Taxation really IS extortion. Now what? (Was Re: Libertarianism is growing fast!!!)
Todd Greene
I had started to write a short discussion in response to the illegitimate
criticisms based on semantic obfuscations of the "taxation is theft"
idea.
However, I realized that most of you appear to accept the general concept
that taxation is indeed an act of coercion by one group against others in
order to take their money, based as it is on intimidation and threats of
forcible confiscation and possible confinement. You simply seem to
believe that taxation is "okay" (with various meanings of okay), at least
for certain core activities. Though these core activities vary from
writer to writer, they generally seem to fall into two basic categories:
security and infrastructure.
I have also seen that some of these writers appear to have some inkling
of the potential underlying contradiction in stating that they agree with
the concept that "taxation is theft" (or "stealing," or "extortion," or
something conceptually akin to these) AND stating that taxation for at
least certain kinds of activities is legitimate, because they add the
assurance: "Of course, I am libertarian, too. It's just that I'm a
'pragmatic' libertarian, not a purist."
Then I see some "purists" chime in in response to these writers that,
hey, don't you see the contradiction in your position? Taxation is
either stealing or it is not. If you think that it is okay to use a gas
tax (for example) to pay for road construction and maintenance, then you
are saying that stealing is a legitimate funding method for roads (or
courts, jails, national security - even police, which puts one in the odd
position of defending the idea that it is okay to steal in order to pay
some people to punish other people for stealing).
You are both right. My opinion is that the people who are wrong and who
should realize they have no shred of credibility are those who absurdly
attempt to deny that "taxation is theft," or, more properly, extortion.
Semantic games do not hide the truth that taxation is simply the use of
intimidation and aggression by one group to extract resources from
others, regardless of what those others think about it. There is no
"transaction" or "trade," so to speak. I do not receive some product or
service in return for the great majority of what is taken from me by
force. IN THIS RESPECT (please note this prefatory phrase carefully), I
am truly a slave for the state.
The other writers who are wrong, again, of course, in my opinion, but who
are at least not so absurd about it, are those who admit that "taxation
is theft" (or conceptually akin to theft), but who also claim that
coercive funding is a perfectly legitimate form of social funding. (Yes,
this IS different from the libertarian pragmatists, who don't think
taxation is perfectly legitimate at all, but simply see no way around it
right now for at least certain basic social activities in our imperfect
society as it is.)
The fact is, taxation is not legitimate. Stealing cannot be made to even
SEEM morally right, except in some very extreme hypothetical
circumstances (which libertarian economist David Friedman
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/ is good at coming up with).
* * * * * * * * * *
Here is a short digression aimed at those hypocritical Republicans
(which, in my experience, covers the vast majority of the Republican
politicians, at least) with an example from my own state of Michigan:
The state government spends state tax money on "arts" projects in Wayne
County (the Detroit area) far out of proportion to the rest of the state
(yes, even taking the higher population density into account). The
correct resolution, even from an evolutionary perspective, is to say that
the tax money being spent by the state in Wayne County for local "arts"
projects (museums, zoos, symphonies, and so on) should be reduced, even
phased out to zero along with zeroing out all state spending on local
projects anywhere in the state.
Republicans in the state legislature (yes, those same people who are
frequently heard to say they are the party that wants to "get government
off our backs") fought, with Democrats, to INCREASE state spending on
local projects in other Michigan counties, so that the state funding of
local projects "would be fairer" - and they won! The few (and I do mean
few) Republicans who were a bit more consistent with their own stated
philosophy by arguing for phasing out all state funding of local projects
were even castigated by their fellow Republicans!
* * * * * * * * * *
I am a libertarian pragmatist insofar as I agree that the direction of
our social evolution must definitely be toward phasing out coercive
funding across the board. I mean, my own city government argues that
taxation is a legitimate form of funding for entertainment facilities,
for Pete's sake! In other words, it's okay to steal from some people, so
that other people don't have to spend quite so much on tickets when they
go to see a hockey game! This is stupid, stupid, stupid! (Of course, as
we all know, government is acting in the public interest, whereas
companies acting in the marketplace environment are simply greedy. Yes,
this is quite obvious.)
And this leads me to the link between the libertarian pragmatists and the
libertarian purists, and why I don't see any necessary conflict between
the two.
To say that one believes that "taxation is theft" doesn't make one an
anarchist or anything else. I oppose taxation, believing that taxation
is extortion. At the same time, I understand that we are where we are
now, and how we get from here to there is anybody's guess. I work in my
small ways to achieve the goal of a more just society.
The parallel is this: Slavery of blacks in the U.S. in the early 19th
century. Slavery was legal. But many knew just as assuredly that
slavery was absolutely morally wrong. Many people worked in many
different ways (and sometimes at cross-purposes) to oppose slavery and
worked to influence social change to achieve a more just society. They
didn't necessarily know how society would change or how things would be
done without slavery (especially those in the South), but it did not
matter. They knew that whatever course social evolution took in terms of
people and institutions working to achieve their goals, that course
needed to be one that did not include slavery as a method of achieving
any of those goals.
However society evolves (i.e., however people cooperate in terms of the
agreements - contracts - they make and social institutions that they
form) as people work to achieve their goals, they must use moral methods
to achieve those goals, even the goals of adequate infrastructure and
security. No one, I think, would disagree with this statement.
Precisely the same is true of taxation. The libertarian simply says that
taxation, being immoral (since it is simply extortion) must not be one of
the methods used. The libertarian pragmatist says, "Yeah, I know,
taxation is so prevalent today as a funding method that our social
institutions have evolved in such a manner that most people don't even
understand how we would provide certain kinds of services - especially
roads (infrastructure) and police, courts, and jails (security)."
I am a libertarian purist: I don't necessarily KNOW (though I do have
some general ideas) how such services would be provided in a genuinely
free society. But the fact is, this is something that it is not
necessary to know to understand that taxation is morally wrong and that
it must be abolished and that I will work in my own small ways to oppose
it.
I am a libertarian pragmatist: Social evolution typically occurs in
small steps (even though we are more conscious of the convulsive changes
because of their sheer drama). I support any step that I believe is in
the right direction and oppose any step that I believe is in the wrong
direction. I understand that in a genuinely free society, there would be
no taxation - and this is my goal. But I am not going to argue against
interim steps simply because they don't take us all the way there.
Here's another perspective on libertarian pragmatism and purity by Greg
Swann:
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Liberty.html
Heck, I'll be even more blunt: Scaling taxation all the way back to
being used only to fund (1) national security (as opposed to
international security, like now), (2) domestic security (police, courts,
jails), and (3) roads would be a wonderful achievement. Not perfect, but
much better than now. Anyone who believes at least this much I consider
to be my ideological ally.
All of the rest of you can go soak your heads in buckets of cranberry
juice! (Thus dramatically decreasing the availability of cranberry juice
in the market in the short-term...leading to government
rationing...leading to long-term shortages...leading to legislation
subsidizing cranberry farmers and increasing criminal penalties against
those dealing in black market cranberries...leading to libertarian
radicals dressing up as American Indians and throwing boxes of
cranberries in to the Boston Harbor...leading to...the next libertarian
revolution!)
A Postcript:
At least one writer tried to confuse another part of the "taxation is
theft" idea by claiming that the taxation transaction is the same thing
as a transaction where one party gives to another party in order to get
something in return. This was so, he said, because coercion is involved
in both transactions. In taxation, the person who refuses to "give" gets
fined or goes to jail. In "buying" something, the person who refuses to
"give" gets fined or goes to jail. How could libertarians be so
inconsistent?
This is a common misunderstanding, and this particular kind of example in
criticism is most commonly used by those with a socialist bent of mind
who don't agree with the concept of ownership anyway. But disputing the
concept of ownership is a different area and is not directly relevant to
the "taxation is theft" idea.
The criticism of this criticism is this: There are two (or more) sides
to this kind of transaction. If a person walks into a store and takes
something without paying for it, then the coercion has *already
occurred*. The person has taken something from the store without the
store owner's consent. Most would then say that it is within the store
owner's right to use coercion, in some form, to get his property back or
to get the person to pay for the property that he took and even pay for
the extra effort the store (or the city police) must expend in order to
track him down and prosecute him.
(And, by the way Mr. Socialist, this is true whether the store is
privately owned, or "owned" by the state and run by some state-appointed
manager!)
Libertarians, as libertarians, do not say they are against coercion -
they oppose coercion that is *initiated* by one party against another. I
know this distinction has been stated often, but many seem to just
overlook it.
--------------------
Todd Greene - tgr...@iserv.net
- http://www.iserv.net/~tgreene/
- Grand Rapids, Michigan
"To take away the liberty of acting is to destroy the possibility,
and consequently the power, of choosing, of judging, of comparing;
it is to annihilate intelligence." -- Frederic Bastiat (1850)
Greg Swann
In article <31B343...@alliance.net>, Todd Greene
<tgre...@alliance.net> wrote:
[immense snip]
>Here's another perspective on libertarian pragmatism and purity by Greg
>Swann:
>
> http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Liberty.html
That is the first of a series of essays that might be called "Hectoring
the Libertarians". This the list, in order:
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Liberty.html Liberty and compromise...
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Steak.html Let 'em eat steak...
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Dancing.html Dancing with the infidel
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Room101.html Escaping Room 101...
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/ThirdThing.html Meet the Third Thing...
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Psalm.html Psalm
All of those develop on arguments that originate in the book "Janio
at a Point", which is at:
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Janio.html
There's a lot of other stuff of interest to Libertarians on my Web page.
Greg Swann
_____________________________________________________________________________
gsw...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 5/24/96)
70640...@compuserve.com
Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified.
Redemption Is Egoism _In Action,_ in the real deeds of your
real life. By your self-loving actions, you redeem the errors
of your past and make of them the _achievements_ of your
present and future. It is not impossible to _avoid_ doing
this. Most people waste their whole _lives_ trying to pretend
that past errors need not be corrected. But neither is it
possible to avoid the consequences of failing at redemption.
- Janio Valenta
_____________________________________________________________________________
Richard Carnes
>criticisms based on semantic obfuscations of the "taxation is theft"
>idea.
>
>However, I realized that most of you appear to accept the general concept
>that taxation is indeed an act of coercion by one group against others in
>order to take their money, based as it is on intimidation and threats of
>forcible confiscation and possible confinement.
Your argument rests on the premise that a person is the morally
rightful owner, in the fullest sense, of whatever one acquires in
capitalist free-market transactions. How would you attempt to
persuade those who don't agree with this premise?
[...]
>If a person walks into a store and takes
>something without paying for it, then the coercion has *already
>occurred*. The person has taken something from the store without the
>store owner's consent.
Can you cite a standard dictionary definition according to which
shoplifting is an instance of "coercion"? I don't know of any.
>Libertarians, as libertarians, do not say they are against coercion -
>they oppose coercion that is *initiated* by one party against
>another.
I've pointed out in other threads that this is just an obfuscating way
of saying "libertarians believe that the only morally justified use of
coercion is to defend the property rights asserted by libertarian
theory." Why libertarians are disinclined to just say what they mean
on this topic is an interesting question.
Richard Carnes
Larry Nomer
In message <4p07n2$s...@news.eecs.umich.edu> - car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu
(Richard Carnes) writes:
>In article <31B343...@alliance.net>,
>Todd Greene <tgre...@alliance.net> wrote:
>>I had started to write a short discussion in response to the illegitimate
>>criticisms based on semantic obfuscations of the "taxation is theft"
>>idea.
>>
>>However, I realized that most of you appear to accept the general concept
>>that taxation is indeed an act of coercion by one group against others in
>>order to take their money, based as it is on intimidation and threats of
>>forcible confiscation and possible confinement.
