmet and were thus using its coercive power to keep the monopily
intact.
and if they killed off their competitors in places where killing was illegal
per the state, then were was the state to prosecute.
Thank you for providing facts to substantiate my claim--that in this case
anyway, the state is what keep the monopoly secure.
>All true monopolies are not state sponsored, they frequently exist by
>extortion and coercion. If you think the IRS is bad try a large
>multinational that has NO limits on it. Can you say bloodbath?
You mean companies killing their customers? Makes perfect sense.
And again, where is the state prosecuting this extortion and coercion?
Huh?
>The other way to establish a monopoly is to kill or destroy or
>threaten your competitors. Don't forget, they have more money to
>buy...er....support the local free enterprise police force and judge.
And again, where is the state prosecuting this murder and assault?
Huh?
Your problem is in your failure to recognize crimes comitted by governments
as crimes. The way monopilies are established is through the coercive hand
of government--either directly, or in a hands-off approach, letting crimes
go unprosecuted/unpunished.
In a "private government" scenario, the interests of the customers rule, not
the interests of politicians. Thus, force used against competition would be
dealt with in kind.
>I have to admit, you're the first person of your type that I have seen
>that actually thinks that having large corporations run things would
>be better than having a government. Usually most people with your
>philosophy want to destroy both.
I'm an anarchist, not a nihilist.
Do all of you people have such trouble with distinctions?
Nicholas Rich
In article <33cd041d...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim Manson) wrote:
>
>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>closely related to your argument as concerns extortion, is to gloss over the
>>fact that money is being forcibly taken from people against their will, and
>>to point to all the "good things" it buys, and which you claim cannot be
>>purchased in any other fashion.
>>
>
>Under your reasoning any mandatory expense is theft such as food.
By our natures as corporeal beings, we require food and other things in
order to survive. However, for conscious beings, survival is a choice. Most
of us choose to survive, and thus, the requirement to work in some form of
excahnge for sustinence is implicit in that choice.
There is no third party stealing half my money against my will, using 10% of
it to buy me things like food (and the other 90% on bullshit I wouldn't buy
in a million years), telling me what a great deal I'm getting, and
attempting to make me feel guilty for not being more "generous."
>Obviously you have the choice of which food to buy but you must
>eventually purchase food. Therefore whomever you buy food from is
>stealing from you. Since you have the option of not paying taxes,
>which creates consequences much like starving, and you have the option
>of going elsewhere to pay taxes instead of here it looks exactly the
>same.
You have a warped, warped sense of analogy. The requirment for food is a
requirment by physical/biological nature. It *cannot* be otherwise. Those
who provide food in exchange for other values are simply providing us one of
many convenient and inconvenient means of meeting that physical requirement.
They are taking nothing from us. We desire food, we give them something
which they desire more than the food they possess, and they give us the food
in exchange.
This does not describe a taxation scenario in even the remotest respect.
You cannot get *underneath* the idenitification that taxation is involuntary
taking. The goods and/or services provided by government in return are
after-the-fact and irrelevant. Food merchants do not come and first take our
money and then give us whatever food they wish in "exchange."
I note with glee that my opponents in this debate are increasingly
attempting to make analogies to the free-market to desribe taxation. One
wonders why they don't simply take the next step and go free-market all the
way.
>Of course this also assumes that you can grow your own food as long as
>you can buy the land to farm on ( another theft from you ).
>
>Life is full of things you have to do even if you don't want to do
>them.
Your chief problem is in failing to differentiate between the metaphysical
and the man-made.
Nature contains all sorts of perdicaments whereby thousands, even,
potentially millions or billions would die in natural disasters. Our sun
could explode, kill us all, and there would not be a soul to blame.
This does not mean that we should accept a man-made holocaust such as
perpetuated by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
Nicholas Rich
In article <33c8b8c0...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>Arbitration only works if both sides agree. And your hero's idea that
>the competing companies will "work" together is BS.
Companies regularly include arbitration provisions in their contracts. So,
your assertion is false as a simple matter of fact. In both the case of
these companies and the private police forces, arbitration agreements are
arived at *prior* to a dispute, and for the purpose of *keeping costs low*
in the event of a dispute.
One would expect private police forces to be even more circumspect in this
area. In standard business, where arbitration clauses are standard fair, all
these companies have to motivate them in this direction is the high cost of
litigation. In the case of private police, where lots of resources are spent
on outfitting and training qualified police officers, you really want to
reduce the risk of them being shot at, killed, and your property damaged and
destroyed in disputes with other police forces. Since you can't just raise
taxes, or tax at all, violence cuts into your profits.
The private police most successful at keeping costs (violence) down, are
those most competitive and successful in the long run.
>Think about it. The two companies are trying to gain customers. They
>decide to allow Joe and his friends to get the TV and they are going
>to lose customers. The average person isn't going to care if Joe was
>right or if he was wrong, they are going to care if the company
>protected their customer or not.
Don't forget that they did initially protect their customer. However, rather
than risk a costly confrontation, both agencies submitted to arbitration
(due process).
By your argument, our population on the whole should want nothing to do with
the local police because they in fact have arrested rather than protected a
fair number of the local government's "customers."
In fact, most of us have had a run-in or two with the police in the past,
even as minor as traffic tickets--yet in general, we still recognize their
overall value.
Your objections are not very strong. There are some good objections which
are difficult to handle, but you've not raised any of them. To learn about
them, you'd have to educate yourself on this topic.
Nicholas Rich
In article <33c9ba03...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
>>
>>Hint: Dumping toxic stuff *is* coercively harming someone else.
>
>Of course it is you moron. What's your point?
You wrote:
>So you reject all laws that don't have a direct coercive effect on
>stopping someone from harming someone else.
>
>So you have no problem with people dumping toxic stuff in your food
>supply or your water system. If you do how are you going to regulate
>it with no government?
So, obviously, if I reject laws "that don't have a direct coercive effect on
stopping someone from harming someone else," then you're inferrence is that
the only laws I *do support* are those which *do* "have a direct coercive
effect on stopping someone from harming someone else." Since you agree that
"dumping toxic stuff in your food supply or your water system" is coercively
harming someone else, then it does not follow that I "have no problem with
people dumping toxic stuff in your food supply or your water system."
Thus, your original complaint was ignorant and non-sequitur.
>The question is what the hell are you going to do about it assuming
>you can even discover it? It may likely be happening hundreds or
>thousands of miles away from you.
>
>Going to go storm their gates?
>
>Under your system they would simply shoot you and throw you in the
>river along with the toxins. And I seriously doubt your "private
>police" are going to do squat about it.....guess who has more money to
>entice them.
Your not-thought-out objections are not very inspiring to put any effort
into a response. And, much of this has already been covered in other posts.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5q6ggn$4...@panix3.panix.com>, wse...@panix.com (Wesley Serra)
wrote:
>I'm not in the least sidestepping. I just refuse to let you frame the
>question in a loaded manner. If you are not newly arrived from Mars, the
>following should be obvious.
>
>The whole idea of "law" is that there are rules which society has in some
>manner adopted which must be followed. If they are not followed, certain
>consequences flow, usually adverse to the lawbreaker. This is not
>extortion simply because that is not what the word means. You, like
>Humpty Dumpty, can have a word mean whatever you wish it to mean, but the
>rest of us, like Webster's, do not equate "legislate" with "extort".
Extortion and theft cannot be made into non-extortion and non-theft by
legislative act or votes. You can "legitimize" it, but then you are simply
rationalizing.
Theft is theft regardless of laws, orders, authorities, votes, legislatures,
constitutions, etc. Theft is theft.
>The question, then, is what rationale distinguishes the legislator from
>the extortionist. Jefferson wrote it best: "the consent of the
>governed".
No, the consent of the governed does not chage A into non-A. A is A. Votes
and legislative act may provide circumstances wich allow you to get away
with perpetrating A, but it doesn't change the nature of A.
You have a tremendous problem on your hands. You have backed yourself into a
corner whereby you are arguing that moral right and wrong is determined by
government act. This is a very dangerous place to be. Our country was the
first to be founded on the idea that the government is subject to the same
moral principles as the people.
>If you are unable to distinguish the Nazis from the Democrats and
>Republicans, we simply do not have enough common ground to debate. But
>everybody's nuts except you and Joe Neo-Tech.
You're dropping context. The purpose is in the analogy. Regardless of any
due-process, laws, votes by the German people, the German constitution,
war-powers, etc., Hitler's acts were still murder. The fact that he may have
had official support only means that he had a chance of getting away with
murder, not that his acts were not murder.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5qe35g$n...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>>For one, you don't even have basic facts straight. The the thiefs and
>>murderers are not the ones who enter into arbitration. They are pursued by
>>private justice agencies. If they attempt to defend themseves by hiring an
>>agency of their own, it is the two agencies who have pre-existing
>>arbitration agreements (since these are businesses, and thus, wielding force
>>cuts into profits).
>
>But nothing forces the criminal to use the services of a private justice
>agency.
Correct, and so he has no one to protect him from apprehension and
prosecution by private agencies. IOW, it functions much the same as now,
only those doing the policing and prosecution are private companies beholden
to paying customers who want costs at minimum, not state agencies run by
politicians with the power to tax at gunpoint.
>It seems more likely that they would hire a renenegade agency
>willing to use force, or assemble a team of private contractors
>willing to use force, or go it alone with a lot of weapons in hopes
>of intimidating others or making the risk of getting the TV back not
>worth the benefit of actually getting it back.
If companies are going to go to the trouble of securing men, equipment, and
training them to be effective against other companies, then they would have
more incentive to operate above-board because then they can compete in the
open marketplace--and as I described in another post, it would take some
mighty financing to have a force with any hopes of successfully using
violence against the police forces of law-abiding society.
To use an analogy, there might be a small sofware company or two which would
choose to operate in the area of hacking and cracking, rather than in the
legitimate marketplace. But these are just criminals too--like their
customers, and we don't have any legitimate fear that they will sudenly step
into Microsoft's or Apple's shoes.
As to the risk-vs-benefit, that happens now as well. However, there's
another crucial element in my scenario: customers and competition. Wouldn't
ABC Security, the competition, love to advertize to ACME Security's
customers that ACME lets criminals get off because it costs so much to
apprehend and prosecute some of them (and, of course, at the same time,
offer a special deal for customers to switch agencies). Part of your
problem. JG, is that you're not thinking like a businessman.
>>If an agency attempts to set up to cater to criminals, not the 99% of the
>>law-abiding population (the vast majority of the market and revenue),
>>refuses to negotiate pre-existing arbitration agreements, and then attemps
>>to protect clientelle who are being pursued by the agencies of the
>>law-abiding populace, they face a hopeless war with the rest of society and
>>will quickly be driven out of business.
>
>I don't see this at all. First, there will always be a group of
>people willing to pay a premium to obtain things unfairly, and there
>will probably be people and groups who will accommodate them.
See my other post which discusses revenue, and see above.
>Second,
>it won't be a hopeless war with "the rest of society." As you've
>described it, it will simply be one private agency against another.
There's no reason to suspect that, and it's difficule to imagine that a
criminally financed police company could overcome a company financed by
thousands of customers. There's lots of incentive for legitimate police
companies to band together against renegades. The renegade companies will
drive up costs for everyone.
Plus, imagine the PR that could be spun up, making heros of the agency or
agencies that did away with a band of renegades (and offers of special
incentives for customers to switch from the companies who did not
participate). Think like a businessman.
> Finally, history demonstrates that
>"the rest of society" will never force out crime and fraud. That's
>simply impossible, short of a massively totalitarian police state.
You're specifying an outcome again. Neither will your system get rid of
criminals. We're simply talking about the best way to deal with it. Since
keeping it in check is a value to nearly everyone, they will pay for that
value. Having freewheeling, comeptitive enterprises chasing the potential
revenue is the best possible scenario.
Michael_Hreczkosij
On the subject of competing defense agencies, a few months ago I engaged
in a lengthy debate with another individual on an objectivist mailing
list regarding the validity of the claims made by those who support the
idea of 'privitizing government'. I bagan the debate a little wet
behind my ears and Ididn't realize what strong points that the CDA
(competing defense agency) supporters have. However, it was not enough
to sway me. The idea is complicated and tricky enough, so why make
things worse by trying to debate people in a newsgroup setting where, as
most people know, very little intelligent conversation can be made. BY
presenting your points in a newsgroup, you are merely inviting flames
and, worse, failing to give people the opportunity to engare in a full
on discussion with all of the facts on the table and, here's the
clincher, agreed upon by all members of the discussion. That's why
you'll never convince people to change their mind on an ideological
topic through a newsgroup.
But anyways, back to the topic. Like I said before I have done qite a
bit of wrangling with this topic with a couple of other individuals. It
basically ended up boiling down to what has happened here. Someone
conjectures some scenario (Mr. A steals something from Mr. B, ETC ETC)
and then you duke it out to 'predict' what would happen in that case. I
would say this would happen, then they would say no this would happen,
then we'd go back and forth blah blah blah. You get the picture. We
discussed such fine details as currency exchanges, foreign relations,
property ownership by defense agencies, regulation of defence agencies,
and so on. Every time I said look at this see how ridiculous it would
be, to be honest, the CDA guys had some good answers. But not good
enough.
But the main problem with CDA is that it relies too much on how people
would act in a particular situation. It sets up a premise and says of
of corse this is what would logically happen, but it fails to take into
account what the entire science of sociology has had to say. In a
completely unregulated society with CDA's there is no way to predict how
people will behave. Human behavior, as a whole, is not just
unpredictable, but it is inherently chaotic. I am not a sociologist or a
psychic, and I don't think that you are either. You cannot confidently
state that if you were to wave a magic wand and change our govermental
structure, that people would act in certain ways or believe certain
things.
One practical prerequisite is that it requires a world wide paradigm
shift of govermental theory. It couldn't be just one nation because
believe you me as soon as the Federal government goes out of business,
ten other nations would be looking to take over. A world wide shift in
philosophy is unrealistic to expect without a massive nonrelaled event
such as a global war or natural cataclysm.
What I believe would be the logical end to CDA is that due to budget
constraints, it is cheaper for a CDA to localize it's clientele in a
reigon of land, thus resulting in the slow but steady segregation of
people into many small nation states, each represented by it's own CDA.
IN fact if you look at the world now, we do live in a world of Competing
defense agencies. Our main competitors are Canada to the north and
Mexico to the south. Both would love to have youu work there and pay
taxes into their coffers. What(besides immigration laws) prevents you
from choosing to live in any other country in the world? No one says
you have to live in the United States. By purchasing a deed of land in
the US you are agreeing to the contract between you and the US
government, which is really just a big bloated defense agency, just like
the rest of em.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5q6pg0$p...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>>To answert this objection, David Friedam has a chapter from his book,
>>_The Machinery of Freedom_ on the web at:
>
>The author never resolves this crucial question:
>
>>Inevitably, conflicts would arise between one protective agency and
>>another. How might they be resolved?
>
>Instead, he suggests:
>
>>The man from Tannahelp suggests that the better solution is arbitration.
>>They will take the dispute over my television set to a reputable local
>>arbitration firm. If the arbitrator decides that Joe is innocent,
>>Tannahelp agrees to pay Joe and Dawn Defense an indemnity to make up for
>>their time and trouble. If he is found guilty, Dawn Defense will accept
>>the verdict; since the television set is not Joe's, they have no
>>obligation to protect him when the men from Tannahelp come to seize it.
>
>But if Dawn Defense is actually guilty, he won't be willing to enter into
>these arrangements. He will get rid of the TV (perhaps by selling it),
>flee, or defend his ill-gotten gain against anyone who wants to take
>it away from him.
What do you mean, "if Dawn Defense is actually guilty?" I don't think you've
understood the scenario. Person 'A' has a private police force he pays a
monthly subscription to and so does person 'B'--a different, competing firm.
Person 'A' has a television set stolen, calls the police, and their
investigation suggests that Person 'B' stole it, not his police company.
If Person 'B' were a common criminal who had not subscribed to a private
protection service (I imagine that in order to cut costs, private police
would conduct routine background checks of subscribers, and deny service to
high-risks, just like insurance companies do), then it would be a simple
matter of Person 'A's' police apprehending him and getting back the TV plus
reasonable costs, and/or turning him over to one of the courts they have
contracted with for prosecution.
But as the scenario goes, Person 'B' does indeed have a police company he's
subscribed to. They arrive to protect Person 'B' from 'A's' police, and
having been trained to keep costs down by every means possible, the officers
check the computer and find that there is a pre-existing arbitration
agreement in place so that each company does not suffer losses in men and
equipment (analogous to preventing losses from the high cost of litigation
when arbitration clauses are used now).
Also, if violence erupts, the cost must be passed on to subscribers in
rate-hikes. So, companies who are less circumspect have higher costs,
smaller markets, and tend to be overtaken by more efficient competition.
As to your contention that Person 'B' would not want to submit to these
proceedings if he were guilty, you're probably right. So? It would be
natural for pre-existing arbitration agreements to include terms for keeping
someone in custody or out on bail, in a manner similar to how such things
are decided now.
That Person 'B' might get away with it--in spite of everyone's best
good-faith efforts is obvious. That happens now--quite a bit in fact.
You seem to be having a habit here of specifying an outcome to my proposed
system and forgetting about that stipulation when it comes to yours.
>People who steal and murder will not want to enter arbitration. They
>want to get away with their crimes. These points seem so obvious that
>I feel a bit silly even typing them. This scheme is strikingly
>Pollyanna-ish; I wonder what color the sky is in this guy's world.
Again, you seem to have not read clearly, did not comprehend, or are
purposely distorting. And, you're specifying an outcome again.
It doesn't matter what thieves and murderers want. And, some (lots) get away
with their crimes now, either before or after apprehension. Once
apprehended, in either system, there are means of deciding whether to hold
them in custody or release them on bail (bail bonds being a
private/competitive system already) or self-recognizance awaiting trail or
arbitration.
You seem to be making two fundamental errors. Your first is that you seem to
think that we desire vastly different results. We do not. I'm simply
offering what I believe is a more effective means of achieving the desired
results. Second, you seem to think that since the system I propose is
private, that there can be no use of procedures or techniques already
employed effectively in the state-system. That's not so. A great many of the
procedures would be identical--only run by private companies and not
politicians, there would be competition, and choice for the consumer. Those
companies which do the best job at objectively preventing and dealing with
crime at the lowest cost will have the largest markets.
Jim Manson
n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>In article <33c8b8c0...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
>Manson) wrote:
>>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>>Arbitration only works if both sides agree. And your hero's idea that
>>the competing companies will "work" together is BS.
>
>Companies regularly include arbitration provisions in their contracts. So,
>your assertion is false as a simple matter of fact. In both the case of
>these companies and the private police forces, arbitration agreements are
>arived at *prior* to a dispute, and for the purpose of *keeping costs low*
>in the event of a dispute.
They do so because courts and laws currently exist to stop free for
all competition so YOUR assertion is false since you claim they do it
of their own free will. You seem to keep forgetting that if you
eliminate ALL the competition you make a lot more money.
>
>One would expect private police forces to be even more circumspect in this
>area. In standard business, where arbitration clauses are standard fair, all
>these companies have to motivate them in this direction is the high cost of
>litigation. In the case of private police, where lots of resources are spent
>on outfitting and training qualified police officers, you really want to
>reduce the risk of them being shot at, killed, and your property damaged and
>destroyed in disputes with other police forces. Since you can't just raise
>taxes, or tax at all, violence cuts into your profits.
>
Again- it only cuts into profit in the short run, if you eliminate
your competition you make a lot more in the long run. What on earth
makes you think they are going to produce highly trained police
officers? There is no reason to, you can simply turn them out, arm
them and point them in the general direction. Remember- no laws, no
regulations, no rules except survival of the fittest. Property damage?
Not theirs- third parties who have no recourse at all. Try reading the
Cold Cash War by Robert Asprin sometime, it rings a lot more true
than your utopian ideal.
>The private police most successful at keeping costs (violence) down, are
>those most competitive and successful in the long run.
Or the last ones standing- you seem to keep forgetting that. Remember
the idea of monopolies?
>
>>Think about it. The two companies are trying to gain customers. They
>>decide to allow Joe and his friends to get the TV and they are going
>>to lose customers. The average person isn't going to care if Joe was
>>right or if he was wrong, they are going to care if the company
>>protected their customer or not.
>
>Don't forget that they did initially protect their customer. However, rather
>than risk a costly confrontation, both agencies submitted to arbitration
>(due process).
Unlikely- they lose a customer and all his friends.
>
>By your argument, our population on the whole should want nothing to do with
>the local police because they in fact have arrested rather than protected a
>fair number of the local government's "customers."
Ever seen all the protests out there when the police kill a drug
dealer?
>In fact, most of us have had a run-in or two with the police in the past,
>even as minor as traffic tickets--yet in general, we still recognize their
>overall value.
We don't have a lot of choice now do we?
>
>Your objections are not very strong. There are some good objections which
>are difficult to handle, but you've not raised any of them. To learn about
>them, you'd have to educate yourself on this topic.
>
You haven't even answered the ones that I have brought up. I would
really hate to see how poorly you handle the difficult ones.
Jim Manson
n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>In article <33cd041d...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim Manson) wrote:
>>
>>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>So, your argument is *not* that taxation is not theft. Your argument,
>>>closely related to your argument as concerns extortion, is to gloss over the
>>>fact that money is being forcibly taken from people against their will, and
>>>to point to all the "good things" it buys, and which you claim cannot be
>>>purchased in any other fashion.
>>>
>>
>>Under your reasoning any mandatory expense is theft such as food.
>
>By our natures as corporeal beings, we require food and other things in
>order to survive. However, for conscious beings, survival is a choice. Most
>of us choose to survive, and thus, the requirement to work in some form of
>excahnge for sustinence is implicit in that choice.
You have the free choice to not pay your taxes. Thoreau did so
himself. You do however have consequences of your actions. Your choice
is nore more coerced that the idea of buying food.
>
>There is no third party stealing half my money against my will, using 10% of
>it to buy me things like food (and the other 90% on bullshit I wouldn't buy
>in a million years), telling me what a great deal I'm getting, and
>attempting to make me feel guilty for not being more "generous."
>>Obviously you have the choice of which food to buy but you must
>>eventually purchase food. Therefore whomever you buy food from is
>>stealing from you. Since you have the option of not paying taxes,
>>which creates consequences much like starving, and you have the option
>>of going elsewhere to pay taxes instead of here it looks exactly the
>>same.
>
>You have a warped, warped sense of analogy. The requirment for food is a
>requirment by physical/biological nature. It *cannot* be otherwise. Those
>who provide food in exchange for other values are simply providing us one of
>many convenient and inconvenient means of meeting that physical requirement.
>They are taking nothing from us. We desire food, we give them something
>which they desire more than the food they possess, and they give us the food
>in exchange.
>
You can say the same about roads, schools, police, fire, etc. But then
again since you postulate some distorted idea that all companies are
benevolent and will work for the common good of their own free will I
doubt of reality is going to have much impact on your thinking.
Nicholas Rich
In article <33ce792c...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
Manson) wrote:
>You have the free choice to not pay your taxes. Thoreau did so
>himself. You do however have consequences of your actions. Your choice
>is nore more coerced that the idea of buying food.
"You have the free choice to not pay your "protection." [...] You do however
have consequences of your actions. Your choice is nore more coerced than the
idea of buying food."
..
>You can say the same about roads, schools, police, fire, etc. But then
>again since you postulate some distorted idea that all companies are
>benevolent and will work for the common good of their own free will I
>doubt of reality is going to have much impact on your thinking.
I've never made such a claim in these discussions. I happen to believe that
most companies are, in-fact, run in a benevolent fashion, regarless of their
underlying motives and intentions. All I need do is look around to the
various goods and services we all enjoy.
However, that belief is irrelevent, for, it does not matter their motives
and intentions. Companies do what is in their best interest. A cursory
knowledge of business and economics reveals that only those businesses which
satisfy their customers survive long term. ...That is, unless they happen to
be a state-sponsored monopoly or the state looks the other way and doesn't
prosecute their crimes.
Without a state to monopolize certain industries and serivices, or
to perpetuate competition stiffling legislation for big-time campaign
contributors, there would be a larger number of businesses operating
benevolently as they would have no fallback position or protection from a
coercive state.
Nicholas Rich
In article <33CD4E...@minna.cns.iit.edu>, Michael_Hreczkosij
<hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>But the main problem with CDA is that it relies too much on how people
>would act in a particular situation. It sets up a premise and says of
>of corse this is what would logically happen, but it fails to take into
>account what the entire science of sociology has had to say. In a
>completely unregulated society with CDA's there is no way to predict how
>people will behave. Human behavior, as a whole, is not just
>unpredictable, but it is inherently chaotic. I am not a sociologist or a
>psychic, and I don't think that you are either. You cannot confidently
>state that if you were to wave a magic wand and change our govermental
>structure, that people would act in certain ways or believe certain
>things.
Rubbish. There's no reason to suspect that people will act in any way
differently than they have for thousands of years--and that is to act in
what they deem is in their own best interest, typically within the
constraints of one of many similar belief systems which have gradually
evolved to an extent where less and less guilt is foistered upon people for
acting in ways which will bring them long-term happiness.
Your argument reminds me of those slippery-slope arguments which suggest
that if we removed all the drug laws, that society would be destroyed in an
orgy of drug abuse.
Besides all of that, the only real difference we're talking about is the
means of achieving a desired set of outcomes. Advocates of the state believe
that can best be done though a system of coercion run by politicians. I
think, and I believe I have good reason, that these desired outcomes can
best be achieved by removing constraints which prevent free-market
entrepreneurs from tackling the problems, satisfying their customers, and
profiting as a result.
>One practical prerequisite is that it requires a world wide paradigm
>shift of govermental theory. It couldn't be just one nation because
>believe you me as soon as the Federal government goes out of business,
>ten other nations would be looking to take over. A world wide shift in
>philosophy is unrealistic to expect without a massive nonrelaled event
>such as a global war or natural cataclysm.
This is a good argument. Obviously, some mechanism would need to be in place
for national defense. There are some viable plans on how to finance it
privately in such a society.
Another solution to defense involves the gradual elimination of all borders.
Without governments, only the borders of private property are relevent.
Also, Winston Churchill recognized that the trade was the best way to keep
countries at peace.
>What I believe would be the logical end to CDA is that due to budget
>constraints, it is cheaper for a CDA to localize it's clientele in a
>reigon of land, thus resulting in the slow but steady segregation of
>people into many small nation states, each represented by it's own CDA.
You've obviously never heard of McDonald's, 7-11, Mailboxes Etc., or the
plethora of other business franchises that operate in large and small areas
alike--but under roughly the same set of procedures worldwide.
>IN fact if you look at the world now, we do live in a world of Competing
>defense agencies.
Not in even the remotest business sense, we don't.
Nicholas Rich
In article <33cd7755...@news.visi.com>, jma...@nospam.visi.com (Jim
>n...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>>Companies regularly include arbitration provisions in their contracts. So,
>>your assertion is false as a simple matter of fact. In both the case of
>>these companies and the private police forces, arbitration agreements are
>>arived at *prior* to a dispute, and for the purpose of *keeping costs low*
>>in the event of a dispute.
>
>They do so because courts and laws currently exist to stop free for
>all competition so YOUR assertion is false since you claim they do it
>of their own free will. You seem to keep forgetting that if you
>eliminate ALL the competition you make a lot more money.
1. You are awfully ignorant about why individuals and companies, regardless
of government, enter into arbitration. In fact, arbitration predates both
formal government and formal law ("Stateless Not Lawless": Voluntaryism and
Arbitration; http://users.aol.com/vlntryst/wn84.html ). Most people do not
want conflict and they don't want the cost of conflict. It matters not what
structure a government, or no government erects to deal with disputes. The
fact is that arbitration is by nature the quickest, easiest, least costly
method of resolution, and is why it has been employed for thousands of
years. Specific to business, disputes cost money and eat into profits. If
you manufacture cars for a living, you have not the slightest interest in
shooting it up with sheet-metal suppliers. You just want to make cars and
get on with it.
2. You can't eliminate your competition now unless you can get politicians
in your pocket to either eliminate it for you, or look the other way. There
is precendent here. In a private economy, you could only eliminate your
competition through buying off *all* of the separate defense companies.
Perhaps not impossible--but a lot more unlikely.
>>One would expect private police forces to be even more circumspect in this
>>area. In standard business, where arbitration clauses are standard fair, all
>>these companies have to motivate them in this direction is the high cost of
>>litigation. In the case of private police, where lots of resources are spent
>>on outfitting and training qualified police officers, you really want to
>>reduce the risk of them being shot at, killed, and your property damaged and
>>destroyed in disputes with other police forces. Since you can't just raise
>>taxes, or tax at all, violence cuts into your profits.
>>
>Again- it only cuts into profit in the short run, if you eliminate
>your competition you make a lot more in the long run.
See above. There is substantially less chance that someone could eliminate
*all* competition without a *monopoly* coercive government to enfoce it.
>What on earth
>makes you think they are going to produce highly trained police
>officers? There is no reason to, you can simply turn them out, arm
>them and point them in the general direction.
What makes me think it is perhaps the same thing that makes me always go the
extra mile for my own clients--and why each automobile I buy is far superior
to the last one I bought, and why each new computer is more powerful and
less costly than the last, and on and on.
You are also embarrassingly ignorant about business and competition. You
seem to forget all the basics about markets. The only reason there is a
market for police is that people want protection--and trained, armed police
can generaly provided it.
In our economy, the state confiscates your money and gives you whatever they
wish, in whatever quality they determine. In a private economy, you have a
choice. Perhaps one company has less-well-trained officers for $20 per month
and another has top-notch for $50 per month. One would expect that the
nicest neighborhoods will have the best cops--just like the richest people
get the best food, the safest cars, etc.
>Remember- no laws, no
>regulations, no rules except survival of the fittest....
Again, you demonstrate your utter and complete ignorance on the topic.
Anarchy is not the absence of law, it is the absence of coercive monopoly
state. In a private economy, law is determined by the marketplace
(cost/benefit), and enforced through private means.
>>Don't forget that they did initially protect their customer. However, rather
>>than risk a costly confrontation, both agencies submitted to arbitration
>>(due process).
>
>Unlikely- they lose a customer and all his friends.
Very unrealistic. This is like saying that K-Mart is unlikely to prosecute
someone for shoplifting because they'll lose the shoplifter and his friends
as customers.
What you don't realize (your ignorance about business shining through), is
that both the shoplifter and the TV thief represent costs that both
companies would rather do without--just like and insurance company who drops
you because of too many claims.
>You haven't even answered the ones that I have brought up. I would
>really hate to see how poorly you handle the difficult ones.
Oh come now. I have answered each objection in very adequate detail, and you
are quite obviously having an increasingly difficult time. And you should
note that responses from the others are thinning.
(hint: that's because the others are substantially smarter than you.)
William Rayment
Taxation is legitimate when it contributes to the building of an
infrastructure which an economy must have to operate. However, taxation
which is used to transfer wealth from any person or persons is necessarily
stealing. A free society is based on the idea of property (see John
Locke). If a man is coerced to transfer his wealth in ways he does not
desire then he has basically lost control of his life, his labor, and his
freedom.
WJ Rayment, Proprietor, http://www.conservativebookstore.com/Rand.html
Frank Ward
> >>>your part of not only the theories, but the basic answers to objections
> >>>which have been dealt with for more than 25 years already. If you were to
> >>>read Dr. Friedman's book, you might not agree with his conclusions, but I
> >>>doubt the objections you would raise would be those below.
> >
> >>objection to your constant "taxes are extortion" refrain, you refuse
> >>to talk about it.
> >
> >admit that taxes are theft, "but we just need to make it as 'fair' as
> >possible." I guess that means to steal from everyone equally.
> >
> >Talk about taking the moral high ground! NOT!
> >
> >>If you weren't prepared to discuss the matter intelligently, you
> >>shouldn't have raised it.
> >
> >of no way you can use it to demonstrate that taxes aren't theft.
>
> Easy.
>
> 1. Theft = the wrongful taking of someone else's property.
>
> 2. Taxation is not a wrongful taking because it is necessary to maintain
> services that are vital to a sophisticated society.
Come on Joe, you're a law student -- you should know better than trying to base your
argument on the "Ends Justify the Means" fallacy.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5qlnra$l...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>If you keep mindlessly repeating "theft is theft," responses will
>eventually disappear.
Then the inference is that you disagree? Theft is non-theft? Or, I suppose,
in your case..."non-wrongful" (meaning: by definition, not act) taking of
property by force or coercion because its necessary for a sophisticated,
"just" society is non-theft.
Roger.
Michael_Hreczkosij
Nicholas Rich wrote:
>
> In article <33CD4E...@minna.cns.iit.edu>, Michael_Hreczkosij
> <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>
In a
> >completely unregulated society with CDA's there is no way to predict how
> >people will behave. Human behavior, as a whole, is not just
> >unpredictable, but it is inherently chaotic. I am not a sociologist or a
> >psychic, and I don't think that you are either. You cannot confidently
> >state that if you were to wave a magic wand and change our govermental
> >structure, that people would act in certain ways or believe certain
> >things.
>
> Rubbish. There's no reason to suspect that people will act in any way
> differently than they have for thousands of years--and that is to act in
> what they deem is in their own best interest, typically within the
> constraints of one of many similar belief systems which have gradually
> evolved to an extent where less and less guilt is foistered upon people for
> acting in ways which will bring them long-term happiness.
suddenly start acting in anyway differently than they have been, which
is inherently unpredictable, and seemingly irrational when looked upon
in a global fashion. Whether it be psychological or behavioral
problems, many people do not act in a rational fashion that will obtain
and support their self interests. The feasability of CDA depends on the
fact that most people will act in a rational self interested fashion
with middle to long range goals in mind.
> Your argument reminds me of those slippery-slope arguments which suggest
> that if we removed all the drug laws, that society would be destroyed in an
> orgy of drug abuse.