>
>Your argument rests on the premise that a person is the morally
>rightful owner, in the fullest sense, of whatever one acquires in
>capitalist free-market transactions. How would you attempt to
>persuade those who don't agree with this premise?
Your argument rests on the premise that a person is NOT
the rightful owner of what they produce. Suppose I make a
voluntary agreement with someone that I will perform work
X in exchange for Y amount of payment. When I have
performed 100 percent of the work, that person is obligated
to give me 100 percent of what we agreed. Since I
performed all the work, why should I not be entitled
to keep all of what someone else is willing to pay for it?
If your answer is going to involve "stuff" that government/
society is doing for me, be aware that I am an anarcho-
capitalist and don't want the government doing anything
for me. If my neighborhood association feels we need
more security, we'll hire some. If we feel the streets
need re-paving, we'll take care of it. Likewise
for trash collection, fire protection, etc.
(Could be implemented through deed restrictions
that potential buyers would know ahead of time, and
could choose from various arrangements.)
The only thing we could possibly need a tiny
government for is a minimum national _defense_ (20 B/year
would be plenty), and the rest can be done privately.
And given the favorable geographic location of the U.S.,
the small defense required could probably be financed through
private or other non-coercive means. Why shouldn't
oil companies defend their own oil tankers? Why
should the U.S. spend hundreds of billions of dollars
subsidizing the defense of Japan and Europe when
they have the money and technology to do it
themselves?
>I've pointed out in other threads that this is just an obfuscating way
>of saying "libertarians believe that the only morally justified use of
>coercion is to defend the property rights asserted by libertarian
>theory."
You lie about libertarians every chance you get, eh, Richard?
Of course it is also morally justified to defend oneself against
a mugger, a rapist, or anyone else initiating force against
against you.
But what is so wrong about
defending my property anyway? Do you think it is OK for
someone to break into your house and take your TV?
Shouldn't one have the right to use force to stop
someone breaking into your home whether or not they
intend to steal something?
Just what are your beliefs, oh critical one?
>Richard Carnes
-Larry Nomer
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>In article <31B343...@alliance.net>,
>Todd Greene <tgre...@alliance.net> wrote:
>>I had started to write a short discussion in response to the illegitimate
>>criticisms based on semantic obfuscations of the "taxation is theft"
>>idea.
>>
>>However, I realized that most of you appear to accept the general concept
>>that taxation is indeed an act of coercion by one group against others in
>>order to take their money, based as it is on intimidation and threats of
>>forcible confiscation and possible confinement.
>Your argument rests on the premise that a person is the morally
>rightful owner, in the fullest sense, of whatever one acquires in
>capitalist free-market transactions. How would you attempt to
>persuade those who don't agree with this premise?
As long as they don't attempt to act on their opinion, no problem.
If they attempt to act on it, we treat them the same way we treat
anyone else who commits the same act: they are thieves and robbers,
and the man on the spot in a pinch can't be certain they won't be
murderers next. Apprehend them -- peacefully if that can be done
without undue risk to the persons doing the apprehending, fatally if
necessary -- and lock them up.
Richard Carnes
car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>>Your argument rests on the premise that a person is the morally
>>rightful owner, in the fullest sense, of whatever one acquires in
>>capitalist free-market transactions. How would you attempt to
>>persuade those who don't agree with this premise?
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>As long as they don't attempt to act on their opinion, no problem.
>
>If they attempt to act on it, we treat them the same way we treat
>anyone else who commits the same act: they are thieves and robbers,
>and the man on the spot in a pinch can't be certain they won't be
>murderers next. Apprehend them -- peacefully if that can be done
>without undue risk to the persons doing the apprehending, fatally if
>necessary -- and lock them up.
Well, I asked how libertarians and Objectivists would attempt to
persuade those who disagree with their position on property rights,
and your reply is that they will be apprehended and locked up. Am I
correct in assuming that this technique of persuasion has been adopted
from the Communist countries that have found it to be quite effective?
Richard Carnes
Richard Carnes
I wrote:
>Your argument rests on the premise that a person is the morally
>rightful owner, in the fullest sense, of whatever one acquires in
>capitalist free-market transactions. How would you attempt to
lar...@nando.net (Larry Nomer):
:Your argument rests on the premise that a person is NOT the rightful
:owner of what they produce.
No. To deny that a person always owns 100% of what he produces is not
equivalent to affirming that he always owns 0% of it.
:Suppose I make a voluntary agreement with someone that I will perform
:work X in exchange for Y amount of payment. When I have performed 100
:percent of the work, that person is obligated to give me 100 percent
:of what we agreed. Since I performed all the work, why should I not
:be entitled to keep all of what someone else is willing to pay for it?
Why *should* you be entitled to keep all of what the other person is
willing to pay for it? So far you've offered a conclusion, not an
argument.
Referring to the "non-initiation of force" principle that libertarians
and Objectivists allegedly subscribe to, I wrote:
: >I've pointed out in other threads that this is just an obfuscating way
: >of saying "libertarians believe that the only morally justified use of
: >coercion is to defend the property rights asserted by libertarian
: >theory."
:
: You lie about libertarians every chance you get, eh, Richard? Of
: course it is also morally justified to defend oneself against a
: mugger, a rapist, or anyone else initiating force against against you.
Are you saying (1) that libertarians believe that there are other
kinds of rights besides property rights, or (2) that rape and assault
are not violations of rights?
Richard Carnes
Joseph Crowe
Richard Carnes wrote:
>
> car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>
> >>Your argument rests on the premise that a person is the morally
> >>rightful owner, in the fullest sense, of whatever one acquires in
> >>capitalist free-market transactions. How would you attempt to
>
> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>
> >As long as they don't attempt to act on their opinion, no problem.
> >
> >If they attempt to act on it, we treat them the same way we treat
> >anyone else who commits the same act: they are thieves and robbers,
> >and the man on the spot in a pinch can't be certain they won't be
> >murderers next. Apprehend them -- peacefully if that can be done
> >without undue risk to the persons doing the apprehending, fatally if
> >necessary -- and lock them up.
>
> Well, I asked how libertarians and Objectivists would attempt to
> persuade those who disagree with their position on property rights,
> and your reply is that they will be apprehended and locked up.
Nope....the poster merely stated that those of the majority who
attempted to act on their beliefs(that to steal the fruits of one's
labor was fine) can expect resistance to their coercion from individuals
who believe in rights to their property....you seem to have totally
ignored the fact in your assertion the active role of
thief/rapist/murder belong with your majority.
Do you really have such a low comprehension of clear logic or do you
just act this way as a kneejerk, unthinking reaction to said logic. I
don't intend to respond for the original poster, but the scenario, as
stipulated, marks the reaction of individuals to attempts at coercion on
the part of the majority. In short words that perhaps even you can
understand....if you as a member of a majority who votes to come into an
individual's home and confiscate the fruits of her or his labor, or his
or her life, don't act surprised when said individual resists your
abhorent acts. By your set of values, I would fully expect you to have
supported Hitler as a good German previous to and during WWII. So,
let's say the majority says, take all of person A's property because he
or she is a Jew, homosexual, liberal, conservative, woman, man, gypsy,
christian, atheist or whatever. Since the majority believes this to
constitute a moral act, I suppose you would support the act? What a
wanker.
>
> Richard Carnes
--
Joseph Crowe
jcr...@isd.tandem.com
Richard Carnes
In article <31B5EE...@mpd.tandem.com>,
Joseph Crowe <jcr...@mpd.tandem.com> wrote:
>Richard Carnes wrote:
>> Well, I asked how libertarians and Objectivists would attempt to
>> persuade those who disagree with their position on property rights,
>> and your reply is that they will be apprehended and locked up.
>
> Nope....the poster merely stated that those of the majority who
>attempted to act on their beliefs(that to steal the fruits of one's
>labor was fine) can expect resistance to their coercion from individuals
>who believe in rights to their property....
But he said this in response to my question, "How would libertarians
and O'ists attempt to persuade those who disagree with their position
on property rights?" So I assumed that arresting and imprisoning
dissidents was a technique of persuasion currently in vogue with
libertarians and O'ists. My next question was going to be whether
they intended to use any brainwashing techniques and if so which ones,
since I would like to be prepared.
> Do you really have such a low comprehension of clear logic or do you
>just act this way as a kneejerk, unthinking reaction to said logic. I
>don't intend to respond for the original poster, but the scenario, as
>stipulated, marks the reaction of individuals to attempts at coercion on
>the part of the majority. In short words that perhaps even you can
>understand....if you as a member of a majority who votes to come into an
>individual's home and confiscate the fruits of her or his labor, or his
>or her life, don't act surprised when said individual resists your
>abhorent acts.
Thank you for the warning, but my original question remains unanswered
(unless you mean that the only lib-O'ist argument is an appeal to
force).
>By your set of values, I would fully expect you to have
>supported Hitler as a good German previous to and during WWII. So,
>let's say the majority says, take all of person A's property because he
>or she is a Jew, homosexual, liberal, conservative, woman, man, gypsy,
>christian, atheist or whatever. Since the majority believes this to
>constitute a moral act, I suppose you would support the act?
No. Why would I support it merely because a majority favors it?
Richard Carnes
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Todd Greene <tgre...@alliance.net> wrote:
>I had started to write a short discussion in response to the illegitimate
>criticisms based on semantic obfuscations of the "taxation is theft"
>idea.
>However, I realized that most of you appear to accept the general concept
>that taxation is indeed an act of coercion by one group against others in
>order to take their money, based as it is on intimidation and threats of
>forcible confiscation and possible confinement. You simply seem to
>believe that taxation is "okay" (with various meanings of okay), at least
>for certain core activities. Though these core activities vary from
>writer to writer, they generally seem to fall into two basic categories:
>security and infrastructure.
>I have also seen that some of these writers appear to have some inkling
>of the potential underlying contradiction in stating that they agree with
>the concept that "taxation is theft" (or "stealing," or "extortion," or
>something conceptually akin to these) AND stating that taxation for at
>least certain kinds of activities is legitimate, because they add the
>assurance: "Of course, I am libertarian, too. It's just that I'm a
>'pragmatic' libertarian, not a purist."
Well, I describe myself as a "pragmatic anarchist". Close enough?
I don't accept that *any* level of taxation is legitimate.
I accept the possibility -- unproven but likely true -- that the
complete absence of taxation is unsustainable because it will leave
too little in the way of organized defense efforts. So evil people
would tax us from within by robbery or extortion, and evil people
would tax us from without by invasion.
In the face of that, it might be wise of us to tolerate a bit of
taxation -- which would fall on any person in a relatively predictable
manner -- in order to fund the systems necessary to prevent a higher
and less predictable level of taxation.
This isn't "legitimate" -- it's "accepting the lesser evil".
I'm thinking about an idea of how to collect taxes, though...
unfortunately it's based on the government's legally enforced, and
unjust and destructive, monopoly on the issuance of money. But, once
we get the scale of federal government under control, it would be easy
to do -- no collection cost, no enforcement cost, no possibility of
evasion, extremely predictable far in advance...
Tom Asquith
In article <31B5EE...@mpd.tandem.com>, jcr...@mpd.tandem.com says...
-> Nope....the poster merely stated that those of the majority who
->attempted to act on their beliefs(that to steal the fruits of one's
->labor was fine) can expect resistance to their coercion from individuals
->who believe in rights to their property....you seem to have totally
->ignored the fact in your assertion the active role of
->thief/rapist/murder belong with your majority.
-> Do you really have such a low comprehension of clear logic or do you
->just act this way as a kneejerk, unthinking reaction to said logic. I
->don't intend to respond for the original poster, but the scenario, as
->stipulated, marks the reaction of individuals to attempts at coercion on
->the part of the majority. In short words that perhaps even you can
->understand....if you as a member of a majority who votes to come into an
->individual's home and confiscate the fruits of her or his labor, or his
->or her life, don't act surprised when said individual resists your
->abhorent acts. By your set of values, I would fully expect you to have
->supported Hitler as a good German previous to and during WWII. So,
->let's say the majority says, take all of person A's property because he
->or she is a Jew, homosexual, liberal, conservative, woman, man, gypsy,
->christian, atheist or whatever. Since the majority believes this to
->constitute a moral act, I suppose you would support the act? What a
->wanker.
But Joseph, the onus lies in proving that the majority is acting in
an unjust manner--not an easy thing to do as the Blacks, Jews, gays, etc.,
have shown. True, you can choose to disobey the law if it is felt that
it doesn't represent the 'greater good', but you must be prepared to
face the consequences (but hopefully in each case the greater good
will win out).
As for the use of the Hitler example, it is fortunate that the majority
(i.e., the rest of the world) did not agree...
--
Tom Asquith
E-mail: tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
-----------------------------------------------------
"As civilization advances, poetry almost
necessarily declines."
--Thomas Babington Macaulay 1800-1859
(from his "Essays")
Tom Asquith
In article <4p5u69$f...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net says...
>Well, I describe myself as a "pragmatic anarchist". Close enough?
Interesting Warr'l, but could we make it "pragmatic capitalistic anarchist"
or am I getting off the beaten track?
>I don't accept that *any* level of taxation is legitimate.
By *any*, you must invariably include zero, economically and
philosophically speaking.
>I accept the possibility -- unproven but likely true -- that the
>complete absence of taxation is unsustainable because it will leave
>too little in the way of organized defense efforts. So evil people
>would tax us from within by robbery or extortion, and evil people
>would tax us from without by invasion.
>In the face of that, it might be wise of us to tolerate a bit of
>taxation -- which would fall on any person in a relatively predictable
>manner -- in order to fund the systems necessary to prevent a higher
>and less predictable level of taxation.
But how much is a bit? Do you subscribe to the 'Laffer' (or Bell)
curve model where the best form of taxation is 'in the middle'? Or
should it be as close to zero as possible?
>This isn't "legitimate" -- it's "accepting the lesser evil".
But sometimes, it is necessary to do evil to do good...as
Machiavelli showed.
>I'm thinking about an idea of how to collect taxes, though...
>unfortunately it's based on the government's legally enforced, and
>unjust and destructive, monopoly on the issuance of money. But, once
>we get the scale of federal government under control, it would be easy
>to do -- no collection cost, no enforcement cost, no possibility of
>evasion, extremely predictable far in advance...
Sounds remarkably reminiscent of the progressive and social credit
movements of the 1920s and 1930s. The only problem with their
economic model was that it was hyperinflationary.
Larry Nomer
In message <4p4j3h$9...@news.eecs.umich.edu> - car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu
(Richard Carnes)5 Jun 1996 18:19:29 GMT writes:
>I wrote:
>>Your argument rests on the premise that a person is the morally
>>rightful owner, in the fullest sense, of whatever one acquires in
>>capitalist free-market transactions. How would you attempt to
>>persuade those who don't agree with this premise?
>
>lar...@nando.net (Larry Nomer):
>:Your argument rests on the premise that a person is NOT the rightful
>:owner of what they produce.
>
>No. To deny that a person always owns 100% of what he produces is not
>equivalent to affirming that he always owns 0% of it.
Right, it is giving up the principle of 100% ownership in favor
of X percent ownership where politicians get to decide how
much of what _you_ earn you will be allowed to keep. You
apparently favor politicians taking whatever they want
(claim that they need) of your money. Once you let
this camel's nose under the tent ..... History bears
this just about every time. Government contines to get
larger and larger as a share (burden) on the economy
until finally the people have a revolution and throw them
out and start the cycle again.
>:Suppose I make a voluntary agreement with someone that I will perform
>:work X in exchange for Y amount of payment. When I have performed 100
>:percent of the work, that person is obligated to give me 100 percent
>:of what we agreed. Since I performed all the work, why should I not
>:be entitled to keep all of what someone else is willing to pay for it?
>
>Why *should* you be entitled to keep all of what the other person is
>willing to pay for it? So far you've offered a conclusion, not an
>argument.
Hopefully my comments above clear this up. Why do you
believe that a person should NOT be allowed to keep 100%
of what someone voluntarily pays them for their work?
>Referring to the "non-initiation of force" principle that libertarians
>and Objectivists allegedly subscribe to, I wrote:
>
>: >I've pointed out in other threads that this is just an obfuscating way
>: >of saying "libertarians believe that the only morally justified use of
>: >coercion is to defend the property rights asserted by libertarian
>: >theory."
>:
>: You lie about libertarians every chance you get, eh, Richard? Of
>: course it is also morally justified to defend oneself against a
>: mugger, a rapist, or anyone else initiating force against against you.
>
>Are you saying (1) that libertarians believe that there are other
>kinds of rights besides property rights, or (2) that rape and assault
>are not violations of rights?
Obviously "(1) that libertarians believe that there are other
kinds of rights besides property rights". Namely life,
liberty, freedom to bear arms, free press, free speech, freedom
of religion, ... and the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Why, do you have a problem with some of those?
Notice that none of those "true" rights implies a forced cost
or burden on anyone else.
If you start talking about a "right to a decent wage", or a
"right to X amount of housing", we libertarians reject
those false "rights" because they would use the state
(politicians) to impose costs on others and thus violate
their true rights.
Why do you think it is OK for government to commit
acts that would be a crime if some other individual
did them to you?
>Richard Carnes
-Larry Nomer
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
tasq...@pop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith) wrote:
>In article <4p5u69$f...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net says...
>>Well, I describe myself as a "pragmatic anarchist". Close enough?
>Interesting Warr'l, but could we make it "pragmatic capitalistic anarchist"
>or am I getting off the beaten track?
>>I don't accept that *any* level of taxation is legitimate.
>By *any*, you must invariably include zero, economically and
>philosophically speaking.
Um, technically, yes. Of course, I meant any NONZERO level.
>>I accept the possibility -- unproven but likely true -- that the
>>complete absence of taxation is unsustainable because it will leave
>>too little in the way of organized defense efforts. So evil people
>>would tax us from within by robbery or extortion, and evil people
>>would tax us from without by invasion.
>>In the face of that, it might be wise of us to tolerate a bit of
>>taxation -- which would fall on any person in a relatively predictable
>>manner -- in order to fund the systems necessary to prevent a higher
>>and less predictable level of taxation.
>But how much is a bit? Do you subscribe to the 'Laffer' (or Bell)
>curve model where the best form of taxation is 'in the middle'? Or
>should it be as close to zero as possible?
The latter. The purpose is to achieve the minimum stable level of
violence upon the persons and liberties of the people -- not to
achieve the greatest government revenue.
Brad Aisa
tasq...@pop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith) wrote:
>In article <4p5u69$f...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net says...
>>I don't accept that *any* level of taxation is legitimate.
>
>By *any*, you must invariably include zero, economically and
>philosophically speaking.
This is an interesting example of equating existence and non-existence, a
la Hegel. The absence of taxation is not *a* level of taxation.
Zero -- nothing -- is not a thing. It is an absence.
>[...]sometimes, it is necessary to do evil to do good...as
>Machiavelli showed.
Only if one disconnects the concepts "good" and "evil" from the facts which
give rise to them, or if one has such an incoherent, contradictory theory
of good and evil to begin with, that no non-contradictory identifications
of either can be made.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@tor.hookup.net> http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Tom Asquith
In article <4p8ac9$9...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@tor.hookup.net says...
>tasq...@pop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith) wrote:
>>In article <4p5u69$f...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net says...
>>>I don't accept that *any* level of taxation is legitimate.
>>By *any*, you must invariably include zero, economically and
>>philosophically speaking.
>This is an interesting example of equating existence and non-existence, a
>la Hegel. The absence of taxation is not *a* level of taxation.
>Zero -- nothing -- is not a thing. It is an absence.
But taxation for the government is income. Can there be an opposite
or negative form of taxation, my dear wiseacre, and hence there be a
continuum of 'taxation' from positive forms of taxation (but negative
for the individual of course) through to negative forms of taxation
(which would be positive for the individual)? ;-)
Incidentally, on a more serious note, a graph in economics would have
to include a place for zero taxation (take a look at Alfred Marshall's
graphs someday). Hence any form of classification must include 'no taxation'
as a level of taxation, otherwise any calculations economically or politically
could become impossible.
>>[...]sometimes, it is necessary to do evil to do good...as
>>Machiavelli showed.
>Only if one disconnects the concepts "good" and "evil" from the facts which
>give rise to them, or if one has such an incoherent, contradictory theory
>of good and evil to begin with, that no non-contradictory identifications
>of either can be made.
No disconnections nor contradictions should be necessary.
Think of Mill's utilitarianism (e.g., a little pain by one individual
could be greatly outweighed by the greater happiness of the rest of the
individuals in society). Nice try, Brad.
--
Tom Asquith
E-mail: tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
-----------------------------------------------------
"Histories make men wise; poets, witty;
the mathematics, subtle; natural
philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic
and rhetoric, able to contend."
--Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626
(from his Essays: "Of Studies")
Richard Carnes
I wrote:
>No. To deny that a person always owns 100% of what he produces is not
>equivalent to affirming that he always owns 0% of it.
lar...@nando.net (Larry Nomer):
:Right, it is giving up the principle of 100% ownership in favor of X
:percent ownership where politicians get to decide how much of what
:_you_ earn you will be allowed to keep. You apparently favor
:politicians taking whatever they want (claim that they need) of your
:money.
No. I favor politicians' being constrained by a constitution, a
principle of majority rule, and accountability to the electorate.
Even so, they will sometimes enact laws that I consider unjust, in
which case those opposed to such laws may argue against them; and I
maintain that in some such cases one has the right of civil
disobedience. This is not equivalent to "politicians taking whatever
they want" of the citizens' money, as you absurdly put it, as if I
advocated a system in which there were to be no constraints and
influences on elected officials other than their crass self-interest.
:Once you let this camel's nose under the tent ..... History
:bears this just about every time. Government contines to get larger
:and larger as a share (burden) on the economy until finally the people
:have a revolution and throw them out and start the cycle again.
This is an empirical question, and I don't see the evidence you claim
to. I do not foresee a revolution, for example, in Norway and Sweden
as a revolt against their relatively high tax rates.
RC:
>Why *should* you be entitled to keep all of what the other person is
>willing to pay for it? So far you've offered a conclusion, not an
>argument.
LN:
:Hopefully my comments above clear this up. Why do you believe that a
:person should NOT be allowed to keep 100% of what someone voluntarily
:pays them for their work?
First, note that I am saying that some persons should not be allowed
to keep 100% of it (at least some of the time), not that no one should
be allowed to keep 100%.
The basic reason is that factors beyond your control, such the social
position into which you were born and your innate talents, play a
large a role in determining what others are willing to pay you. There
is a large "lottery" factor in this method of determining incomes, a
one-shot lottery in which everyone is required to participate.
Distributive shares are consequently influenced by morally arbitrary
factors to a great extent.
I realize that this is just the beginning of an argument that needs to
be extended and amplified, but it's already more of an argument than
libertarians have put forward in these recent discussions for their
claim that a person is the morally rightful owner of all that he gets
on the capitalist free market.
RC:
>Are you saying (1) that libertarians believe that there are other
>kinds of rights besides property rights, or (2) that rape and assault
>are not violations of rights?