I don't see the connection. Can you please illuminate?
> Besides all of that, the only real difference we're talking about is the
> means of achieving a desired set of outcomes. Advocates of the state believe
> that can best be done though a system of coercion run by politicians. I
> think, and I believe I have good reason, that these desired outcomes can
> best be achieved by removing constraints which prevent free-market
> entrepreneurs from tackling the problems, satisfying their customers, and
> profiting as a result.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I am an advocate of the state but
in no way do I sanction the idea of a coercive system plagued with dirty
politics and unethical people. I endorse the fact that free men and
women may freely come together and enter into pacts which are binding
among them, which is certainly how I view the constitution and bill of
rights. The details of such a pact/constitution are technicalities, as
long as they do not initiate force upon any individual involved in the
pact. Thus the US may tax it's citizens but Hitler is not justified in
invading another country. Don't try the coy defense of well I never
agreed to this system. If you don't like the system then either stop
using all services of the government by way of which you are looting
from me, or move to another nation and become a healthy moral individual
in a pact you freely enter into.
> This is a good argument. Obviously, some mechanism would need to be in place
> for national defense. There are some viable plans on how to finance it
> privately in such a society.
What are those plans? I cannot envision a Conlomerate Denfense Army
being able to effectively protect our lands from invaders with so many
"hands in the pot"
> Another solution to defense involves the gradual elimination of all borders.
> Without governments, only the borders of private property are relevent.
Correct. One benefit of government is that there exist public grounds
for use by all, combined with the assurance that someone will be there
to maintain the grounds. I like being able to walk through a park. If
all the property in the world were owned by someone or another, how many
tolls and fees would I have to pay as I walked down private sidewalks
befoer I got to a park in which I had to pay an fee in order to sit on
the grass or play frisbee. That is if the owner deemed that an empty
park was profitable enough as compared to a parking lot or movie theater
Not to say we shouldn't have parking lots or Movie theaters. i just
like the idea that we as a society can agree to put aside undeveloped
land for everyone to enjoy . One of those benefits of paying taxes I
guess, which you obviously as a moral person would not take advantage
of, refusing to sanction the efforts of a tyrannous government.
>What I believe would be the logical end to CDA is that due to budget
> >constraints, it is cheaper for a CDA to localize it's clientele in a
> >reigon of land, thus resulting in the slow but steady segregation of
> >people into many small nation states, each represented by it's own CDA.
>
> You've obviously never heard of McDonald's, 7-11, Mailboxes Etc., or the
> plethora of other business franchises that operate in large and small areas
> alike--but under roughly the same set of procedures worldwide.
I have a feeling that as far as personal defense goes. If you own a
McDonalds style defense agency and I own a nice big chunk of land that I
regularly patrol and keep safe, that I will be far mroe profitable and
efficient in meeting my customers needs. Sort of like Modern Day
feudalism.
>
> >IN fact if you look at the world now, we do live in a world of Competing
> >defense agencies.
>
> Not in even the remotest business sense, we don't.
Demonstrate this statement please. How does geographically seperated
nations with differentiated defense units not qualify?
Steve Hreczkosij
GalactusNT
William Rayment <raym...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
<01bc9309$4e796aa0$4b9caec7@default>...
The first sentence contradicts the rest of the paragraph.
Instead of wealth transfer from person to person, you have wealth
transfer in the name of the greater good - and who is the definer
of the greater good ? ( In other words, provided you do good with
the money its ok to steal it.)
Not the person being taxed into oblivion. Not the person who
has to do with less so that others may have access to an
"infrastructure" that the taxed may never use.
I now have to pay a stinking $5.00 more a month on my overall phone
bill so the "children" of Hillary's village may have an "infrastructure"
on which to surf the Net. And I could list 100 hundred other items
my taxes support infrastructurally which I do not use, or do not
support, or vehemently protest. And the service infrastructure I
do get is not even close to the $42000.00 dollars extracted from
me at a point of a gun last year....!
We will ignore that those $42,000.00 conservatively invested over
the rest of my lifetime would have left $8,000,000.00 to my
heirs.
We haven't even touched on the fact that the infrastructure
should not be public, but be private, privately managed and generally
not the property of the U.S. government.
etc.etc.etc
--
___________________________________________________
http://rsilvetz.erols.com
Nicholas Rich
In article <5qmpb9$r...@elaine11.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>Frank Ward <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
>> -- you should know better than trying to base your
>>argument on the "Ends Justify the Means" fallacy.
>
>That's not a fallacy. You may disagree with the argument, but it
>is logically valid.
It's logically valid, but quite incomplete and non-difinitive. For instance,
I could say that the definition for man is: "an animal with hair that makes
noise." Logically valid, but neither complete nor *difinitive.* Likewise,
your "definition" is of a similar vein, arbitrary (the use of the word
"wrongful" is completely non-difinitive). It's like saying that a table is
defined as "a piece of furniture." What category or kind of furniture? What
category of kind of wrongfulness?
The convenience of your definition of theft is that the definer, the one
reading the definition, or someone, gets to decide what's "wrongful." So, by
manipulation of the word wrongful, virtually any taking could be theft or
non-theft, depending on the spin, context, manipulation.
But fear not, there is an *objective* definition.
There are facts of reality which *give rise* to the concept of theft. Those
facts are when property is taken through "an act of initiatory (not
retaliatory) force, coercion, fraud, deception (all categories of initiatory
force)." IOW, when the foregoing set of facts are in place with respect to
any act, we call that act an act of theft, and thus, that act of theft is
theft--regardless of what legislatures legislate, constitutions constitute,
voters vote, or people think, believe, have faith in, trust, or act upon.
Notice: this removes the contradiction that if I say to you, "give me
$10,000 or leave the country--or I'll lock you up," it's an act of force,
and *I* get locked up. But, if the government says it...well, you can't
sanely say it's not an act of force...you can just conveniently claim that
it's not "wrongful."
And everyone sees what a fraud you are.
Also, notice: this leaves room for legitimate takings which are in
*retaliation* for acts of force, such as the breach of contract, assault,
theft, etc.
There, now you have a perfectly consistent, logically valid, complete and
objective definition for theft, which BTW, is still theft, and which, BTW,
is what practice our government engages in through taxation.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5qog16$k...@elaine19.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <5qmpb9$r...@elaine11.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
>>(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>>>
>>>That's not a fallacy. You may disagree with the argument, but it
>>>is logically valid.
[You might in the future wish to indicate that there was other stuff
in-between the foregoing and herebelow--just in case someone reading want to
check up on it. Some people use '<snip>,' and I prefer a simple '...']
>>The convenience of your definition of theft is that the definer, the one
>>reading the definition, or someone, gets to decide what's "wrongful." So,
>>by manipulation of the word wrongful, virtually any taking could be theft
>>or non-theft, depending on the spin, context, manipulation.
>
>Whether something is "theft" often depends on context, and inevitably
>requires a normative judgment.
I agree, except where a "normative judgment" would drop us out of the
context of the objective definition for theft. And, the context for such a
decision to be made is in the context of whether or not a particular act of
taking was an act of *initiating* force. Granted, there are probably many
sorts of unique, complex sets of interrelated acts where it is difficult to
determine if force has been initiated or retaliated against--who's the
aggressor and who's the victim, etc. It is just those sorts of things that
make a trained, competent, *honest* legal mind a value. And, such decisions
over complex issues could serve as argument for future cases--(though I'm
not too keen on the idea of precedent, which allows errors to perpetuate. I
much prefer principles which are applied afresh in each separate case.)
>>But fear not, there is an *objective* definition.
>>
>>There are facts of reality which *give rise* to the concept of theft.
>>Those facts are when property is taken through "an act of initiatory (not
>>retaliatory) force, coercion, fraud, deception (all categories of
>>initiatory force)." IOW, when the foregoing set of facts are in place with
>>respect to any act, we call that act an act of theft, and thus, that act
>>of theft is theft--regardless of what legislatures legislate,
>>constitutions constitute, voters vote, or people think, believe, have
>>faith in, trust, or act upon.
>
>Sure, but only if you buy into Objectivism. Most people don't.
This has nothing to do with O/objectivism, per se. Objectivism simply has
its own language for expressing the same thing that all reality, reason,
science based philosophies and/or world-views essentially hold explicitly or
implicitly. Concepts denote things in reality and definitions *define*
(i.e., differentiate) concepts one from another.
Of course, Objectivism (as well as other idea systems) holds that the
initiation of force is morally wrong. But that's a separate question from
the objective definition of theft.
If you believe that the initiation of force is wrong, then you believe that
theft is wrong. If you believe that the *initiation* of force is sometimes
justified, then you believe that theft (such as in taxation) is sometimes
justified.
However, taxation is still theft.
What I'm doing, simply, is stripping away the illusions. I'm of course not
changing a thing. I'm not *making* taxation theft by my arguments, simply
*indetifying* it as so. I'm simply proclaiming that the Emperor, indeed, has
no clothes.
>You've first got to convince people that Objectivism is the proper
>set of values by which to judge things. And simply asserting that
>it is "objective" and that "the facts of reality" say so is a pretty
>lousy way of going about it.
I need do no such thing. What I've argued in this thread has a certain
meaning which is quite independent of the philosophic system of Objectivism.
A person need not be an Objectivist, or even believe a major portion of its
tenets in order to understand that taxation is theft, and why.
You might want to start actually addressing my arguments instead of
attacking where you believe they come from. I understand that it might be
easier for you to convict Objectivism in absentia, label what I'm saying as
"Objectivist," and pat yourself on the back. Address what's being said
directly--if you can.
>If you want to see how the rest of the population defines "theft,"
>consult a dictionary.
Well, I didn't think I would need to point out to you that what the
population believes hardly constitutes what's necessarily real--i.e., our
minds do not create reality, they perceive it. "If you want to see how the
rest of the population sees the world, consult a map (imagining one person's
utterance to Columbus)."
You're falling for the basic fallacy that a definition constitutes the
*meaning* of a concept. It does not. The meaning of a concept is very
simply: all facts of reality which give rise to that concept.
The concept of theft arises when you observe two or more instances of
takings where the taker does so in some forceful fashion which is not
retaliatory, i.e., it's initiatory. You strip away the measurements (what
and how much was taken) for the concept, and place a tag on it that you call
"theft," or "vol" if you speak French :) The next step is to define it. You
first need a genus: takings. Next, a differentia: by initiatory force. And
viola: theft is "takings by initiatory force."
You can't get more fundamental, and regardless of what other definitions
say, they do not constitute the full meaning of theft (neither does my own).
They simply offer different ways to assist you in differentiating theft
from other concepts. The best, most fundametal and defining way to do that
is via the definition I've offered, and, it happens that the act of taxation
meets squarely with the definition.
The Oxford doesn't do as well as I've done in defining theft, but it
certainly does a much better job that you (or Black's, if that's your
source). It defines theft as: "1 the act or instance of stealing 2 Law
dishonest appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or
her or it permanently."
Particularly, notice the use of the word "dishonest." I can think of nothing
more dishonest than taking one's property against his will, for uses decided
by others, which he does not support. I can think of nothing so dishonest as
to proclaim in response to the protest of such acts that one is "selfish,"
or most pernicious, is trying to live off others.
Nicholas Rich
In article <33CE9B...@minna.cns.iit.edu>, Michael_Hreczkosij
acting in ways which will bring them long-term happiness.
..
>You are correct in asserting that there is no reason that people will
>suddenly start acting in anyway differently than they have been, which
>is inherently unpredictable, and seemingly irrational when looked upon
>in a global fashion.
I disagree. Given that humans are beings of a volitional consciousness, I
would have to say that *in the aggregate,* the actions of humans throughout
history have been *highly rational and benevolent.* It's virtually
self-evident if you think about it. We began naked in caves. Look where we
are today. That we have even survived as a species (much less so marvelously
advanced ourselves) is cause for a great deal of credit in the light of the
recognition that so many have become extinct.
The proper assumption is that people will act rationally. But, economically
speaking, be careful. In economic terms, this is an amoral assessment. Thus,
though we may say that theft is immoral (and I believe it is), there are
cases where it might be economically "rational" to steal. Anarcho-Capitalism
has market-based means of dealing with such acts, not because they violate
some ethic, but because they infringe on property claimed by others, and the
vast majority of people have decided not to steal. Whether they came to such
a decision because "God told them" or because they believe that they stand
the best chance of not having things stolen from them if they promote a
non-theft policy--is irrelevant.
>Whether it be psychological or behavioral
>problems, many people do not act in a rational fashion that will obtain
>and support their self interests. The feasability of CDA depends on the
>fact that most people will act in a rational self interested fashion
>with middle to long range goals in mind.
People act to maximize their utility as they understand it. This is really
amoral, because people will rationalize and justify virtually anything, so
economically, not morally, this is rational.
However, the market too is amoral. For instance, cigarettes kill millions.
But the industry employs hundreds of thousands, and the direct and import
taxes dump tons of money into government cofers worldwide. So, here's a case
where everyone's acting voluntarily and "rationally" to maximize their
utility, but some people pay with their lives--and when they die from
smoking, they die much earlier, which saves society money in the long run.
Anarcho-Capitalism would generate laws against smoking only where such laws
were important enough to poeple that they would voluntarily pay for them.
For example, in order for CDAs to use a private court with a law against
smoking, they would have to determine what it would cost to enforce such a
law and what sort of market there would be for that service. If there are
not enough people to pay the CDA's enforcement plus profit, then the CDA
will not use that particular court with the no-smoking law, and the court
will be likely to drop the law. Then, those people who are really set on a
no smoking law might be motivated to seek out someplace in the country were
another court has a no smoking law, and relocate there. Eventually,
supporters congregate in a particular geographic area to the extent that it
would be profitable for private courts and CDA to offer such a law and
enforcement. But, notice what's happened. The market has motivated all sorts
of things in an amoral but rational fashion such that more and more people
get exactly what they want.
Apply this to virtually every law you might desire.
>> Your argument reminds me of those slippery-slope arguments which suggest
>> that if we removed all the drug laws, that society would be destroyed in an
>> orgy of drug abuse.
>
>I don't see the connection. Can you please illuminate?
The irrational premise. IOW, the only thing keeping us from irrationally
destroying ourselves in an orgy of drug-abuse is laws against such
behavior--or fear of consequences--take your pick.
And this resembles the gist of what you are saying. A CDA society will
unleash everyone's irrationality and well drown in a sea of nihilism.
Not trying to put words in your mouth, just telling you how your argument
strikes me.
>> Besides all of that, the only real difference we're talking about is the
>> means of achieving a desired set of outcomes. Advocates of the state believe
>> that can best be done though a system of coercion run by politicians. I
>> think, and I believe I have good reason, that these desired outcomes can
>> best be achieved by removing constraints which prevent free-market
>> entrepreneurs from tackling the problems, satisfying their customers, and
>> profiting as a result.
>Please do not put words in my mouth. I am an advocate of the state but
>in no way do I sanction the idea of a coercive system plagued with dirty
>politics and unethical people.
If you don't support a coercive system, how do you reconcile the fact that
if I established a CDA, opened for business to all who would pay for my
private protection services, "the system" would coercively put me out of
business the first time I arrested someone--regardless of what level of
care, training, and due-process circumspection I could demonstrate?
Incidentally, this question is one which Objectivists (who do not support
CDAs) have grappled with for over 3 decades and have never satisfactorily
answered.
..
>...as long as they do not initiate force...
then...
>Don't try the coy defense of well I never agreed to this system. If you
>don't like the system then either stop using all services of the government
>by way of which you are looting from me, or move to another nation and
>become a healthy moral individual in a pact you freely enter into.
Ok, so by the above, we've established that you do not agree with the
initiation of force.
So, if I demand that you pay me $10,000 or leave the country, ir it an act
of initiating force? If so, then why is it an act of initiating force when I
so it, but not an act of initiating force when the government does it?
As an aside, I don't mind paying reasonable use fees for whatever services I
use--regardless of who owns them. I do, however, object to a coercive
government who holds a government monopoly or governement-industry monopoly
on goods/services which are required for survival, arbitrarily takes half of
my income, and then claims it is justified in doing so because of the
services it provides.
If these services were so great, they'd offer then on a use basis so they
could potentially turn a profit--just like the Postal service is getting
better at doing (because of competition from FEDEX, UPS, DHL, and if there
wasn't a *law* against servicing 1st class mail, USPS would get even more
competitive).
>> This is a good argument. Obviously, some mechanism would need to be in place
>> for national defense. There are some viable plans on how to finance it
>> privately in such a society.
>
>What are those plans? I cannot envision a Conlomerate Denfense Army
>being able to effectively protect our lands from invaders with so many
>"hands in the pot"
There isn't room here to discuss it. However, there's a good discussion in
Dr Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom," available at http://www.lfb.org
>> Another solution to defense involves the gradual elimination of all borders.
>> Without governments, only the borders of private property are relevent.
>Correct. One benefit of government is that there exist public grounds
>for use by all, combined with the assurance that someone will be there
>to maintain the grounds. I like being able to walk through a park. If
>all the property in the world were owned by someone or another, how many
>tolls and fees would I have to pay as I walked down private sidewalks
>befoer I got to a park in which I had to pay an fee in order to sit on
>the grass or play frisbee.
You're brining up business problems, not economic or political ones. You're
simply talking about customer satisfaction and convenience. Businesses have
an interest in making things as convenient as possible for you. There would
be great interest in businesses associating to buy the sidewalks in order to
provide free and easy access to customers (kind of like a shopping mall).
Say you and I owned a street. We both charge for both auto access and foot
access on the sidewalk. Suddenly, I get a brilliant idea, and take away 100%
of your customers by offering free access to all. At the same time, I erect
billboards and sell advertising space to all the businesses in the
neighborhood. Before long, you have no choice but to follow suit--or even
perhaps figure out a way you can PAY people to take your road.
See, such "dilemas" are easy for a business mind to tackle.
> That is if the owner deemed that an empty
>park was profitable enough as compared to a parking lot or movie theater
>Not to say we shouldn't have parking lots or Movie theaters. i just
>like the idea that we as a society can agree to put aside undeveloped
>land for everyone to enjoy .
Are "we" really agreeing? If the owner puts in a movie theater or parking
lot, isn't that a better assessement that we are actually deciding
something--since we're paying for it directly.
Perhaps what you are really saying is that you prefer to have parks even
though most people would rather have a movie theater or better parking
access--and you're comforted because the democratically elected politicians
made the decision for us, allowing you to believe that "we" did.
There is a real easy way for us to agree on setting aside land for many
people to anjoy. We apply business to it. If it's really "we" who have an
interest, and our interest is sufficient that we are willing to reasonably
pay, then there is opportunity there and business was made to take advantage
of opportunity.
..
>>What I believe would be the logical end to CDA is that due to budget
>> >constraints, it is cheaper for a CDA to localize it's clientele in a
>> >reigon of land, thus resulting in the slow but steady segregation of
>> >people into many small nation states, each represented by it's own CDA.
>>
>> You've obviously never heard of McDonald's, 7-11, Mailboxes Etc., or the
>> plethora of other business franchises that operate in large and small areas
>> alike--but under roughly the same set of procedures worldwide.
>I have a feeling that as far as personal defense goes. If you own a
>McDonalds style defense agency and I own a nice big chunk of land that I
>regularly patrol and keep safe, that I will be far mroe profitable and
>efficient in meeting my customers needs. Sort of like Modern Day
>feudalism.
You're talking about different things here. You're talking about
self-policing and protecting land you own--not hiring one of several agencis
to do it for you.
If you live way out in the middle of nowhere, your choice will probably be
to self-police, or rely on the response time of whatever agency you hire--a
very similar dilema as faced by those who currently live in remote places.
In a remote town, there might be only sufficient market for one agency. So,
it would be very much similar to the current sutuation.
Just because some towns are too small for a McDonald's doesn't mean that the
franchise concept is flawed.
>> >IN fact if you look at the world now, we do live in a world of Competing
>> >defense agencies.
>>
>> Not in even the remotest business sense, we don't.
>Demonstrate this statement please. How does geographically seperated
>nations with differentiated defense units not qualify?
We don't have the option of allegiance to different competing governments
whilst remaining in the same geographic location, and virtually every
government, as a monopoly over its own territory, extorts its payment from
us.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5qlnje$l...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
..
>(to say that tax money is stolen is to beg the
>question).
I certainly don't see how. That's simply an identification of something
clearly well established (theft).
For instance, I doubt that anyone would question that if I told you to pay
me $10,000 or leave the country, it would be a coercive attempt to extort
(steal) $10,000 from you. And I doubt anyone would much care about any
"justifications" I had. "I was going to use it for my sick grandmother... I
was going to use part of it to improve the neighborhood... etc."
And the absolute *best* that anyone has come up with to claim that this act
would not be coercive extortion on the part of the government is you. And
what have you offered?
You offered nothing more substantial than...in fact what you offered closely
resembles my "justifications" given above.
And as I've said before, this does nothing to show that taxation is not
theft, it simply rationalizes it.
>>So, you first fail to show that taxation is not extortion (claiming it
>>should be as fair as possible though), and now that taxation is not theft (a
>>close cousin of extortion) by simply stating that the things it pays for are
>>necessary and cannot be delivered any other way.
>
>I haven't failed to show that taxation isn't theft or extortion. Theft
>and extortion involve the *wrongful* taking of property by force. My
>argument is that taxation isn't a wrongful taking because it is
>necessary for a sophisticated, just society.
In other words, and as I've already pointed out, you define theft in a
non-difinitive way which then conveniently allows you to subjectively decide
what's theft and not theft in any instance by applying standards *which are
not included in the definition.* By your definition, there is literally no
need for a definition. Your definition is as to say: "I'll tell you what
theft is as soon as you bring me a scenario and I can apply standards
which are not explicit or implicit in this definition."
..
Carter Bond
>Nicholas Rich wrote:
>>
>> In article <33CD4E...@minna.cns.iit.edu>, Michael_Hreczkosij
>> <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>>
> In a
>> >completely unregulated society with CDA's there is no way to predict how
>> >people will behave. Human behavior, as a whole, is not just
>> >unpredictable, but it is inherently chaotic. I am not a sociologist or a
>> >psychic, and I don't think that you are either. You cannot confidently
>> >state that if you were to wave a magic wand and change our govermental
>> >structure, that people would act in certain ways or believe certain
>> >things.
>>
Their is no way to predict that government will behave. What is your
point?
You reek of the arrogance of intelligentsia. A little Milan Kundara
would be good for you. Now their is writer who understands what an
arrogant intelligentsia can do.
The greatest flaw in liberal philosophy is that power(in the form of
government control of the people) is just as much a corrupter of human
behavior, as greed is. You really can't say one is worse then the
other. Giving government free run to do what ever it wants to will end
up in just as many people "enslaved and exploited" as any nightmare
liberal free market senario.
LCB
The Republic of New Finland
>
>You can say the same about roads, schools, police, fire, etc. But then
>again since you postulate some distorted idea that all companies are
>benevolent and will work for the common good of their own free will I
>doubt of reality is going to have much impact on your thinking.
Pardon me for bursting in on this thread, but I'd like to address a
small but important thing you said. Companies will NOT work for the
"Common good" of their own free will. A preposterous notion! why?
Adam Smith said it best:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the
baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own
interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their
self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their
advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly on the
benevolence of his fellow citizens" -- The Wealth of Nations (1776)
I wouldn't have it any other way. Whenever someone holds up a
subjective theory of good, shouting that we must sacrifice for "the
common good", the "national security", the "public interest". And
guess what? people get hurt, even die. In countries where the agency
of coercion has no restraint and has free reign: we have the horrors
of National Socialist Germany and the even worse horrors of Stalinist
Russia. Some, people hurt others for their own good, or so they say,
some rob, cheat and steal, but I find this behaviour less frightening
than crimes committed in the name of that shadowy entity, "the public
good" who summons millions to ritually disembowel themselves on its
altar. I do find companies are more benevolent than governments, if I
find the service at The Olive Garden to be lousy and refuse to pay
them full price or anything at all, they aren't going to hurt me and
rob me of my possessions. That is the province of the utilizers of
coercion.
Peace
Daisy Deadpetals
Scott D. Erb
In article <5qrd4o$q...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>,
jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU says...
>
>
>Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>>Well, I didn't think I would need to point out to you that what the
>>population believes hardly constitutes what's necessarily real--i.e.,
>>our minds do not create reality, they perceive it.
>But language and definitions depend on perceptions in particularly
>crucial ways.
>Do we have to send you to the library to read up on the past 100
>years of the philosophy of language? Start with Wittgenstein.
In any event, his own argument is self-defeating. If the beliefs of the
population does not constitute what is necessarily real - if our minds do
not create reality - then the same goes for him. What he believes to be
objectively true is not necessarily objectively true. What objectivists
consider objective is not necessarily objective.
>>You're falling for the basic fallacy that a definition constitutes the
>>*meaning* of a concept. It does not. The meaning of a concept is very
>>simply: all facts of reality which give rise to that concept.
How do you determine what a "fact" is, and what constitutes "reality" and
what causal links exist to determine what "gives rise" to a concept.
Face it - you take your beliefs on faith.
cheers, scott
Nicholas Rich
In article <5qrdn5$r...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>
>Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <5qlnje$l...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>,
>>jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>>
>>>I haven't failed to show that taxation isn't theft or extortion. Theft
>>>and extortion involve the *wrongful* taking of property by force. My
>>>argument is that taxation isn't a wrongful taking because it is
>>>necessary for a sophisticated, just society.
>>
>>In other words, and as I've already pointed out, you define theft in a
>>non-difinitive way which then conveniently allows you to subjectively
>>decide what's theft and not theft in any instance by applying standards
>>*which are not included in the definition.* By your definition, there is
>>literally no need for a definition. Your definition is as to say: "I'll
>>tell you what theft is as soon as you bring me a scenario and I can apply
>>standards which are not explicit or implicit in this definition."
>
>as theft in your state's penal code. Very definite standards.
This is to say that theft did not exist prior to our state's penal code.
The various codes, in their context, define theft for the purpose of cases
which come before them, and which they decide on a case-by-case basis, and
typically get right--except when they themselves happen to be the thieves.
It is a fallacy to claim that cases which do not come before them, or which
do not match their criteria, are not theft.
*Theft,* as an act and as a concept, has been around long before
governments, states, constitutions, courts, or laws. In fact, it has been
around since the beginning of conscious man--it is "the taking of property
by initiatory force," which consistently and logically fits any
circumstance, regardless of government or statute. Therefore, it is
logically impossible for the state to *exclusively* define
theft--particularly, in a manner which excludes itself from the possibility
of theft, because of its sovereign status with respect to deciding what's
wrongful.
This is basic fox-guarding-the-henhouse 101.
>Your question, rather, is what *should* be defined as theft. That
>necessarily involves questions of morality and ethics. Your problem
>is that you're trying to get around this argument by asserting that
>the definition must contain certain types of action. My response
>is that you can't simply assert it; you've got to make an argument.
Your definition, theft: *wrongful* taking.
My definition, theft: taking by initiatory force.
Now, JG, tell me which one has the *moral* element and which one is
completely amoral? Huh? It is you who are hung up on morality. Perhaps you
can't bear having your precious government labeled as thieves. Yet, I've
made no moral judgment (though I could, but that would be a different
argument). Theft is taking by initiatory force, the government initiates
force in the act of taxation, and therefore, by definition, are thieves.
Whether an individual morally condemns theft is up to them. By saying theft
is "wrongful," to be determined by the judgment of people and not
exclusively on facts of reality, you make the definition no more than a
subjective moral assessment.
Might you better reassess your argument on this issue? As to your last
comment, I have argued with respect to precisely how the concept of theft is
epistemologicaly formed, and thus defined. I've yet to see any response from
you.
Michael_Hreczkosij
There has been a bunch of attacks on Mr. Rich on whether or not taxation
is theft, most of which he has adequately defended. Mr. rich insists
that he holds the high ground as far as logic goes. He insists that no
one can prove that taxation isn't theft, just rationalize it. I
heartily disagree.
Throughtout history there have been occasions and governments whose tax
collection methods could possibly been percieved as theft, such as by
kings and kingdoms of far away lands enacting a tax upon a person
i.e.the American Colonies in the 1700's. Nicholas defines theft as the
iniation of force in order to take property. Force implies an
unwillingness to comply. When one side is not a willing participant in
the exchange of goods, that could be considered a forced exchange.
However, when both participants are willing, the act is not theft
because there is no force involved.
I pay my taxes and give the money to the government of my own free
will. I am more than happy to pay. The government has not *forced* me
to pay, and thus has not stolen my money. All those who pay their taxes
willingly are not the victims of robbery. Before you read on Mr Rich,
consider for a second the fact that most citizens pay their taxes
willlingly and want to recieve the benefits of paying for a government
such as ours.
Thus the only people who the government could be considered stealing
from are those who have no wish to pay taxes but have the money taken
out of their paychecks anyway. I agree with you that those who do not
wish to pay and have the money taken away are being stolen from. BUT
look at those people who do not wish to pay.
If a person does not wish to pay taxes, and thus has it stolen from
him, should and does not expect any sort of recompense for that money.
That individual wants nothing more than the return of his money, and any
substitutes for that money are to be refused, as taking those goods in
exchange for the money stolen is to sanction the act of the theif.
Therefore an individual who refuses to pay taxes but has them taken
away anyway is stolen from, but then to accept as recompense services of
the government such as defense. policing, roads, enviromental laws, etc,
has sanctioned the act of taxation. By
using the services of the government, any one of them, you are either
sanctioning the act of the thief, and therefore nullifying the force in
the act, or you are mooching off of others who willingly pay for such
services.
Thus all those who do not sanction the act of the government to enact a
tax, in other words, all those who do not desire the government to take
their money, are mooching off the system whenever they use
the services of the government, regardless of whether or not they
actually paid taxes. The government only steals money from moochers.
For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
country. Mr. A has mooched off of me. I paid for some of that park,and
it is a members only park, where the members are willing taxpayers of
this country or foreign visitors with the proper visa who have paid an
arrival tax.
Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force, the
thief or the mooch?
steve hreczkosij
Tom Ralston
Nicholas Rich wrote:
> Then the inference is that you disagree? Theft is non-theft? Or, I suppose,
> in your case..."non-wrongful" (meaning: by definition, not act) taking of
> property by force or coercion because its necessary for a sophisticated,
> "just" society is non-theft.
>
This does appear to be what Mr. Adams thinks. This means in my mind that
he is a person that needs to be avoided, when it comes to any kind of
business dealings.
Tom
> Is your desire to help those in need great enough to cause
> you to actually help them? Or, is the desire only so great
> as to cause you to force others to help them?
>
> - Anonymous <nob...@nowhere.net>, April 8, 1997
--
***
Humans are conscious beings, who can achieve
anything by simply exerting the required
honesty, logic, discipline, effort and reason.
***
Is your desire to help those in need great
enough to cause you to actually help them?
Or is the desire only so great as to cause
you to force others to help them?
Thanks to <nob...@nowhere.net>, April 8, 1997
***
E-Mail:
c-ral...@mail.dec.com
Personal Webpage:
http://members.aol.com/TRALST/TomPage.html
Important Web pages:
http://www.neo-tech.com/
http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude/
Michael_Hreczkosij
Carter Bond wrote:
>
> Their is no way to predict that government will behave. What is your
> point?
Government (at least that of the United States) is not some strange
beast that must be tamed, but merely a term for the collective entity
tasked with carrying out the terms of contractual agreement among free
men and women. The terms of those agreements may be beastly, and people
may be unpredictable, but governments inherently behave in the way they
have been designed (democratically, communist, dictatorships, etc)
> You reek of the arrogance of intelligentsia. A little Milan Kundara
> would be good for you. Now their is writer who understands what an
> arrogant intelligentsia can do.
I never thought of my self as being a member of an organization called
the intelligentsia. I have no shame in having a brain. I always speak
plainly and never assume any sort of personal bias against anyone. If I
have slighted you please let me know and I will attempt to apologize.
BTW, who is Milan Kundara and why would he be "good for me"?
steve hreczkosij
Victor Levis
Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote in article
<33D399...@minna.cns.iit.edu>...
> I pay my taxes and give the money to the government of my own free
> will. I am more than happy to pay. The government has not *forced* me
> to pay, and thus has not stolen my money.
I'm happy for you. Is that a categorical sanction? Could the government
take 90% of your income and give you tiny amounts of service and still claim
your loyalty? Or do you get to decide when your approval ends, i.e. when
the government might have gone too far?
> All those who pay their taxes
> willingly are not the victims of robbery. Before you read on Mr Rich,
> consider for a second the fact that most citizens pay their taxes
> willlingly and want to recieve the benefits of paying for a government
> such as ours.
>
> Thus the only people who the government could be considered stealing
> from are those who have no wish to pay taxes but have the money taken
> out of their paychecks anyway. I agree with you that those who do not
> wish to pay and have the money taken away are being stolen from. BUT
> look at those people who do not wish to pay.
Fine, look if you wish, but look carefully and intelligently.
> If a person does not wish to pay taxes, and thus has it stolen from him,
> should and does not expect any sort of recompense for that money.
> That individual wants nothing more than the return of his money, and any
> substitutes for that money are to be refused, as taking those goods in
> exchange for the money stolen is to sanction the act of the theif.
This is not true. If someone steals money from me and uses it to buy a
car, I can claim the car, provided the trail of proof is there. This is
true even if some people GAVE him cars of their own volition.
> Therefore an individual who refuses to pay taxes but has them taken
> away anyway is stolen from, but then to accept as recompense services of
> the government such as defense. policing, roads, enviromental laws, etc,
> has sanctioned the act of taxation.
Not at all. Suppose there is a mafia strongman in an area. He claims to
keep bad guys away by protecting you, and is much more effective than any
public policeman, whom he has either bridbed or threatened into not policing
effectively in your area. He intimidates you to the tune of giving him
$1000 a week from your business for 'protection money'. If someone robs
your store, are you 'sanctioning' his theft if you go to him to complain
about the robbery? What other choice do you have?
> By using the services of the government, any one of them, you are either
> sanctioning the act of the thief, and therefore nullifying the force in
> the act, or you are mooching off of others who willingly pay for such
> services.
> Thus all those who do not sanction the act of the government to enact a
> tax, in other words, all those who do not desire the government to take
> their money, are mooching off the system whenever they use
> the services of the government, regardless of whether or not they
> actually paid taxes. The government only steals money from moochers.
> For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
> the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
> anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
> tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
> However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
> fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
> which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
> mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
> country. Mr. A has mooched off of me.
Really? So the government not only steals, it prohibits people to travel
freely to Grand Kabob? And this makes Mr. A a moocher?
> I paid for some of that park,and
> it is a members only park, where the members are willing taxpayers of
> this country or foreign visitors with the proper visa who have paid an
> arrival tax.
Is that true? Is the park closed to those who can't produce an income tax
receipt (plus proof of never complaining about taxes)? If so, then perhaps
you have some kind of a point. (Though you would have to justify the
monopolizing of the park first.) For example, if the public schools
required a tax-receipt of parents who send their kids there, that would be
entirely legitimate.
I agree that there should be NO free lunches.
By the way, for how long do you think government could get away with its
outrageous tax rates if it didn't also regulate and monopolize so many
critical sectors that it is very hard to get along without using any
government 'services'?
> Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
> steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force, the
> thief or the mooch?
Seeing as the crime of the mooch, as you call him, is entirely in his
THOUGHTS (he is a mooch even if he DOES pay taxes grudgingly) it is not hard
to see which is the ONLY crime here.
Now, you might not like this argument, but you have justified slavery. The
slave who complained about how the master treated him, but nevertheless used
one iota of the master's property was a MOOCH, according to you.
Back to the drawing board, sir.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Saulius Muliolis
Michael_Hreczkosij wrote:
>
> There has been a bunch of attacks on Mr. Rich on whether or not taxation
> is theft, most of which he has adequately defended. Mr. rich insists
> that he holds the high ground as far as logic goes. He insists that no
> one can prove that taxation isn't theft, just rationalize it. I
> heartily disagree.
> Throughtout history there have been occasions and governments whose tax
> collection methods could possibly been percieved as theft, such as by
> kings and kingdoms of far away lands enacting a tax upon a person
> i.e.the American Colonies in the 1700's. Nicholas defines theft as the
> iniation of force in order to take property. Force implies an
> unwillingness to comply. When one side is not a willing participant in
> the exchange of goods, that could be considered a forced exchange.
That is an accurate description of the state of affairs now in America.
> However, when both participants are willing, the act is not theft
> because there is no force involved.
I agree. But the relationship is not willing, since no permission was
asked in the first place.
> I pay my taxes and give the money to the government of my own free
> will. I am more than happy to pay.
Have you considered how the government spends it? All but that which
goes
to the police, military and court systems is a waste. (The government is
fairly
wasteful in these areas, too.) It only gives the money away to those who
did
not earn it.
> The government has not *forced* me
> to pay, and thus has not stolen my money.
What would happen if you refused to pay? That's a rhetorical question,
since you and I both know you would be arrested. Is that not use of
force?
> All those who pay their taxes
> willingly are not the victims of robbery. Before you read on Mr Rich,
> consider for a second the fact that most citizens pay their taxes
> willlingly and want to recieve the benefits of paying for a government
> such as ours.
Really? Then how come cheating on tax returns is so common?
And if so many people do pay their taxes willingly, why can't the
government
collect enough revenue from only them? Why does it have to use force
against
everyone else?
I for one don't pay my taxes willingly. I only do it because: 1. If I
don't,
I get sent to jail, and 2. They take it out of my paycheck before I ever
get
it anyway.
Nobody ever asked me if I want to pay taxes. Taking something without
asking
permission is stealing.
>
> Thus the only people who the government could be considered stealing
> from are those who have no wish to pay taxes but have the money taken
> out of their paychecks anyway. I agree with you that those who do not
> wish to pay and have the money taken away are being stolen from. BUT
> look at those people who do not wish to pay.
> If a person does not wish to pay taxes, and thus has it stolen from
> him, should and does not expect any sort of recompense for that money.
> That individual wants nothing more than the return of his money, and any
> substitutes for that money are to be refused, as taking those goods in
> exchange for the money stolen is to sanction the act of the theif.
Wrong. I know it seems hypocritical on the surface, but only those who
agree
that nobody has the right to exist at another's expense has the moral
right
to accept anything from the government. And then they should only take
it as
a reimbursement of their taxes.
The reason that this is not hypocritical is because, since it is wrong
to
exist at the expense of another person, the government should not have
taken
that money in the first place. It is morally wrong for a person who does
not
recognize this, and who thinks it is right to live at another's expense,
to accept money from the government. A large majority of those who do
accept
welfare and such never even paid as much in taxes.
> Therefore an individual who refuses to pay taxes but has them taken
> away anyway is stolen from, but then to accept as recompense services of
> the government such as defense. policing, roads, enviromental laws, etc,
> has sanctioned the act of taxation. By
> using the services of the government, any one of them, you are either
> sanctioning the act of the thief, and therefore nullifying the force in
> the act, or you are mooching off of others who willingly pay for such
> services.
If I accept such services from the government, then I am doing neither
of those,
so long as I limit what I accept to the sum of my W2's. I am only taking
back
what is mine.
> Thus all those who do not sanction the act of the government to enact a
> tax, in other words, all those who do not desire the government to take
> their money, are mooching off the system whenever they use
> the services of the government, regardless of whether or not they
> actually paid taxes. The government only steals money from moochers.
> For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
> the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
> anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
> tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
> However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
> fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
> which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
> mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
> country. Mr. A has mooched off of me. I paid for some of that park,and
> it is a members only park, where the members are willing taxpayers of
> this country or foreign visitors with the proper visa who have paid an
> arrival tax.
No. The fact that he paid taxes means that his money helped pay for the
park,
so he has every right to use it.
> Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
> steals from Moochers.
How can you steal from a moocher, since moochers don't have anything to
steal? How can the people the government steals from be moochers? In
order
to be robbed, you have to produce something to be stolen. Moochers are
not producers. Most people who produce, don't mooch.
> Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force, the
> thief or the mooch?
Both are the same. The man who eats the meat is on the same moral level
as the
butcher. But this analogy breaks down because the cow can't take the
meat back.
Taxpayers can.
The moochers are the people on welfare, the government subsidized
"businessmen",
and in general, those who think they can live at other people's expense.
Saulius Muliolis
muli...@en.com
Michael_Hreczkosij
Victor Levis wrote:
>
> Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote in article
> <33D399...@minna.cns.iit.edu>...
>
> > I pay my taxes and give the money to the government of my own free
> > will. I am more than happy to pay. The government has not *forced* me
> > to pay, and thus has not stolen my money.
>
> I'm happy for you. Is that a categorical sanction? Could the government
> take 90% of your income and give you tiny amounts of service and still claim
> your loyalty? Or do you get to decide when your approval ends, i.e. when
> the government might have gone too far?
No It is not a categorical sanction, and yes I do get to decide when my
approval ends. It is not a matter of loyalty but whether I feel I am
getting the appropriate services for my tax dollars. Should I feel that
I no longer am happy with the terms of the agreement I can do a few
things. I can attempt to run for office or elect an official who will
attempt to change the 'price of government' to meet my conditions, or I
can chose to be a citizen of another country. It is a matter of whether
or not the Utility of living in a country outweighs the Utility of the
Tax dollars paid. If it doesn't I will act in some fashion to correct
it.
>
> > If a person does not wish to pay taxes, and thus has it stolen from him,
> > should and does not expect any sort of recompense for that money.
> > That individual wants nothing more than the return of his money, and any
> > substitutes for that money are to be refused, as taking those goods in
> > exchange for the money stolen is to sanction the act of the theif.
>
> This is not true. If someone steals money from me and uses it to buy a
> car, I can claim the car, provided the trail of proof is there. This is
> true even if some people GAVE him cars of their own volition.
>
You misunderstand me. If saomeone relieves me of some Value by force,
then I wish to recieve that Value back. In the instance above, if
someone stole my money and bought a car, then I'll take the car and try
to get the value back (which probably won't happen because of
depreciation, etc). The value was transformed from cash to a car, but
the value itself remained the same entity. You may take your car or
cash back without sanctioning the act of robbery. However, if you catch
the thief in the act and you accept a value or service from him that
will allow him to walk away with the value he got from you, you *have*
sanctioned the act. Taxation without represention, or taxation without
knowledge would quailify as the former and you would be right to claim
the return of your value.
> Therefore an individual who refuses to pay taxes but has them taken
> > away anyway is stolen from, but then to accept as recompense services of
> > the government such as defense. policing, roads, enviromental laws, etc,
> > has sanctioned the act of taxation.
>
> Not at all. Suppose there is a mafia strongman in an area. He claims to
> keep bad guys away by protecting you, and is much more effective than any
> public policeman, whom he has either bridbed or threatened into not policing
> effectively in your area. He intimidates you to the tune of giving him
> $1000 a week from your business for 'protection money'. If someone robs
> your store, are you 'sanctioning' his theft if you go to him to complain
> about the robbery? What other choice do you have?
>
Yes. If the Mafia Stongman takes $1000/week without your permission,
then he has stolen from you. However, if you take him up on his
'services' and treat the cash exchanged as a business deal, then you
have sanctioned the act of giving him money. As far as what other
choice you have, at the risk of sounding ludicrous, you could contact
the local police as far as both the robbery and the mafia.
> > By using the services of the government, any one of them, you are either
> > sanctioning the act of the thief, and therefore nullifying the force in
> > the act, or you are mooching off of others who willingly pay for such
> > services.
> > Thus all those who do not sanction the act of the government to enact a
> > tax, in other words, all those who do not desire the government to take
> > their money, are mooching off the system whenever they use
> > the services of the government, regardless of whether or not they
> > actually paid taxes. The government only steals money from moochers.
> > For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
> > the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
> > anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
> > tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
> > However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
> > fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
> > which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
> > mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
> > country. Mr. A has mooched off of me.
>
> Really? So the government not only steals, it prohibits people to travel
> freely to Grand Kabob? And this makes Mr. A a moocher?
BY the fact that grand Kabob is public land, upkept by the government,
it is inherent that it is immoral for those who do not pay taxes to the
government or have explicit permission to use that land. Mr. A does not
own Grand Kabob so he has no justification for insisting that he be able
to travel freely there.
<
>
> > I paid for some of that park,and
> > it is a members only park, where the members are willing taxpayers of
> > this country or foreign visitors with the proper visa who have paid an
> > arrival tax.
>
> Is that true? Is the park closed to those who can't produce an income tax
> receipt (plus proof of never complaining about taxes)? If so, then perhaps
> you have some kind of a point. (Though you would have to justify the
> monopolizing of the park first.) For example, if the public schools
> required a tax-receipt of parents who send their kids there, that would be
> entirely legitimate.
>
> I agree that there should be NO free lunches.
In reality the park is not closed, not did I claim that it was. I
stated that the use of a park that you either do not pay for or sanction
the use of your money to pay for is immoral. I do not need to justify
the 'monopolization' of the park because there is none. It is merely
owned by someone other than yourself, namely the US. Offer a high
enough price and surely Congress would release it to you. You may not
want the US to own any parks, and there is a strong argument in your
favor, but to agrue that the government inherently does not have the
right to own property is a different apple altogether.
> By the way, for how long do you think government could get away with its
> outrageous tax rates if it didn't also regulate and monopolize so many
> critical sectors that it is very hard to get along without using any
> government 'services'?
>
I'm not sure I understand. The government isn't getting away with
anything. While I agree that it is more economical to deregulate and
wrong for a government to control an industry(such as the post office),
it doesn't afford the US the ability to 'get away' with anything.
>
> > Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
> > steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force, the
> > thief or the mooch?
>
> Seeing as the crime of the mooch, as you call him, is entirely in his
> THOUGHTS (he is a mooch even if he DOES pay taxes grudgingly) it is not hard
> to see which is the ONLY crime here.
There is no such thing as a thought crime. He is a mooch by his
actions. If he does not give his tax money freely to the government and
yet cliams the right to the services, he is a mooch.
> Now, you might not like this argument, but you have justified slavery. The
> slave who complained about how the master treated him, but nevertheless used
> one iota of the master's property was a MOOCH, according to you.
>
Almost but not quite. The slave is not a willing participant in the
exchange, nor is he there under his own free will. The master is
forcing the slave to accept his ownership by not allowing him to leave
or negotiate terms of agreement. I see a better parallel in feudalism,
where the feudal lord has been replaced by a self elected executor of a
contract among free men and women.
Thank you for the response and smart rebuttals!
Steve Hreczkosij
vicl...@ican.net
> Victor Levis wrote:
> >
> > Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote in article
> > <33D399...@minna.cns.iit.edu>...
> >
> > > I pay my taxes and give the money to the government of my own free
> > > will. I am more than happy to pay. The government has not *forced* me
> > > to pay, and thus has not stolen my money.
> > >
> > > If a person does not wish to pay taxes, and thus has it stolen from him,
> > > should and does not expect any sort of recompense for that money.
> > > That individual wants nothing more than the return of his money, and any
> > > substitutes for that money are to be refused, as taking those goods in
> > > exchange for the money stolen is to sanction the act of the theif.
> >
> > This is not true. If someone steals money from me and uses it to buy a
> > car, I can claim the car, provided the trail of proof is there. This is
> > true even if some people GAVE him cars of their own volition.
> >
> You misunderstand me. If saomeone relieves me of some Value by force,
> then I wish to recieve that Value back. In the instance above, if
> someone stole my money and bought a car, then I'll take the car and try
> to get the value back (which probably won't happen because of
> depreciation, etc). The value was transformed from cash to a car, but
> the value itself remained the same entity.
How is it different if a small part of the value is 'transformed' into
upkeep of the streets?
> You may take your car or
> cash back without sanctioning the act of robbery. However, if you catch
> the thief in the act and you accept a value or service from him that
> will allow him to walk away with the value he got from you, you *have*
> sanctioned the act.
Not at all. Certainly not if he continues to point a gun at me. I will
take whatever he allows me, and that is not immoral.
> > Therefore an individual who refuses to pay taxes but has them taken
> > > away anyway is stolen from, but then to accept as recompense services of
> > > the government such as defense. policing, roads, enviromental laws, etc,
> > > has sanctioned the act of taxation.
I would agree IF and ONLY if:
a) the person has already received back the full value of the taxes he
has paid in his lifetime, and
b) the government services he uses are freely available in a
competitive marketplace, including policing, roads, and so forth.
> > Not at all. Suppose there is a mafia strongman in an area. He claims to
> > keep bad guys away by protecting you, and is much more effective than any
> > public policeman, whom he has either bridbed or threatened into not policing
> > effectively in your area. He intimidates you to the tune of giving him
> > $1000 a week from your business for 'protection money'. If someone robs
> > your store, are you 'sanctioning' his theft if you go to him to complain
> > about the robbery? What other choice do you have?
> >
>
> Yes. If the Mafia Stongman takes $1000/week without your permission,
> then he has stolen from you. However, if you take him up on his
> 'services' and treat the cash exchanged as a business deal, then you
> have sanctioned the act of giving him money.
It's NOT a business deal, though. He has monopolized protection
services, by bribing , blackmailing or killing off all competition. So I
have no choice.
> As far as what other
> choice you have, at the risk of sounding ludicrous, you could contact
> the local police as far as both the robbery and the mafia.
He calls himself the local police. So what?
> > > Thus all those who do not sanction the act of the government to enact a
> > > tax, in other words, all those who do not desire the government to take
> > > their money, are mooching off the system whenever they use
> > > the services of the government, regardless of whether or not they
> > > actually paid taxes.
Ah, so there is such a thing as a thought crime. He is a moocher if he
simply 'doesn't sanction' even if he pays grudgingly. That would make
him a moocher even in the extreme situation where 90% of his income was
stolen and 5% given back in services.
> > >The government only steals money from moochers.
> > > For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
> > > the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
> > > anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
> > > tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
> > > However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
> > > fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
> > > which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
> > > mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
> > > country. Mr. A has mooched off of me.
> >
> > Really? So the government not only steals, it prohibits people to travel
> > freely to Grand Kabob? And this makes Mr. A a moocher?
> BY the fact that grand Kabob is public land, upkept by the government,
> it is inherent that it is immoral for those who do not pay taxes to the
> government or have explicit permission to use that land. Mr. A does not
> own Grand Kabob so he has no justification for insisting that he be able
> to travel freely there.
You mean the government uses guns to keep people out of Kabob, in addition
to using guns to make people pay money to it.
> > > I paid for some of that park,and
> > > it is a members only park, where the members are willing taxpayers of
> > > this country or foreign visitors with the proper visa who have paid an
> > > arrival tax.
> >
> > Is that true? Is the park closed to those who can't produce an income tax
> > receipt (plus proof of never complaining about taxes)? If so, then perhaps
> > you have some kind of a point. (Though you would have to justify the
> > monopolizing of the park first.) For example, if the public schools
> > required a tax-receipt of parents who send their kids there, that would be
> > entirely legitimate.
> >
> > I agree that there should be NO free lunches.
>
> In reality the park is not closed, not did I claim that it was. I
> stated that the use of a park that you either do not pay for or sanction
> the use of your money to pay for is immoral. I do not need to justify
> the 'monopolization' of the park because there is none. It is merely
> owned by someone other than yourself, namely the US.
Same thing, if it is a natural resource and the government simply started
appropriating title.
> Offer a high
> enough price and surely Congress would release it to you. You may not
> want the US to own any parks, and there is a strong argument in your
> favor, but to agrue that the government inherently does not have the
> right to own property is a different apple altogether.
Maybe you ought to think about what makes land ownership moral.
BTW, what about my public school point?
> > > Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
> > > steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force, the
> > > thief or the mooch?
> >
> > Seeing as the crime of the mooch, as you call him, is entirely in his
> > THOUGHTS (he is a mooch even if he DOES pay taxes grudgingly) it is not
> > hard to see which is the ONLY crime here.
>
> There is no such thing as a thought crime. He is a mooch by his
> actions. If he does not give his tax money freely to the government and
> yet cliams the right to the services, he is a mooch.
So it's still a thought crime.
> > Now, you might not like this argument, but you have justified slavery. The
> > slave who complained about how the master treated him, but nevertheless
> > used one iota of the master's property was a MOOCH, according to you.
> >
> Almost but not quite. The slave is not a willing participant in the
> exchange, nor is he there under his own free will. The master is
> forcing the slave to accept his ownership by not allowing him to leave
> or negotiate terms of agreement. I see a better parallel in feudalism,
> where the feudal lord has been replaced by a self elected executor of a
> contract among free men and women.
Not much better, IMHO.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Dan Babcock
You're right, taxation is not theft...it's extortion. I pay the
government to not put me in jail. Who says money can't buy freedom?
Dan
Al Borland
You're losing the argument every time, lawyer-boy.
On 20 Jul 1997 12:57:37 -0700, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G.
Adams) wrote:
>
>Nicholas Rich <n...@ss-n.com> wrote:
>
>>*Theft,* as an act and as a concept, has been around long before
>>governments, states, constitutions, courts, or laws. In fact, it has been
>>around since the beginning of conscious man--it is "the taking of property
>>by initiatory force," which consistently and logically fits any
>>circumstance, regardless of government or statute. Therefore, it is
>>logically impossible for the state to *exclusively* define
>>theft--particularly, in a manner which excludes itself from the possibility
>>of theft, because of its sovereign status with respect to deciding what's
>>wrongful.
>
>Argument by assertion again. Hint: "it is" is not an argument.
>
>>>Your question, rather, is what *should* be defined as theft. That
>>>necessarily involves questions of morality and ethics. Your problem
>>>is that you're trying to get around this argument by asserting that
>>>the definition must contain certain types of action. My response
>>>is that you can't simply assert it; you've got to make an argument.
>>
>>Your definition, theft: *wrongful* taking.
>>
>>My definition, theft: taking by initiatory force.
>>
>>Now, JG, tell me which one has the *moral* element and which one is
>>completely amoral? Huh? It is you who are hung up on morality. Perhaps you
>>can't bear having your precious government labeled as thieves. Yet, I've
>>made no moral judgment (though I could, but that would be a different
>>argument). Theft is taking by initiatory force, the government initiates
>>force in the act of taxation, and therefore, by definition, are thieves.
>
>Your moral judgment is implicit. Your bald assertion that theft is
>initiatory force is itself a moral judgment, and one that's merely been
>asserted, not defended.
>
>>Whether an individual morally condemns theft is up to them. By saying theft
>>is "wrongful," to be determined by the judgment of people and not
>>exclusively on facts of reality, you make the definition no more than a
>>subjective moral assessment.
>
>The "facts of reality?" This is an argument? Heh, heh.
>
>Well, I say that the "facts of reality" say that I'm right.
>
>>Might you better reassess your argument on this issue? As to your last
>>comment, I have argued with respect to precisely how the concept of theft is
>>epistemologicaly formed, and thus defined. I've yet to see any response from
>>you.
>
>I've seen no such argument. You've talked about how the "concept" of
>theft is formed by the "facts of reality," but this is really just an
>assertion. It is functionally the same as saying "because I said so."
>
>At least my definition recognizes that a moral judgment must be made.
>You simply make the judgment by assertion and then call it objective.
>
>
>--
>jad...@alumni.stanford.org
>http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
==>A Neo-tech Man (New Technology)
All the above and below arguments are mute, the Income tax in the 16th
Amendment was never ratified
So therfore any monies collected are being collected illegally
GalactusNT
For god's sake Joseph! I was being equivocal on purpose and the
authority
is the Preamble - since it applies to the totality of the Constitution,
as only We The People can own the government! But I don't play lawyer
ball
as my right to travel anywhere I damn well please is an absolute long
antecedent to the Constitution as are all my other rights. In fact,
the only violators of rights I know of other than criminals is the
current government that was originally set up to secure those rights.
Now as to the following:
>While of course you will be subject to the various statutory penalties
>if you fail to pay taxes, you will not be deprived of your rights
>as a citizen.
You know - once it was recognized that a right could not be taxed
because it was not something within the jurisdiction of government
as it was antecedent and not dependent on the government. That included
the right to labor, its immediate consequence, to keep the fruits
of that labor, and consistent with property in general, to dispose
in any manner of said fruits.
Now those fruits are taxed to the tune of upto 50% in one form or
another. The founding father's are probably spinning in their
graves given that a revolutionary war was fought for a stamp tax
that would be a paltry 1.3% in today's terms..........
Not that it matters. The rise of unbreakable encryption and Internet
commerce will completely remove most value producers from those
jurisdictions that are counter-productive - including the United
States. So Tax Law and its variants will go the way of the Dinosaur
over the next 20 years.
Live Well.
Bye
ps. Nice web pages!
Joseph G. Adams wrote:
> In article <33D522...@erols.com>, GalactusNT <rsil...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In addition, if you really want to play lawyer-ball, any asset of
> >the Government of the United States is mine by RIGHT - not because
> >I am a TaxPayer but because I AM A CITIZEN of ONE the STATES of
> >the UNION. For authority see PreAmble of the Constitution. So
> >don't tell me I can't go to the National Park if I don't pay
> >taxes.
>
> A little bit right, but mostly wrong.
>
> You correctly note that your rights as a U.S. citizen don't depend on
> whether you pay taxes or not. While of course you will be subject to
> the
> various statutory penalties if you fail to pay taxes, you will not be
> deprived of your rights as a citizen.
>
> However, there is no constitutional right to enter national parks.
> Nothing in the Preamble grants this right. The federal government, on
> the other hand, derives its power to regulate federal land from the
> Property Clause of Art. IV.
>
> BTW, if you seek the guidance of the Constitution, look no further
> than
> Art. I, s. 8 and Amendment XVI.
>
> --
> jad...@alumni.stanford.org
> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
--
Sic Semper Tyrannis
________________________________________________
http://rsilvetz.erols.com
Jim Manson
"==>A Neo-tech Man (New Technology)" <Sovereign...@usa.net>
wrote:
>All the above and below arguments are mute, the Income tax in the 16th
>Amendment was never ratified
>
>So therfore any monies collected are being collected illegally
Bullshit. The amendment was ratified and every single court has
upheld that fact since it was. The trivial arguments that Beckman and
Benson came up with were completely silly.
I mean come on- "Its invalid because Virginia capitalized the word
levy" etc. As one court called it " incredibly trivial nit-picking "
If you prefer the Ohio argument try the fact that the next state after
Ohio ratified it less than two months later, net result, even if the
Ohio argument made sense (which it doesn't), is that the ratification
would be delayed a month or so. Big deal.
If you really want to argue it, try the fact that Pollack was
effectively overruled by the Supreme Court in Cohn v. Graves.
300 US 308 (1937) rendering the 16th amendment unecessary.
Any other issues about the 16th amendment?
GalactusNT
Get Real!
You cannot claim to be an injured party in a voluntary transaction
with the government because a third party uses government services
that you paid for.
You can claim injury if and only if you were
MADE ie FORCED to be a party in the transaction because you have
no recourse and no remedy.
In addition, if you really want to play lawyer-ball, any asset of
the Government of the United States is mine by RIGHT - not because
I am a TaxPayer but because I AM A CITIZEN of ONE the STATES of
the UNION. For authority see PreAmble of the Constitution. So
don't tell me I can't go to the National Park if I don't pay
taxes.
But if your concern really is the free-rider issue its simple
enough to solve. If you don't pay federal taxes, you don't get
federal benefits. And I would love to stop forking 28% marginal
tax rate to the feds if those were the terms.
Michael_Hreczkosij wrote:
> Thus all those who do not sanction the act of the government to enact a
> tax, in other words, all those who do not desire the government to take
> their money, are mooching off the system whenever they use
> the services of the government, regardless of whether or not they
> actually paid taxes. The government only steals money from moochers.
> For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
> the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
> anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
> tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
> However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
> fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
> which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
> mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
> country. Mr. A has mooched off of me. I paid for some of that park,and
> it is a members only park, where the members are willing taxpayers of
> this country or foreign visitors with the proper visa who have paid an
> arrival tax.
> Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
> steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force, the
> thief or the mooch?
>
> steve hreczkosij
--
______________________________________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis
http://rsilvetz.erols.com
GalactusNT
<snip matters of less import>
<see below for more>
> >Now as to the following:
> >>While of course you will be subject to the various statutory penalties
> >>if you fail to pay taxes, you will not be deprived of your rights
> >>as a citizen.
> >
> >You know - once it was recognized that a right could not be taxed
> >because it was not something within the jurisdiction of government
> >as it was antecedent and not dependent on the government. That included
> >the right to labor, its immediate consequence, to keep the fruits
> >of that labor, and consistent with property in general, to dispose
> >in any manner of said fruits.
>
> I don't think that was ever the case. The Supreme Court specifically
> discussed the issue this way:
>
> We learn that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or
> 'inherent' or 'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But
> natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of
> less importance. [FN6]
>
<snip supporting cites which agree and extend above>
I agree that the situation was never pure and that written into the
Constitution is the power to tax which is the anti-thesis of rights
in any form - but the Founding Fathers by establishing direct and
indirect taxation as well as a tight enumeration of powers had hoped
to carve out a large haven for rights. I will dig out of my dusty
notes some of the cites and post a salient one or two that shows the
mindset of the majority of people in the early 1800's.
As to the FN6 above-
Classic example of the law legitimizing the obliteration of the concept
of rights. That sentence is a contradiction in terms. The whole
concept of an inalienable right to labor removes it from the
realm of taxation since inalienable means not transferrable and
taxation is a transfer.
Here is a telling quote from the early 1800's in some ancient law
dictionary someone posted on the net.
"the right of property, which consists in the free use,
enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control
or diminution"
More absolute than that is difficult to get.
> Steward Machinery Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
An educational cite - I'm still digesting the case. What I find
remarkable is the use of a 1777 and 1695 English colonial law
in the decision. But that's an aside.
>
> >Not that it matters. The rise of unbreakable encryption and Internet
> >commerce will completely remove most value producers from those
> >jurisdictions that are counter-productive - including the United
> >States. So Tax Law and its variants will go the way of the Dinosaur
> >over the next 20 years.
>
> That assumes that the only factor that businesses consider is the tax
> law.
>
Why no, the underlying assumption is competition. The competitive
dynamics are such that money invested in tax-free or low-tax
jurisdiction will compound radically faster. Had the approximately
$150,000 extorted from me in taxes in the U.S. been invested
in a tax-free jurisdiction my retirement as a multi-millionare
would now be assured.
In fact, so many high-end entrepreneurs were so fed up with the
U.S. tax and regulatory system that Clinton had to put up a
"Berlin Wall" exit tax of $600,000 to prevent the large number of
wealthy citizens that were rescinding their U.S. citizenship to
escape our more than punitive system.
When my assets move past the $1 million mark it will probably
become advantageous to remove myself from U.S. citizenship,
get a private tax treaty with Switzerland and reside in
Anguilla while conducting world-wide business. It will take ten
years or so to get there, but then the cost-benefit will be
there and I, like others, will opt out of the U.S. system.
--
Time to move on. It was nice sparring with you.
Best of luck in your future carreer.
Nicholas Rich
>All the above and below arguments are mute, the Income tax in the 16th
>Amendment was never ratified
Check out JG Adams immensely valuable tax-protester webpage to see what a
total loser argument this is.
Don't have the URL handy, but I'm sure someone does.
>So therfore any monies collected are being collected illegally
I think that all taxes are collected "illegally," but for a different
reason. Mine stems from the fundamental recognition that theft is a moral
wrong, and government is not above such "Natural Laws." Similarly, whether
or not there are codes and statutes for or against murder is irrelevant when
governments murder their citizens, as has happened many times. Murder is
wrong and legislation cannot make it right. Same goes for theft.
The only valid protest to taxation is on such fundamental morality or
"Natural Law."
Technical "legal" arguments always lose, and what's more, they sanction a
thief's "right to steal" so long as they get the paperwork technicaly
correct.
Nicholas Rich - n...@ss-n.com - http://www.ss-n.com/nick
Is your desire to help those in need great enough to cause
Joseph T. Adams
Nicholas Rich (n...@ss-n.com) wrote:
: I think that all taxes are collected "illegally," but for a different
: wrong, and government is not above such "Natural Laws." Similarly, whether
: or not there are codes and statutes for or against murder is irrelevant when
: governments murder their citizens, as has happened many times. Murder is
: wrong and legislation cannot make it right. Same goes for theft.
I have great sympathy for your point of view. I view
coerced/involuntary taxation as wrong for both reasons (it is immoral
AND illegal). But I do need to point out that taxes need not be
coerced nor involuntary. For example, imagine that the Constitution
had been amended to allow the fedgov to institute a Social Security
program, and that this program were purely voluntary. Only those who
wish to participate must do so; benefits are payable to those who
participate; and the rest remain no better and no worse off than
before. You could call the premiums for this plan "taxes" if you
wish, but so long as they are voluntary and not coerced, and not
contrary to law, I would have no problem with them.
As I see it, groups of individuals have the same rights as do their
members individually, no more and no less. They have the right to
agree among each other to contribute a certain amount of funds for
some common purpose, according to whatever formulas and for whatever
purposes they choose. What they do NOT have the right to do is to
compel others, who may not be part of that group, who may not wish to
participate in its plans or programs, to participate against their
will. And the fact that the individuals thus coerced may receive
some "benefits" from the scheme does not in any way justify the
coercion involved.
Joe
Michael_Hreczkosij
Joseph T. Adams wrote:
<snip>
> coerced nor involuntary. For example, imagine that the Constitution
> had been amended to allow the fedgov to institute a Social Security
> program, and that this program were purely voluntary. Only those who
> wish to participate must do so; benefits are payable to those who
> participate; and the rest remain no better and no worse off than
> before. You could call the premiums for this plan "taxes" if you
> wish, but so long as they are voluntary and not coerced, and not
> contrary to law, I would have no problem with them.
I would say that such a program would probably be well recieved among the public.
Suuggest it to your senator or respresentative. I assume you've worked out the details,
such as persoanl liabilities, how much of the SS fund is federally backed, etc.
>
> As I see it, groups of individuals have the same rights as do their
> members individually, no more and no less. They have the right to
> agree among each other to contribute a certain amount of funds for
> some common purpose, according to whatever formulas and for whatever
> purposes they choose.
> What they do NOT have the right to do is to
> compel others, who may not be part of that group, who may not wish to
> participate in its plans or programs, to participate against their
> will. And the fact that the individuals thus coerced may receive
> some "benefits" from the scheme does not in any way justify the
> coercion involved.
>
You are correct. A group does not have the right to compel non members to comply with
their rules, pay monies, etc. That is taxation without representation, you could say.
However, to claim that the government forced you out of your money, and then offered you
some sort of reperation in the form of service is misleading. I contend that you used the
services before you paid any tax, and thus the tax could be seen as a bill for services
rendered. Income tax is due April 15th, but the army never stops defending your home. BY
using the services, you sanction the government, and thus sanction the ability of a
constitutional representative majority to decide the amount of the bill. If you don't
respect the wishes of the representative majority, you are free to leave. There's no moral
right to getting your own way every time.
Nicholas Rich
In article <5r5hm6$r6v$1...@nerd.apk.net>, j...@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) wrote:
>Nicholas Rich (n...@ss-n.com) wrote:
>: I think that all taxes are collected "illegally," but for a different
>: reason. Mine stems from the fundamental recognition that theft is a moral
>: wrong, and government is not above such "Natural Laws." Similarly, whether
>: or not there are codes and statutes for or against murder is irrelevant when
>: governments murder their citizens, as has happened many times. Murder is
>: wrong and legislation cannot make it right. Same goes for theft.