LN:
:Obviously "(1) that libertarians believe that there are other kinds of
:rights besides property rights". Namely life, liberty, freedom to
:bear arms, free press, free speech, freedom of religion, ... and the
:rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
All right, I'm glad this has been cleared up. I'll amend the English
translation of the 'non-initiation of force' principle to read:
"The only morally justifiable purpose for the use of coercion is for
the defense and protection of the rights recognized by libertarian
theory."
:Notice that none of those "true" rights implies a forced cost or
:burden on anyone else.
:
:If you start talking about a "right to a decent wage", or a "right to
:X amount of housing", we libertarians reject those false "rights"
:because they would use the state (politicians) to impose costs on
:others and thus violate their true rights.
This begs the question at issue. That question, you will recall, is
whether persons are always the morally rightful owners of all that
they acquire via voluntary free-market transactions. You are
asserting (but up to this point have not argued) that everyone has a
"true right" to keep all that they acquire in this way. But if they
are not the morally rightful owners of all of it, it is not a
violation of their rights to take that part of their holdings that
they do not rightfully own.
:Why do you think it is OK for government to commit acts that would be
:a crime if some other individual did them to you?
A legitimate government is that institution in a society that is set
up for the purpose, among others, of "establishing justice," and
therefore the officials of such a government have various kinds of
authority not possessed by other citizens. Nor do I see any way that
private citizens could carry out this distributive function of
government; for one thing, their authority to do so would not be
recognized by most people. But perhaps libertarians, who like the
idea of privatization, can figure out how a Robin Hood, Inc., could
preserve approximate justice in distributive shares according to the
Rawlsian conception of justice.
Richard Carnes
Mark Roddy
wa...@blarg.net (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>tasq...@pop.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith) wrote:
>
>>In article <4p5u69$f...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net says...
>
>>>Well, I describe myself as a "pragmatic anarchist". Close enough?
>
>>Interesting Warr'l, but could we make it "pragmatic capitalistic anarchist"
>>or am I getting off the beaten track?
>
>
>>>I don't accept that *any* level of taxation is legitimate.
>
>>By *any*, you must invariably include zero, economically and
>>philosophically speaking.
>
>Um, technically, yes. Of course, I meant any NONZERO level.
>
>>>I accept the possibility -- unproven but likely true -- that the
>>>complete absence of taxation is unsustainable because it will leave
>>>too little in the way of organized defense efforts. So evil people
>>>would tax us from within by robbery or extortion, and evil people
>>>would tax us from without by invasion.
>
>>>In the face of that, it might be wise of us to tolerate a bit of
>>>taxation -- which would fall on any person in a relatively predictable
>>>manner -- in order to fund the systems necessary to prevent a higher
>>>and less predictable level of taxation.
>
>>But how much is a bit? Do you subscribe to the 'Laffer' (or Bell)
>>curve model where the best form of taxation is 'in the middle'? Or
>>should it be as close to zero as possible?
>
>The latter. The purpose is to achieve the minimum stable level of
>violence upon the persons and liberties of the people -- not to
>achieve the greatest government revenue.
>
>
>
And how exactly will we decide which government activities will be
funded and at what levels? Perhaps a representative government?
Perhaps a dictatorship of libertarians?
Other than the fact that only services _you_ approve of would be
funded, I see no difference between what you propose and what we have.
Stavros N. Karageorgis
In article <4p7ucr$5...@castle.nando.net> lar...@nando.net (Larry Nomer) writes:
<snip>
You
>apparently favor politicians taking whatever they want
>(claim that they need) of your money. Once you let
>this camel's nose under the tent ..... History bears
>this just about every time. Government contines to get
>larger and larger as a share (burden) on the economy
>until finally the people have a revolution and throw them
>out and start the cycle again.
//Hey rugged individualist! Wake up. Politicians are ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
AND THEY EACH AND COLLECTIVELY REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE,
not the aggregation of individuals. Substituting 'DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE'
for 'politician' in your drivel should convince you of the stupidity of your
argument.//
<snip>
>>Why *should* you be entitled to keep all of what the other person is
>>willing to pay for it? So far you've offered a conclusion, not an
>>argument.
>Hopefully my comments above clear this up. Why do you
>believe that a person should NOT be allowed to keep 100%
>of what someone voluntarily pays them for their work?
//Good question and NO ANSWER AT ALL. ANY right to ANYTHING has to be enforced
to be real, instead of hot air. In order to enforce the right to 100% of
anything you need either superior personal force (in which case say hello to a
life that is 'nasty, bruttish and short') or a solidary community willing and
able to defend and protect that right, to wit you need GOVERNMENT. What if the
party with which you voluntarily agreed to enter into your exchange decides to
NOT honor the agreement? Who is going to enforce your ALLEGED right to 100% of
what you agreed on?//
<snip>
>Obviously "(1) that libertarians believe that there are other
>kinds of rights besides property rights". Namely life,
>liberty, freedom to bear arms, free press, free speech, freedom
>of religion, ... and the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
>Why, do you have a problem with some of those?
>Notice that none of those "true" rights implies a forced cost
>or burden on anyone else.
//Absolute B.S. It implies FORCED TAXATION to pay for the guarantee of YOUR
RIGHT TO ALL THOSE THINGS. Guarantee of rights without taxation is IMPOSSIBLE.
Public peace, defense, rule of law, etc. are ALL public goods which will NEVER
BE PRODUCED AND MADE AVAILABLE AT THE OPTIMUM QUANTITY/COST ratio by
self-interested individual action. You are outdoing even ADAM SMITH!//
>If you start talking about a "right to a decent wage", or a
>"right to X amount of housing", we libertarians reject
>those false "rights" because they would use the state
>(politicians) to impose costs on others and thus violate
>their true rights.
//THE STATE=POLITICIANS? Have you been exercizing your rights by experimenting
with hallucinogenic drugs? Again, substitute DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES for
'politicians' and 'community' for 'the state' and you will see how foolish
your statements are.//
>Why do you think it is OK for government to commit
>acts that would be a crime if some other individual
>did them to you?
//Because, Einstein, government is NOT an individual. Have you ever heard of
LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY? WAKE UP!//
>>Richard Carnes
>-Larry Nomer
Regards,
Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil.
UCLA - Sociology
Todd Greene
There was a question regarding regarding my statement that shoplifting
constituted coercion. I had actually answered this question in the
sentence immediately following my statement:
"If a person walks into a store and takes something without paying for
it, then the coercion has *already occurred*." BECAUSE "The person has
taken something from the store without the store owner's" IMPLIED
"consent."
Richard Carnes (mailto:car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
> To deny that a person always owns 100% of what he produces is
> not equivalent to affirming that he always owns 0% of it.
and
> Why *should* you be entitled to keep all of what the other
> person is willing to pay for it?
and
> ...note that I am saying that some persons should not be allowed
> to keep 100% of it (at least some of the time), not that no one
> should be allowed to keep 100%.
As Larry Nomer (mailto:lar...@nando.net) already intimated, this is the
wrong direction from which to consider the situation. As a subjectivist
libertarian, my claim is that no one has the right to a single penny of
what I own (either what I have earned, or been given by another owner)
without my consent.
You ask, "Why do you have the right to keep 100% of what you earn?"
The answer is that the default is the individual making agreements with
other individuals.
I own myself. Because of this I own my effort, my time, my ingenuity
(what there is of it ;-) ). It's not that I have a "right" to it.
That's just the way it is.
When some person or group wants to step in and claim some "right" to take
from me without my consent, the "burden of proof" falls to that person or
group to justify their extortion. The libertarian doesn't have to
justify any so-called "right" to keep.
I realize that in the real world we run into several grey areas of
ownership, such as regarding intial acquisition of land or of
electromagnetic spectrum. And these areas have been and should continue
to be considered.
But in these discussions we have not (that I have seen recently) been
talking about such "grey areas." We haven't even brought up such things
as investment earnings.
When it comes to money or other resources paid for work rendered, agreed
upon by all parties to the transaction, barring possible externality
costs, no one has made a single attempt to present even the most basic
justification for extortion of any kind.
We are talking about extortion. Let's not forget that. If you want to
use another word for it, go right ahead, as long as everyone clearly
understands the concept and doesn't try to pretend something else.
The burden of proof is on those why wish to justify extortion under
certain conditions.
Let's start seeing some of those justifications.
--------------
Todd Greene - mailto:tgr...@iserv.net
- http://www.iserv.net/~tgreene/
- Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Todd Greene
Mark Roddy (mailto: mro...@wattanuck.mv.com) has "hit the nail on the
head"!
Personally, I would be quite pleased to go from where we are at now to an
intermediate position toward a genuinely free society. But I would claim
that it is, indeed, an intermediate position and not a genuinely free
society - not the best in terms of individual liberty.
The issue raised has to do with the security of liberty as the sole,
legitimate purpose of government. This is, of course, the minimalist
government position on the libertarian spectrum. As I have stated
before, however, if such a government uses extortion to fund its services
(and if it didn't it wouldn't be government), it puts one in the odd
position of defending stealing in order to pay some people to prevent
other people from stealing.
This issue is interesting, however, in that it can branch off into a
productive discussion of the provision of security services in a
genuinely free society.
For the direction of such a discussion, I would point to considering, of
course, the further extended evolution of the security provision services
that we currently have (of which there are many different kinds) that are
not funded by exortion methods.
--------------
Todd Greene - mailto:tgr...@iserv.net
- http://www.iserv.net/~tgreene/
- Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Richard Carnes
Todd Greene <tgr...@204.177.184.10> writes:
: There was a question regarding regarding my statement that shoplifting
: sentence immediately following my statement:
: "If a person walks into a store and takes something without paying for
: it, then the coercion has *already occurred*." BECAUSE "The person has
: taken something from the store without the store owner's" IMPLIED
: "consent."
But taking property without the owner's express or implied consent, in
itself, does not constitute coercion.
(Note also for future reference that since libertarians sanction the
use of force to make the shoplifter yield up the stolen goods, or to
incarcerate him if he is convicted, they believe that some
restrictions should be placed on individual freedom. Some
libertarians have claimed that they are opposed to *all* restrictions
on individual freedom.)
> Why *should* you be entitled to keep all of what the other
> person is willing to pay for it?
...
Todd Greene:
: As Larry Nomer (mailto:lar...@nando.net) already intimated, this is
: the wrong direction from which to consider the situation. As a
: subjectivist libertarian, my claim is that no one has the right to a
: single penny of what I own (either what I have earned, or been given
: by another owner) without my consent.
:
: You ask, "Why do you have the right to keep 100% of what you earn?"
:
: The answer is that the default is the individual making agreements
: with other individuals.
:
: I own myself. Because of this I own my effort, my time, my ingenuity
: (what there is of it ;-) ). It's not that I have a "right" to it.
: That's just the way it is.
Your argument appears to be as follows (correct me if I've
misunderstood):
(1) Every individual owns herself.
(2) Therefore everyone owns her effort, time, and talents.
(3) Therefore everyone owns whatever material things she produces and
whatever she obtains through voluntary transactions from someone who
was (legitimately) the previous owner.
I take it that (1) means something like "every person has the moral
right fully to control his own person and powers, including the right
not be forced to supply product or service to anyone."
Note first that (1), so interpreted, is neither self-evidently true
nor uncontroversial. It would be very difficult, I think to give a
demonstration of its truth or falsity that would settle all doubts.
In any case you are basing your argument on a premiss that, so far as
I can now see, I need not accept, and in fact I find it rather
dubious.
Step (3) is a non sequitur, because it has to do with not only a
person's rights over himself but also rights with respect to external
material objects. For your argument to succeed, some principle
regarding the acquisition of ownership rights over material objects
must be brought into the reasoning. Since the matter of which every
material object is composed is either privately unowned now or was
privately unowned at some previous time, you need to explain how one
acquires legitimate private ownership of matter that is not privately
owned. It is not sufficient to say that one becomes the owner of
material things by voluntary transfer from the previous owner, because
this (essentially a recursive definition) would lead to an infinite
regress: how did the previous owner acquire ownership? etc.