>
>
>I have great sympathy for your point of view. I view
>coerced/involuntary taxation as wrong for both reasons (it is immoral
>AND illegal). But I do need to point out that taxes need not be
>had been amended to allow the fedgov to institute a Social Security
>program, and that this program were purely voluntary. Only those who
>wish to participate must do so; benefits are payable to those who
>participate; and the rest remain no better and no worse off than
>before. You could call the premiums for this plan "taxes" if you
>wish, but so long as they are voluntary and not coerced, and not
>contrary to law, I would have no problem with them.
I have no argument here. There is no essential distincion between this plan
and a completely priavate one on these grounds.
One thing it would do is to force the SSA to get on the ball, otherwise no
one would voluntarily contribut because they can do much better in private
plans.
>As I see it, groups of individuals have the same rights as do their
>members individually, no more and no less. They have the right to
>agree among each other to contribute a certain amount of funds for
>some common purpose, according to whatever formulas and for whatever
>purposes they choose. What they do NOT have the right to do is to
>compel others, who may not be part of that group, who may not wish to
>participate in its plans or programs, to participate against their
>will. And the fact that the individuals thus coerced may receive
>some "benefits" from the scheme does not in any way justify the
>coercion involved.
Righto.
vicl...@ican.net
> vicl...@ican.net wrote:
> >
> > Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote in article
> > <33D3E4...@minna.cns.iit.edu>...
> >
> > > Victor Levis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote in article
> > > > <33D399...@minna.cns.iit.edu>...
> > > >
> > > > > I pay my taxes and give the money to the government of my own free
> > > > > will. I am more than happy to pay. The government has not *forced*
> > > > > me to pay, and thus has not stolen my money.
> > > > >
> > > > > If a person does not wish to pay taxes, and thus has it stolen from him,
> > > > > should and does not expect any sort of recompense for that money.
> > > > > That individual wants nothing more than the return of his money, and
> > > > > any substitutes for that money are to be refused, as taking those goods
> > > > > in exchange for the money stolen is to sanction the act of the theif.
> > > >
> > > > This is not true. If someone steals money from me and uses it to buy a
> > > > car, I can claim the car, provided the trail of proof is there. This is
> > > > true even if some people GAVE him cars of their own volition.
> > > >
> > > You misunderstand me. If saomeone relieves me of some Value by force,
> > > then I wish to recieve that Value back. In the instance above, if
> > > someone stole my money and bought a car, then I'll take the car and try
> > > to get the value back (which probably won't happen because of
> > > depreciation, etc). The value was transformed from cash to a car, but
> > > the value itself remained the same entity.
> >
> > How is it different if a small part of the value is 'transformed' into
> > upkeep of the streets?
>
> I see your point in the above example, and I can agree that if you are taking
> advantage of government services only because the government already
> took your money by force and you are trying to get it back in one form or
> another, than you are not sanctioning the act of taxation. If you look at the
> value of all of the different services that you are a beneficiary of, you may see
> that you are recouping more in value than the government has stolen from
> you. I need to look at this line of reasoning more carefully before I can make
> more confident statements. Your point is well taken.
Furthermore, if you are entitled to receive services even if you are NOT
a taxpayer, then you are receiving a GIFT, are you not? See below when
you yourself make the same point about public schools.
> > > > Therefore an individual who refuses to pay taxes but has them taken
> > > > > away anyway is stolen from, but then to accept as recompense
> > > > > services of the government such as defense. policing, roads,
> > > > > enviromental laws, etc, has sanctioned the act of taxation.
> >
> > I would agree IF and ONLY if:
> >
> > a) the person has already received back the full value of the taxes he
> > has paid in his lifetime, and
>
> I contend that if you look at all the services you benefit from, and try to put a
> monetary value on it as far as what it would cost you in a free market, you will
> see you have either recieved more than the full value, broke even, or was the > victim of corruption in which an individual has stolen money from the
> government, and hence from you.
So you believe that the government does an EFFICIENT job with the taxes
it collects? Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
> > b) the government services he uses are freely available in a
> > competitive marketplace, including policing, roads, and so forth.
> Security services already exist to protect your home.
Who must follow the rules of government.
>No one says you can't buy a stretch of land, put a road
> on it, and let people drive on it. Privately owned roads do exist.
SO long as the government regulations are followed.
> There are those areas in which the
> government holds an unfair monopoly, and I agree with you that those should
> be broken.
>
>
> >
> > > > Not at all. Suppose there is a mafia strongman in an area. He claims to
> > > > keep bad guys away by protecting you, and is much more effective than > > > > any public policeman, whom he has either bridbed or threatened into not
> > > > policing effectively in your area. He intimidates you to the tune of
> > > > giving him $1000 a week from your business for 'protection money'. If
> > > > someone robs your store, are you 'sanctioning' his theft if you go to him
> > > > to complain about the robbery? What other choice do you have?
> > >
> > > Yes. If the Mafia Stongman takes $1000/week without your permission,
> > > then he has stolen from you. However, if you take him up on his
> > > 'services' and treat the cash exchanged as a business deal, then you
> > > have sanctioned the act of giving him money.
> >
> > It's NOT a business deal, though. He has monopolized protection
> > services, by bribing , blackmailing or killing off all competition. So I
> > have no choice.
>
> You are correct in asserting that you have been forced to pay him the $1000.
> You are not forced to complain to him though. That is the action that
> sanctions the deal.
So, when the slave ate the master's food, he 'sanctioned' the arrangement?
> > > As far as what other
> > > choice you have, at the risk of sounding ludicrous, you could contact
> > > the local police as far as both the robbery and the mafia.
> >
> > He calls himself the local police. So what?
>
> Certainly there is apoint where honest authorities could step in and solve your > problem. A world without honest people is not what we're discussing.
You misunderstand. He IS HONEST. The persons bribing, blackmailing and
occasionally killing off the competition ARE the government and their
police.
> > > > >The government only steals money from moochers.
> > > > > For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
> > > > > the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
> > > > > anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
> > > > > tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
> > > > > However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
> > > > > fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
> > > > > which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
> > > > > mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
> > > > > country. Mr. A has mooched off of me.
> > > >
> > > > Really? So the government not only steals, it prohibits people to travel
> > > > freely to Grand Kabob? And this makes Mr. A a moocher?
> >
> > > BY the fact that grand Kabob is public land, upkept by the government,
> > > it is inherent that it is immoral for those who do not pay taxes to the
> > > government or have explicit permission to use that land. Mr. A does not
> > > own Grand Kabob so he has no justification for insisting that he be able
> > > to travel freely there.
> >
> > You mean the government uses guns to keep people out of Kabob, in
> > addition to using guns to make people pay money to it.
>
> Do you question the right of Disneyland to charge money to enter?
Why? Did Disney simply appropriate 'natural' rides and games and
amusement parks? Of course not. They produced them or bought them from
their producers and assignees. It WOULD be wrong for Disney to stick a
fence around a pond and call it 'private property', and it is just as
wrong if the governmnet does it, particularly if people were using it
freely prior to the appropriation.
> Property rights, especially those of land
> ownership, are absolute. Just because title belongs to the US doesn't prohibit > them from using it as they wish. If I want to use a gun to keep youu off of my
> land, I am justified in doing so.
Even if you claim all the unused land in, say, Wyoming?
> > > > > I paid for some of that park,and
> > > > > it is a members only park, where the members are willing taxpayers of
> > > > > this country or foreign visitors with the proper visa who have paid an
> > > > > arrival tax.
> > > >
> > > > Is that true? Is the park closed to those who can't produce an income
> > > > tax receipt (plus proof of never complaining about taxes)? If so, then
> > > > perhaps you have some kind of a point. (Though you would have to
> > > > justify the monopolizing of the park first.) For example, if the public
> > > > schools required a tax-receipt of parents who send their kids there, that
> > > > would be entirely legitimate.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that there should be NO free lunches.
> > >
> > > In reality the park is not closed, not did I claim that it was. I
> > > stated that the use of a park that you either do not pay for or sanction
> > > the use of your money to pay for is immoral. I do not need to justify
> > > the 'monopolization' of the park because there is none. It is merely
> > > owned by someone other than yourself, namely the US.
> >
> > Same thing, if it is a natural resource and the government simply started
> > appropriating title.
>
> It seems as if you do not believe that natural resources are able to be owned.
> Does not the coal miner have the right to sell his coal?
Sure, but how much coal is 'his' coal?
> > > Offer a high
> > > enough price and surely Congress would release it to you. You may not
> > > want the US to own any parks, and there is a strong argument in your
> > > favor, but to agrue that the government inherently does not have the
> > > right to own property is a different apple altogether.
> >
> > Maybe you ought to think about what makes land ownership moral.
>
> I do not wish to argue about the morality of land ownership.
> If you go down that path it will be without me.
For another time, then.
> > BTW, what about my public school point?
> >
> I agree that it would be entirely justifiable to demand that users of the public
> school system are responsible tax payers. However, it has been the
> consensus of the majority that those who evade taxes also be allowed to use
> the school system. I may disagree but I concede to the right of the majority to > make administrative decisions.
Therefore, public schooling is a gift, and using it does not sanction
anything.
> > > > > Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
> > > > > steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force,
> > > > > the thief or the mooch?
> > > >
> > > > Seeing as the crime of the mooch, as you call him, is entirely in his
> > > > THOUGHTS (he is a mooch even if he DOES pay taxes grudgingly) it is
> > > > not hard to see which is the ONLY crime here.
> > >
> > > There is no such thing as a thought crime. He is a mooch by his
> > > actions. If he does not give his tax money freely to the government and
> > > yet cliams the right to the services, he is a mooch.
> >
> >So it's still a thought crime.
> >
> No it's an immoral action.
You have said that if a person THINKS he has been stolen from, and uses
government services, he is a mooch. Thus, according to you, even though
he paid the taxes, he might still be a mooch -- depending on his
OPINIONS. No?
> > > > Now, you might not like this argument,but you have justified slavery. The
> > > > slave who complained about how the master treated him, but
> > > > nevertheless used one iota of the master's property was a MOOCH,
> > > > according to you.
> > >
> > > Almost but not quite. The slave is not a willing participant in the
> > > exchange, nor is he there under his own free will. The master is
> > > forcing the slave to accept his ownership by not allowing him to leave
> > > or negotiate terms of agreement. I see a better parallel in feudalism,
> > > where the feudal lord has been replaced by a self elected executor of a
> > > contract among free men and women.
> >
> > Not much better, IMHO.
> > --
> Do you contend that there is something inherently immoral with a feudalistic
> government, or are you saying it's not a great analogy.
Yes, and yes.
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions.....Respect for Others
Michael_Hreczkosij
Nicholas Rich wrote:
> I think that all taxes are collected "illegally," but for a different
> reason. Mine stems from the fundamental recognition that theft is a moral
> wrong, and government is not above such "Natural Laws." Similarly, whether
> or not there are codes and statutes for or against murder is irrelevant when
> governments murder their citizens, as has happened many times. Murder is
> wrong and legislation cannot make it right. Same goes for theft.
Mr. Rich. I am still awaiting your comments on my last post, but since
it has probably gone by the hypothetical usenet wayside, I'll summarize.
The way I see it you define taxation as theft, and then proclaim that
since theft is wrong, taxation is wrong. While I agree that theft is
always wrong, I disagree on the definition that taxation is theft.
Taxation, in and of itself, comes in many forms, but what we primarily
are discussing is the income tax. We can handle this two ways. Is
taxation as a whole theft, or is the income tax itself theft. Let us
begin with the first.
Taxation as a whole is the name given to the means by which a
govermental body gains revenue. Your assertion that taxation is theft
implies that the act of a government obtaining revenue is theft. In
other words, a government obtains revenue by forceful action. I think
we can agree that if the action is not forceful and an individual is
willing to pay the "tax" for reasons other that fear of retribution,
than he is not being stolen from.
Returning to our argument, the assertion that taxation is theft is the
same as governments obtain revenue by forceful action. If there is a
single contradiction to this statement, that is if there is a single
instance in which the government obtained revenue withour force, than
youur assertion become nullified. It goes from Taxation is theft, to
taxation can be theft. The contradictions are all around you to your
assertion. I, as well as most of my fellow americans, pay my taxes
voluntarily, not for fear of retribution, but because I like having a
strong military and a decent police force and an agency to track down
federal criminals. Thus taxation is not always theft, because I paid my
taxes willingly, not from fear of retribution. Ths it remains to be
seen if the assertion Taxation can be theft is true.
I will certainly agree that in many cases taqxation can be theft. Most
obviously taxation without representation is what could be considered
theft. The obtaining of revenue without the consent or the say of the
taxed. Another way in which taxation can be theft is in your
circumstance. You pay your taxes, not because you want to, but for fear
of retribution. I do not disagree that you are being forced against
your will to pay taxes.
Whatr do we have so far. We have seen that taxation isn't always theft
but it can be. Is the income tax as a whole theft? Let us look.
The income tax is a way of gauging the amount of tax due as per
someone's income. At first it may seem unfair. Why should rich people
who are much more productive pay more in taxes than those who do little
or nothing. It would make sense that for nay fair tax system, those who
pay more should recieve more. With the exception of welfare recipients,
I would contend that this situation is the case in the present time.
Those who pay more do get more.
An average family with an income of $50,000 a year pays an approximate
$13,000 in taxes. What government benefits do they recieve. We'll they
recieve defense benefits in the form of the military and police. They
recieve a postal service, an EPA, etc.
An above average family with an income of $500,000 a year probably pays
about $200,000 a year, and at first glance they receive the same
benefits as above. But a closer look is needed.
Family number one can't afford a house so they live in a apartment with
all of their posessions. They own no land. They have one car and a
dog. Family number two has three houses, hundreds of acres, two cars, a
motorcycle, two horses, five dogs, a maid, etc etc. From the defense
benefit, family number two, as a land owning fmaily, certainly has much
more to lose than family number one. Just as a security company charges
more to guard a mansion than an apartment, the landowner's share of the
defense bill is higher than the non landowner. The same goes for
agencies such as the EPA. Family number one's only interest in the EPA
is keeping the air clean, so they don't get bloddy noses on smoggy days.
Family number two benefits from the fact that their land is protected
from the nearby powerplant, and that acid rain won't destroy their
foilage, and that the water table that gives them water isn't
contaminated. The more productiove family benefits more from the acts
of the EPA, and thus has a higher share of the cost.
The same example can be used in just about every case, excpet as I said
before, in the case of welfare recipients.
Thus it is not unfair to expect those who are more produuctive, and thus
recieve more benefit from governmental agencies, to pay more. This is
not to say that some of these agencies don't hinder those that are
productive too. No system is perfect. While there are certainly some
kinks in the system, the premise of income tax is not flawed, or
immoral. Thus income tax in and of itself, is not theft, especially if
the people of the land ratified it through their elected officals.
In conclusion, I have shown that while taxation is not always theft, it
can be, and that the income tax is not inherently flawed.
the only valid protest to taxation is on such fundamental morality or
> "Natural Law."
>
> Technical "legal" arguments always lose, and what's more, they sanction a
> thief's "right to steal" so long as they get the paperwork technicaly
> correct.
See above. No sanctioning the right to steal, just sancitoning the
right of men to associate and pursue common interests together.
Steve
Michael_Hreczkosij
I see your point in the above example, and I can agree that if you are taking advantage of government services
only because the government already took your money by force and you are trying to get it back in one form or
another, than you are not sanctioning the act of taxation. If you look at the value of all of the different
services that you are a beneficiary of, you may see that you are recouping more in value than the government
has stolen from you. I need to look at this line of reasoning more carefully before I can make more confident
statements. Your point is well taken.
> > You may take your car or
> > cash back without sanctioning the act of robbery. However, if you catch
> > the thief in the act and you accept a value or service from him that
> > will allow him to walk away with the value he got from you, you *have*
> > sanctioned the act.
>
> Not at all. Certainly not if he continues to point a gun at me. I will
> take whatever he allows me, and that is not immoral.
If the thief has a gun pointed at you the whole time than you have been forced into accepting such an
agreement, and thus did not sanction the act. No such parallel exists in the taxation discussion because you
may always leave the jursidiction of the United States and chose to pay taxes somewhere else. It is not a
communist nation where no one is allowed to leave.
>
> > > Therefore an individual who refuses to pay taxes but has them taken
> > > > away anyway is stolen from, but then to accept as recompense services of
> > > > the government such as defense. policing, roads, enviromental laws, etc,
> > > > has sanctioned the act of taxation.
>
> I would agree IF and ONLY if:
>
> a) the person has already received back the full value of the taxes he
> has paid in his lifetime, and
I contend that if you look at all the services you benefit from, and try to put a monetary value on it as far
as what it would cost you in a free market, you will see you have either recieved more than the full value,
broke even, or was the victim of corruption in which an individual has stolen money from the government, and
hence from you.
>
> b) the government services he uses are freely available in a
> competitive marketplace, including policing, roads, and so forth.
Security services already exist to protect your home. No one says you can't buy a stretch of land, put a road
on it, and let people drive on it. Privately owned roads do exist. There are those areas in which the
government holds an unfair monopoly, and I agree with you that those should be broken.
>
> > > Not at all. Suppose there is a mafia strongman in an area. He claims to
> > > keep bad guys away by protecting you, and is much more effective than any
> > > public policeman, whom he has either bridbed or threatened into not policing
> > > effectively in your area. He intimidates you to the tune of giving him
> > > $1000 a week from your business for 'protection money'. If someone robs
> > > your store, are you 'sanctioning' his theft if you go to him to complain
> > > about the robbery? What other choice do you have?
> > >
> >
> > Yes. If the Mafia Stongman takes $1000/week without your permission,
> > then he has stolen from you. However, if you take him up on his
> > 'services' and treat the cash exchanged as a business deal, then you
> > have sanctioned the act of giving him money.
>
> It's NOT a business deal, though. He has monopolized protection
> services, by bribing , blackmailing or killing off all competition. So I
> have no choice.
You are correct in asserting that you have been forced to pay him the $1000. Youu are not forced to complain
to him though. That is the action that sanctions the deal.
>
> > As far as what other
> > choice you have, at the risk of sounding ludicrous, you could contact
> > the local police as far as both the robbery and the mafia.
>
> He calls himself the local police. So what?
Certainly there is apoint where honest authorities could step in and solve your problem. A world without
honest people is not what we're discussing.
>
> > > > Thus all those who do not sanction the act of the government to enact a
> > > > tax, in other words, all those who do not desire the government to take
> > > > their money, are mooching off the system whenever they use
> > > > the services of the government, regardless of whether or not they
> > > > actually paid taxes.
>
> Ah, so there is such a thing as a thought crime. He is a moocher if he
> simply 'doesn't sanction' even if he pays grudgingly. That would make
> him a moocher even in the extreme situation where 90% of his income was
> stolen and 5% given back in services.
It is not a thought crime, it is an action. Sanctioning an act is an action. The fact that someone would not
pay without force or threat of force is a refusal to sanction the payment. Just because there isn't a gun to
his head doesn't make it a hypothetical gun. To sanction is not a thought, but an action. I pay my taxes my my
own volition. You, I assume, pay because there is a hypothetical gun to your head.
Like I said before, using those services while not sanctioning the tax is not a crime. I just claim that in an
objectivist philosophy, it is immoral.
>
> > > >The government only steals money from moochers.
> > > > For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
> > > > the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
> > > > anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
> > > > tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
> > > > However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
> > > > fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
> > > > which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
> > > > mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
> > > > country. Mr. A has mooched off of me.
> > >
> > > Really? So the government not only steals, it prohibits people to travel
> > > freely to Grand Kabob? And this makes Mr. A a moocher?
>
> > BY the fact that grand Kabob is public land, upkept by the government,
> > it is inherent that it is immoral for those who do not pay taxes to the
> > government or have explicit permission to use that land. Mr. A does not
> > own Grand Kabob so he has no justification for insisting that he be able
> > to travel freely there.
>
> You mean the government uses guns to keep people out of Kabob, in addition
> to using guns to make people pay money to it.
Do you question the right of Disneyland to charge money to enter? Property rights, especially those of land
ownership, are absolute. Just because title belongs to the US doesn't prohibit them from using it as they
wish. If I want to use a gun to keep youu off of my land, I am justified in doing so.
> > > > I paid for some of that park,and
> > > > it is a members only park, where the members are willing taxpayers of
> > > > this country or foreign visitors with the proper visa who have paid an
> > > > arrival tax.
> > >
> > > Is that true? Is the park closed to those who can't produce an income tax
> > > receipt (plus proof of never complaining about taxes)? If so, then perhaps
> > > you have some kind of a point. (Though you would have to justify the
> > > monopolizing of the park first.) For example, if the public schools
> > > required a tax-receipt of parents who send their kids there, that would be
> > > entirely legitimate.
> > >
> > > I agree that there should be NO free lunches.
> >
> > In reality the park is not closed, not did I claim that it was. I
> > stated that the use of a park that you either do not pay for or sanction
> > the use of your money to pay for is immoral. I do not need to justify
> > the 'monopolization' of the park because there is none. It is merely
> > owned by someone other than yourself, namely the US.
>
> Same thing, if it is a natural resource and the government simply started
> appropriating title.
It seems as if you do not believe that natural resources are able to be owned. Does not the coal miner have
the right to sell his coal?
>
> > Offer a high
> > enough price and surely Congress would release it to you. You may not
> > want the US to own any parks, and there is a strong argument in your
> > favor, but to agrue that the government inherently does not have the
> > right to own property is a different apple altogether.
>
> Maybe you ought to think about what makes land ownership moral.
I do not wish to argue about the morality of land ownership. If you go down that path it will be without me.
>
> BTW, what about my public school point?
>
I agree that it would be entirely justifiable to demand that users of the public school system are responsible
tax payers. However, it has been the consensus of the majority that those who evade taxes also be allowed to
use the school system. I may disagree but I concede to the right of the majority to make administrative
decisions.
> > > > Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
> > > > steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force, the
> > > > thief or the mooch?
> > >
> > > Seeing as the crime of the mooch, as you call him, is entirely in his
> > > THOUGHTS (he is a mooch even if he DOES pay taxes grudgingly) it is not
> > > hard to see which is the ONLY crime here.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a thought crime. He is a mooch by his
> > actions. If he does not give his tax money freely to the government and
> > yet cliams the right to the services, he is a mooch.
>
>So it's still a thought crime.
>
No it's an immoral action.
> > > Now, you might not like this argument, but you have justified slavery. The
> > > slave who complained about how the master treated him, but nevertheless
> > > used one iota of the master's property was a MOOCH, according to you.
> > >
> > Almost but not quite. The slave is not a willing participant in the
> > exchange, nor is he there under his own free will. The master is
> > forcing the slave to accept his ownership by not allowing him to leave
> > or negotiate terms of agreement. I see a better parallel in feudalism,
> > where the feudal lord has been replaced by a self elected executor of a
> > contract among free men and women.
>
> Not much better, IMHO.
> --
Do you contend that there is something inherently immoral with a feudalistic government, or are you saying it's
not a great analogy.
steve hreczkosij
Michael_Hreczkosij
<lengthy discussion snipped>
> > I see your point in the above example, and I can agree that if you are taking
> > advantage of government services only because the government already
> > took your money by force and you are trying to get it back in one form or
> > another, than you are not sanctioning the act of taxation. If you look at the
> > value of all of the different services that you are a beneficiary of, you may see
> > that you are recouping more in value than the government has stolen from
> > you. I need to look at this line of reasoning more carefully before I can make
> > more confident statements. Your point is well taken.
>
> Furthermore, if you are entitled to receive services even if you are NOT
> a taxpayer, then you are receiving a GIFT, are you not? See below when
> you yourself make the same point about public schools.
I agree with you that if you are using services that you are not required to be a taxpayer
for, then you are recieving a gift. This does not apply for most government services,
however. Public schools don't go chasing down your tax records, but they do require that you
be a US citizen or legal alien. The condition of being a citizen implies, but does not
require that you are a taxpaying citizen. If the school board does not choose to pursue that
requirement, then so be it, but it would not be unjustifiable. Also, the post office is
usable to anyone who wants to buy a stamp. The military, however, is primarily concerned
with protecting the land and lives of US citizens. Protecting those that refuse to pay or do
not wish to pay their bill to the government is unavoidable. You can't choose to protect one
house and not another on a national scale. I wouldn't say that national defense is a gift
from the rest of the United States to you.
> I contend that if you look at all the services you benefit from, and try to put a
> > monetary value on it as far as what it would cost you in a free market, you will
> > see you have either recieved more than the full value, broke even, or was the > victim of corruption in which an individual has stolen money from the
> > government, and hence from you.
>
> So you believe that the government does an EFFICIENT job with the taxes
> it collects? Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
I believe that the act of sharing a common good to meet a common desire is efficient by
principle. I alone could not pay for the military, nor could any one individual. I pay a
tiny fraction of it's cost, but I recieve it's full benefit. The government, to be sure,
often botches up what is easy, but it's still more efficient than if every citizen had to
maintain their own private army and then coordiante those armies for national defense issues.
>
> > > b) the government services he uses are freely available in a
> > > competitive marketplace, including policing, roads, and so forth.
>
> > Security services already exist to protect your home.
>
> Who must follow the rules of government.
What regulations must they follow? I am not an expert on government regulations on security
firms. I will agree with you that undue regulation is unhealthy.
>
> >No one says you can't buy a stretch of land, put a road
> > on it, and let people drive on it. Privately owned roads do exist.
>
> SO long as the government regulations are followed.
What do you mean by this. On privately owned roads there are no speed limits, no sort of
regulation like that on public roads. If so, I have not heard of it.
>
> > There are those areas in which the
> > government holds an unfair monopoly, and I agree with you that those should
> > be broken.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Not at all. Suppose there is a mafia strongman in an area. He claims to
> > > > > keep bad guys away by protecting you, and is much more effective than > > > > any public policeman, whom he has either bridbed or threatened into not
> > > > > policing effectively in your area. He intimidates you to the tune of
> > > > > giving him $1000 a week from your business for 'protection money'. If
> > > > > someone robs your store, are you 'sanctioning' his theft if you go to him
> > > > > to complain about the robbery? What other choice do you have?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. If the Mafia Stongman takes $1000/week without your permission,
> > > > then he has stolen from you. However, if you take him up on his
> > > > 'services' and treat the cash exchanged as a business deal, then you
> > > > have sanctioned the act of giving him money.
> > >
> > > It's NOT a business deal, though. He has monopolized protection
> > > services, by bribing , blackmailing or killing off all competition. So I
> > > have no choice.
> >
> > You are correct in asserting that you have been forced to pay him the $1000.
> > You are not forced to complain to him though. That is the action that
> > sanctions the deal.
>
> So, when the slave ate the master's food, he 'sanctioned' the arrangement?
A slave is being held against his will, and is being forced to serve.If the master and slave
had a contract in which services would be exchanged for room and board, then the slave would
be sanctioning their agreement.
I think I can see what the logical progression of the above situation will be, and it is
tricky. It boils down to the idea of soveriegnty. The more and more we go into this
discussion, it seems as if we are getting away from the original point that I was trying to
make, that all taxation is not theft, to what it evolving into now, which is basically the
morality of government at all. If you are a proponant of anarchistic capitalism, with
competing defense agencies, then we're trying to debate from two different playing fields. I
assume going into this debate, that you are not questioning the morality of having a
government, or the morality of land ownership. If you follow the basic philosophy of David
Freidmann( I believe that's right, not sure though), then we really aren't going to
accomplish much in this debate because we have totally oppisite viewpoints. Your analogy
with the Mafia Stongman, I can see, applies to how you visualize the government, stealing
money, offering protection, and killing off the competition. I am not going to try to
change the heart of every anarchist in the world, and if that's what I'm up against, then
have a good day because where our viewpoints differ, "the twain shall never meet".
> > > > As far as what other
> > > > choice you have, at the risk of sounding ludicrous, you could contact
> > > > the local police as far as both the robbery and the mafia.
> > >
> > > He calls himself the local police. So what?
> >
> > Certainly there is apoint where honest authorities could step in and solve your > problem. A world without honest people is not what we're discussing.
>
> You misunderstand. He IS HONEST. The persons bribing, blackmailing and
> occasionally killing off the competition ARE the government and their
> police.
I did misunderstand, see the above.
If Disneyland bought the pond, put a fence around it, and tried to sell tickets, that's their
right. There's a difference between seizing land, and purchasing land.
>
> > Property rights, especially those of land
> > ownership, are absolute. Just because title belongs to the US doesn't prohibit > them from using it as they wish. If I want to use a gun to keep youu off o
> > land, I am justified in doing so.
>
> Even if you claim all the unused land in, say, Wyoming?
Unused does not mean unowned. As far as I know, there is no unowned land in the United
States.
> It seems as if you do not believe that natural resources are able to be owned.
> > Does not the coal miner have the right to sell his coal?
>
> Sure, but how much coal is 'his' coal?
As much of as he bought the land and mined out of. By buying the land he lays claim to all
the minerals in the soil. If it's not his, then who's is it? Your's? Society's?
> > BTW, what about my public school point?
>> >
> > I agree that it would be entirely justifiable to demand that users of the public
> > school system are responsible tax payers. However, it has been the
> > consensus of the majority that those who evade taxes also be allowed to use
> > the school system. I may disagree but I concede to the right of the majority to
> make administrative decisions.
>
> Therefore, public schooling is a gift, and using it does not sanction
> anything.
You are correct. See the first comment above.
>
> > > > > > Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
> > > > > > steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force,
> > > > > > the thief or the mooch?
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing as the crime of the mooch, as you call him, is entirely in his
> > > > > THOUGHTS (he is a mooch even if he DOES pay taxes grudgingly) it is
> > > > > not hard to see which is the ONLY crime here.
> > > >
> > > > There is no such thing as a thought crime. He is a mooch by his
> > > > actions. If he does not give his tax money freely to the government and
> > > > yet cliams the right to the services, he is a mooch.
> > >
> > >So it's still a thought crime.
> > >
> > No it's an immoral action.
>
> You have said that if a person THINKS he has been stolen from, and uses
> government services, he is a mooch. Thus, according to you, even though
> he paid the taxes, he might still be a mooch -- depending on his
> OPINIONS. No?
A mooch does not 'think' his money has been stolen, it really has. A hypothetical gun to the
head is just as threatening as a real gun. He may still pay, but his reason for paying is
different. He still has not broken the law. But the morality of it does depend upon his
reason for paying. A man kills another man. In one case it was out of cold blood. In
another case it was because he was insane. That is an example of a 'thought crime' in which
the person's action determined his guilt, but his reason determined his morality. Would you
say that an insane person is immoral? If a person is living in a friend's apartment for free,
mooching off of him, and then is the victim of a theft by that friend, is he still a mooch?
I say yes.
The clincher is that the moocher would continue to use the services of government and not pay
for them, unless forced to pay.
> > > --
> > Do you contend that there is something inherently immoral with a feudalistic
> > government, or are you saying it's not a great analogy.
>
> Yes, and yes.
What is inherently wrong with feudalism? If I own land and I let you live on it in exchange
for services, then what's the problem? And I agree it wasn't the greatest analogy, but
better than the master slave analogy that you purport.
steve hreczkosij
Nicholas Rich
In article <33D690...@minna.cns.iit.edu>, Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
><lengthy discussion snipped>
>
>> > I see your point in the above example, and I can agree that if you are
> taking
>> > advantage of government services only because the government already
>> > took your money by force and you are trying to get it back in one form or
>> > another, than you are not sanctioning the act of taxation. If you look at
> the
>> > value of all of the different services that you are a beneficiary of, you
> may see
>> > that you are recouping more in value than the government has stolen from
>> > you. I need to look at this line of reasoning more carefully before I can
> make
>> > more confident statements. Your point is well taken.
>>
>> Furthermore, if you are entitled to receive services even if you are NOT
>> a taxpayer, then you are receiving a GIFT, are you not? See below when
>> you yourself make the same point about public schools.
>
>I agree with you that if you are using services that you are not required to be
> a taxpayer
>for, then you are recieving a gift. This does not apply for most government
Michael,
Did you suddenly lose your ability to control the length of you? lines.
You're two most recent posts are impossible to read.
McQ
>Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>vicl...@ican.net wrote:
If I understand Victor's point it isn't whether the thief does
"good" with what is stolen or not, the point is the act is still theft
and therefore morally wrong. The line of thinking above absolves the
thief and the act of theft if the thief does "good" with the proceeds.
I don't think that's what you mean is it?
>> > You may take your car or
>> > cash back without sanctioning the act of robbery. However, if you catch
>> > the thief in the act and you accept a value or service from him that
>> > will allow him to walk away with the value he got from you, you *have*
>> > sanctioned the act.
>>
>> Not at all. Certainly not if he continues to point a gun at me. I will
>> take whatever he allows me, and that is not immoral.
>If the thief has a gun pointed at you the whole time than you have been forced
>into accepting such an agreement, and thus did not sanction the act. No such
>parallel exists in the taxation discussion because you may always leave the
>jursidiction of the United States and chose to pay taxes somewhere else. It
>is not a communist nation where no one is allowed to leave.
So now you're making the point that if you don't like thievery and
you don't care to condone it or have to put up with it you should
move?
Interesting. As I point out quite often, this line of reasoning
would have had the civil right's activists of the '60s moving instead
of protesting the wrongs to which they were subjected. You agree they
should have moved?
>> > > Therefore an individual who refuses to pay taxes but has them taken
>> > > > away anyway is stolen from, but then to accept as recompense services of
>> > > > the government such as defense. policing, roads, enviromental laws, etc,
>> > > > has sanctioned the act of taxation.
>>
>> I would agree IF and ONLY if:
>>
>> a) the person has already received back the full value of the taxes he
>> has paid in his lifetime, and
>I contend that if you look at all the services you benefit from, and try to put a
>monetary value on it as far as what it would cost you in a free market, you will
>see you have either recieved more than the full value, broke even, or was the
>victim of corruption in which an individual has stolen money from the government,
>and hence from you.
And while comforting, is really incidental to the point that you are
not given the choice of the free market as an alternative because the
means by which you'd have made that choice have been stolen or the
alternatives have been prohibited "by law".
>> b) the government services he uses are freely available in a
>> competitive marketplace, including policing, roads, and so forth.
>Security services already exist to protect your home.
Correct, but I have no choice as to whether I pay taxes to the city
to support their police department, do I?
> No one says you can't buy a stretch of land, put a road on it, and
>let people drive on it.
Absolutely incorrect. I'm sure you've heard of zoning laws?
>Privately owned roads do exist.
Yes they do, and usually at the forebearance of the government.
>There are those areas in which the government holds an unfair
>monopoly, and I agree with you that those should be broken.
It depends on the role you see for government, doesn't it?
If you see it's role as a protector of individual rights,
then you would probably form the opinion that the majority of
"those areas" where we now see government's heavy hand should be
eliminated and it should only concern itself with the job of right's
protection.
>> > > Not at all. Suppose there is a mafia strongman in an area. He claims to
>> > > keep bad guys away by protecting you, and is much more effective than any
>> > > public policeman, whom he has either bridbed or threatened into not policing
>> > > effectively in your area. He intimidates you to the tune of giving him
>> > > $1000 a week from your business for 'protection money'. If someone robs
>> > > your store, are you 'sanctioning' his theft if you go to him to complain
>> > > about the robbery? What other choice do you have?
>> > Yes. If the Mafia Stongman takes $1000/week without your permission,
>> > then he has stolen from you. However, if you take him up on his
>> > 'services' and treat the cash exchanged as a business deal, then you
>> > have sanctioned the act of giving him money.
>>
>> It's NOT a business deal, though. He has monopolized protection
>> services, by bribing , blackmailing or killing off all competition. So I
>> have no choice.
>You are correct in asserting that you have been forced to pay him the $1000.
>You are not forced to complain to him though. That is the action that sanctions
>the deal.
There is no "sanction" in a "deal" that is described here as
sanction requires consent. Consent requires you to have the choice to
say no. Would you agree that no such choice exists in this situation?
If not, then consent is not present, and therefore neither is
sanction. This is much the same argument concerning taxation.
>> > As far as what other
>> > choice you have, at the risk of sounding ludicrous, you could contact
>> > the local police as far as both the robbery and the mafia.
>>
>> He calls himself the local police. So what?
>Certainly there is apoint where honest authorities could step in and solve your
>problem. A world without honest people is not what we're discussing.
Who do we contact about the robbery called "taxation without
consent"?
>> > > > Thus all those who do not sanction the act of the government to enact a
>> > > > tax, in other words, all those who do not desire the government to take
>> > > > their money, are mooching off the system whenever they use
>> > > > the services of the government, regardless of whether or not they
>> > > > actually paid taxes.
>>
>> Ah, so there is such a thing as a thought crime. He is a moocher if he
>> simply 'doesn't sanction' even if he pays grudgingly. That would make
>> him a moocher even in the extreme situation where 90% of his income was
>> stolen and 5% given back in services.
>It is not a thought crime, it is an action. Sanctioning an act is an action.
>The fact that someone would not pay without force or threat of force is a refusal
>to sanction the payment. Just because there isn't a gun to his head doesn't make
>it a hypothetical gun. To sanction is not a thought, but an action. I pay my
>taxes of my own volition. You, I assume, pay because there is a hypothetical
>gun to your head.
First it isn't a "hypothetical gun" it is the force of law, who will
indeed use real guns to force your compliance with those laws if
necessary.
Secondly, short of fleeing the use of force to take your assets,
what other REAL choice are you afforded? With no REAL choice, how
does one then conclude that continuing to try to support one's self in
the face of this blatant thievery is somehow a sanction of the
thievery?
>Like I said before, using those services while not sanctioning the tax
>is not a crime. I just claim that in an objectivist philosophy, it is immoral.
Give an alternatives to using the monopoly services imposed on one
by the government? Do I have the choice of a private police force?
Private roads not subject to the permission of various governmental
bodies for permission to operate? Access to gasoline that doesn't
have a tax imposed upon it?
If we avail ourselves of the black market, for instance, we are
commiting a "crime" and are subject to punishment by imprisionment.
Who has the monopoly on declaring a "crime?"
If we avoid this use of an alternative because we might be
imprisioned, does this constitute the "sanctioning" of theft because
we do so?
>> > > >The government only steals money from moochers.
>> > > > For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
>> > > > the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
>> > > > anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
>> > > > tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
>> > > > However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
>> > > > fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
>> > > > which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
>> > > > mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
>> > > > country. Mr. A has mooched off of me.
>> > >
>> > > Really? So the government not only steals, it prohibits people to travel
>> > > freely to Grand Kabob? And this makes Mr. A a moocher?
>>
>> > BY the fact that grand Kabob is public land, upkept by the government,
>> > it is inherent that it is immoral for those who do not pay taxes to the
>> > government or have explicit permission to use that land. Mr. A does not
>> > own Grand Kabob so he has no justification for insisting that he be able
>> > to travel freely there.
>>
>> You mean the government uses guns to keep people out of Kabob, in addition
>> to using guns to make people pay money to it.
>Do you question the right of Disneyland to charge money to enter? Property rights,
>especially those of land ownership, are absolute. Just because title belongs to
>the US doesn't prohibit them from using it as they wish. If I want to use a gun
>to keep youu off of my land, I am justified in doing so.
It's back to the question of the role of government. Was this
governemnt formed to protect individual rights or to own land, tax
people's assets and redistribute them and commit all sorts of
violations of individual rights in the name of the "common good"?
<snip>
>> > Offer a high
>> > enough price and surely Congress would release it to you. You may not
>> > want the US to own any parks, and there is a strong argument in your
>> > favor, but to agrue that the government inherently does not have the
>> > right to own property is a different apple altogether.
>>
>> Maybe you ought to think about what makes land ownership moral.
>I do not wish to argue about the morality of land ownership. If you go down that
>path it will be without me.
So only "legal" matters in your examination of this dilemma? How
are you able to examine it thoroughly without looking at the moral
dimension?
>> BTW, what about my public school point?
>>
>I agree that it would be entirely justifiable to demand that users of the public
>school system are responsible tax payers. However, it has been the consensus of
>the majority that those who evade taxes also be allowed to use the school system.
>I may disagree but I concede to the right of the majority to make administrative
>decisions.
How about those that are forced to pay for public schools but send
their children to private schools because the education provided in
the public schools is, in their opinion, inferior to what can be found
in private schooling? Should they be forced to continue to pay for a
"service" they no longer want or use?
>> > > > Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
>> > > > steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force, the
>> > > > thief or the mooch?
>> > >
>> > > Seeing as the crime of the mooch, as you call him, is entirely in his
>> > > THOUGHTS (he is a mooch even if he DOES pay taxes grudgingly) it is not
>> > > hard to see which is the ONLY crime here.
>> >
>> > There is no such thing as a thought crime. He is a mooch by his
>> > actions. If he does not give his tax money freely to the government and
>> > yet cliams the right to the services, he is a mooch.
>>
>>So it's still a thought crime.
>>
>No it's an immoral action.
I thought you weren't going to delve into morality?
Interesting. I was attempting to understand your logic, so I
rephrased it:
"He is a mooch by his actions. If he does not freely relinquish what
is demanded of him under pain of imprisonment and yet claims rights to
that which is commissioned and/or used by the thief, he (the person
stolen from) is a mooch."
Amazing.
McQ
_________________________
Remove one of the "i's" in "iix" and email away...
Michael_Hreczkosij
McQ wrote:
>
>
> If I understand Victor's point it isn't whether the thief does
> "good" with what is stolen or not, the point is the act is still theft
> and therefore morally wrong. The line of thinking above absolves the
> thief and the act of theft if the thief does "good" with the proceeds.
> I don't think that's what you mean is it?
in your wallet and demand your money back, you are justified, but if you
come upon a thief with his hand in your wallet and he says how about you
let me take this money and I'll give you this TV for it, and you consent
and take the TV, you are participating in a business transaction. The
original idea behind thia was not that taxation cannot be considered
theft, but that it isn't always theft. I consent. You may personally
not, and thus you are a victim of a theft. However, in this country
consent is determined by a majority rule. If a majority consents, the
minority must follow suit. For example, I live in a fraternity house, for
which I pay rent, dues, etc. Sometimes we vote on issues like raising
dues, etc. If I vote against a dues increase, but I lose out, then I make
the choice of whether or not the lost value of paying undesired dues is
worth the bvalue of living in a nice house as opposed to some small dorm
room, etc. Have I been the victim of a theft? No, because my remaining
in the house implies sanction for the concept that majority determines
consent. It works pretty well that way. It would appear that you support
a government where changes are made by unanimous vote. I don't think that
a government yet has used that principle and done very well in recorded
history. I could be wrong though.
> you don't care to condone it or have to put up with it you should
> move?
>
> Interesting. As I point out quite often, this line of reasoning
> would have had the civil right's activists of the '60s moving instead
> of protesting the wrongs to which they were subjected. You agree they
> should have moved?
>
their problem. They chose instead to try to change the opinion of the
majority, and were succesful. I have never questioned your right to not
like taxes. If you are attempting to change the opinion of the majority
in order to bring about a better life for yourself, then your actions are
to be commended. I'm just saying that I'm a member of that majority that
you're going to have to convince before anything can begin to happen.
>
> And while comforting, is really incidental to the point that you are
> not given the choice of the free market as an alternative because the
> means by which you'd have made that choice have been stolen or the
> alternatives have been prohibited "by law".
I agree with you on this one. The market should be made free and no body
should have to use the government services. If someone wants to call the
EPA and tell them that they have no problem with the nearby factory
dumping waste on their property and contaminating the water table, that
should be their right.
>
> >> b) the government services he uses are freely available in a
> >> competitive marketplace, including policing, roads, and so forth.
>
> >Security services already exist to protect your home.
>
> Correct, but I have no choice as to whether I pay taxes to the city
> to support their police department, do I?
You do have a choice. Just as if I weighed the value of higher dues to
living in a different location, you can move out of the city. If you do
not wish to support county police, change counties. Or attempt to shut
down the city police department. It's your right to try.
>
> > No one says you can't buy a stretch of land, put a road on it, and
> >let people drive on it.
>
> Absolutely incorrect. I'm sure you've heard of zoning laws?
I stand corrected. I fully support the dissolution of zoning laws that
restrict personal rights. People should be able to do whatever they want
with their own property without initiating force upon their neighbors.
> >There are those areas in which the government holds an unfair
> >monopoly, and I agree with you that those should be broken.
>
> It depends on the role you see for government, doesn't it?
>
> If you see it's role as a protector of individual rights,
> then you would probably form the opinion that the majority of
> "those areas" where we now see government's heavy hand should be
> eliminated and it should only concern itself with the job of right's
> protection.
I believe that the role of the government is whatever role the majority
desires and the miority will accept. People may assemble and form
aggreements as they want.
> There is no "sanction" in a "deal" that is described here as
> sanction requires consent. Consent requires you to have the choice to
> say no. Would you agree that no such choice exists in this situation?
>
> If not, then consent is not present, and therefore neither is
> sanction. This is much the same argument concerning taxation.
By taking the mafia strongman up on his offer and using his services,
that implies consent. If the mafia strongman takes the money and you have
nothing to do with him besides, then you are the victim of a theft.
> Who do we contact about the robbery called "taxation without
> consent"?
>
Your local congressman. Tell him that you wish for him to introduce a
bill that will dissolve all taxes that you do not consent to. If he
doesn't, then you run for office and introduce the bill when you become a
congressman.
>
> First it isn't a "hypothetical gun" it is the force of law, who will
> indeed use real guns to force your compliance with those laws if
> necessary.
>
What I mean was that the threat of a gun was just as valid as a real gun.
> Secondly, short of fleeing the use of force to take your assets,
> what other REAL choice are you afforded? With no REAL choice, how
> does one then conclude that continuing to try to support one's self in
> the face of this blatant thievery is somehow a sanction of the
> thievery?
BY remaining in the UNited States you consent to the use and payment of
the services offered by the government. Because the government of the
nation is tied into the territory, to stop consenting implies leaving the
nation.
>
> >Like I said before, using those services while not sanctioning the tax
> >is not a crime. I just claim that in an objectivist philosophy, it is immoral.
>
> Give an alternatives to using the monopoly services imposed on one
> by the government? Do I have the choice of a private police force?
> Private roads not subject to the permission of various governmental
> bodies for permission to operate? Access to gasoline that doesn't
> have a tax imposed upon it?
>
The alternative is to either move or change the law.
> If we avail ourselves of the black market, for instance, we are
> commiting a "crime" and are subject to punishment by imprisionment.
> Who has the monopoly on declaring a "crime?"
I fully agree with you that crimes should be limited to those that
preclude the iniation of force on another individual.
>
> If we avoid this use of an alternative because we might be
> imprisioned, does this constitute the "sanctioning" of theft because
> we do so?
>
If you choose to reside in the US and accept it's services, you sanction
the government.
>
> It's back to the question of the role of government. Was this
> governemnt formed to protect individual rights or to own land, tax
> people's assets and redistribute them and commit all sorts of
> violations of individual rights in the name of the "common good"?
see my above statement regarding the role of government. If the majority
aggrees it wants to buy and set aside land, then so be it.
>
>
> >I do not wish to argue about the morality of land ownership. If you go down that
> >path it will be without me.
>
> So only "legal" matters in your examination of this dilemma? How
> are you able to examine it thoroughly without looking at the moral
> dimension?
>
I merely stated that I did not with to look at the legitamacy of the
government to own land, not that I was not discussing morality altogether.
Indeed the entire debate has been based on the morality of not sancitoning
the government and still claiming it's services.
>
> How about those that are forced to pay for public schools but send
> their children to private schools because the education provided in
> the public schools is, in their opinion, inferior to what can be found
> in private schooling? Should they be forced to continue to pay for a
> "service" they no longer want or use?
See my above comments about monopolies.
> I thought you weren't going to delve into morality?
You misunderstood.
> Interesting. I was attempting to understand your logic, so I
> rephrased it:
>
> "He is a mooch by his actions. If he does not freely relinquish what
> is demanded of him under pain of imprisonment and yet claims rights to
> that which is commissioned and/or used by the thief, he (the person
> stolen from) is a mooch."
Read also,
"He is a mooch by his actions. If he claims rights to
that which is commissioned and/or used by a group, and yet
does not freely relinquish what is demanded of him without threat of
imprisonment, he is a mooch."
Does this help illustrate my point?
> Amazing.
That's what I was thinking.
Steve Hreczkosij
McQ
>Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
><lengthy discussion snipped>
>> > I see your point in the above example, and I can agree that if you are taking
>> > advantage of government services only because the government already
>> > took your money by force and you are trying to get it back in one form or
>> > another, than you are not sanctioning the act of taxation. If you look at the
>> > value of all of the different services that you are a beneficiary of, you may see
>> > that you are recouping more in value than the government has stolen from
>> > you. I need to look at this line of reasoning more carefully before I can make
>> > more confident statements. Your point is well taken.
>>
>> Furthermore, if you are entitled to receive services even if you are NOT
>> a taxpayer, then you are receiving a GIFT, are you not? See below when
>> you yourself make the same point about public schools.
>I agree with you that if you are using services that you are not required to be a
>taxpayer for, then you are recieving a gift. This does not apply for most government
>services, however. Public schools don't go chasing down your tax records, but they
>do require that you be a US citizen or legal alien.
They do no such thing. We've been educating illegal aliens for
years in Texas and California (and I assume other states). It is not
only officially condoned but REQUIRED.
>The condition of being a citizen implies, but does not require that you are a
>taxpaying citizen.
The condition of being a citizen is an artifice. It simply
identifies you as a member of a geographical entity known as a
"nation". There is nothing implicit in that identification that
over-rides your inalienable rights as a man.
>If the school board does not choose to pursue that requirement, then so be it, but
>it would not be unjustifiable.
Then how do the schoolboards in Texas and California "justify"
teaching "illegal aliens?" I'll tell you how...they aren't given any
choice.
>Also, the post office is usable to anyone who wants to buy a stamp.
Yeah, because if you want to send something through the system,
they won't do so without it. Amazingly UPS is the same way.
>The military, however, is primarily concerned with protecting the land and lives
>of US citizens.
Is it? What's it doing in the Sinai, Bosnia, Somolia, Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Japan, Okinawa, etc?
>Protecting those that refuse to pay or do not wish to pay their bill to the
>government is unavoidable.
I like this wording. An interesting example of "poisoning the
well". You use the phrase "their bill to the government". By what
right does the government "bill" them? The fact of the matter is a
group of people got together and decided, years ago, that they and
only they knew what was best for the rest of us into perpetuity. The
published a document, formed a government and assumed control.
Eventually, the government formed by these people used force to
require compliance with the dictum laid down in the document, and
further expanded it's power through the use of force to where it
selectively violates the rights of individuals and
How about we rephrase the above:
Protecting people who refuse to pay the extortion price levied by
the government is unaviodable.
Yes, it is unaviodable, IF you intend to use the proceeds of theft
to do so. People are naturally going to RESIST theft.
>You can't choose to protect one house and not another on a national scale. I
>wouldn't say that national defense is a gift from the rest of the United States
>to you.
Really? Ever get a gift you didn't want? It's not a gift, my
friend, if you can't freely refuse it. Secondly, *GIFTS* are FREELY
given. I don't believe you're contending this is freely given.
> > I contend that if you look at all the services you benefit from, and try to put a
>> > monetary value on it as far as what it would cost you in a free market, you will
>> > see you have either recieved more than the full value, broke even, or was the > victim of corruption in which an individual has stolen money from the
>> > government, and hence from you.
>>
>> So you believe that the government does an EFFICIENT job with the taxes
>> it collects? Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
>I believe that the act of sharing a common good to meet a common desire is
>efficient by principle.
Good for you. What if I don't agree? Is it within your rights to
FORCE me to do it your way and to take my assets because you have the
power to do so in order to implement YOUR priorities?
Since when did the "common good", whatever that is, give one the
"right" to violate another individual's inalienable rights?
>I alone could not pay for the military, nor could any one individual. I pay a
>tiny fraction of it's cost, but I recieve it's full benefit. The government, to
>be sure, often botches up what is easy, but it's still more efficient than if
>every citizen had to maintain their own private army and then coordiante those
>armies for national defense issues.
So in essence, you're saying it is not the job of government to
provide for the protection of individual rights, but instead to
provide "efficient services" regardles of type? What is wrong with
voluntarily supporting the national armed services?
<snip>
>> > >
>> > > It's NOT a business deal, though. He has monopolized protection
>> > > services, by bribing , blackmailing or killing off all competition. So I
>> > > have no choice.
>> >
>> > You are correct in asserting that you have been forced to pay him the $1000.
>> > You are not forced to complain to him though. That is the action that
>> > sanctions the deal.
>>
>> So, when the slave ate the master's food, he 'sanctioned' the arrangement?
>A slave is being held against his will, and is being forced to serve. If the master
>and slave had a contract in which services would be exchanged for room and board,
>then the slave would be sanctioning their agreement.
In otherwords, force is being used to keep him in servitude so he is
excused, but you feel that since we have the supposed option of moving
away and don't, we sanction all of this theft as a "good" by sticking
around...fair description of the difference in your eyes?
So what if the "slave" was born and raised in a particular place, of
that particular culture and that place was the only home he'd ever
known and where the rest of his family and relatives reside? Is it a
REAL option then that even if offered the opportunity his only manner
of escaping what you would consider "sanctioning" the actions of his
master is to leave his homeland? Is that a REAL alternative or one of
convenience when you don't want to consider what really constitutes
"sanction" and "consent"?
>I think I can see what the logical progression of the above situation will be,
>and it is tricky. It boils down to the idea of soveriegnty. The more and more
>we go into this discussion, it seems as if we are getting away from the original
>point that I was trying to make, that all taxation is not theft, to what it evolving
>into now, which is basically the morality of government at all.
How can one make the point that "taxation is not theft" without
discussing who is the sovereign here? I have no idea how you can make
the argument that government has a right to tax it's citizens without
their sanction without declaring it to be the sovereign and the
citizens to be government's subjects, can you? So the notion of
sovereignty is vitally important to the conclusion.
My question is was this government set up to protect the sovereignty
of the individual or the sovereignty of the government?
>If you are a proponant of anarchistic capitalism, with
>competing defense agencies, then we're trying to debate from two different playing
>fields. I assume going into this debate, that you are not questioning the morality
>of having a government, or the morality of land ownership.
I don't question the morality of government per se, but only if it
is freely chose by ALL the people and ALL the people agree to it's
structure, strictures, constraints and requirements. That's called
"consent" and I think we all agree that a "legitimate" government is
one which has the CONSENT of the governed. As far as I'm concerned,
THAT is the business of those who've willingly decided to subject
themselves to government. But it by no means gives them the "right"
to require I join, support, acknowledge or live by their priorities or
those of their government. You say it does.
That is the argument.
>If you follow the basic philosophy of David Freidmann( I believe that's right,
>not sure though), then we really aren't going to accomplish much in this debate
>because we have totally oppisite viewpoints. Your analogy with the Mafia Stongman,
>I can see, applies to how you visualize the government, stealing money, offering
>protection, and killing off the competition. I am not going to try to
>change the heart of every anarchist in the world, and if that's what I'm up against,
>then have a good day because where our viewpoints differ, "the twain shall never meet".
Using the paragraph written by me above, how do you justify the
government you support requiring those that don't consent to it or
sanction it's use of force to extort their assets. That has little to
do with anarchy and much to do with the analogy of a mafia strongman.
<snip>
>> You have said that if a person THINKS he has been stolen from, and uses
>> government services, he is a mooch. Thus, according to you, even though
>> he paid the taxes, he might still be a mooch -- depending on his
>> OPINIONS. No?
>A mooch does not 'think' his money has been stolen, it really has.
And that makes him or her a "mooch?"
Good lord.
>A hypothetical gun to the head is just as threatening as a real gun. He may
>still pay, but his reason for paying is different.
Yeah, he pays because the alternative is being hauled away to prison
or worse.
>He still has not broken the law. But the morality of it does depend upon his
>reason for paying.
Nonsense. The reason for his paying has nothing to do with morality,
but instead with self-preservation. The morality comes into play when
one examines how the payment is required. Is it a willing payment?
Then no foul and quite moral. If the payment is made UNWILLINGLY
under duress, under pain of penalty, BY FORCE, then the immoral agent
in the transaction is the one USING THE FORCE.
<snip>
>The clincher is that the moocher would continue to use the services of government
>and not pay for them, unless forced to pay.
How about the fact that he didn't ask for or require the services be
rendered and, through the actions of the government itself, is given
no alternatives to the services to which he can avail himself?
Does that still make him a "mooch?"
Michael_Hreczkosij
McQ wrote:
> >I agree with you that if you are using services that you are not required to be a
> >taxpayer for, then you are recieving a gift. This does not apply for most government
> >services, however. Public schools don't go chasing down your tax records, but they
> >do require that you be a US citizen or legal alien.
>
> They do no such thing. We've been educating illegal aliens for
> years in Texas and California (and I assume other states). It is not
> only officially condoned but REQUIRED.
I stand corrected. That is changing, however, as I believe there WAS a
bill in California that would deny all illegal aliens from benefiting from
government services. Legal alien or not, it is still implied that you be
taxpaying individual. Or do you actually claim the right to use this
public school without having to pay for it?
> >The condition of being a citizen implies, but does not require that you are a
> >taxpaying citizen.
>
> The condition of being a citizen is an artifice. It simply
> identifies you as a member of a geographical entity known as a
> "nation". There is nothing implicit in that identification that
> over-rides your inalienable rights as a man.
It appears that this is where we disagree. Nations are far more than a
geographical entity. They are alliances among individuals, forged to
execute the details of a binding contract, ususally called a constitution.
>
> >If the school board does not choose to pursue that requirement, then so be it, but
> >it would not be unjustifiable.
>
> Then how do the schoolboards in Texas and California "justify"
> teaching "illegal aliens?" I'll tell you how...they aren't given any
> choice.
If 'illegal aliens' are taxpaying members of the community, they can
expect to recieve services for those tax dollars. The only probelm is
that they aren't supposed to be there in the first place.
>
> >The military, however, is primarily concerned with protecting the land and lives
> >of US citizens.
>
> Is it? What's it doing in the Sinai, Bosnia, Somolia, Israel, Saudi
> Arabia, Japan, Okinawa, etc?
I agree that we sould not be in these places. However, every military
operation has been accompanied with a statement of how it is to protect
the interests of americans. Whether or not those interests are legitimate
is what I feel needs to be examined more closely.
>
> >Protecting those that refuse to pay or do not wish to pay their bill to the
> >government is unavoidable.
>
> I like this wording. An interesting example of "poisoning the
> well". You use the phrase "their bill to the government". By what
> right does the government "bill" them? The fact of the matter is a
> group of people got together and decided, years ago, that they and
> only they knew what was best for the rest of us into perpetuity. The
> published a document, formed a government and assumed control.
> Eventually, the government formed by these people used force to
> require compliance with the dictum laid down in the document, and
> further expanded it's power through the use of force to where it
> selectively violates the rights of individuals and
FIrst off, I am pretty sure that the group of people were elected by the
populace, and even if they weren't the Constitution had to be ratified by
the memebers of the state. Every generation of Americans since then has
consented to the constitution. What should they have done, dissolved the
constitution as soon as the first baby was born so they could wait and get
his consent?
>
> How about we rephrase the above:
>
> Protecting people who refuse to pay the extortion price levied by
> the government is unaviodable.
>
> Yes, it is unaviodable, IF you intend to use the proceeds of theft
> to do so. People are naturally going to RESIST theft.
>
The above is only true if tax is extortion. I obviously do not agree with
the previous sentance.
> >You can't choose to protect one house and not another on a national scale. I
> >wouldn't say that national defense is a gift from the rest of the United States
> >to you.
>
> Really? Ever get a gift you didn't want? It's not a gift, my
> friend, if you can't freely refuse it. Secondly, *GIFTS* are FREELY
> given. I don't believe you're contending this is freely given.
It's good to see you agree with me on this point. I asserted that
national defense is not a gift and you agreed with me. At least we're
getting somewhere.
> Good for you. What if I don't agree? Is it within your rights to
> FORCE me to do it your way and to take my assets because you have the
> power to do so in order to implement YOUR priorities?
Your living in the UNited States implies consent. If you wish to live in
the US and not pay taxes, you are mooching. It's not my priorities that
are being implemented, but the wishes of the majority.
>
> Since when did the "common good", whatever that is, give one the
> "right" to violate another individual's inalienable rights?
When I stated "common good", I referred to a desired service or goal
common to a group of individuals.
Since when do you have the inalienable right to use services that I pay
for and then refuse to pay?
> So in essence, you're saying it is not the job of government to
> provide for the protection of individual rights, but instead to
> provide "efficient services" regardles of type? What is wrong with
> voluntarily supporting the national armed services?
>
See previous post in regards to government roles.
> In otherwords, force is being used to keep him in servitude so he is
> excused, but you feel that since we have the supposed option of moving
> away and don't, we sanction all of this theft as a "good" by sticking
> around...fair description of the difference in your eyes?
>
Yes. That's a crude but truthful way of saying it.
> So what if the "slave" was born and raised in a particular place, of
> that particular culture and that place was the only home he'd ever
> known and where the rest of his family and relatives reside? Is it a
> REAL option then that even if offered the opportunity his only manner
> of escaping what you would consider "sanctioning" the actions of his
> master is to leave his homeland? Is that a REAL alternative or one of
> convenience when you don't want to consider what really constitutes
> "sanction" and "consent"?
>
Yes. Either he is trying to escape or he is consenting to the agreement.
He may be consenting out of fear of injury if he tries to escape, but he
is still consenting. If he makes a decision that the value of staying in
a familiar place is worth the lost value of freedom, then he has made that
choice. Me, I'd rather be free in a strange place than enslaved in my
homeland. A good idea of what I mean is the film Cool Hand Luke. Luke
does not sanction the right of the judicial system to imprision him, and
never stops trying to escape.
> How can one make the point that "taxation is not theft" without
> discussing who is the sovereign here? I have no idea how you can make
> the argument that government has a right to tax it's citizens without
> their sanction without declaring it to be the sovereign and the
> citizens to be government's subjects, can you? So the notion of
> sovereignty is vitally important to the conclusion.
>
> My question is was this government set up to protect the sovereignty
> of the individual or the sovereignty of the government?
>
What is soverign is the contract that men and women decided shall be the
absolute set of terms for their interactions. The consitution is soverign
in this country, and all rational people who sanction it will comply with
the agreement.
> I don't question the morality of government per se, but only if it
> is freely chose by ALL the people and ALL the people agree to it's
> structure, strictures, constraints and requirements. That's called
> "consent" and I think we all agree that a "legitimate" government is
> one which has the CONSENT of the governed. As far as I'm concerned,
> THAT is the business of those who've willingly decided to subject
> themselves to government. But it by no means gives them the "right"
> to require I join, support, acknowledge or live by their priorities or
> those of their government. You say it does.
>
> That is the argument.
I commenbted on this before. The idea of a government that is based on
unanimous consent is nice but won't work. The minority accepts the
majority rule with the understanding that the whole will never agree on
anything.
In a perfect world where men saw things clearly, every vote would be
unanimous because it would be apparant what the best choice was. This is
not a perfect world, and any sort of government must take into
consideration that not all people are rational.
> Using the paragraph written by me above, how do you justify the
> government you support requiring those that don't consent to it or
> sanction it's use of force to extort their assets. That has little to
> do with anarchy and much to do with the analogy of a mafia strongman.
>
The use of it's services implies sanction.
> >A mooch does not 'think' his money has been stolen, it really has.
>
> And that makes him or her a "mooch?"
>
> Good lord.
No when he mooched is what made him a moocher.
> Nonsense. The reason for his paying has nothing to do with morality,
> but instead with self-preservation. The morality comes into play when
> one examines how the payment is required. Is it a willing payment?
> Then no foul and quite moral. If the payment is made UNWILLINGLY
> under duress, under pain of penalty, BY FORCE, then the immoral agent
> in the transaction is the one USING THE FORCE.
>
Not if the agent was attempting to recoup monies for services
>
> >The clincher is that the moocher would continue to use the services of government
> >and not pay for them, unless forced to pay.
>
> How about the fact that he didn't ask for or require the services be
> rendered and, through the actions of the government itself, is given
> no alternatives to the services to which he can avail himself?
The alternative is that he can leave, or attempt to chnage the laws.
McQ
If I understand Victor's point it isn't whether the thief does
"good" with what is stolen or not, the point is the act is still theft
and therefore morally wrong. The line of thinking above absolves the
thief and the act of theft if the thief does "good" with the proceeds.
I don't think that's what you mean is it?
>> > You may take your car or
>> > cash back without sanctioning the act of robbery. However, if you catch
>> > the thief in the act and you accept a value or service from him that
>> > will allow him to walk away with the value he got from you, you *have*
>> > sanctioned the act.
>>
>> Not at all. Certainly not if he continues to point a gun at me. I will
>> take whatever he allows me, and that is not immoral.
>If the thief has a gun pointed at you the whole time than you have been forced
>into accepting such an agreement, and thus did not sanction the act. No such
>parallel exists in the taxation discussion because you may always leave the
>jursidiction of the United States and chose to pay taxes somewhere else. It
>is not a communist nation where no one is allowed to leave.
So now you're making the point that if you don't like thievery and
you don't care to condone it or have to put up with it you should
move?
Interesting. As I point out quite often, this line of reasoning
would have had the civil right's activists of the '60s moving instead
of protesting the wrongs to which they were subjected. You agree they
should have moved?
>> > > Therefore an individual who refuses to pay taxes but has them taken
>> > > > away anyway is stolen from, but then to accept as recompense services of
>> > > > the government such as defense. policing, roads, enviromental laws, etc,
>> > > > has sanctioned the act of taxation.
>>
>> I would agree IF and ONLY if:
>>
>> a) the person has already received back the full value of the taxes he
>> has paid in his lifetime, and
>I contend that if you look at all the services you benefit from, and try to put a
>monetary value on it as far as what it would cost you in a free market, you will
>see you have either recieved more than the full value, broke even, or was the
>victim of corruption in which an individual has stolen money from the government,
>and hence from you.
And while comforting, is really incidental to the point that you are
not given the choice of the free market as an alternative because the
means by which you'd have made that choice have been stolen or the
alternatives have been prohibited "by law".
>> b) the government services he uses are freely available in a
>> competitive marketplace, including policing, roads, and so forth.
>Security services already exist to protect your home.
Correct, but I have no choice as to whether I pay taxes to the city
to support their police department, do I?
> No one says you can't buy a stretch of land, put a road on it, and
>let people drive on it.
Absolutely incorrect. I'm sure you've heard of zoning laws?
>Privately owned roads do exist.
Yes they do, and usually at the forebearance of the government.
>There are those areas in which the government holds an unfair
>monopoly, and I agree with you that those should be broken.
It depends on the role you see for government, doesn't it?
If you see it's role as a protector of individual rights,
then you would probably form the opinion that the majority of
"those areas" where we now see government's heavy hand should be
eliminated and it should only concern itself with the job of right's
protection.
>> > > Not at all. Suppose there is a mafia strongman in an area. He claims to
>> > > keep bad guys away by protecting you, and is much more effective than any
>> > > public policeman, whom he has either bridbed or threatened into not policing
>> > > effectively in your area. He intimidates you to the tune of giving him
>> > > $1000 a week from your business for 'protection money'. If someone robs
>> > > your store, are you 'sanctioning' his theft if you go to him to complain
>> > > about the robbery? What other choice do you have?
>> > Yes. If the Mafia Stongman takes $1000/week without your permission,
>> > then he has stolen from you. However, if you take him up on his
>> > 'services' and treat the cash exchanged as a business deal, then you
>> > have sanctioned the act of giving him money.
>>
>> It's NOT a business deal, though. He has monopolized protection
>> services, by bribing , blackmailing or killing off all competition. So I
>> have no choice.