: When some person or group wants to step in and claim some "right" to
: take from me without my consent, the "burden of proof" falls to that
: person or group to justify their extortion. The libertarian doesn't
: have to justify any so-called "right" to keep.
So the libertarian position on property rights is the "default"
position? Why is that?
: When it comes to money or other resources paid for work rendered,
: agreed upon by all parties to the transaction, barring possible
: externality costs, no one has made a single attempt to present even
: the most basic justification for extortion of any kind.
:
: We are talking about extortion. Let's not forget that. If you want
: to use another word for it, go right ahead, as long as everyone
: clearly understands the concept and doesn't try to pretend something
: else.
Clearly that depends on how you define extortion. Is it extortion in
your sense to use the threat of force to retrieve stolen goods from a
thief?
: The burden of proof is on those why wish to justify extortion under
: certain conditions.
:
: Let's start seeing some of those justifications.
I gave a short summary of one such argument in favor of redistribution
in the post to which you are responding. (It is essentially that
libertarian property rights incorporate a lottery element into the
distribution of income and wealth that is no more morally justifiable
than distributing income and wealth in proportion to one's height.)
An outline of another argument:
A just society is a society all of whose members are as free as
possible, that is, a society in which each person has the greatest
possible opportunity to do whatever he might want to do.
Alternatively, one might say a just society is one in which personal
autonomy, one's control over one's life and fate, is maximized in some
sense.
Now freedom in the general case requires the use of external objects
as means: e.g., I am not free to play the piano if I do not have
access to a piano. Now, in a society composed of persons with
differential talents and abilities, some persons will own very little.
A person who owns very little in the way of material means does not
have control of a substantial kind over her own life, and her
opportunities to do whatever she might want are severely restricted.
Consequently a just society may require some redistribution of
material means in order to maximize freedom or autonomy.
Richard Carnes
Larry Nomer
In message <karageor.7...@ucla.edu> - kara...@ucla.edu (Stavros N.
Karageorgis) writes:
>In article <4p7ucr$5...@castle.nando.net> lar...@nando.net (Larry Nomer) writes:
><snip>
>
> You
>>apparently favor politicians taking whatever they want
>>(claim that they need) of your money. Once you let
>>this camel's nose under the tent ..... History bears
>>this just about every time. Government contines to get
>>larger and larger as a share (burden) on the economy
>>until finally the people have a revolution and throw them
>>out and start the cycle again.
>
>//Hey rugged individualist! Wake up. Politicians are ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
>AND THEY EACH AND COLLECTIVELY REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE,
Notice how liberals have to SHOUT at me. It won't help. Are you saying
that just because there are _elected_ politicians, they can have whatever
power they want? Or are you trying to tell me that tweedleedee Demopublican
differs much from tweedledum Republicrat? My views are not even close
to either major party, so I guess my rights just get trampled on, eh?
>not the aggregation of individuals. Substituting 'DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE'
>for 'politician' in your drivel should convince you of the stupidity of your
>argument.//
Doesn't convince me one bit. Why does govt need 40 percent of my
income today when it got by with 10 percent less than 100 years ago?
How are drug laws Constitutional when no amendment has ever been
passed to give the Feds this power? (Yes, it _required_ a Constitutional
amendment to prohibit alcohol in 1920, so why has there never been one
to authorize other drug laws?)
Why do we spend over half our defense budget subsidizing Europe, Japan,
and South Korea (to name the major ones)? They can all afford to do
it themselves? Why do tax/political ripoffs like this go on for decades?
><snip>
>
>>>Why *should* you be entitled to keep all of what the other person is
>>>willing to pay for it? So far you've offered a conclusion, not an
>>>argument.
>
>>Hopefully my comments above clear this up. Why do you
>>believe that a person should NOT be allowed to keep 100%
>>of what someone voluntarily pays them for their work?
>
>//Good question and NO ANSWER AT ALL. ANY right to ANYTHING has to be enforced
>to be real, instead of hot air. In order to enforce the right to 100% of
>anything you need either superior personal force (in which case say hello to a
>life that is 'nasty, bruttish and short') or a solidary community willing and
>able to defend and protect that right, to wit you need GOVERNMENT.
Not necessarily. And if government were limited to _only_ a minimal
national defense, and maybe courts, it would be TINY compared to the
bloated behemoth it has become today.
Businesses and shopping malls already hire their own
private security, and neighborhoods and apartment buildings could too,
possibly implemented by deed restrictions so the buyer would have
a choice and know the conditions up front. Oh, almost half of all legal
disputes are already settled by private courts and arbitration. The
government courts are just to slow, crooked, clogged, and often
more expensive.
>Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil.
-Larry Nomer anarcho-capitalist (just fyi)
Todd Greene
Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:
> //Hey rugged individualist! Wake up. Politicians are ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
> AND THEY EACH AND COLLECTIVELY REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE,
> for 'politician' in your drivel should convince you of the stupidity of your
> argument.//
> with hallucinogenic drugs? Again, substitute DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES for
> 'politicians' and 'community' for 'the state' and you will see how foolish
> your statements are.//
>
> >Why do you think it is OK for government to commit
> >acts that would be a crime if some other individual
> >did them to you?
>
> //Because, Einstein, government is NOT an individual. Have you ever heard of
> LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY? WAKE UP!//
> >-Larry Nomer
> Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil.
> UCLA - Sociology
Hey, Stavros - WAKE UP!
Hitler was elected.
And the Soviet Union had a government.
Does this make it right, or, simply, the way things *should* be?
There is much more to the concepts being considered in this discussion than simply
saying, "Democracy is democracy" or "What we have now is the way things are" and
pretending that this makes it right or okay or the way things should be. Slavery in the
U.S. in the 19th century was democratic (and was abolished by acts of war - not by
democracy). So, according to what you have stated so far, slavery should not have been
abolished.
You're going to have to come up with a little more than A LOT OF SHOUTING!
A parting truth for you to consider: Libertarians cannot legitimately by caricatured as
"rugged individualists." Try again.
So what does C.Phil. stand for, anyway?
-----------
Todd Greene - mailto:tgr...@iserv.net
Gerry Clough
mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy) wrote:
>w
>>
>>
>And how exactly will we decide which government activities will be
>funded and at what levels? Perhaps a representative government?
>Perhaps a dictatorship of libertarians?
It really is quite simple. We only pay taxes for services from which
we derive benefit.
This of course does not include about 80% oif our current taxation.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>Todd Greene <tgr...@204.177.184.10> writes:
>: There was a question regarding regarding my statement that shoplifting
>: constituted coercion. I had actually answered this question in the
>: sentence immediately following my statement:
>:
>: "If a person walks into a store and takes something without paying for
>: it, then the coercion has *already occurred*." BECAUSE "The person has
>: taken something from the store without the store owner's" IMPLIED
>: "consent."
>But taking property without the owner's express or implied consent, in
>itself, does not constitute coercion.
No? You are compelling the person to sacrifice their own wealth
according to your dictates.
Richard Carnes
In article <31BDD9...@iserv.net>, Todd Greene <tgr...@iserv.net> wrote:
: There is much more to the concepts being considered in this discussion
: than simply saying, "Democracy is democracy" or "What we have now is
: the way things are" and pretending that this makes it right or okay or
: the way things should be. Slavery in the U.S. in the 19th century was
: democratic (and was abolished by acts of war - not by democracy).
The acts of war that abolished slavery (_de facto_) were prosecuted by
a strong central government; so much for the idea that strong central
governments are necessarily inimical to freedom. The _de jure_
abolition of slavery was accomplished by a more-or-less democratic
polity.
RC
Lazarus Long
wa...@blarg.net pontificated in a message to All:
wb> From: wa...@blarg.net (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin)
wb> Subject: Re: Taxation really IS extortion. Now what?
wb> Organization: None -- just look at my desk!
wb> car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>Todd Greene <tgr...@204.177.184.10> writes:
>: There was a question regarding regarding my statement that shoplifting
>: constituted coercion. I had actually answered this question in the
>: sentence immediately following my statement:
>:
>: "If a person walks into a store and takes something without paying for
>: it, then the coercion has *already occurred*." BECAUSE "The person has
>: taken something from the store without the store owner's" IMPLIED
>: "consent."
>But taking property without the owner's express or implied consent, in
>itself, does not constitute coercion.
wb> No? You are compelling the person to sacrifice their own wealth
wb> according to your dictates.
Would Carnes be agreeable if we took him at his word, and took his property?
Could he post his address? I can always use another computer:)
wb> ___
wb> - Origin: Usenet:None -- just look at my desk! (350:2/100.5)
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com(fastest)
... Wealth Redistribution...an ideological basis for theft
Keith Ramsay
In article <4picn3$9...@castle.nando.net>, lar...@nando.net wrote:
|>//Hey rugged individualist! Wake up. Politicians are ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
|>AND THEY EACH AND COLLECTIVELY REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE,
|
|Notice how liberals have to SHOUT at me.
most don't. remember- this is usenet.
Jim Klein
In <Ramsay-MT-120...@delphi.bc.edu> Rams...@hermes.bc.edu
most do. how could you possibly elaborate on a statement like that,
except by increasing the volume?
jk
Richard Carnes
In article <4plk7r$g...@guysmiley.blarg.net>,
>>But taking property without the owner's express or implied consent, in
>>itself, does not constitute coercion.
>
Stranger and stranger. In what way does a thief compel a
property-owner to "sacrifice" his wealth?
RC
Richard Carnes
In article <31BEDD...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
>car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>>But taking property without the owner's express or implied consent, in
>>itself, does not constitute coercion.
>
Not according to any dictionary I have checked. But then I haven't
looked it up in the _Ayn Rand Lexicon_ or whatever it is called, and I
don't speak Objectivist.
RC
John Alway
car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>But taking property without the owner's express or implied consent, in
>itself, does not constitute coercion.
Yes it does. In fact, that's the whole point.
...John
--
___________________________________________________________________
\_The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is Reason._\
/_I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.__________/
\_____________________________________________________Thomas Paine_\
/__John Alway jal...@icsi.net______________________________________/
Stavros N. Karageorgis
>In article <4picn3$9...@castle.nando.net>, lar...@nando.net wrote:
>|>//Hey rugged individualist! Wake up. Politicians are ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
>|>AND THEY EACH AND COLLECTIVELY REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE,
>|
>|Notice how liberals have to SHOUT at me.
>most don't. remember- this is usenet.
//The only reason that you perceive of capitalization as 'shouting' is because
of a usenet convention. Well, the hell with your convention. If I could, I
would put them in bold, or in underline. I use capitalization for emphasis.
And, frankly, I don't care about your middle-class sensibilities against
shouting. You can insult me a lot more without shouting, than I can emphasize
my point by 'shouting'. So, if you don't like the 'shouting' then don't
respond to it, MORON (Emphasized and SHOUTED!) I am simply exercizing my
rights, the ones you supposedly champion. I WILL CAPITALIZE AS MUCH AS I WANT.
It fulfills my inner needs, and I am exercizing my so-called natural right to
do so. If you don't like it, then don't be an audience. You have now
established that I don't like you or your arguments and that I will SHOUT at
you. You can choose NOT to read my posts. No big loss. Your contributions are
NOT WORTH THE BANDWIDTH you take up. If you want me to stop SHOUTING, then
plead with me; otherwise MAKE ME, you great libertarian, you.
Do you think that I NEED to shout at you to demolish your idiotic statements?