>You are correct in asserting that you have been forced to pay him the $1000.
>You are not forced to complain to him though. That is the action that sanctions
>the deal.
There is no "sanction" in a "deal" that is described here as
sanction requires consent. Consent requires you to have the choice to
say no. Would you agree that no such choice exists in this situation?
If not, then consent is not present, and therefore neither is
sanction. This is much the same argument concerning taxation.
>> > As far as what other
>> > choice you have, at the risk of sounding ludicrous, you could contact
>> > the local police as far as both the robbery and the mafia.
>>
>> He calls himself the local police. So what?
>Certainly there is apoint where honest authorities could step in and solve your
>problem. A world without honest people is not what we're discussing.
Who do we contact about the robbery called "taxation without
consent"?
>> > > > Thus all those who do not sanction the act of the government to enact a
>> > > > tax, in other words, all those who do not desire the government to take
>> > > > their money, are mooching off the system whenever they use
>> > > > the services of the government, regardless of whether or not they
>> > > > actually paid taxes.
>>
>> Ah, so there is such a thing as a thought crime. He is a moocher if he
>> simply 'doesn't sanction' even if he pays grudgingly. That would make
>> him a moocher even in the extreme situation where 90% of his income was
>> stolen and 5% given back in services.
>It is not a thought crime, it is an action. Sanctioning an act is an action.
>The fact that someone would not pay without force or threat of force is a refusal
>to sanction the payment. Just because there isn't a gun to his head doesn't make
>it a hypothetical gun. To sanction is not a thought, but an action. I pay my
>taxes of my own volition. You, I assume, pay because there is a hypothetical
>gun to your head.
First it isn't a "hypothetical gun" it is the force of law, who will
indeed use real guns to force your compliance with those laws if
necessary.
Secondly, short of fleeing the use of force to take your assets,
what other REAL choice are you afforded? With no REAL choice, how
does one then conclude that continuing to try to support one's self in
the face of this blatant thievery is somehow a sanction of the
thievery?
>Like I said before, using those services while not sanctioning the tax
>is not a crime. I just claim that in an objectivist philosophy, it is immoral.
Give an alternatives to using the monopoly services imposed on one
by the government? Do I have the choice of a private police force?
Private roads not subject to the permission of various governmental
bodies for permission to operate? Access to gasoline that doesn't
have a tax imposed upon it?
If we avail ourselves of the black market, for instance, we are
commiting a "crime" and are subject to punishment by imprisionment.
Who has the monopoly on declaring a "crime?"
If we avoid this use of an alternative because we might be
imprisioned, does this constitute the "sanctioning" of theft because
we do so?
>> > > >The government only steals money from moochers.
>> > > > For example, MR A does not want to pay taxes. He hates the gov't of
>> > > > the USA. But because he dosen't want to go to jail, he pays his taxes
>> > > > anyway. He does not sanction the ability of the US to request that a
>> > > > tax be paid. He has been stolen from because he was forced to pay.
>> > > > However, he likes to fish, and he knows that some of the greatest
>> > > > fishing in the world in his opinion is in Grand Kabob National park,
>> > > > which is free to the public, or discounted. BY using this park, he has
>> > > > mooched off of the US, society, and all the willing taxpayers of this
>> > > > country. Mr. A has mooched off of me.
>> > >
>> > > Really? So the government not only steals, it prohibits people to travel
>> > > freely to Grand Kabob? And this makes Mr. A a moocher?
>>
>> > BY the fact that grand Kabob is public land, upkept by the government,
>> > it is inherent that it is immoral for those who do not pay taxes to the
>> > government or have explicit permission to use that land. Mr. A does not
>> > own Grand Kabob so he has no justification for insisting that he be able
>> > to travel freely there.
>>
>> You mean the government uses guns to keep people out of Kabob, in addition
>> to using guns to make people pay money to it.
>Do you question the right of Disneyland to charge money to enter? Property rights,
>especially those of land ownership, are absolute. Just because title belongs to
>the US doesn't prohibit them from using it as they wish. If I want to use a gun
>to keep youu off of my land, I am justified in doing so.
It's back to the question of the role of government. Was this
governemnt formed to protect individual rights or to own land, tax
people's assets and redistribute them and commit all sorts of
violations of individual rights in the name of the "common good"?
<snip>
>> > Offer a high
>> > enough price and surely Congress would release it to you. You may not
>> > want the US to own any parks, and there is a strong argument in your
>> > favor, but to agrue that the government inherently does not have the
>> > right to own property is a different apple altogether.
>>
>> Maybe you ought to think about what makes land ownership moral.
>I do not wish to argue about the morality of land ownership. If you go down that
>path it will be without me.
So only "legal" matters in your examination of this dilemma? How
are you able to examine it thoroughly without looking at the moral
dimension?
>> BTW, what about my public school point?
>>
>I agree that it would be entirely justifiable to demand that users of the public
>school system are responsible tax payers. However, it has been the consensus of
>the majority that those who evade taxes also be allowed to use the school system.
>I may disagree but I concede to the right of the majority to make administrative
>decisions.
How about those that are forced to pay for public schools but send
their children to private schools because the education provided in
the public schools is, in their opinion, inferior to what can be found
in private schooling? Should they be forced to continue to pay for a
"service" they no longer want or use?
>> > > > Thus I say it again and it is irrefutable. The government only
>> > > > steals from Moochers. Whose crime is greater? Who initiated force, the
>> > > > thief or the mooch?
>> > >
>> > > Seeing as the crime of the mooch, as you call him, is entirely in his
>> > > THOUGHTS (he is a mooch even if he DOES pay taxes grudgingly) it is not
>> > > hard to see which is the ONLY crime here.
>> >
>> > There is no such thing as a thought crime. He is a mooch by his
>> > actions. If he does not give his tax money freely to the government and
>> > yet cliams the right to the services, he is a mooch.
>>
>>So it's still a thought crime.
>>
>No it's an immoral action.
I thought you weren't going to delve into morality?
Interesting. I was attempting to understand your logic, so I
rephrased it:
"He is a mooch by his actions. If he does not freely relinquish what
is demanded of him under pain of imprisonment and yet claims rights to
that which is commissioned and/or used by the thief, he (the person
stolen from) is a mooch."
Amazing.
McQ
>Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
><lengthy discussion snipped>
>> > I see your point in the above example, and I can agree that if you are taking
>> > advantage of government services only because the government already
>> > took your money by force and you are trying to get it back in one form or
>> > another, than you are not sanctioning the act of taxation. If you look at the
>> > value of all of the different services that you are a beneficiary of, you may see
>> > that you are recouping more in value than the government has stolen from
>> > you. I need to look at this line of reasoning more carefully before I can make
>> > more confident statements. Your point is well taken.
>>
>> Furthermore, if you are entitled to receive services even if you are NOT
>> a taxpayer, then you are receiving a GIFT, are you not? See below when
>> you yourself make the same point about public schools.
>I agree with you that if you are using services that you are not required to be a
>taxpayer for, then you are recieving a gift. This does not apply for most government
>services, however. Public schools don't go chasing down your tax records, but they
>do require that you be a US citizen or legal alien.
They do no such thing. We've been educating illegal aliens for
years in Texas and California (and I assume other states). It is not
only officially condoned but REQUIRED.
>The condition of being a citizen implies, but does not require that you are a
>taxpaying citizen.
The condition of being a citizen is an artifice. It simply
identifies you as a member of a geographical entity known as a
"nation". There is nothing implicit in that identification that
over-rides your inalienable rights as a man.
>If the school board does not choose to pursue that requirement, then so be it, but
>it would not be unjustifiable.
Then how do the schoolboards in Texas and California "justify"
teaching "illegal aliens?" I'll tell you how...they aren't given any
choice.
>Also, the post office is usable to anyone who wants to buy a stamp.
Yeah, because if you want to send something through the system,
they won't do so without it. Amazingly UPS is the same way.
>The military, however, is primarily concerned with protecting the land and lives
>of US citizens.
Is it? What's it doing in the Sinai, Bosnia, Somolia, Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Japan, Okinawa, etc?
>Protecting those that refuse to pay or do not wish to pay their bill to the
>government is unavoidable.
I like this wording. An interesting example of "poisoning the
well". You use the phrase "their bill to the government". By what
right does the government "bill" them? The fact of the matter is a
group of people got together and decided, years ago, that they and
only they knew what was best for the rest of us into perpetuity. The
published a document, formed a government and assumed control.
Eventually, the government formed by these people used force to
require compliance with the dictum laid down in the document, and
further expanded it's power through the use of force to where it
selectively violates the rights of individuals and
How about we rephrase the above:
Protecting people who refuse to pay the extortion price levied by
the government is unaviodable.
Yes, it is unaviodable, IF you intend to use the proceeds of theft
to do so. People are naturally going to RESIST theft.
>You can't choose to protect one house and not another on a national scale. I
>wouldn't say that national defense is a gift from the rest of the United States
>to you.
Really? Ever get a gift you didn't want? It's not a gift, my
friend, if you can't freely refuse it. Secondly, *GIFTS* are FREELY
given. I don't believe you're contending this is freely given.
> > I contend that if you look at all the services you benefit from, and try to put a
>> > monetary value on it as far as what it would cost you in a free market, you will
>> > see you have either recieved more than the full value, broke even, or was the > victim of corruption in which an individual has stolen money from the
>> > government, and hence from you.
>>
>> So you believe that the government does an EFFICIENT job with the taxes
>> it collects? Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
>I believe that the act of sharing a common good to meet a common desire is
>efficient by principle.
Good for you. What if I don't agree? Is it within your rights to
FORCE me to do it your way and to take my assets because you have the
power to do so in order to implement YOUR priorities?
Since when did the "common good", whatever that is, give one the
"right" to violate another individual's inalienable rights?
>I alone could not pay for the military, nor could any one individual. I pay a
>tiny fraction of it's cost, but I recieve it's full benefit. The government, to
>be sure, often botches up what is easy, but it's still more efficient than if
>every citizen had to maintain their own private army and then coordiante those
>armies for national defense issues.
So in essence, you're saying it is not the job of government to
provide for the protection of individual rights, but instead to
provide "efficient services" regardles of type? What is wrong with
voluntarily supporting the national armed services?
<snip>
>> > >
>> > > It's NOT a business deal, though. He has monopolized protection
>> > > services, by bribing , blackmailing or killing off all competition. So I
>> > > have no choice.
>> >
>> > You are correct in asserting that you have been forced to pay him the $1000.
>> > You are not forced to complain to him though. That is the action that
>> > sanctions the deal.
>>
>> So, when the slave ate the master's food, he 'sanctioned' the arrangement?
>A slave is being held against his will, and is being forced to serve. If the master
>and slave had a contract in which services would be exchanged for room and board,
>then the slave would be sanctioning their agreement.
In otherwords, force is being used to keep him in servitude so he is
excused, but you feel that since we have the supposed option of moving
away and don't, we sanction all of this theft as a "good" by sticking
around...fair description of the difference in your eyes?
So what if the "slave" was born and raised in a particular place, of
that particular culture and that place was the only home he'd ever
known and where the rest of his family and relatives reside? Is it a
REAL option then that even if offered the opportunity his only manner
of escaping what you would consider "sanctioning" the actions of his
master is to leave his homeland? Is that a REAL alternative or one of
convenience when you don't want to consider what really constitutes
"sanction" and "consent"?
>I think I can see what the logical progression of the above situation will be,
>and it is tricky. It boils down to the idea of soveriegnty. The more and more
>we go into this discussion, it seems as if we are getting away from the original
>point that I was trying to make, that all taxation is not theft, to what it evolving
>into now, which is basically the morality of government at all.
How can one make the point that "taxation is not theft" without
discussing who is the sovereign here? I have no idea how you can make
the argument that government has a right to tax it's citizens without
their sanction without declaring it to be the sovereign and the
citizens to be government's subjects, can you? So the notion of
sovereignty is vitally important to the conclusion.
My question is was this government set up to protect the sovereignty
of the individual or the sovereignty of the government?
>If you are a proponant of anarchistic capitalism, with
>competing defense agencies, then we're trying to debate from two different playing
>fields. I assume going into this debate, that you are not questioning the morality
>of having a government, or the morality of land ownership.
I don't question the morality of government per se, but only if it
is freely chose by ALL the people and ALL the people agree to it's
structure, strictures, constraints and requirements. That's called
"consent" and I think we all agree that a "legitimate" government is
one which has the CONSENT of the governed. As far as I'm concerned,
THAT is the business of those who've willingly decided to subject
themselves to government. But it by no means gives them the "right"
to require I join, support, acknowledge or live by their priorities or
those of their government. You say it does.
That is the argument.
>If you follow the basic philosophy of David Freidmann( I believe that's right,
>not sure though), then we really aren't going to accomplish much in this debate
>because we have totally oppisite viewpoints. Your analogy with the Mafia Stongman,
>I can see, applies to how you visualize the government, stealing money, offering
>protection, and killing off the competition. I am not going to try to
>change the heart of every anarchist in the world, and if that's what I'm up against,
>then have a good day because where our viewpoints differ, "the twain shall never meet".
Using the paragraph written by me above, how do you justify the
government you support requiring those that don't consent to it or
sanction it's use of force to extort their assets. That has little to
do with anarchy and much to do with the analogy of a mafia strongman.
<snip>
>> You have said that if a person THINKS he has been stolen from, and uses
>> government services, he is a mooch. Thus, according to you, even though
>> he paid the taxes, he might still be a mooch -- depending on his
>> OPINIONS. No?
>A mooch does not 'think' his money has been stolen, it really has.
And that makes him or her a "mooch?"
Good lord.
>A hypothetical gun to the head is just as threatening as a real gun. He may
>still pay, but his reason for paying is different.
Yeah, he pays because the alternative is being hauled away to prison
or worse.
>He still has not broken the law. But the morality of it does depend upon his
>reason for paying.
Nonsense. The reason for his paying has nothing to do with morality,
but instead with self-preservation. The morality comes into play when
one examines how the payment is required. Is it a willing payment?
Then no foul and quite moral. If the payment is made UNWILLINGLY
under duress, under pain of penalty, BY FORCE, then the immoral agent
in the transaction is the one USING THE FORCE.
<snip>
>The clincher is that the moocher would continue to use the services of government
>and not pay for them, unless forced to pay.
How about the fact that he didn't ask for or require the services be
rendered and, through the actions of the government itself, is given
no alternatives to the services to which he can avail himself?
Does that still make him a "mooch?"
McQ
>Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>>McQ wrote:
>> If I understand Victor's point it isn't whether the thief does
>> "good" with what is stolen or not, the point is the act is still theft
>> and therefore morally wrong. The line of thinking above absolves the
>> thief and the act of theft if the thief does "good" with the proceeds.
>> I don't think that's what you mean is it?
>NO it is not. My example is that if you come upon a thief with his hand
>in your wallet and demand your money back, you are justified, but if you
>come upon a thief with his hand in your wallet and he says how about you
>let me take this money and I'll give you this TV for it, and you consent
>and take the TV, you are participating in a business transaction.
Correct. Now here's the magic question...WHY is that correct?
The answer is quite obvious. Because you had a CHOICE in this
particular scenario/transaction. You made a VOLUNTARY deal with the
thief. I've made no such deal with the government concerning the
theft of my money. And my using "services" like roads, etc. does not
constitute consent. Why? Because the road would be built WITH or
WITHOUT my acquiecence or consent, WITHOUT my participation in the
transaction.
The problem here is those being taxed ARE NOT given a choice as to
whether to participate or not in the transaction. The thief is NOT
offering us a "deal". Above, you have the choice of saying no, taking
back your money and having the thief arrested. Show me where a
similar choice resides in the act of taxation. There is none. So
consent is nonexistant in that respect.
>The original idea behind this was not that taxation cannot be considered
>theft, but that it isn't always theft.
If you consent then it isn't taxation, it's a voluntary payment.
Let's be clear, taxation is NOT a voluntary payment. It is an
EXACTION.
>I consent.
Good for you. I don't consent. Where's that leave us?
>You may personally not, and thus you are a victim of a theft. However,
>in this country consent is determined by a majority rule.
No, consent cannot be assumed because there is a majority. You, as
a member of a majority, have no inherent right to STEAL just because
you are a majority. You may have the power to do so, but you
certainly have not "right" to do so.
Using your logic, a lynch mob (a "majority") can assume away the
morality of "due process" simply because it is a majority and hang
anyone they decide to declare to be guilty. Would you consider this
proper or a gross violation of the rights of the person hanging from
the tree?
>If a majority consents, the minority must follow suit.
Really? So regardless of the morality of the situation, if the
majority wills it, the minority has no recourse but to follow suit?
Well, heck why do we all spend so much time condemning Hitler and
Stalin then? Supposedly they were the heads of majoritarian
governments.
I assume you realize you've relegated morality to "majority will"
with this statement and taken it out of the realm of inalieable rights
and such.
> For example, I live in a fraternity house, for
>which I pay rent, dues, etc. Sometimes we vote on issues like raising
>dues, etc. If I vote against a dues increase, but I lose out, then I make
>the choice of whether or not the lost value of paying undesired dues is
>worth the value of living in a nice house as opposed to some small dorm
>room, etc. Have I been the victim of a theft? No, because my remaining
>in the house implies sanction for the concept that majority determines
>consent. It works pretty well that way. It would appear that you support
>a government where changes are made by unanimous vote. I don't think that
>a government yet has used that principle and done very well in recorded
>history. I could be wrong though.
Actually, what you did was voluntarily join a fraternity and going
in you agreed to the parameters you've outlined above. Great. You
had a choice and one of those choices was NOT to join. I would assume
you thought this all out before you joined and agreed that you'd abide
by those sorts of decisions.
I DIDN'T voluntarily agree to join nor to be born here or agree to
the form of government or it's policy of taxation. It's policy was
formed BEFORE my birth. I have voluntarily consented to NOTHING.
To me the essence of freedom is choice and the lack of coercion in
making that choice. And the test of real freedom is restraining one's
self and the government from eliminating choice and using coercion to
further it's aims.
As I see it, one of the reasons you and others are so intent upon
*requiring* participation, regardless of the morality, is you cannot
fathom your form (or any form of) government surviving without
coercion. And you're probably right. If people were given a choice,
they might not choose your insititution, and that seems to be a bit
more frightening than the immorality of governmental (and majority)
coercion.
So the question then becomes does one really want "freedom" with
it's choice or does one want the champion the use of force and the
elimination of choice in the name of *___________ (insert your
favorite form of government here)____________________*? Regardless of
its form, all government is force.
Choice or force?
>> So now you're making the point that if you don't like thievery and
>> you don't care to condone it or have to put up with it you should
>> move?
>>
>> Interesting. As I point out quite often, this line of reasoning
>> would have had the civil right's activists of the '60s moving instead
>> of protesting the wrongs to which they were subjected. You agree they
>> should have moved?
>>
>I agree that they could have moved. That would have been one solution to
>their problem.
Would it have been? Really? Or would they simply have moved their
problem? What moral question would they have resolved? In essence,
wasn't their fight FOR choice and AGAINST coercion HERE?
>They chose instead to try to change the opinion of the majority, and were
>succesful.
Ah, but according to your line above, they really didn't have that
"right", they were the minority and their "job" was to fall in line
with the majority. Morality is a majoritarian concept, and what the
majority was then doing in this instance was quite "moral" or "right".
Where'd these minority folks get off questioning the morality of the
situation they found themselves in...the majority had *spoken*.
>I have never questioned your right to not like taxes.
But you have, simply by declaring that the majority is always right.
Anyway, it isn't a question of like or dislike. It's a question of
morality and immorality. Theft is immoral, and taxation, as an
involuntary exaction, is a form of theft.
>If you are attempting to change the opinion of the majority in order to
>bring about a better life for yourself, then your actions are to be commended.
What I'm attempting to do is question the premise that a) taxation
is a legitimate "right" of government and b) that the majority has a
"right" of some sort to impose it's will on the minority REGARDLESS of
the morality of the act or action. You can't do a) and b) and talk
about "freedom" in the same breath.
>I'm just saying that I'm a member of that majority that you're going to have
>to convince before anything can begin to happen.
And I'm simply asking you to check your premise. Other than force,
what gives the majority the "right" to FORCE their priorities on the
minority? Some musty "declaration" or "constitution"? The agreement
of fifty-something guys in a hot hall in Philadelphia back in the
mid-1700s? How do these things *rightfully* require me to abandon my
priorities for the priorities of these people and those documents?
>> And while comforting, is really incidental to the point that you are
>> not given the choice of the free market as an alternative because the
>> means by which you'd have made that choice have been stolen or the
>> alternatives have been prohibited "by law".
>I agree with you on this one. The market should be made free and no body
>should have to use the government services. If someone wants to call the
>EPA and tell them that they have no problem with the nearby factory
>dumping waste on their property and contaminating the water table, that
>should be their right.
So you would agree that no one should be required to participate in
Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid if they desire not too? Or pay
for public schools? Roads? Defense?
>> >> b) the government services he uses are freely available in a
>> >> competitive marketplace, including policing, roads, and so forth.
>>
>> >Security services already exist to protect your home.
>>
>> Correct, but I have no choice as to whether I pay taxes to the city
>> to support their police department, do I?
>You do have a choice. Just as if I weighed the value of higher dues to
>living in a different location, you can move out of the city. If you do
>not wish to support county police, change counties. Or attempt to shut
>down the city police department. It's your right to try.
You're missing my point...freedom is about choice. If I'm free then
it is my CHOICE as to whether I support this institution or that
institution REGARDLESS of where I live. And this choice is made
WITHOUT coercion. That choice doesn't exist in the town I live in.
>> > No one says you can't buy a stretch of land, put a road on it, and
>> >let people drive on it.
>>
>> Absolutely incorrect. I'm sure you've heard of zoning laws?
>I stand corrected. I fully support the dissolution of zoning laws that
>restrict personal rights. People should be able to do whatever they want
>with their own property without initiating force upon their neighbors.
Heh...well I fully support the dissolution of "laws" that infringe
on my freedom of choice, such as taxation. We're headed in the same
direction.
>> >There are those areas in which the government holds an unfair
>> >monopoly, and I agree with you that those should be broken.
>>
>> It depends on the role you see for government, doesn't it?
>>
>> If you see it's role as a protector of individual rights,
>> then you would probably form the opinion that the majority of
>> "those areas" where we now see government's heavy hand should be
>> eliminated and it should only concern itself with the job of right's
>> protection.
>I believe that the role of the government is whatever role the majority
>desires and the miority will accept.
a) What CHOICE does the minority have but to accept the majority's
will in your governmental theory? IOW do they have a REAL choice, or
will you use force to ensure their "acceptance"?
b) Would you accept as being fully supported by your majoritarian
premise the confiscation of all landed property to be managed under
governmental auspices with individual land ownership prohibited on
pain of death if that was what the majority (50.5%) wanted?
>People may assemble and form aggreements as they want.
Except, in the above case, for land, huh? I wonder what would be
next?
>> There is no "sanction" in a "deal" that is described here as
>> sanction requires consent. Consent requires you to have the choice to
>> say no. Would you agree that no such choice exists in this situation?
>>
>> If not, then consent is not present, and therefore neither is
>> sanction. This is much the same argument concerning taxation.
> By taking the mafia strongman up on his offer and using his services,
>that implies consent.
Where's the choice, Steve? Does he have a CHOICE as to whether he
does so? "If you don't agree, I'll break your legs". Consent cannot
be implied under duress (threat of violence). The fact that he's
offering a service for the money is incidental to the fact that he is
commiting an act of theft.
Much like the fellow who comes off the curb and cleans your car
window without permission and then demands money. You have the choice
as to whether you pay him or not. You can refuse, can't you?
However, if he pulls a gun and demands you pay him, suddenly he's
robbing you, even though he's provided a service. I don't believe
you'd attempt to tell me his theft was justified just because he
cleaned your window without your permission, would you? And you
certainly aren't going to try to convince me you "sanctioned" his
robbery because he cleaned your window without your permission and you
didn't stop him, are you?
> If the mafia strongman takes the money and you have
>nothing to do with him besides, then you are the victim of a theft.
How would I have nothing to do with him...he's supposedly going to
"protect" me whether I want his protection or not? Under duress I've
handed over the money he's demanded (he's threatened bodily harm if I
don't) and he's stated unilaterally that I'm now under his protection.
What uncoerced "choice" did I have, Steve?
>> Who do we contact about the robbery called "taxation without
>> consent"?
>>
>Your local congressman. Tell him that you wish for him to introduce a
>bill that will dissolve all taxes that you do not consent to. If he
>doesn't, then you run for office and introduce the bill when you become a
>congressman.
My local congressman has no desire to do away with taxation, nor do
his collegues. They, taxes, are his power base.
Your asking me to agree to the methods of your majoritarian
governmental theory. I don't agree. I simply want to be left alone.
Why is that such a problem?
>> First it isn't a "hypothetical gun" it is the force of law, who will
>> indeed use real guns to force your compliance with those laws if
>> necessary.
>>
>What I mean was that the threat of a gun was just as valid as a real gun.
Precisely. It is more than an implied threat. It is a REAL threat.
>> Secondly, short of fleeing the use of force to take your assets,
>> what other REAL choice are you afforded? With no REAL choice, how
>> does one then conclude that continuing to try to support one's self in
>> the face of this blatant thievery is somehow a sanction of the
>> thievery?
>BY remaining in the United States you consent to the use and payment of
>the services offered by the government.
1) government services offered are the result of converting stolen
property.
2) the services/structures were in place prior to my existance.
Use of them does NOT imply consent as consent requires a FREE choice
be made by the person consenting and I have NO free choice in whether
I use those or alternatives.
>Because the government of the nation is tied into the territory, to stop
>consenting implies leaving the nation.
I think we need a little clarification on the term consent. It
means "to agree". That takes a conscious DECISON on the part of BOTH
parties. I am declaring to you right now that I do not "agree" hence
I do not "consent". You cannot assume I do just because I am forced
to use services with no alternative. Consent is MY choice, MY
agreement...not yours.
>> >Like I said before, using those services while not sanctioning the tax
>> >is not a crime. I just claim that in an objectivist philosophy, it is immoral.
>>
>> Give an alternatives to using the monopoly services imposed on one
>> by the government? Do I have the choice of a private police force?
>> Private roads not subject to the permission of various governmental
>> bodies for permission to operate? Access to gasoline that doesn't
>> have a tax imposed upon it?
>>
>The alternative is to either move or change the law.
Or come up with a majority that decides the perfect solution is to
ship all statists to Antarctica, huh? You'd go along with that I
assume.
No, this is your majoritarian theory, to which I don't subscribe.
Why isn't the alternative "ok, you can opt out?" It would be if
"freedom" were a priorty of this government and it's people.
>> If we avail ourselves of the black market, for instance, we are
>> commiting a "crime" and are subject to punishment by imprisionment.
>> Who has the monopoly on declaring a "crime?"
>I fully agree with you that crimes should be limited to those that
>preclude the iniation of force on another individual.
However, why shouldn't I be "permitted" to avail myself of
non-governmentally controlled/regulated commerce if it is avialable?
As a "free" person, shouldn't that be MY choice?
It wouldn't be a problem in a "free" country, would it?
>> If we avoid this use of an alternative because we might be
>> imprisioned, does this constitute the "sanctioning" of theft because
>> we do so?
>>
>If you choose to reside in the US and accept it's services, you sanction
>the government.
You'll have to do a lot better than this assertion. You'll have to
prove to me that I've agreed to the government and therefore
sanctioned it. I've told you I haven't consented, and since only I can
make that agreement (being the second party to any such agreement),
your argument wouldn't have much validity, would it? Afterall, I
simply have to assert I haven't agreed and it nullifies your
contention. Use or non-use of services is incidental to the point.
>> It's back to the question of the role of government. Was this
>> governemnt formed to protect individual rights or to own land, tax
>> people's assets and redistribute them and commit all sorts of
>> violations of individual rights in the name of the "common good"?
>see my above statement regarding the role of government. If the majority
>agrees it wants to buy and set aside land, then so be it.
If the majority agrees all blacks should be chattel slaves, then so
be it, the government's job is to round them up and parcel them out,
correct?
>> >I do not wish to argue about the morality of land ownership. If you go down that
>> >path it will be without me.
>>
>> So only "legal" matters in your examination of this dilemma? How
>> are you able to examine it thoroughly without looking at the moral
>> dimension?
>I merely stated that I did not with to look at the legitamacy of the
>government to own land, not that I was not discussing morality altogether.
>Indeed the entire debate has been based on the morality of not sancitoning
>the government and still claiming it's services.
Actually the whole discussion revolves around the moral question of
whether the government has the right to extort money from people who
don't consent simply because the majority says it does. The services
aspect is incidental to that premise.
>> How about those that are forced to pay for public schools but send
>> their children to private schools because the education provided in
>> the public schools is, in their opinion, inferior to what can be found
>> in private schooling? Should they be forced to continue to pay for a
>> "service" they no longer want or use?
>See my above comments about monopolies.
I'd appreciate an answer because your above comments aren't quite as
clear as they could be. Should they be forced to continue to pay for
a "service" they no longer want or use? A straight yes or no will do.
>> Interesting. I was attempting to understand your logic, so I
>> rephrased it:
>>
>> "He is a mooch by his actions. If he does not freely relinquish what
>> is demanded of him under pain of imprisonment and yet claims rights to
>> that which is commissioned and/or used by the thief, he (the person
>> stolen from) is a mooch."
>Read also,
> "He is a mooch by his actions. If he claims rights to
>that which is commissioned and/or used by a group, and yet
>does not freely relinquish what is demanded of him without threat of
>imprisonment, he is a mooch."
>Does this help illustrate my point?
No. We've already established his money is gone. Whether by force
or voluntarily. Regardless, he cannot be a "mooch" if part of what is
being used was commissioned/built/financed by his money.
What you're attempting to establish is that anyone who doesn't agree
with your idea of "good" is "bad" and you demonize that person by
using a derogatory word such as "mooch". In reality, he is no more a
mooch than the person who voluntarily paid.
McQ
>Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>>Carter Bond wrote:
>> Their is no way to predict that government will behave. What is your
>> point?
>Government (at least that of the United States) is not some strange
>beast that must be tamed, but merely a term for the collective entity
>tasked with carrying out the terms of contractual agreement among free
>men and women.
Until fairly recently (historically speaking), it wasn't at all
involved with "carrying out terms of contractual agreement among free
men and WOMEN." In fact it ignored women completely. And of course
this broad definition ignores the fact that not ALL men and women
agree nor desire whatever form of government this supposed
"contractual" group forms.
The question remains "by what right does any group who forms a
government (under whatever guise) IMPOSE that government BY FORCE
on those who have no interest in nor desire to participate?"
>The terms of those agreements may be beastly, and people
>may be unpredictable, but governments inherently behave in the way they
>have been designed (democratically, communist, dictatorships, etc)
Actually all governments eventually resort to coercion REGARDLESS of
their design. The "reasons" may be different, but the results are the
same.
McQ
>Michael_Hreczkosij <hre...@minna.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>>McQ wrote:
>
>> >I agree with you that if you are using services that you are not required to
>> >be a taxpayer for, then you are recieving a gift. This does not apply for
>> >most government services, however. Public schools don't go chasing down
>> >your tax records, but they do require that you be a US citizen or legal alien.
>>
>> They do no such thing. We've been educating illegal aliens for
>> years in Texas and California (and I assume other states). It is not
>> only officially condoned but REQUIRED.
>I stand corrected. That is changing, however, as I believe there WAS a
>bill in California that would deny all illegal aliens from benefiting from
>government services. Legal alien or not, it is still implied that you be
>taxpaying individual. Or do you actually claim the right to use this
>public school without having to pay for it?
I claim nothing nor do I want any of the services now forced on me
by the government. Afterall, do I have a "choice" concerning Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, road usage, the gasoline I buy or any
other myriad and sundry taxes levied against my earnings?
>> >The condition of being a citizen implies, but does not require that you are a
>> >taxpaying citizen.
>>
>> The condition of being a citizen is an artifice. It simply
>> identifies you as a member of a geographical entity known as a
>> "nation". There is nothing implicit in that identification that
>> over-rides your inalienable rights as a man.
>It appears that this is where we disagree. Nations are far more than a
>geographical entity. They are alliances among individuals, forged to
>execute the details of a binding contract, ususally called a constitution.
They are alliances among CERTAIN individuals...not all, many times
not even a majority. THAT is the point. By what right, and I am
looking for an answer to this question, do those that make these
alliances among themselves EXPAND that to be an inclusive alliance
with or without the consent of the remainder of the people in that
geographical area? Where do THEY get the sanction, the RIGHT, to do
so?
>> >If the school board does not choose to pursue that requirement, then so be it, but
>> >it would not be unjustifiable.
>>
>> Then how do the schoolboards in Texas and California "justify"
>> teaching "illegal aliens?" I'll tell you how...they aren't given any
>> choice.
>If 'illegal aliens' are taxpaying members of the community, they can
>expect to recieve services for those tax dollars. The only probelm is
>that they aren't supposed to be there in the first place.
Oh. How about those Mexican citizens that cross the border every
morning from Mexico and are picked up by Texas school busses and
bussed to school? According to the Supreme Court, they too have a
"right" to public education on your nickle. You agree?
>> >The military, however, is primarily concerned with protecting the land and lives
>> >of US citizens.
>>
>> Is it? What's it doing in the Sinai, Bosnia, Somolia, Israel, Saudi
>> Arabia, Japan, Okinawa, etc?
>I agree that we sould not be in these places.
So how are they "protecting the land and lives of US citizens" by
being there if that's what you contend is their job?
>However, every military operation has been accompanied with a statement of
>how it is to protect the interests of americans.
Like we protected the "interests of Americans" in Viet Nam, right?
>Whether or not those interests are legitimate is what I feel needs to be
>examined more closely.
We agree on this one.
>> >Protecting those that refuse to pay or do not wish to pay their bill to the
>> >government is unavoidable.
>>
>> I like this wording. An interesting example of "poisoning the
>> well". You use the phrase "their bill to the government". By what
>> right does the government "bill" them? The fact of the matter is a
>> group of people got together and decided, years ago, that they and
>> only they knew what was best for the rest of us into perpetuity. The
>> published a document, formed a government and assumed control.
>> Eventually, the government formed by these people used force to
>> require compliance with the dictum laid down in the document, and
>> further expanded it's power through the use of force to where it
>> selectively violates the rights of individuals and
>FIrst off, I am pretty sure that the group of people were elected by the
>populace, and even if they weren't the Constitution had to be ratified by
>the memebers of the state.
Whether they were or not doesn't give them a rightful power over me
or my assets, unless you can come up with an argument to convince me
otherwise.
If you vote for whatever, why is that vote binding on me if I don't
want to participate in your fun little party? That is the question
here. Do you have an answer?
>Every generation of Americans since then has consented to the constitution.
What any particular generation has done is incidental to me. It is
what *I* have agreed or not agreed with which is important. I again
ask, how does what others have consented to automatically include ME
without my consent?
>What should they have done, dissolved the constitution as soon as the first
>baby was born so they could wait and get his consent?
What they should have done, if they were concerned about "freedom"
instead of "power", is to have allowed that baby to consent when he or
she was of the age where they were intellectually able do so and to
allow him or her to opt OUT if he or she didn't care to commit to the
strictures and structures of the prevailing government.
However, THAT would require a commitment to the concept of FREEDOM
and not POWER.
>> How about we rephrase the above:
>>
>> Protecting people who refuse to pay the extortion price levied by
>> the government is unaviodable.
>>
>> Yes, it is unaviodable, IF you intend to use the proceeds of theft
>> to do so. People are naturally going to RESIST theft.
>The above is only true if tax is extortion. I obviously do not agree with
>the previous sentance.
If tax is an involuntary payment made under the threat of force,
what would you call it?
>> >You can't choose to protect one house and not another on a national scale. I
>> >wouldn't say that national defense is a gift from the rest of the United States
>> >to you.
>>
>> Really? Ever get a gift you didn't want? It's not a gift, my
>> friend, if you can't freely refuse it. Secondly, *GIFTS* are FREELY
>> given. I don't believe you're contending this is freely given.
>It's good to see you agree with me on this point. I asserted that
>national defense is not a gift and you agreed with me. At least we're
>getting somewhere.
Yup...missed that one completely. It's not a gift. It is forced on
me without my permission. Is that what we're agreeing on?
>> Good for you. What if I don't agree? Is it within your rights to
>> FORCE me to do it your way and to take my assets because you have the
>> power to do so in order to implement YOUR priorities?
>Your living in the UNited States implies consent.
It does no such thing, anymore than your living in the US implies
you consent to murder. The logic here is that if something goes on I
agree (consent to it) simply by remaining here. That same logic would
then have you consenting to murder because it goes on here and you
haven't moved.
>If you wish to live in the US and not pay taxes, you are mooching.
Back to that fellow washing your windshield. Are you "mooching" off
of him if you refuse to pay for his "services?"
>It's not my priorities that are being implemented, but the wishes of
>the majority.
Well that makes it all "better" then, doesn't it?
The point is the priorities being implemented are not mine, and the
question is by what right do OTHERS place their priorities in front of
mine and expect me to pay for them?
>> Since when did the "common good", whatever that is, give one the
>> "right" to violate another individual's inalienable rights?
>
>When I stated "common good", I referred to a desired service or goal
>common to a group of individuals.
I'm an individual. Is my problem the fact that I don't constitute a
"group?" IOW, are my rights to my property forfeit as long as there
is a group larger than me? Do they just arbitrarily get to divy up my
assets if they can form a majority and call it "the common good?"
What IS the "common good?"
Does it occur to you that if we protect the rights of ALL
individuals, we've necessarily taken care of THE "common good"?
>Since when do you have the inalienable right to use services that I pay
>for and then refuse to pay?
Since the time you refused to allow me and others alternatives to
those services. Let me opt out of Social Security and I'll never
demand a stinkin' penny for what I've already thrown away in that
giant Ponzi scheme. Let me drop payment for Medicare and Medicaid and
I can promise you I'll never make a single claim on them and if I do
YOU can refuse me. Etc., etc., etc.
<snip>
>> In otherwords, force is being used to keep him in servitude so he is
>> excused, but you feel that since we have the supposed option of moving
>> away and don't, we sanction all of this theft as a "good" by sticking
>> around...fair description of the difference in your eyes?
>>
>Yes. That's a crude but truthful way of saying it.
That's me, crude but truthful.
>> So what if the "slave" was born and raised in a particular place, of
>> that particular culture and that place was the only home he'd ever
>> known and where the rest of his family and relatives reside? Is it a
>> REAL option then that even if offered the opportunity his only manner
>> of escaping what you would consider "sanctioning" the actions of his
>> master is to leave his homeland? Is that a REAL alternative or one of
>> convenience when you don't want to consider what really constitutes
>> "sanction" and "consent"?
>>
> Yes. Either he is trying to escape or he is consenting to the agreement.
Uh, WHAT agreement? Are you saying he agreed to be a slave and
remain a slave?
>He may be consenting out of fear of injury if he tries to escape, but he
>is still consenting.
Oh, please. He's not consenting unless he "agrees" with him being
held in slavery. If he doesn't escape for fear of punishment or
death, how is he consenting? Please explain your reasoning in
something besides a series of assertions.
>If he makes a decision that the value of staying in a familiar place is
>worth the lost value of freedom, then he has made that choice. Me, I'd
>rather be free in a strange place than enslaved in my homeland.
Well, that's quite easy to say while living in your homeland. Ever
lived in a "strange place" for any length of time, Steve. Very easy
to say. I think you'd change your mind on this one if you ever had.
> A good idea of what I mean is the film Cool Hand Luke. Luke does not sanction
>the right of the judicial system to imprision him, and never stops trying
>to escape.
So to you, only "escape" (leaving) qualifies as nonsanction? Geez,
when are you going to leave to escape sanctioning murder?
I hate to break it to you, but simply saying "I disagree" qualifies
as nonsanction whether you ever take another single solitary action.
The only one who can sanction or not sanction something is the
INDIVIDUAL involved. You can't assume or decide it for him or attempt
to foist some formulaic nonsense about leaving on him. It is HIS
decision, not yours.
There is no question in anyone's mind that the dissidents who reamin
in China do NOT sanction China's government...NONE. Yet they ride
those Chinese trains and roads and live in governmental apartments.
Are you saying they DO sanction this simply by staying?
Rather simplistic, wouldn't you agree?
>> How can one make the point that "taxation is not theft" without
>> discussing who is the sovereign here? I have no idea how you can make
>> the argument that government has a right to tax it's citizens without
>> their sanction without declaring it to be the sovereign and the
>> citizens to be government's subjects, can you? So the notion of
>> sovereignty is vitally important to the conclusion.
>>
>> My question is was this government set up to protect the sovereignty
>> of the individual or the sovereignty of the government?
>>
>What is soverign is the contract that men and women decided shall be the
>absolute set of terms for their interactions.
To THEM, yes. What about those the choose NOT to be a party to
those contracts? Do they have a choice? Shouldn't they have a
choice? Are we concerned with freedom or power here?
>The consitution is soverign in this country,
Says who, Steve? Who says it is "sovereign" and by what right do
they make that declaration?
>and all rational people who sanction it will comply with the agreement.
Fine. Let them. But what about those of us who live here and DON'T
sanction the agreement?
>> I don't question the morality of government per se, but only if it
>> is freely chose by ALL the people and ALL the people agree to it's
>> structure, strictures, constraints and requirements. That's called
>> "consent" and I think we all agree that a "legitimate" government is
>> one which has the CONSENT of the governed. As far as I'm concerned,
>> THAT is the business of those who've willingly decided to subject
>> themselves to government. But it by no means gives them the "right"
>> to require I join, support, acknowledge or live by their priorities or
>> those of their government. You say it does.
>>
>> That is the argument.
>I commenbted on this before. The idea of a government that is based on
>unanimous consent is nice but won't work.
Says you. So the solution then is to FORCE those that don't agree
to "accept" or "leave"? Wow, let freedom ring.
>The minority accepts the majority rule with the understanding that the whole
>will never agree on anything.
But the bottom line here is you REQUIRE, through the use of FORCE
that the minority acquiese to the majority's will.
> In a perfect world where men saw things clearly, every vote would be
>unanimous because it would be apparant what the best choice was. This is
>not a perfect world, and any sort of government must take into
>consideration that not all people are rational.
Which has little to do with the force you are inclined to use to
make the minority toe the majority's line. You seem to feel, and
correct me if I'm wrong, that it is more important to use force to
PROTECT us from irrational people than to allow people the freedom to
make their own choices and go their own way, correct?
>> Using the paragraph written by me above, how do you justify the
>> government you support requiring those that don't consent to it or
>> sanction it's use of force to extort their assets. That has little to
>> do with anarchy and much to do with the analogy of a mafia strongman.
>The use of it's services implies sanction.
You still haven't explained how this implication stands when there
are no alternative services allowed.
>> >A mooch does not 'think' his money has been stolen, it really has.
>>
>> And that makes him or her a "mooch?"
>>
>> Good lord.
>No when he mooched is what made him a moocher.
How'd he mooch if the stolen money was used on these so-called
services? You've acknowledged his money was taken...stolen. How is
he mooching if his money has been used to purchase/commission/finance
the service?
>> Nonsense. The reason for his paying has nothing to do with morality,
>> but instead with self-preservation. The morality comes into play when
>> one examines how the payment is required. Is it a willing payment?
>> Then no foul and quite moral. If the payment is made UNWILLINGLY
>> under duress, under pain of penalty, BY FORCE, then the immoral agent
>> in the transaction is the one USING THE FORCE.
>>
>Not if the agent was attempting to recoup monies for services
Oh, so he's at fault if he tries to get his stolen money BACK?
Argh.
>>
>> >The clincher is that the moocher would continue to use the services of government
>> >and not pay for them, unless forced to pay.
>>
>> How about the fact that he didn't ask for or require the services be
>> rendered and, through the actions of the government itself, is given
>> no alternatives to the services to which he can avail himself?
>The alternative is that he can leave, or attempt to chnage the laws.
Alternative three...he opts out. He doesn't play your game. What's
wrong with that alternative?
jayd...@geocities.com
On 1997-07-25 mcq...@iix.netcom.com(McQ) said:
>>The alternative is that he can leave, or attempt to chnage the
>laws.
>Alternative three...he opts out. He doesn't play your game. What's
>wrong with that alternative?
>McQ
it doesn't profit anyone except "he"
gee, a "she" can also opt for the third alternative
duhbuh!
steve hreczkosij
McQ wrote:
> The problem here is those being taxed ARE NOT given a choice as to
> whether to participate or not in the transaction. The thief is NOT
> offering us a "deal". Above, you have the choice of saying no, taking
> back your money and having the thief arrested. Show me where a
> similar choice resides in the act of taxation. There is none. So
> consent is nonexistant in that respect.
However, you miss the obvious point that you do have a choice. To live
in the United States is to imply consent to it's services. It's not as
if you were here first and suddenly the country sprung up around you.
When you turned 18, or whenever you left you parents home, you made a
concious choice to live here in the United States. You claim that this
is not a REAL choice, but why isn't it? Just because it isn't an
attractive choice or an inexpensive one doesn't make it a real choice.
An allegory to you example is if a Mexican citizen is here on vacation,
and the IRS mistakes him for another MR. Gonzales and tries to make him
pay 10 years back taxes. Mr. Gonzales can catch the thief in the act by
returning home and filing a complaint with his Government, who in turn
can file a complaint with the US, the UN, or whatever. This may not get
him the results he wants, but we're not debating the quality of
government service, but the premise of it.
>
> >The original idea behind this was not that taxation cannot be considered
> >theft, but that it isn't always theft.
>
> If you consent then it isn't taxation, it's a voluntary payment.
>
> Let's be clear, taxation is NOT a voluntary payment. It is an
> EXACTION.
>
> >I consent.
>
> Good for you. I don't consent. Where's that leave us?
That leaves me a happy customer and you an dissatisfied one, or worse, a
mooch.
>
> >You may personally not, and thus you are a victim of a theft. However,
> >in this country consent is determined by a majority rule.
>
> No, consent cannot be assumed because there is a majority. You, as
> a member of a majority, have no inherent right to STEAL just because
> you are a majority. You may have the power to do so, but you
> certainly have not "right" to do so.
>
> Using your logic, a lynch mob (a "majority") can assume away the
> morality of "due process" simply because it is a majority and hang
> anyone they decide to declare to be guilty. Would you consider this
> proper or a gross violation of the rights of the person hanging from
> the tree?
We are not, in my opinion, arguing about the right for the majority to
initate force against an individual. I disagree with you on the premise
that taxation is force. If I agreed with you then the majority would
not have the moral right to tax. I believe that a majority or some type
has the right to be the final say on policy that affects all of the
group, as long as it does not involve the initation of force upon it's
members.
>
> >If a majority consents, the minority must follow suit.
>
> Really? So regardless of the morality of the situation, if the
> majority wills it, the minority has no recourse but to follow suit?
>
> Well, heck why do we all spend so much time condemning Hitler and
> Stalin then? Supposedly they were the heads of majoritarian
> governments.
see the above comment
>
> I assume you realize you've relegated morality to "majority will"
> with this statement and taken it out of the realm of inalieable rights
> and such.
No I have not. Once again see the above.
> I DIDN'T voluntarily agree to join nor to be born here or agree to
> the form of government or it's policy of taxation. It's policy was
> formed BEFORE my birth. I have voluntarily consented to NOTHING.
>
By making the concious choice as an adult to live here, you have
voluntarily consented. The policy WAS formed before your birth, and
upon your maturation you have the right to accept it or reject it.
> To me the essence of freedom is choice and the lack of coercion in
> making that choice. And the test of real freedom is restraining one's
> self and the government from eliminating choice and using coercion to
> further it's aims.
>
No one makes you live here.
> As I see it, one of the reasons you and others are so intent upon
> *requiring* participation, regardless of the morality, is you cannot
> fathom your form (or any form of) government surviving without
> coercion. And you're probably right. If people were given a choice,
> they might not choose your insititution, and that seems to be a bit
> more frightening than the immorality of governmental (and majority)
> coercion.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never questioned your right
to stop using services you dislike, we just disagree on what that
entails. I can fathom a government surviving without coercion, because
it exists here today along with a few dozen other democracies throughout
the world. 365 million people choose this institution every day.
>
> So the question then becomes does one really want "freedom" with
> it's choice or does one want the champion the use of force and the
> elimination of choice in the name of *___________ (insert your
> favorite form of government here)____________________*? Regardless of
> its form, all government is force.
>
> Choice or force?
You have always and always will have a choice here in the US. Plese
tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that all government is force.
I assume you mean government as any sort of governing body of any
organization.
> Would it have been? Really? Or would they simply have moved their
> problem? What moral question would they have resolved? In essence,
> wasn't their fight FOR choice and AGAINST coercion HERE?
I simply meant that they could have moved. They wouldn't have resolved
any moral question, they just would have decided to choose another
nation to live in. If they moved to a country that had the same
conditions as the United States, then they chose poorly.
By staying and attempting to fight, they tried to demonstrate to the
majority that they believed they were the victims of force by the
government. After a few years they succeeded in changing government
policy. Would you have prefered they formed a private army and went
around killing bus drivers until they could sit anywhere they wanted on
the bus?
Peaceful noncompliance with the law has often been an effective tool in
a democracy for demonstrating the point that demonstrators are making.
>
> >They chose instead to try to change the opinion of the majority, and were
> >succesful.
>
> Ah, but according to your line above, they really didn't have that
> "right", they were the minority and their "job" was to fall in line
> with the majority. Morality is a majoritarian concept, and what the
> majority was then doing in this instance was quite "moral" or "right".
> Where'd these minority folks get off questioning the morality of the
> situation they found themselves in...the majority had *spoken*.
>
I never stated that the minority doesn't have a right to try to
influence the minority. I merely claimed that in policy decisions, the
majority decides.
> >I have never questioned your right to not like taxes.
>
> But you have, simply by declaring that the majority is always right.
>
The majority isn't alway's right (morally), but in matters of policy
they are the final say. Would you prefer the minority have the right,
so the least popular position always is implemented? Do you prefer a
judgement by unanimous decision? Nothing would get done.
> Anyway, it isn't a question of like or dislike. It's a question of
> morality and immorality. Theft is immoral, and taxation, as an
> involuntary exaction, is a form of theft.
Taxation is not an involuntary exaction. You have the right to live in
whatever country you want.
>
> >If you are attempting to change the opinion of the majority in order to
> >bring about a better life for yourself, then your actions are to be commended.
>
> What I'm attempting to do is question the premise that a) taxation
> is a legitimate "right" of government and b) that the majority has a
> "right" of some sort to impose it's will on the minority REGARDLESS of
> the morality of the act or action. You can't do a) and b) and talk
> about "freedom" in the same breath.
Taxation is not a 'right' of government, or a 'right' at all. Taxation
is the term given to the cost per citizen for maintaining a government.
Sometimes it is moral and sometimes it is theft. Here in the US, it is
fair. In middle age europe, more often than not it was theft.
>
> >I'm just saying that I'm a member of that majority that you're going to have
> >to convince before anything can begin to happen.
>
> And I'm simply asking you to check your premise. Other than force,
> what gives the majority the "right" to FORCE their priorities on the
> minority? Some musty "declaration" or "constitution"? The agreement
> of fifty-something guys in a hot hall in Philadelphia back in the
> mid-1700s? How do these things *rightfully* require me to abandon my
> priorities for the priorities of these people and those documents?
>
The majority is not forcing their priorities on the minority. You act
as if there's two people named majority and minority. If within a group
a majority wants the group to take a certain act, then either the
minority agrees to consent or they abandon the group. The 13 states
that ratified the constitution, and then the 37 others that freely
entered into the Union
all became willing partners in a living contract that is still in effect
today. Please don't abandon your priorites, sir. But don't make it
sound as if the world should pave the way for you to achieve them.
>
> >I agree with you on this one. The market should be made free and no body
> >should have to use the government services. If someone wants to call the
> >EPA and tell them that they have no problem with the nearby factory
> >dumping waste on their property and contaminating the water table, that
> >should be their right.
>
> So you would agree that no one should be required to participate in
> Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid if they desire not too? Or pay
> for public schools? Roads? Defense?
>
Not everyone is required. The Canadians don't pay for Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, our public schools, our Roads, and Defense. I may
disagree with the policy and wish we didn't have such services, but if
that's what most people want, then so be it.
>
> You're missing my point...freedom is about choice. If I'm free then
> it is my CHOICE as to whether I support this institution or that
> institution REGARDLESS of where I live. And this choice is made
> WITHOUT coercion. That choice doesn't exist in the town I live in.
You are quite incorrect. Freedom does not give you the choice on
whether or not to pay rent if you live on my land. Freedom does not
give you the choice to use my car without permission. Freedom does not
give me the right to use your backyard to dump my waste in. If you live
within the jurisdiction, freedom does not give you the choice to benefit
from the police without paying for it. If you don't want the police,
then leave the jurisdiction of the town. If you don't want to pay rent
get off my property. It's all the same idea.
>
> >> > No one says you can't buy a stretch of land, put a road on it, and
> >> >let people drive on it.
> >>
> >> Absolutely incorrect. I'm sure you've heard of zoning laws?
>
> >I stand corrected. I fully support the dissolution of zoning laws that
> >restrict personal rights. People should be able to do whatever they want
> >with their own property without initiating force upon their neighbors.
>
> Heh...well I fully support the dissolution of "laws" that infringe
> on my freedom of choice, such as taxation. We're headed in the same
> direction.
Until you agree that taxation, at least in this country, does not
infringe on your freedom of choice, then we are not really headed in the
same direction.
>
> >> >There are those areas in which the government holds an unfair
> >> >monopoly, and I agree with you that those should be broken.
> >>
> >> It depends on the role you see for government, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> If you see it's role as a protector of individual rights,
> >> then you would probably form the opinion that the majority of
> >> "those areas" where we now see government's heavy hand should be
> >> eliminated and it should only concern itself with the job of right's
> >> protection.
>
> >I believe that the role of the government is whatever role the majority
> >desires and the miority will accept.
>
> a) What CHOICE does the minority have but to accept the majority's
> will in your governmental theory? IOW do they have a REAL choice, or
> will you use force to ensure their "acceptance"?
Again you have this strange minority majority dichotimy. The minority
can either consent to the choice of the majority, or seperate from the
group. For most things, I am usually on the side of the minority when
it comes to
US law, but I do not invalidate the majority's right to decide that law.
>
> b) Would you accept as being fully supported by your majoritarian
> premise the confiscation of all landed property to be managed under
> governmental auspices with individual land ownership prohibited on
> pain of death if that was what the majority (50.5%) wanted?
If more people wanted it than not, then I would. I would also make the
choice to relocate to another country. if I tried to fight it, what
good would it be to live on my own land among those who see in value in
owned land. Just as if suddenly people held no value in gold, then what
good would it be for me, other than esthetic purposes, to have it. I
would take my gold, and my land if at all possible, to where it was
valued.
>
> >People may assemble and form aggreements as they want.
>
> Except, in the above case, for land, huh? I wonder what would be
> next?
>
No, even in the above case. If a collective group wants to put no value
in individually owned land, then so be it.
>
> > By taking the mafia strongman up on his offer and using his services,
> >that implies consent.
>
> Where's the choice, Steve? Does he have a CHOICE as to whether he
> does so? "If you don't agree, I'll break your legs". Consent cannot
> be implied under duress (threat of violence). The fact that he's
> offering a service for the money is incidental to the fact that he is
> commiting an act of theft.
But if you go to him and start expecting that he live up to his promise
and complain about the lack of protection when you get broken in, then
you do sanction his protection. If you want what he's giving you and
don't want to pay for it, you are a mooch. If you don't want his
services and refuse them, then you are the victim of theft.
>
> Much like the fellow who comes off the curb and cleans your car
> window without permission and then demands money. You have the choice
> as to whether you pay him or not. You can refuse, can't you?
>
> However, if he pulls a gun and demands you pay him, suddenly he's
> robbing you, even though he's provided a service. I don't believe
> you'd attempt to tell me his theft was justified just because he
> cleaned your window without your permission, would you? And you
> certainly aren't going to try to convince me you "sanctioned" his
> robbery because he cleaned your window without your permission and you
> didn't stop him, are you?
>
BY driving on the street you are not implying that you want your windows
washed. If he cleans your window without prior agreement, then no he
has no right to ask for payment. If you drive into the carwash, get
your carwashed, and then claim you didn't want it washed, you could be
sued because by putting your car into the washer, you imply that you
want it washed.
You're making a small mistake in the logic here. If I give you a gift,
and then force you to pay me for it, that's theft. If I provide a
service and it is known to both of us that it will have to be paid for
and I force you to pay, then I'm just trying to get what's mine.
> How would I have nothing to do with him...he's supposedly going to
> "protect" me whether I want his protection or not? Under duress I've
> handed over the money he's demanded (he's threatened bodily harm if I
> don't) and he's stated unilaterally that I'm now under his protection.
> What uncoerced "choice" did I have, Steve?
In this case he has stolen from you. But if later on that year you are
broken into and then go to the Mafia guy and say hey I thought I was
paying you to protect me, then you are sanctioning his protection.
>
> >> Who do we contact about the robbery called "taxation without
> >> consent"?
> >>
> >Your local congressman. Tell him that you wish for him to introduce a
> >bill that will dissolve all taxes that you do not consent to. If he
> >doesn't, then you run for office and introduce the bill when you become a
> >congressman.
>
> My local congressman has no desire to do away with taxation, nor do
> his collegues. They, taxes, are his power base.
>
> Your asking me to agree to the methods of your majoritarian
> governmental theory. I don't agree. I simply want to be left alone.
> Why is that such a problem?
If youwish to be left alone, then leave the areas in which you imply
consent. In other words, leave the carwash if you don't want your car
washed. FInd anice island somewhere and you can live in peace forever,
with no government. Also, I have never made the case that the lack of
government is bad, just that the presence of government isn't
necessarily bad.
I wish there was a country somewhere in the world that was anarchist, so
all of the anarchists could have a place to live of their own. While I
feel bad for you that you can't find a country that meets all of your
desires, at least the US is as close as you're probably going to get.
> >BY remaining in the United States you consent to the use and payment of
> >the services offered by the government.
>
> 1) government services offered are the result of converting stolen
> property.
No the 'stolen' property is requested in exchange for services already
used.
>
> 2) the services/structures were in place prior to my existance.
>
> Use of them does NOT imply consent as consent requires a FREE choice
> be made by the person consenting and I have NO free choice in whether
> I use those or alternatives.
You always have had a choice.
>
> >Because the government of the nation is tied into the territory, to stop
> >consenting implies leaving the nation.
>
> I think we need a little clarification on the term consent. It
> means "to agree". That takes a conscious DECISON on the part of BOTH
> parties. I am declaring to you right now that I do not "agree" hence
> I do not "consent". You cannot assume I do just because I am forced
> to use services with no alternative. Consent is MY choice, MY
> agreement...not yours.
I am not consenting for you, I am merely stating that by living in the
US you are consenting. By eating in a restaurant, you consent to pay
for it afterwards. Would you eat at a restaurant and then express
outrage at the bill and declare it highway robbery?
> Or come up with a majority that decides the perfect solution is to
> ship all statists to Antarctica, huh? You'd go along with that I
> assume.
Not exactly. I made this point earlier about the non right of the
majority to initiate force upon the individual. Either way I think that
if I was a statist and in the minority, I'd probably move to a place
where there existed a state.
>
> No, this is your majoritarian theory, to which I don't subscribe.
> Why isn't the alternative "ok, you can opt out?" It would be if
> "freedom" were a priorty of this government and it's people.
>
You can opt out. I've made this point before.
> However, why shouldn't I be "permitted" to avail myself of
> non-governmentally controlled/regulated commerce if it is avialable?
> As a "free" person, shouldn't that be MY choice?
>
> It wouldn't be a problem in a "free" country, would it?
It is your choice, and if there is a non-govermentally controlled market
in the world, then by all means, go there and participate.
>
> >If you choose to reside in the US and accept it's services, you sanction
> >the government.
>
> You'll have to do a lot better than this assertion. You'll have to
> prove to me that I've agreed to the government and therefore
> sanctioned it. I've told you I haven't consented, and since only I can
> make that agreement (being the second party to any such agreement),
> your argument wouldn't have much validity, would it? Afterall, I
> simply have to assert I haven't agreed and it nullifies your
> contention. Use or non-use of services is incidental to the point.
>
If you choose to reside in the US, then you have choosen to use it's
services, then you are responsbile for paying for them, by which you
affirm your sanction of the producer of the values you desire, who
happens to be the enity known as the government. Is that a little more
clear?
You cant eat at a restaurant and then say you never agreed that you
would have to pay for it afterwards.
>
> If the majority agrees all blacks should be chattel slaves, then so
> be it, the government's job is to round them up and parcel them out,
> correct?
No, please re read my comments about majority and initiation of force.
Also, you must ask why would any black person still want to live in such
a community if it has shown it's disregard for their person. If I were
black and such a vote came about, I would certiainly attempt to leave
the US and reside in a place where I would be treated as an individual.
> Actually the whole discussion revolves around the moral question of
> whether the government has the right to extort money from people who
> don't consent simply because the majority says it does. The services
> aspect is incidental to that premise.
>
The government does not attempt to exact payment from those that do not
use it's services. The fact that you are a user of those services is
never incidental!
If you were offered a way to avoid paying taxes without ever being
caught, would you take it and still reside here in the US? How can you
state that you are not mooching off of the government if you never pay a
dime?
> >> How about those that are forced to pay for public schools but send
> >> their children to private schools because the education provided in
> >> the public schools is, in their opinion, inferior to what can be found
> >> in private schooling? Should they be forced to continue to pay for a
> >> "service" they no longer want or use?
>
> >See my above comments about monopolies.
>
> I'd appreciate an answer because your above comments aren't quite as
> clear as they could be. Should they be forced to continue to pay for
> a "service" they no longer want or use? A straight yes or no will do.
Your use of the word forced implies a negative outlook on this
situation. If a majority of the people wish to pay for and support a
public school, free for all, then either the minority consent and pay,
or they remove themselves from the group (in other words, move to a
different school district). The minority makes a value judgement of
whether or not the lost value in having to move is worth the gained
value of not paying too high of a property tax. If they wish to
maintain a memberhsip in the group(community, then yes they should pay
and consent to the rules of the group.
> No. We've already established his money is gone. Whether by force
> or voluntarily. Regardless, he cannot be a "mooch" if part of what is
> being used was commissioned/built/financed by his money.
If what is being used was commissioned/built/financed by someone else's
money and then he uses it without paying, he is a mooch. You still seem
to insist that in all of these situations, his money is taken and then
services are offered. The reverse is true. The services are offered,
accepted, and then his money is given.
>
> What you're attempting to establish is that anyone who doesn't agree
> with your idea of "good" is "bad" and you demonize that person by
> using a derogatory word such as "mooch". In reality, he is no more a
> mooch than the person who voluntarily paid.
>
I do not mean to use mooch as a derogatory word, and I am not attempting
to say that everyone who doesn't agree with me is 'bad'. It is my
opinion that people aren't good or bad, actions and objects are. I use
mooch as a term for someone who uses somethng without paying for it. It
is not meant to connotate anything else.
McQ
>jayd...@geocities.com wrote:
>>McQ said:
>> >The alternative is that he can leave, or attempt to chnage the
>> >laws.
>>Alternative three...he opts out. He doesn't play your game. What's
>>wrong with that alternative?
>it doesn't profit anyone except "he"
It has much more to do with power than profit OR freedom. If "he" is
permitted to opt out, the whole structure is in danger of collapsing
like wet paper box. Afterall if "he" gets to leave, why shouldn't
anyone else if they CHOOSE to do so?
Allowing someone to go their own way (i.e. declare their non-consent
to being governed by this or that government) is a direct threat to
the power of that government. It can't permit it and survive, so it
doesn't permit it.
In this way, all governments are alike.
McQ
>steve hreczkosij <hre...@harpo.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>>McQ wrote:
>
>> The problem here is those being taxed ARE NOT given a choice as to
>> whether to participate or not in the transaction. The thief is NOT
>> offering us a "deal". Above, you have the choice of saying no, taking
>> back your money and having the thief arrested. Show me where a
>> similar choice resides in the act of taxation. There is none. So
>> consent is nonexistant in that respect.
>However, you miss the obvious point that you do have a choice.
Thus far, Steve, the only "choice" you have offered is for me to
leave if I don't agree with the majority. And I honestly don't
believe you'd attempt to pretend that "choice" is an uncoerced choice.
So in reality, you are incorrect. I have NO uncoerced choice here,
and therefore no FREEDOM of choice.
>To live in the United States is to imply consent to it's services.
Incorrect on it's face. Ask every illegal alien living here today.
Incorrect on deeper examination. It has to do with the defintion of
consent which you continue to ignore in favor of the above unfounded
and unsupported assertion.
Now, just for grins I looked up "consent" and a subheading, "implied
consent" in Black's Law Dictionary, mainly because it does a good job
of defining or explaining *concepts*. Here's what it has to say about
the concept of "implied consent":
"That manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or
silence, which raise a *presumption* or *inference* that the consent
has been given."
Stop right there...note it gives a PRESUMPTION or INFERENCE. Note
that I have flat out said "I don't consent", hence no PRESUMPTION or
INFERENCE exist, correct?
More:
"An *inference* arising from a course of conduct or relationship
between the parties, in which there is mutual acquiensence or a lack
of objection under circumstance signifying assent."
Stop...again, my objection, and my declaration of non-consent are
sufficient to remove this inference, correct?
Those two sentences are the gist of the explanation with the
remainder being examples of implied consent. As should be plain, my
use of these services WITHOUT objection, WOULD imply consent. That
isn't the case here, is it?
>It's not as if you were here first and suddenly the country sprung up
>around you. When you turned 18, or whenever you left you parents home,
>you made a concious choice to live here in the United States.
Which, for lack of a better phrase, is completely incidental to the
topic at hand. The topic is consent, not where I choose to live. The
topic has to do with whether *I* CONSENT to the government and it's
structures and strictures. Only *I* can make that decision, and
merely living somewhere does NOT make it for me. As you can see from
the above, as long as I object, there is NO implied consent for me.
Once more, for grins, lets examine BLD's explanation of consent:
"A concurrence of wills. *Voluntarily* yielding the will to the
proposition of another; acquiesence or compliance therewith.
Agreement; approval; permission; the act or result of coming into
harmony or accord. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with
deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance the good or evil on
each side. It means *voluntarily* agreement by a person in the
possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an
intelligent *choice* to do something proposed by another. It supposes
a physical power to act, a moral power of acting and a serious,
determined and *free* use of these powers. Consent is implied in
every agreement. It is an act UNCLOUDED by fraud, duress or sometimes
even mistake."
Clearly, by my objections, I do NOT consent.
>You claim that this is not a REAL choice, but why isn't it?
Because it is not an UNCOERCED choice. Pay up or leave? Come on
Steve, tell me that's an uncoerced choice, a REAL choice. An
uncoerced choice would be pay-up or don't. What is done with the
money taken is incidental.
>Just because it isn't an attractive choice or an inexpensive one doesn't
>make it a real choice.
Real choice in this context means an uncoerced choice. One freely
taken. Do you believe I'd freely leave my home without being coerced
to do so (i.e. if I don't do as they say OR leave, they'll put me in
jail?)?