I am simply entertaining myself, you moron, taking a break from arguing
against ACTUAL intellects. Again, you don't have to indulge me. Go ahead,
ignore my posts. So much the better. Anytime you have responded, you have
added more evidence that humans are NOT inherently intellectually capable, but
need proper socialization and training to attain it.//
I AM SHOUTING AT YOU NOW! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Stavros N. Karageorgis
In article <4pmvo3$4...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> rum...@ix.netcom.com(Jim Klein ) writes:
>In <Ramsay-MT-120...@delphi.bc.edu> Rams...@hermes.bc.edu
>(Keith Ramsay) writes:
>>
>>
>>In article <4picn3$9...@castle.nando.net>, lar...@nando.net wrote:
>>
>>|>//Hey rugged individualist! Wake up. Politicians are
>>|>ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND THEY EACH AND COLLECTIVELY
>>|>REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE,
>>|
>>|Notice how liberals have to SHOUT at me.
>>
>>most don't. remember- this is usenet.
>most do. how could you possibly elaborate on a statement like that,
>except by increasing the volume?
>jk
//WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT STATEMENT OTHER THAN THAT IT IS TRUE AND
UNDERMINES THE LEGITIMACY OF YOUR OWN DEMONIZING OF ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES? I AM INCREASING THE VOLUME NOW, ACCORDING TO YOUR
INTERPRETATION OF CAPITALIZATION IN THE USENET. AS A GOOD SUBJECTIVIST, you
SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT I COULDN"T CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR INTERPRETATION.
IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS HOW YOU INTERPRET SYMBOLS. MAKE ME NOT
CAPITALIZE, IF YOU DON"T LIKE ME DOING IT, AND IF YOU CAN. OTHERWISE, DO NOT
RESPOND TO IT.//
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>In article <4plk7r$g...@guysmiley.blarg.net>,
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>>car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>>>But taking property without the owner's express or implied consent, in
>>>itself, does not constitute coercion.
>>
>>No? You are compelling the person to sacrifice their own wealth
>>according to your dictates.
>Stranger and stranger. In what way does a thief compel a
>property-owner to "sacrifice" his wealth?
Ah, let's see.
Before the thief arrives, does the property owner have all his wealth?
Yep.
After the thief leaves, does the property owner have all his wealth?
Nope.
Did the property owner gain any benefit from the event?
Nope.
So it was a sacrifice.
Did the property owner consent to the event?
Nope.
So it was compelled.
Is there something complicated about this?
Nope.
Is Richard being deliberately obtuse?
Probably.
Stavros N. Karageorgis
>In message <karageor.7...@ucla.edu> - kara...@ucla.edu (Stavros N.
>Karageorgis)Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:53:19 writes:
>>In article <Ramsay-MT-120...@delphi.bc.edu> Rams...@hermes.bc.edu
>(Keith Ramsay) writes:
>>
>>
>>>In article <4picn3$9...@castle.nando.net>, lar...@nando.net wrote:
>>
>>>|>//Hey rugged individualist! Wake up. Politicians are ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
>>>|>AND THEY EACH AND COLLECTIVELY REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE,
>>>|
>>>|Notice how liberals have to SHOUT at me.
>>
>>>most don't. remember- this is usenet.
>>
>>//The only reason that you perceive of capitalization as 'shouting' is because
>>of a usenet convention. Well, the hell with your convention. If I could, I
>>would put them in bold, or in underline. I use capitalization for emphasis.
>>And, frankly, I don't care about your middle-class sensibilities against
>>shouting. You can insult me a lot more without shouting, than I can emphasize
>>my point by 'shouting'. So, if you don't like the 'shouting' then don't
>>respond to it, MORON (Emphasized and SHOUTED!) I am simply exercizing my
>>rights, the ones you supposedly champion. I WILL CAPITALIZE AS MUCH AS
>> I WANT.
>Hehehe, all I said was "notice how liberals have to SHOUT at me"... Sure
>got your blood pressure up, eh? ;-)
//'Gela o mwros kan ti mh geloion h" (The fool laughs even though there is
nothing funny).//
>>It fulfills my inner needs, and I am exercizing my so-called natural right
to >>do so. If you don't like it, then don't be an audience. You have now
>>established that I don't like you or your arguments and that I will SHOUT at
>>you. You can choose NOT to read my posts. No big loss. Your contributions are
>>NOT WORTH THE BANDWIDTH you take up. If you want me to stop SHOUTING, then
>>plead with me; otherwise MAKE ME, you great libertarian, you.
>I didn't even ask you to stop, dude, I just commented on your style.
//And I couldn't care less about your commentary on my style. I don't like
your style either. Quit wasting bandwidth with stylistic (and thus rationally
not adjudicable) trivialities.//
>>Do you think that I NEED to shout at you to demolish your idiotic
statements? >>I am simply entertaining myself, you moron, taking a break from
arguing >>against ACTUAL intellects. Again, you don't have to indulge me. Go
ahead, >>ignore my posts. So much the better. Anytime you have responded, you
have >>added more evidence that humans are NOT inherently intellectually
capable, but >>need proper socialization and training to attain it.//
>>
>>I AM SHOUTING AT YOU NOW! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
>>Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil.
>>UCLA - Sociology
>Oh great, a government-funded State U "sociology" dude (PhD candidate no
>less) with a nasty disposition who will probably go into some government job
>(that's were most sociology experts work, eh?) to take more of my money and
>further control my life by the force of the state.
//It's not a government-funded State U, it is a tax-payer funded State
University. The citizens of California have VOTED to establish, and continue
to vote, via their duly elected representatives, as to how much they wish to
subsidize it. This use of tax-payer money is infinitely more responsible and
productive than the billions upon billions of tax-payer dollars forked over to
huge corporations in the name of national defense, farm subsidies, etc. If you
think I have a nasty disposition, you are entitled to your opinion, but you
can do NOTHING about it. TOO BAD for YOU! Most sociology Ph.D.s work in
academic environments. Some are tax-payer subsidized and some are privately
funded. The level of federal funding for sociological research is abysmal.
Pick a better target. Neither I nor anybody else can control your life
EXTRA-LEGALLY. The vicissitudes of the market control your life a whole lot
more than the state. My tax money is used to protect your right to say
whatever comes to your diseased mind. I'd like you to ponder where industry
would be today without FEDERAL TAX-PAYER MASSIVELY FINANCED research. Where
would Arizona be today without the HOOVER DAM, for example? Where would the
cattle and ore-extracting industries be without MASSIVE and CHRONIC federal
subsidies?//
Yipes, I am a bit scared!
//Yeah, you should be! Better amass some arms so you can guard against me and
my cronies. But, since we, as you say, control the state, we can smash your
little 'Justus' and militias into smitherines. Beware indeed. The law of
nature works both ways.//
>-Larry Nomer (great libertarian dude)
//Great libertarian MORON! Of course, saying both words is superfluous.
Libertarian should suffice.//
As for my degree, sour grapes? Envy?
Larry Nomer
In message <karageor.7...@ucla.edu> - kara...@ucla.edu (Stavros N.
Karageorgis)Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:53:19 writes:
>In article <Ramsay-MT-120...@delphi.bc.edu> Rams...@hermes.bc.edu (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>
>
>>In article <4picn3$9...@castle.nando.net>, lar...@nando.net wrote:
>
>>|>//Hey rugged individualist! Wake up. Politicians are ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
>>|>AND THEY EACH AND COLLECTIVELY REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE,
>>|
>>|Notice how liberals have to SHOUT at me.
>
>>most don't. remember- this is usenet.
>
>//The only reason that you perceive of capitalization as 'shouting' is because
>of a usenet convention. Well, the hell with your convention. If I could, I
>would put them in bold, or in underline. I use capitalization for emphasis.
>And, frankly, I don't care about your middle-class sensibilities against
>shouting. You can insult me a lot more without shouting, than I can emphasize
>my point by 'shouting'. So, if you don't like the 'shouting' then don't
>respond to it, MORON (Emphasized and SHOUTED!) I am simply exercizing my
>rights, the ones you supposedly champion. I WILL CAPITALIZE AS MUCH AS
> I WANT.
Hehehe, all I said was "notice how liberals have to SHOUT at me"... Sure
got your blood pressure up, eh? ;-)
>It fulfills my inner needs, and I am exercizing my so-called natural right to
>do so. If you don't like it, then don't be an audience. You have now
>established that I don't like you or your arguments and that I will SHOUT at
>you. You can choose NOT to read my posts. No big loss. Your contributions are
>NOT WORTH THE BANDWIDTH you take up. If you want me to stop SHOUTING, then
>plead with me; otherwise MAKE ME, you great libertarian, you.
I didn't even ask you to stop, dude, I just commented on your style.
>Do you think that I NEED to shout at you to demolish your idiotic statements?
>I am simply entertaining myself, you moron, taking a break from arguing
>against ACTUAL intellects. Again, you don't have to indulge me. Go ahead,
>ignore my posts. So much the better. Anytime you have responded, you have
>added more evidence that humans are NOT inherently intellectually capable, but
>need proper socialization and training to attain it.//
>
>I AM SHOUTING AT YOU NOW! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
>Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil.
>UCLA - Sociology
Oh great, a government-funded State U "sociology" dude (PhD candidate no
less) with a nasty disposition who will probably go into some government job
(that's were most sociology experts work, eh?) to take more of my money and
further control my life by the force of the state. Yipes, I am a bit scared!
Larry Nomer
In message <4pmkng$d...@news.eecs.umich.edu> - car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu
(Richard Carnes)12 Jun 1996 14:37:36 GMT writes:
>
>In article <4plk7r$g...@guysmiley.blarg.net>,
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>>car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>>>itself, does not constitute coercion.
>>
>>according to your dictates.
>
>Stranger and stranger. In what way does a thief compel a
>property-owner to "sacrifice" his wealth?
>
By _physically_REMOVING_ his merchandise from the
owner's control, bonehead. Has the owner not been
forced to sacrifice his wealth when his wealth is taken
from him without any payment? Earth to RC?
-Larry Nomer
Tom Scheeler
In article <4pno46$i...@castle.nando.net>, lar...@nando.net wrote:
>In message <4pmkng$d...@news.eecs.umich.edu> - car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu
>(Richard Carnes)12 Jun 1996 14:37:36 GMT writes:
>>
>>In article <4plk7r$g...@guysmiley.blarg.net>,
>>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>>>car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>>>>itself, does not constitute coercion.
>>>
>>>according to your dictates.
>>
>>Stranger and stranger. In what way does a thief compel a
>>property-owner to "sacrifice" his wealth?
>>
>>RC
>
>By _physically_REMOVING_ his merchandise from the
>owner's control, bonehead. Has the owner not been
>forced to sacrifice his wealth when his wealth is taken
>from him without any payment? Earth to RC?
>
>-Larry Nomer
Larry, be gentle. He is into the second level of thinking/reasoning and it
is foreign territory for him.
Tom
Richard Carnes
car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu:
>>Stranger and stranger. In what way does a thief compel a
>>property-owner to "sacrifice" his wealth?
Larry Nomer:
>By _physically_REMOVING_ his merchandise from the
>owner's control, bonehead. Has the owner not been
>forced to sacrifice his wealth when his wealth is taken
>from him without any payment? Earth to RC?
Oh, I see -- you mean the thief forces the owner to *do without* the
stolen property. "Sacrifice", as I understand the word, is not a
synonym for "do without". You must pardon me, since I try to use
terms with the precision of analytic philosophy when I write and
reason about philosophical matters, and I am therefore easily misled
by the typically sloppy and imprecise usage of libertarians -- which
carries over into their typically sloppy and imprecise thinking.
In any event my question remains: how does forcing a property-owner to
do without his property by taking it from him without his consent, in
itself, constitute "coercion"? We went through this exercise here
about a month ago, but evidently memories are short.
Richard Carnes
Mark Roddy
> gcl...@rt66.com (Gerry Clough) wrote in article
<4pl8mj$8...@mack.rt66.com>...
> mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy) wrote:
>
> >w
> >>
> >>
> >And how exactly will we decide which government activities will be
> >funded and at what levels? Perhaps a representative government?
> >Perhaps a dictatorship of libertarians?
>
> It really is quite simple. We only pay taxes for services from which
> we derive benefit.
>
Well that might be quite simple, but appears to be a voluntary system,
which is quite
different from what warrl proposed, which was an involuntary system for
services he deemed
necessary.
> This of course does not include about 80% oif our current taxation.
>
Right. Of course. Lets see ~14% national debt, ~30% defense hmmmm.. oh
well you must
have meant +- 50 when you said 'about'.
Larry Nomer
In message <4po0uv$8...@news.eecs.umich.edu> - car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu
>car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu:
>>>Stranger and stranger. In what way does a thief compel a
>>>property-owner to "sacrifice" his wealth?
>
>Larry Nomer:
>>By _physically_REMOVING_ his merchandise from the
>>owner's control, bonehead. Has the owner not been
>>forced to sacrifice his wealth when his wealth is taken
>>from him without any payment? Earth to RC?
>
>Oh, I see -- you mean the thief forces the owner to *do without* the
>stolen property. "Sacrifice", as I understand the word, is not a
>synonym for "do without".
sacúriúfice1. a . The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or
homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.b . A victim
offered in this way.2. a . Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake
of one considered to have a greater value or claim.b . Something so
forfeited.3. a . Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.b
Something so relinquished.c . A loss so sustained. 4. A sacrifice
hit.sacúriúficed sacúriúficúing sacúriúficúes1. To offer as a sacrifice to a
deity.2. To forfeit (one thing) for another thing considered to be of greater
value.3. To sell or give away at a loss.1. To make or offer a sacrifice.2. To
make a sacrifice hit.[ Middle English from Old French from Latin sacrificium
sacer, sacred; See sacredfacere, to make; See dh¶-in Indo-European Roots.]
sac“riúfic”er n.
--------------------
The American Heritage (r) Concise Dictionary of the English Language, Third
Edition. Copyright (c) 1992 Houghton Mifflin Company.
Enhanced Roget's US Electronic Thesaurus Copyright (c) 1994 by Inso
International, Inc. Adapted from the Oxford Thesaurus Copyright(c) 1991 by
Oxford University Press and from Roget's II: The New Thesaurus Copyright(c)
1980 by Houghton Mifflin Co.
Richard,
I apologize for being rude. Definition 3. above fits the use of "sacrifice"
as
I intended it.
>You must pardon me, since I try to use
>terms with the precision of analytic philosophy when I write and
>reason about philosophical matters, and I am therefore easily misled
>by the typically sloppy and imprecise usage of libertarians -- which
>carries over into their typically sloppy and imprecise thinking.
OK, how is your definition of "sacrifice" different?
>In any event my question remains: how does forcing a property-owner to
>do without his property by taking it from him without his consent, in
>itself, constitute "coercion"?
Weren't we talking about "sacrifice", not "coercion"? I don't claim
that those are synonyms, do you?
But in a very real way, a thief does _force_ me into a decision
that I wouldn't have freely chosen, and that could be said to be
coercion. For example, when a TV set that I own is in my
possession, I have the alternatives of using it for my pleasure,
selling it, or giving it away for nothing to whomever I choose.
The theif coerces me, by physically removing my property,
into taking my least favorite alternative of losing my TV set
and getting nothing, not even the satisfaction of giving it to
someone I care about. The theif has _forced_ me into
this alternative by his action.
>We went through this exercise here
>about a month ago, but evidently memories are short.
Did y'all reach the same conclusion that the thief does
indeed coerce the victim? (And/or cause the victim to
sacrifice?)
>Richard Carnes
-Larry Nomer
Jimmy Wales
>You must pardon me, since I try to use
>terms with the precision of analytic philosophy when I write and
>reason about philosophical matters, and I am therefore easily misled
>by the typically sloppy and imprecise usage of libertarians -- which
>carries over into their typically sloppy and imprecise thinking.
I must have been absent the day they taught that _insult_ is a valid tool
of "precise" and "analytical" thinking.
One thing you might want to consider. Rude behavior tends to generate
argumentative responses from those who are *least* prepared to argue
with you in a cogent fashion. Those who have the skills to enter into
an *interesting* dialogue are generally not interested in dealing with
someone who seems intent on thrashing about with insults. The result?
You get answers from boneheads, thus tending to confirm your opinion
that your opponents are all boneheads.
If your goal is to walk away feeling good about being smarter than
your opponents, this technique might work. For a little while.
If, on the other hand, your interest is in making sure that your ideas
are _true_, that is, that your ideas are actually identifications of the
facts of reality, then it might be more productive to refrain from
issuing insults in your posts. You might instead attempt to write
intelligent and friendly posts designed to appeal to the *best* among
your opponents. You might get a more challenging debate, and you might
actually learn something! Can't be *all* bad, can it?
>In any event my question remains: how does forcing a property-owner to
>do without his property by taking it from him without his consent, in
>itself, constitute "coercion"? We went through this exercise here
>about a month ago, but evidently memories are short.
The answer to your question is as follows. It is not possible to define
coercion in this context without appeal to a theory of rights. Cutting
it down to the most bare bones example, consider yourself and a common
thief. The thief wants to take your television. One of your desires
will be frustrated. He'll either get your television, or he won't.
If you keep your t.v. (perhaps tossing him out of your house before
he can grab it) have you initiated force against him? Or did he initiate
force against you by trying to take it in the first place?
The only way to answer these questions is by an appeal to *moral right*.
That is, who has a morally rightful *claim* to the television. And why?
The Objectivist claim is that *you* have a morally rightful claim to
the television, assuming you acquired it through honest production and
trade. The source of this right is ultimately in the nature of humans,
and the essential requirements for human survival in a society. You
have a *moral* right, says Objectivism, to pursue your own values, to
work and keep the product of your efforts. And you have a *moral*
right to defend these values from people who would attempt to take
them.
Questions? I'm happy to explain further or clarify. But only if you
don't insult me.
--Jimbo
Richard Carnes
>I must have been absent the day they taught that _insult_ is a valid tool
>of "precise" and "analytical" thinking.
>
>One thing you might want to consider. Rude behavior tends to generate
>argumentative responses from those who are *least* prepared to argue
>with you in a cogent fashion. Those who have the skills to enter into
>an *interesting* dialogue are generally not interested in dealing with
>someone who seems intent on thrashing about with insults.
For that reason I try to be polite, and I think I am one of the
politer posters on political topics. In general I only respond with
an insult when someone has been insulting or offensive to me, like
calling me a "bonehead", and I stay away from flamewars.
As to my charge of sloppy and imprecise linguistic usage and
(therefore) thinking, that is an appropriate subject for philosophical
discussion. Here's an example of the conceptual sloppiness I am
referring to:
The subject header of this thread reads "Taxation really IS
extortion," and this is claim is regularly made by libertarians and
Objectivists (more often they say taxation is theft but extortion is
more accurate). I asked a while back for a definition of "extortion"
for this context so that we could figure out what libertarians mean by
the claim in quotes and whether it would bear scrutiny. To date I
have not seen any reply to this request, although of course it is
possible that I have overlooked one. But defining one's pivotal terms
is a prime requisite of clear thinking and rigorous reasoning (just
ask Aristotle), as opposed to the rhetorical use of emotionally laden
terms like "extortion" and "slavery" (another term libertarians
generally use sans definition).
Philosophical discussions of libertarianism and Objectivism are
guaranteed to dissolve in conceptual tangles and miscommunications
*unless* such absolutely pivotal terms as "coercion" and "freedom" (or
"liberty") are defined and used consistently. Hence my focus in the
present thread on "coercion." I'd rather risk pedantry rather than
imprecision. In my view, (unintentional) equivocation in the use of
"coercion", "freedom", and other terms is pervasive in libertarian
writing, and these conceptual confusions combined with certain
understandable biases (rather than the evil that lurks in libertarian
hearts or whatever) are responsible for much of the appeal of
libertarianism for many.
>>In any event my question remains: how does forcing a property-owner to
>>do without his property by taking it from him without his consent, in
>>itself, constitute "coercion"? We went through this exercise here
>>about a month ago, but evidently memories are short.
>
>The answer to your question is as follows. It is not possible to define
>coercion in this context without appeal to a theory of rights. Cutting
>it down to the most bare bones example, consider yourself and a common
>thief. The thief wants to take your television. One of your desires
>will be frustrated. He'll either get your television, or he won't.
>If you keep your t.v. (perhaps tossing him out of your house before
>he can grab it) have you initiated force against him? Or did he initiate
>force against you by trying to take it in the first place?
>
>The only way to answer these questions is by an appeal to *moral right*.
But you haven't explained (to me) what you mean by "initiate force",
nor do you define the term later on. Nor do you get around to
defining "coercion". (Perhaps you believe you have done so, but it
did not get across to me.) It seems to me that defining an ambiguous
phrase like "initiate force" ought to be the first order of business
when one is concerned with careful and rigorous reasoning.
Richard Carnes
Jeffrey N Woodford
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:37:46 GMT Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (wa...@blarg.net) wrote:
: Did the property owner consent to the event?
: Nope.
: So it was compelled.
Who compelled whom?
-Jeff
--
Jeffrey N. Woodford || Email: jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu || Physical Chemistry
Homepage: http://wildcat.dementia.org/jeffw/index.html || Graduate Student
"The devils of truth steal the souls of the free" --NIN || (2nd Year) at UN-L
Jeffrey N Woodford
On 9 Jun 1996 23:48:59 GMT Todd Greene (tgr...@204.177.184.10) wrote:
: As Larry Nomer (mailto:lar...@nando.net) already intimated, this is the
: wrong direction from which to consider the situation. As a subjectivist
: libertarian, my claim is that no one has the right to a single penny of
: what I own (either what I have earned, or been given by another owner)
: without my consent.
What do you mean by "consent"?
Stavros N. Karageorgis
In article <4pvud4$s...@mack.rt66.com> gcl...@rt66.com (Gerry Clough) writes:
>kara...@ucla.edu (Stavros N. Karageorgis) wrote:
>By the way, Steve, this is good.
//First of, not Steve, please . . .:-) Stav, OK! Steve, no no no no . . .
BTW, 'this' WHICH is good . . .?
Cheers.
Stavros N. Karageorgis
>>>Oh great, a government-funded State U "sociology" dude (PhD candidate no
>>>less) with a nasty disposition who will probably go into some government job
>>>(that's were most sociology experts work, eh?) to take more of my money and
>>>further control my life by the force of the state.
>>//It's not a government-funded State U, it is a tax-payer funded State
>>University. The citizens of California have VOTED to establish, and continue
>>to vote, via their duly elected representatives,
>Actually, there has been no such vote, little lone for scum like you.
//"little lone" . . . is that supposed to be 'let alone'? All right, NOW I
know what kind of mental giant I am dealing with. So tell me, Einstein, how do
you know that there was no vote 'via the duly elected representatives' of the
citizens of California? Of course, that assumes that you can read . . .//
>Sociology is not a real subject. Productive people do not undertake
>such nonsense. Parasites often do.
//Thank you. I mean it. Your not respecting my profession and subject-matter
is a badge of honor to me. 'Liitle lone' (HAHAHAHA) that you consider me a
parasite . . .//
>as to how much they wish to
>>subsidize it. This use of tax-payer money is infinitely more responsible and
>>productive than the billions upon billions of tax-payer dollars forked over to
>>huge corporations in the name of national defense, farm subsidies, etc.