>An allegory to you example is if a Mexican citizen is here on vacation,
>and the IRS mistakes him for another MR. Gonzales and tries to make him
>pay 10 years back taxes. Mr. Gonzales can catch the thief in the act by
>returning home and filing a complaint with his Government, who in turn
>can file a complaint with the US, the UN, or whatever. This may not get
>him the results he wants, but we're not debating the quality of
>government service, but the premise of it.
Whoa...let's examine your premise here. The fellow who refused the
government extortion is a "thief" for attempting to keep his own
assets? I don't think so. The thief is the one doing the extorting,
not the fellow trying to keep what he earned.
The government services purchased with the stolen money is
incidental to the act of theft.
>> >The original idea behind this was not that taxation cannot be considered
>> >theft, but that it isn't always theft.
>>
>> If you consent then it isn't taxation, it's a voluntary payment.
>>
>> Let's be clear, taxation is NOT a voluntary payment. It is an
>> EXACTION.
>>
>> >I consent.
>>
>> Good for you. I don't consent. Where's that leave us?
>That leaves me a happy customer and you an dissatisfied one, or worse, a
>mooch.
Or the victim of thievery cloaked in majoritarian rule with the holy
water of the "law" sprinkled on it. Of course we both know if it
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's still a freakin' duck,
don't we?
Where it leaves us is with me being forced, by threat of violence,
to give up my earnings to the government who then spends that stolen
money on "services" of which you happen to approve. What if it spent
them on crematoria for college fraternity members? Would you be so
quick to condone its thievery then?
The moral point here, Steve, is theft is theft regardless of the
entity doing it, and what it does afterward with the proceedes is
incidental to the act of theft.
>> Using your logic, a lynch mob (a "majority") can assume away the
>> morality of "due process" simply because it is a majority and hang
>> anyone they decide to declare to be guilty. Would you consider this
>> proper or a gross violation of the rights of the person hanging from
>> the tree?
>We are not, in my opinion, arguing about the right for the majority to
>initate force against an individual. I disagree with you on the premise
>that taxation is force. If I agreed with you then the majority would
>not have the moral right to tax. I believe that a majority or some type
>has the right to be the final say on policy that affects all of the
>group, as long as it does not involve the initation of force upon it's
>members.
How then do you explain away the simple facts I'm relating to you as
a non-initiation of force?
a) I do NOT consent to the concept of taxation, as I see it as the
initiation of force with the purpose of stealing what I have earned.
b) the government here has said I MUST, under threat of violence and
penalty of incarceration, pay what they demand, when they demand it
and I have no choice but to comply.
Now, you say you "believe" that a majority or some type" has the
"right" to be the final say on policy that affects all of the group.
I'll ask again, where do they GET this right? If you claim it is by
common consent of the members of that group, I say FINE, that's their
business...but since I claim NOT to be a member of that group and I do
NOT consent to their rules, how ELSE but through the initiation of
force against me do they collect their taxes from me?
>> >If a majority consents, the minority must follow suit.
>>
>> Really? So regardless of the morality of the situation, if the
>> majority wills it, the minority has no recourse but to follow suit?
>>
>> Well, heck why do we all spend so much time condemning Hitler and
>> Stalin then? Supposedly they were the heads of majoritarian
>> governments.
>see the above comment
What does your line above say?
"IF the majority consents, the minority MUST follow suit".
Do you want to modify that or do you stand by it? If you stand by
it you must realize that the only way you can ensure the minority (who
may not have even participated in whatever charade we're talking
about) will "follow suit" is by using force to ensure compliance.
That's precisely what Stalin and Hitler did.
>> I assume you realize you've relegated morality to "majority will"
>> with this statement and taken it out of the realm of inalieable rights
>> and such.
>No I have not. Once again see the above.
You said:
"I believe that a majority or some type has the right to be the
final say on policy that affects all of the group, as long as it does
not involve the initation of force upon it's members."
You've seen me say I strenuously object to the morality of taxation.
How ELSE but through the initiation of force will you MAKE me pay
taxes?
>> I DIDN'T voluntarily agree to join nor to be born here or agree to
>> the form of government or it's policy of taxation. It's policy was
>> formed BEFORE my birth. I have voluntarily consented to NOTHING.
>By making the concious choice as an adult to live here, you have
>voluntarily consented. The policy WAS formed before your birth, and
>upon your maturation you have the right to accept it or reject it.
Nope, see consent and implied consent above. A simple statement of
objection is all it takes to remove both. I have not agreed or
implied agreement since I was able to intelligently choose between
moral right and wrong.
>> To me the essence of freedom is choice and the lack of coercion in
>> making that choice. And the test of real freedom is restraining one's
>> self and the government from eliminating choice and using coercion to
>> further it's aims.
>No one makes you live here.
Where I live is incidental.
>> As I see it, one of the reasons you and others are so intent upon
>> *requiring* participation, regardless of the morality, is you cannot
>> fathom your form (or any form of) government surviving without
>> coercion. And you're probably right. If people were given a choice,
>> they might not choose your insititution, and that seems to be a bit
>> more frightening than the immorality of governmental (and majority)
>> coercion.
>Please don't put words in my mouth.
Notice the first four words of the paragraph..."as I see it"...that
means "in MY opinion." That isn't putting words in your mouth, it is
relating my understanding of your position.
>I have never questioned your right to stop using services you dislike,
>we just disagree on what that entails. I can fathom a government
>surviving without coercion, because it exists here today along with
>a few dozen other democracies throughout the world.
It exists WHERE today? Not here my friend. Try to build anything
on your own property without the permission of the government. Be so
unlucky as to fit a "profile" of a drug runner. Have an informant
decide he doesn't like your looks and tell his contact you're growing
pot on your property and tell me how long (if ever) it takes to get
your confiscated property back. Try to opt out of Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid. Try to start a business without the permision
(licenses, fees, etc.) of the government.
Everyone on this tiny list of examples entail governemnt COERCION.
And instead of getting better it is getting WORSE.
>365 million people choose this institution every day.
Have you ever considered the word "relative" in this context?
>> So the question then becomes does one really want "freedom" with
>> it's choice or does one want the champion the use of force and the
>> elimination of choice in the name of *___________ (insert your
>> favorite form of government here)____________________*? Regardless of
>> its form, all government is force.
>>
>> Choice or force?
>You have always and always will have a choice here in the US. Please
>tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that all government is force.
Tell me how it collects taxes from most people and you have the
answer. It must FORCE me to pay taxes to it, something, as far as I'm
concerned, it has no RIGHT to do.
Governments have only one tool to use to get their way...their
monopoly on the use of force. THAT is how they stay in power. Force
doesn't have to come from a gun at first (courts, laws, etc), but if
all else fails, it will eventually resort to them if necessary.
>I assume you mean government as any sort of governing body of any
>organization.
No, I mean governments as installed over cities, counties, states
and countries.
The VFW's governing authority doesn't use force because it's members
would leave it. They pay their dues VOLUNTARILY because they CONSENT
to it's charter and they CHOOSE to join. Those that don't care to be
a member don't JOIN, but they don't have to leave town because they
don't agree with the VFW or it's rules and dues.
>> Would it have been? Really? Or would they simply have moved their
>> problem? What moral question would they have resolved? In essence,
>> wasn't their fight FOR choice and AGAINST coercion HERE?
>I simply meant that they could have moved. They wouldn't have resolved
>any moral question, they just would have decided to choose another
>nation to live in. If they moved to a country that had the same
>conditions as the United States, then they chose poorly.
But isn't the point that they didn't leave more potent? They chose
to stay because THIS, despite it's treatment of them, WAS THEIR HOME.
They certainly didn't consent to their treatment nor even IMPLY
consent, did they? But they also didn't view leaving as a REAL choice
either.
>By staying and attempting to fight, they tried to demonstrate to the
>majority that they believed they were the victims of force by the
>government.
And, as history shows, they were right. This also provides another
example of governments use and initiation of force, doesn't it?
>After a few years they succeeded in changing government
>policy. Would you have prefered they formed a private army and went
>around killing bus drivers until they could sit anywhere they wanted on
>the bus?
For someone who feels the highest state of freedom is the absense of
coercion, what do you think?
Other than frustration, I can't imagine why you would think I would
even entertain such a "preference".
>Peaceful noncompliance with the law has often been an effective tool in
>a democracy for demonstrating the point that demonstrators are making.
And it has been ruthlessly put down by government, even here, hasn't
it? Just ask Bull Connor.
>> >They chose instead to try to change the opinion of the majority, and were
>> >succesful.
>>
>> Ah, but according to your line above, they really didn't have that
>> "right", they were the minority and their "job" was to fall in line
>> with the majority. Morality is a majoritarian concept, and what the
>> majority was then doing in this instance was quite "moral" or "right".
>> Where'd these minority folks get off questioning the morality of the
>> situation they found themselves in...the majority had *spoken*.
>>
>I never stated that the minority doesn't have a right to try to
>influence the majority. I merely claimed that in policy decisions, the
>majority decides.
And I ask again, by what RIGHT do they place their priorities ahead
of my priorities and demand I pay for theirs?
>> >I have never questioned your right to not like taxes.
>>
>> But you have, simply by declaring that the majority is always right.
>The majority isn't alway's right (morally), but in matters of policy
>they are the final say. Would you prefer the minority have the right,
>so the least popular position always is implemented? Do you prefer a
>judgement by unanimous decision? Nothing would get done.
Actually, what I prefer is that individual rights for ALL be EQUALLY
protected and nothing more. The rest will work itself out.
>> Anyway, it isn't a question of like or dislike. It's a question of
>> morality and immorality. Theft is immoral, and taxation, as an
>> involuntary exaction, is a form of theft.
>Taxation is not an involuntary exaction. You have the right to live in
>whatever country you want.
No sir, I do NOT have the right to live in whatever country I want.
The only one with rights in that respect are the countries, and THEY
decide who they'll admit, or weren't you aware of that?
Secondly, taxation IS an involuntary exaction to those who do not
voluntarily PAY them. I am one of those.
>> >If you are attempting to change the opinion of the majority in order to
>> >bring about a better life for yourself, then your actions are to be commended.
>>
>> What I'm attempting to do is question the premise that a) taxation
>> is a legitimate "right" of government and b) that the majority has a
>> "right" of some sort to impose it's will on the minority REGARDLESS of
>> the morality of the act or action. You can't do a) and b) and talk
>> about "freedom" in the same breath.
>Taxation is not a 'right' of government, or a 'right' at all. Taxation
>is the term given to the cost per citizen for maintaining a government.
>Sometimes it is moral and sometimes it is theft. Here in the US, it is
>fair.
To WHOM, Steve. To whom is it fair? To those that view it morally
as THEFT? To those who do NOT consent to the concept of taxation and
morally object to it's premise? Why is taxation different here in the
US than...
>In middle age europe, more often than not it was theft.
...why, what's the difference as YOU see it? Did the serfs object
more strenuously to the theft of taxation than I am?
>> >I'm just saying that I'm a member of that majority that you're going to have
>> >to convince before anything can begin to happen.
>>
>> And I'm simply asking you to check your premise. Other than force,
>> what gives the majority the "right" to FORCE their priorities on the
>> minority? Some musty "declaration" or "constitution"? The agreement
>> of fifty-something guys in a hot hall in Philadelphia back in the
>> mid-1700s? How do these things *rightfully* require me to abandon my
>> priorities for the priorities of these people and those documents?
>The majority is not forcing their priorities on the minority.
Then why am I forced to pay taxes?
>You act as if there's two people named majority and minority.
Who's putting words in who's mouth now?
>If within a group
>a majority wants the group to take a certain act, then either the
>minority agrees to consent or they abandon the group.
Correct. That's all I ask. Notice those who leave the group are
NOT required to leave town or leave their home. They only leave the
group, and the group then has no POWER over them.
>The 13 states that ratified the constitution, and then the 37 others
>that freely entered into the Union all became willing partners in a
>living contract that is still in effect today.
The contract you mention was made between various relatively small
groups of men who audaciously and arrogantly (and as far as I'm
concerned INCORRECTLY) believed they had the right to include everyone
in a particular geographical region in THEIR scheme. I reject that
right and refuse to consent to it.
>Please don't abandon your priorites, sir. But don't make it sound as
>if the world should pave the way for you to achieve them.
Actually Steve, I'm simply asking the "world" to get out of my way
and LEAVE ME ALONE, stay out of my pocket, my bedroom, my house and my
yard and mind it's own business. I will gladly pay my own way, form
the associations I want and feel are necessary, and leave such
structures as governments to those that feel they must have others
make all the decisions in their lives for them.
>> >I agree with you on this one. The market should be made free and no body
>> >should have to use the government services. If someone wants to call the
>> >EPA and tell them that they have no problem with the nearby factory
>> >dumping waste on their property and contaminating the water table, that
>> >should be their right.
>>
>> So you would agree that no one should be required to participate in
>> Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid if they desire not too? Or pay
>> for public schools? Roads? Defense?
>>
>Not everyone is required.
So the answer is yes?
>The Canadians don't pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our public
>schools, our Roads, and Defense. I may disagree with the policy and wish
>we didn't have such services, but if that's what most people want, then so
>be it.
So if enough people in your town decide they'd all like a new car
and decide Steve should pay for all of them, as long as they form a
majority and vote it into being, then so be it?
This is the fallacy of your point, Steve. As long as we allow the
majority the ability to vote itself things IT wants without having to
pay directly for it, it will. And the only way to make those things
appear as the majority wills is to use FORCE to take the assets of
others to do so. At that point you have, by force, placed the
majority's priorities in front of the individual's priorities and made
him pay for the majority priorities against his will.
>> You're missing my point...freedom is about choice. If I'm free then
>> it is my CHOICE as to whether I support this institution or that
>> institution REGARDLESS of where I live. And this choice is made
>> WITHOUT coercion. That choice doesn't exist in the town I live in.
>You are quite incorrect. Freedom does not give you the choice on
>whether or not to pay rent if you live on my land.
That has nothing to do with freedom, Steve. I have the FREEDOM to
enter or NOT enter into an agreement with you as to the rent I WILL
pay (THAT is the choice), not as to whether, after making the
agreement, I will pay that amount.
>Freedom does not give you the choice to use my car without permission.
That's correct, and I'm not sure where I ever intimated it did.
Of course, freedom also does not give you (the majority) the choice
of taking my assets through taxation without my permission either,
does it?
>Freedom does not give me the right to use your backyard to dump my waste
>in.
That's correct. That would be a violation or my property rights,
wouldn't it? An act of force. Freedom is the ABSENSE of coercion.
>If you live within the jurisdiction, freedom does not give you the
>choice to benefit from the police without paying for it.
Fine. Then don't come when I call, but give ME the CHOICE of
deciding whether I WANT your police coverage.
> If you don't want the police, then leave the jurisdiction of the town.
Choice 1. Choice 2 is don't cover my house. You know, kinda like
if you get a Brinks home security system? Westinghouse security isn't
going to respond to an alarm, is it?
>If you don't want to pay rent get off my property.
Agreed.
>It's all the same idea.
No, actually it's a complete misrepresentation of the concept I put
forward above. Choice as I was discussing it concerned more than one
option, both (all) of which are UNCOERCED.
IOW, if I don't agree with your form of government, the UNCOERCED
choice is to opt out with no threat of force and take care of myself.
Being required to leave because you don't agree is NOT an uncoerced
choice.
>> Heh...well I fully support the dissolution of "laws" that infringe
>> on my freedom of choice, such as taxation. We're headed in the same
>> direction.
>Until you agree that taxation, at least in this country, does not
>infringe on your freedom of choice, then we are not really headed in the
>same direction.
Shucks and I had such high hopes.
>> >I believe that the role of the government is whatever role the majority
>> >desires and the miority will accept.
>>
>> a) What CHOICE does the minority have but to accept the majority's
>> will in your governmental theory? IOW do they have a REAL choice, or
>> will you use force to ensure their "acceptance"?
>Again you have this strange minority majority dichotimy.
I do? I'm simply commenting on a line that says "the role of
government is whatever role the majority desires and the minority will
accept."
Who's dicotomy am I commenting on here?
>The minority can either consent to the choice of the majority, or seperate
>from the group. For most things, I am usually on the side of the minority when
>it comes to US law, but I do not invalidate the majority's right to decide
>that law.
If the minority dissents on a law, must they move out of the US?
>> b) Would you accept as being fully supported by your majoritarian
>> premise the confiscation of all landed property to be managed under
>> governmental auspices with individual land ownership prohibited on
>> pain of death if that was what the majority (50.5%) wanted?
>If more people wanted it than not, then I would.
You would? Man, not me.
>I would also make the choice to relocate to another country.
Why...you were here before the law.
>if I tried to fight it, what good would it be to live on my own land
>among those who see in value in owned land. Just as if suddenly people
>held no value in gold, then what good would it be for me, other than
>esthetic purposes, to have it. I would take my gold, and my land if at
>all possible, to where it was valued.
Gee Steve, when you think about it, what good did it do for those
civil rights protesters to stick around and fight the immorality of
what whites in general (condoned by governments in general) were
doing? They should have all just moved to where they would be
"valued".
Wonder where that would have been?
>> > By taking the mafia strongman up on his offer and using his services,
>> >that implies consent.
>>
>> Where's the choice, Steve? Does he have a CHOICE as to whether he
>> does so? "If you don't agree, I'll break your legs". Consent cannot
>> be implied under duress (threat of violence). The fact that he's
>> offering a service for the money is incidental to the fact that he is
>> commiting an act of theft.
>But if you go to him and start expecting that he live up to his promise
>and complain about the lack of protection when you get broken in, then
>you do sanction his protection.
Well, lets see...you've been broken into and this guy, who extorted
your money, has given you no choice as to an alternative. Now you've
experienced two losses. One, the money he extorted and two, the stuff
stolen. Your only recourse, apparently, is him for recovery of
anything. You entered into the "agreement" in question under duress,
which BLD says DOES NOT constitute consent. So does demanding action
from your only option suddenly sanction his operation? Nope. Because
the duress still exists, and the next payment is still expected or
violent action will ensue.
>If you want what he's giving you and don't want to pay for it, you are
>a mooch.
Whoa...if you don't pay for it, he breaks your legs. IOW, he
INITIATES force. Tell me the REAL choice in this matter, Steve.
We're not talking about someone with whom you have the choice to
refuse. Just like taxes.
> If you don't want his services and refuse them, then you are the victim
>of theft.
Huh uh, no refusal allowed. Just like taxes.
>> Much like the fellow who comes off the curb and cleans your car
>> window without permission and then demands money. You have the choice
>> as to whether you pay him or not. You can refuse, can't you?
>>
>> However, if he pulls a gun and demands you pay him, suddenly he's
>> robbing you, even though he's provided a service. I don't believe
>> you'd attempt to tell me his theft was justified just because he
>> cleaned your window without your permission, would you? And you
>> certainly aren't going to try to convince me you "sanctioned" his
>> robbery because he cleaned your window without your permission and you
>> didn't stop him, are you?
>>
>BY driving on the street you are not implying that you want your windows
>washed.
By living here I in no way imply I want governmental services. In
fact I've flat out said I don't want them.
>If he cleans your window without prior agreement, then no he
>has no right to ask for payment.
If the government provides services without my consent, then it has
no right to ask for payment.
>If you drive into the carwash, get your carwashed, and then claim you
>didn't want it washed, you could be sued because by putting your car
>into the washer, you imply that you want it washed.
Actually, in car washes I go to, you have to do more than imply you
want your car washed. You have to TELL them you want your car washed.
That comprises CONSENT to have your car washed by them, and they
indeed DO have grounds for action UNLESS they didn't live up to their
part of the agreement.
> You're making a small mistake in the logic here. If I give you a gift,
>and then force you to pay me for it, that's theft.
You're missing my point. In the first instance, you have a
UNCOERCED choice to REFUSE the gift and payment. In the second
instance (gun pulled) you do NOT have an UNCOERCED choice, do you?
>If I provide a service and it is known to both of us that it will have
>to be paid for and I force you to pay, then I'm just trying to get what's mine.
IF you provide a service WITHOUT MY AGREEMENT, then that's your
problem and trying to force me to pay for it is THEFT.
>> How would I have nothing to do with him...he's supposedly going to
>> "protect" me whether I want his protection or not? Under duress I've
>> handed over the money he's demanded (he's threatened bodily harm if I
>> don't) and he's stated unilaterally that I'm now under his protection.
>> What uncoerced "choice" did I have, Steve?
>In this case he has stolen from you.
Correct. Now, how is that different from demanding I INVOLUNTARILY
pay taxes under penalty of incarceration and then being "protected" by
the exortionist?
>But if later on that year you are broken into and then go to the Mafia
>guy and say hey I thought I was paying you to protect me, then you are
>sanctioning his protection.
First of all, I'm not PAYING the guy, he's stealing money from me
through EXTORTION. It is going to him INVOLUNTARILY because I do not
have an UNCOERCED choice in the matter. So obviously, consent doesn't
exist, nor will it exist simply because I use the only option open to
me for recovery of some property.
>> Your asking me to agree to the methods of your majoritarian
>> governmental theory. I don't agree. I simply want to be left alone.
>> Why is that such a problem?
>If youwish to be left alone, then leave the areas in which you imply
>consent. In other words, leave the carwash if you don't want your car
>washed. FInd anice island somewhere and you can live in peace forever,
>with no government.
Why is this always the answer someone gets who asks they be allowed
to exercise the freedom of uncoerced choice? And it mostly comes from
those who seem deluded into believing democratic government = freedom.
What is the threat, the difficulty, of letting me go my own way if
you are a proponent of freedom?
>Also, I have never made the case that the lack of government is bad,
>just that the presence of government isn't necessarily bad.
Like I said, if it's concerned with the protection of INDIVIDUAL
rights and nothing more, there's a case to be made for it.
>I wish there was a country somewhere in the world that was anarchist, so
>all of the anarchists could have a place to live of their own. While I
>feel bad for you that you can't find a country that meets all of your
>desires, at least the US is as close as you're probably going to get.
Don't think so Steve. Remember when I mentioned relative in the
context of "best" or "better". The US is better than a lot of places,
but in terms of freedom that's a very relative "better".
I don't feel bad for me. What I want will hopefully eventually
evolve in some society when they again focus on individual liberty and
realize that the best way to provide for the "common good" is to
protect the rights of all it's members EQUALLY. That, of course, is
NOT the case here in the US and is getting worse each and every day.
>> >BY remaining in the United States you consent to the use and payment of
>> >the services offered by the government.
>>
>> 1) government services offered are the result of converting stolen
>> property.
>No the 'stolen' property is requested in exchange for services already
>used.
Uh, no. The services are provided without an agreement with me,
hence anything taken from me to pay for them is stolen.
>> 2) the services/structures were in place prior to my existance.
>>
>> Use of them does NOT imply consent as consent requires a FREE choice
>> be made by the person consenting and I have NO free choice in whether
>> I use those or alternatives.
>You always have had a choice.
Correct. Whether it was uncoerced or not is the key point though.
>I am not consenting for you, I am merely stating that by living in the
>US you are consenting.
And I'm saying per my discussion above that you are incorrect.
>By eating in a restaurant, you consent to pay for it afterwards.
Correct, and, that consent is acknowledged by my ORDER. IOW I
VOLUNTARILY consent by ordering the preparation of the food. However
if I go into that restaurant and sit in a booth, I have implied no
such thing, have I? Until I order food and voluntarily enter into an
agreement with that resturaunt to pay for what they produce, they
aren't going to charge me for sitting in the booth or soaking up the
air conditioning or even using their bathroom, are they? And, after
doing all of the above (except the ordering), I can walk out the door
and not owe them a single, solitary penny.
>Would you eat at a restaurant and then express outrage at the bill and
>declare it highway robbery?
No, of course not...because I'd have VOLUNTARILY entered into an
agreement...given my CONSENT...for them to prepare a meal by ORDERING
it.
You seem to be missing the VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT part of this whole
equation.
>> No, this is your majoritarian theory, to which I don't subscribe.
>> Why isn't the alternative "ok, you can opt out?" It would be if
>> "freedom" were a priorty of this government and it's people.
>>
>You can opt out. I've made this point before.
And you or your government won't bother me, jail me, attempt to
steal from me, etc?
>> However, why shouldn't I be "permitted" to avail myself of
>> non-governmentally controlled/regulated commerce if it is avialable?
>> As a "free" person, shouldn't that be MY choice?
>>
>> It wouldn't be a problem in a "free" country, would it?
>It is your choice, and if there is a non-govermentally controlled market
>in the world, then by all means, go there and participate.
And again, I won't end up in jail for violating your government's
laws of exclusivity?
>> contention. Use or non-use of services is incidental to the point.
>If you choose to reside in the US, then you have choosen to use it's
>services, then you are responsbile for paying for them, by which you
>affirm your sanction of the producer of the values you desire, who
>happens to be the enity known as the government. Is that a little more
>clear?
Yeah, and I think we've covered it above. Obviously there's no
sanction when there's no alternative and any agreement is an agreement
under duress.
>
>> If the majority agrees all blacks should be chattel slaves, then so
>> be it, the government's job is to round them up and parcel them out,
>> correct?
>No, please re read my comments about majority and initiation of force.
Hold on Steve. In reply to a comment I made in the last message:
>> It's back to the question of the role of government. Was this
>> governemnt formed to protect individual rights or to own land, tax
>> people's assets and redistribute them and commit all sorts of
>> violations of individual rights in the name of the "common good"?
You said this:
>see my above statement regarding the role of government. If the majority
>aggrees it wants to buy and set aside land, then so be it.
Now as you probably can see, all I did was insert "blacks" and
"slavery" in place of "buy and set aside land". For the land owners
who have their land condemned for the "common good", the buying and
setting aside of land might be considered "the initiation of force" by
them, huh?
>Also, you must ask why would any black person still want to live in such
>a community if it has shown it's disregard for their person. If I were
>black and such a vote came about, I would certiainly attempt to leave
>the US and reside in a place where I would be treated as an individual.
Well I wouldn't participate in the vote, because that's not
something that is up for a vote. You want sanction? Vote.
>> Actually the whole discussion revolves around the moral question of
>> whether the government has the right to extort money from people who
>> don't consent simply because the majority says it does. The services
>> aspect is incidental to that premise.
>The government does not attempt to exact payment from those that do not
>use it's services.
The government does not have my permission or agreement to provide
those services. Where's that leave us Steve as to MY exactions?
>The fact that you are a user of those services is never incidental!
It most certainly is. It is incidental to the point that those
services are a RESULT of stolen property.
> If you were offered a way to avoid paying taxes without ever being
>caught, would you take it and still reside here in the US?
You bet.
>How can you state that you are not mooching off of the government if you
>never pay a dime?
Quite simply because most of the services they provide are provided
without alternative. If given an alternative, I'd happily avail
myself of it and never EVER use anything the government provided.
I've done that in the matter of schools and retirement. Give me an
uncoerced choice in any other area and I'll take the non-governmental
one. But as long as government restricts who can provide particular
services to itself, then tough beans.
>> >> How about those that are forced to pay for public schools but send
>> >> their children to private schools because the education provided in
>> >> the public schools is, in their opinion, inferior to what can be found
>> >> in private schooling? Should they be forced to continue to pay for a
>> >> "service" they no longer want or use?
>>
>> >See my above comments about monopolies.
>>
>> I'd appreciate an answer because your above comments aren't quite as
>> clear as they could be. Should they be forced to continue to pay for
>> a "service" they no longer want or use? A straight yes or no will do.
>Your use of the word forced implies a negative outlook on this
>situation. If a majority of the people wish to pay for and support a
>public school, free for all, then either the minority consent and pay,
>or they remove themselves from the group (in other words, move to a
>different school district). The minority makes a value judgement of
>whether or not the lost value in having to move is worth the gained
>value of not paying too high of a property tax. If they wish to
>maintain a memberhsip in the group(community, then yes they should pay
>and consent to the rules of the group.
Is that a "no"? Or a "yes"? The question is quite straight
forward. If they no longer wish to avail themselves of public
schooling, but instead prefer private schooling, should they still be
forced to pay for public schooling?
And, tell me who's priority the minority is being FORCED to pay for
when the majority decides it would be a good idea for there to be
public schools, "free for all"?
Uncoerced choice?
>> No. We've already established his money is gone. Whether by force
>> or voluntarily. Regardless, he cannot be a "mooch" if part of what is
>> being used was commissioned/built/financed by his money.
>If what is being used was commissioned/built/financed by someone else's
>money and then he uses it without paying, he is a mooch.
He has an alternative?
>You still seem to insist that in all of these situations, his money is taken
>and then services are offered. The reverse is true. The services are offered,
>accepted, and then his money is given.
Did they have his permission and agreement when the services were
offered? If not, tough beans. It's the service provider who has the
problem.
>> What you're attempting to establish is that anyone who doesn't agree
>> with your idea of "good" is "bad" and you demonize that person by
>> using a derogatory word such as "mooch". In reality, he is no more a
>> mooch than the person who voluntarily paid.
>I do not mean to use mooch as a derogatory word, and I am not attempting
>to say that everyone who doesn't agree with me is 'bad'. It is my
>opinion that people aren't good or bad, actions and objects are. I use
>mooch as a term for someone who uses somethng without paying for it. It
>is not meant to connotate anything else.
OK. But what I'm attempting to point out is that the person from
whom taxes are involuntarily exacted is NOT a mooch. And, in MY
opinion, someone who is not offered an market alternative to a
government "service" is NOT a mooch if he doesn't pay for it.
Afterall he has no CHOICE in the matter.
jayd...@geocities.com
On 1997-07-26 mcq...@iix.netcom.com(McQ) said:
>>objectivism: jayd...@geocities.com wrote:
>>>McQ said:
>It has much more to do with power than profit OR freedom. If "he" is
>permitted to opt out, the whole structure is in danger of
>collapsing like wet paper box. Afterall if "he" gets to leave, why
>shouldn't anyone else if they CHOOSE to do so?
>Allowing someone to go their own way (i.e. declare their non-consent
>to being governed by this or that government) is a direct threat to
>the power of that government. It can't permit it and survive, so it
>doesn't permit it.
>In this way, all governments are alike.
>McQ
any personal gain can be equated to "profit"
the structure is collapsing, already...
whether or not a government permits something doesn't matter
in the end, all they can do is lock you up, or kill you...
if the government kills me, they give me an ultimate freedom
..and, I profit
Michael Lodman
In article <33D934...@harpo.cns.iit.edu>,
steve hreczkosij <hre...@harpo.cns.iit.edu> wrote:
>However, you miss the obvious point that you do have a choice. To live
>in the United States is to imply consent to it's services.
This is he theory behind the justification for taxes - "implied consent".
It is however, only a theory, and since the thieves themselves use it
to justify their theft, it is more than a little suspect. I'm telling
you that I do NOT consent - now what? The real definition of taxes
comes into play - namely armed robbery and extortion.
>We are not, in my opinion, arguing about the right for the majority to
>initate force against an individual. I disagree with you on the premise
>that taxation is force. If I agreed with you then the majority would
>not have the moral right to tax. I believe that a majority or some type
>has the right to be the final say on policy that affects all of the
>group, as long as it does not involve the initation of force upon it's
>members.
This paragraph basically sums up the invalidity of your position - namely
taxation is most definitely force. Try not paying, and see who initiates
force. The majority can say and do whatever they want voluntarily for
themselves, by themselves, but FORCING all to participate is force
by the very definition of the word.
>By making the concious choice as an adult to live here, you have
>voluntarily consented. The policy WAS formed before your birth, and
>upon your maturation you have the right to accept it or reject it.
You can say this till you're blue, it doesn't make it moral, or correct.
>No one makes you live here.
I live here. Now, you have one choice to change the situation if I refuse
to pay taxes- to force me to leave, to force me to jail or kill me, or
to forcibly take my savings.
>Taxation is not an involuntary exaction. You have the right to live in
>whatever country you want.
Double-think.
> You're making a small mistake in the logic here. If I give you a gift,
>and then force you to pay me for it, that's theft. If I provide a
>service and it is known to both of us that it will have to be paid for
>and I force you to pay, then I'm just trying to get what's mine.
The gift was life, and you are forcing me to pay you for it.
>FInd anice island somewhere and you can live in peace forever,
>with no government.
This isn't possible - I suggest you do a little checking into what happens to these
attempts for suggesting them.
>I wish there was a country somewhere in the world that was anarchist, so
>all of the anarchists could have a place to live of their own. While I
>feel bad for you that you can't find a country that meets all of your
>desires, at least the US is as close as you're probably going to get.
Because the thieves to greater or lesser degrees, are in power nearly
everywhere.
Scott D. Erb
)
In article <5raanu$c...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, mcq...@iix.netcom.com
says...
>
> The question remains "by what right does any group who forms a
>government (under whatever guise) IMPOSE that government BY FORCE
>on those who have no interest in nor desire to participate?"
It's simply really: it's a matter of power and persuasion.
People realized they were getting screwed as the powerful and wealthy used
their position to keep the benefits coming to them, and keep exploiting
the others.
Slowly, through political efforts and social movements, the "lower
classes" banded together, worked together, made demands, and created a
system whereby the rights of the wealthy and strong could be limited by a
legitimately elected democratic government operating under rule of law,
put forth by a constitution.
Is that "just" and "fair"? Well, in the abstract, that depends upon your
philosophical beliefs -- what assumptions you make about life, reality,
and all of that. People of one philosophical "school" won't convince
people of another, most likely. But the bottom line is simple: this power
to act via government to limit strong or wealthy actors was one over a
long time and with sweat, blood, and tears. It will not be sacrificed or
given up. Ever. We "democrats" (with a small 'd') will use all power in
our control to prevent that, and so far we're easily winning.
That being said, practically speaking, I think a little less government
and less intrusive bureaucracy is a great thing. Just don't mess with the
principle of democracy.
cheers, scott
Jack Haskell
Had the Federal government instituted an amendment limiting the
maximum amount of taxation to 10%, as was proposed when the income tax
was initiated, there wouldn't be small cause for contention.
People in general simply don't believe that all taxation is thieft,
and even if taxes are eventually reduced, they would never reach zero.
-jack