>Absolute, unadultared nonsense. Subsidies to farms or corporations
>are unjustified. but they are nowhere near as bad as the money spent
>on the evils of "Social Science", an oxymoron if there ever was one.
//What are those 'evils'? Do tell . . . and it is NOT an oxymoron, either
literally or figuratively. An example of an oxymoron is 'jumbo shrimp' or
'military intelligence' (figuratively). But, what can one expect from an
illiterate . . . do you spell 'should've' as 'should of' also . . .In any
case, your opinion of where federal research dollars should be spent, thank
GOD, doesn't matter one bit . .. //
>If you
>>think I have a nasty disposition, you are entitled to your opinion, but you
>>can do NOTHING about it. TOO BAD for YOU! Most sociology Ph.D.s work in
>>academic environments. Some are tax-payer subsidized and some are privately
>>funded. The level of federal funding for sociological research is abysmal.
>>Pick a better target. Neither I nor anybody else can control your life
>>EXTRA-LEGALLY.
>Legal is not the point. The point is moral.
//I don't care about your morality. YOUR morality is YOUR business. Legal IS
the point . . .//
>The vicissitudes of the market control your life a whole lot
>>more than the state.
>Nonsense.
//I am speechless. Such a powerful, learned, critique and refutation. WOW!. Do
you mind if I start using in my worthless parasitic field of work. This may
turn out to be the 'silver bullet'. Darn, why didn't I think of that one . . .
you must bottle it up and sell it . . .//
> My tax money is used to protect your right to say
>>whatever comes to your diseased mind.
>Also nonsense.
//How so? But, after all, what you find to be nonsense probably certifies it
as FULL of sense, seeing that you yourself are incapable of making any.//
> I'd like you to ponder where industry
>>would be today without FEDERAL TAX-PAYER MASSIVELY FINANCED research.
>More nonsense.
//I see. I will cease and decist from spewing it in the feaure . . .//
>Where
>>would Arizona be today without the HOOVER DAM, for example? Where would the
>>cattle and ore-extracting industries be without MASSIVE and CHRONIC federal
>>subsidies?//
//No answer? No 'absolute, 'little lone' unadulterated nonsense' . . . come
on, you're losing your touch big guy.
>> Yipes, I am a bit scared!
>>//Yeah, you should be! Better amass some arms so you can guard against me and
>>my cronies. But, since we, as you say, control the state, we can smash your
>>little 'Justus' and militias into smitherines. Beware indeed. The law of
>>nature works both ways.//
>>>-Larry Nomer (great libertarian dude)
>>//Great libertarian MORON! Of course, saying both words is superfluous.
>>Libertarian should suffice.//
>>As for my degree, sour grapes? Envy?
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu (Jeffrey N Woodford) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:37:46 GMT Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (wa...@blarg.net) wrote:
>: Did the property owner consent to the event?
>: Nope.
>: So it was compelled.
>Who compelled whom?
The thief compelled the property owner to give up physical possession
of his property.
Gerry Clough
car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>In article <31BEDD...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
>>car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>>>But taking property without the owner's express or implied consent, in
>>>itself, does not constitute coercion.
>>
>> Yes it does. In fact, that's the whole point.
>Not according to any dictionary I have checked. But then I haven't
>looked it up in the _Ayn Rand Lexicon_ or whatever it is called, and I
>don't speak Objectivist.
I doubt very much that your dictionary covers the point. However, it
is extortion if without the owner's consent; whether or not your
"dictionary" identifies it as such.
Gerry Clough
kara...@ucla.edu (Stavros N. Karageorgis) wrote:
>>>Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil.
>>>UCLA - Sociology
>>Oh great, a government-funded State U "sociology" dude (PhD candidate no
>>less) with a nasty disposition who will probably go into some government job
>>(that's were most sociology experts work, eh?) to take more of my money and
>>further control my life by the force of the state.
>//It's not a government-funded State U, it is a tax-payer funded State
>University. The citizens of California have VOTED to establish, and continue
>to vote, via their duly elected representatives,
Actually, there has been no such vote, little lone for scum like you.
Sociology is not a real subject. Productive people do not undertake
such nonsense. Parasites often do.
as to how much they wish to
>subsidize it. This use of tax-payer money is infinitely more responsible and
>productive than the billions upon billions of tax-payer dollars forked over to
>huge corporations in the name of national defense, farm subsidies, etc.
Absolute, unadultared nonsense. Subsidies to farms or corporations
are unjustified. but they are nowhere near as bad as the money spent
on the evils of "Social Science", an oxymoron if there ever was one.
If you
>think I have a nasty disposition, you are entitled to your opinion, but you
>can do NOTHING about it. TOO BAD for YOU! Most sociology Ph.D.s work in
>academic environments. Some are tax-payer subsidized and some are privately
>funded. The level of federal funding for sociological research is abysmal.
>Pick a better target. Neither I nor anybody else can control your life
>EXTRA-LEGALLY.
Legal is not the point. The point is moral.
The vicissitudes of the market control your life a whole lot
>more than the state.
Nonsense.
My tax money is used to protect your right to say
>whatever comes to your diseased mind.
Also nonsense.
I'd like you to ponder where industry
>would be today without FEDERAL TAX-PAYER MASSIVELY FINANCED research.
More nonsense.
Gerry Clough
Mark Roddy
gcl...@rt66.com (Gerry Clough) wrote:
>car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>
>>In article <31BEDD...@icsi.net>, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
>>>car...@flip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
>>>>But taking property without the owner's express or implied consent, in
>>>>itself, does not constitute coercion.
>>>
>>> Yes it does. In fact, that's the whole point.
>
>>Not according to any dictionary I have checked. But then I haven't
>>looked it up in the _Ayn Rand Lexicon_ or whatever it is called, and I
>>don't speak Objectivist.
>
>I doubt very much that your dictionary covers the point. However, it
>is extortion if without the owner's consent; whether or not your
>"dictionary" identifies it as such.
" EXTORTION at common law, the corrupt collection by a public official
under _color_ of office of an excessive or unauthorized fee. It was
punishable as a misdemeanor. Under modern statutes the offense is
broadened to include the illegal taking of money by anyone who employs
threats, or other illegal use of fear or coercion in order to obtain
the money, and whose conduct falls short of the threat to personal
safety required for robbery. "
Barron's Law Dictionary.
Once again, just as for the idiotic "taxation is theft" rant, taxation
is not extortion unless it is illegal. Taxation may _feel_ like
extortion, you may think that taxes are excessive or unauthorized, but
unless the taxes are actually excessive or unauthorized they do not
qualify as extortion.
The same people who argue that taxation is theft(extortion) also claim
that the relationship between employee and employer is entirely
voluntary, as the employee is always free to quit his job and seek
another position with better terms. Fine, then let the right-wing
libertarians go and seek another country without the onerous burden of
taxation.
You have to accept the premise that government, other than one simply
of voluntary association, is illegal in order to accept the argument
that taxation is an illegal act.
P. Marks
He means "agreement". I can not believe you do not know the meaning of
this word - I suspect that you may be playing games here.
Consent means I say or write "yes I will do such and such" or "you may
take such and such" it does not mean just being alive or having the vote.
The Jews (to take an obvious example) did not consent to be murdered just
because the German people kept having referendums saying how much a
majority of them loved Hitler (or because the National Socialists were
the biggest party in the 1932 elections).
If people vote 51-49 (or 99-1) to do something, the 49 (or 1) has NOT
consented.
The United States is not supposed to be an example of the "divine right
of the 51%" type of "democracy" - it is supposed to be a Constitutional
Republic.
Paul Marks.
P. Marks
On 14 Jun 1996, Jeffrey N Woodford wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:37:46 GMT Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (wa...@blarg.net) wrote:
> : Did the property owner consent to the event?
>
> : Nope.
>
> : So it was compelled.
>
> Who compelled whom?
>
> -Jeff
> --
> Jeffrey N. Woodford || Email: jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu || Physical Chemistry
> Homepage: http://wildcat.dementia.org/jeffw/index.html || Graduate Student
> "The devils of truth steal the souls of the free" --NIN || (2nd Year) at UN-L
>
>
You (or someone) has edited this. So I can only guess what is going on.
My guess is that is that some politician or administrator compelled the
property owner.
Politicians do not tend to do what they say they will do (and an
individual may not have voted for them anyway). And politicians do not
know about most administrative orders anyway.
Paul Marks - ex government administrator.
a...@aepix.com
mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy) wrote:
>Once again, just as for the idiotic "taxation is theft" rant, taxation
>
>The same people who argue that taxation is theft(extortion) also claim
>that the relationship between employee and employer is entirely
>voluntary, as the employee is always free to quit his job and seek
>another position with better terms. Fine, then let the right-wing
>libertarians go and seek another country without the onerous burden of
>taxation.
Love it or leave it I always say. :-)
Is this the "Government Contract" bunk? Because one choses to live a
country then taxes are really just payment for services and you can't
complain? How about a store owner who chooses to stay put and pay protection
money to the local gangster. Hey the store owner could have left, you know?
He must really *owe* that money to the mob.
By this reasoning is there *anything* that a government can not morally do?
After all, you chose to live there (even if it is impossible for you to
leave). This means that in Germany in the 1930's when Jewish businesses
were stolen from their rightfull owners it wasn't really immoral, it was
just part of the "Contract". They *were* free to leave... at least during
most of the 1930's. It was just that no one else would take them... Hey,
so what. It ain't the governments fault that they can't find anywhere to go.
One more question. If government taxation is mearly part of the "Contract".
And an individual morally "owes" whatever the government demands (even
more money than they possess after all if I wreck your mercadies I owe
you more money than I have. It's my problem if I ain't got it) ---
---- How can I get to be a government? I'd like to set up a small one here
locally. I'm mean it's been done before. Countries have been carved out of
other countries. The Freemen tried it, they just failed. But
If I had enough fire power I could do it! And then I could go about taking
everybodies money! Hey they owe the tax! I'm not doing anything immoral mind
you, I'm just taxing them.
I hold my neighbors and my government to the same moral standards.
-rex-
Mark Roddy
a...@aepix.com wrote:
>mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy) wrote:
>
>
>>Once again, just as for the idiotic "taxation is theft" rant, taxation
>>
>>The same people who argue that taxation is theft(extortion) also claim
>>that the relationship between employee and employer is entirely
>>voluntary, as the employee is always free to quit his job and seek
>>another position with better terms. Fine, then let the right-wing
>>libertarians go and seek another country without the onerous burden of
>>taxation.
>
> Love it or leave it I always say. :-)
I am just pointing out that the right-wing argument that the
employee-employer relationship is not coercive because the employee
chooses to work and is free to work elsewhere can be easily translated
to the relationship between tax payer and government. Perhaps the
point is that in neither case is one entirely free.
But as you simply deleted my definitional argument that once again the
equation taxation=extortion is as bogus as taxation=theft, I guess you
concede that point.
>
> Is this the "Government Contract" bunk? Because one choses to live a
> country then taxes are really just payment for services and you can't
> complain? How about a store owner who chooses to stay put and pay protection
> money to the local gangster. Hey the store owner could have left, you know?
> He must really *owe* that money to the mob.
>
If the mob was democratically elected under a system of constitutional
representative democracy with universal sufferage and respect for
normal standards of human rights, then why of course.
If on the other hand the mob was just an imposed tyranny then why of
course not.
> By this reasoning is there *anything* that a government can not morally do?
Yes. The government cannot exceed its constitutional authority nor can
it violate normal standards of human rights. Taxation however is not
such a violation.
> After all, you chose to live there (even if it is impossible for you to
> leave). This means that in Germany in the 1930's when Jewish businesses
> were stolen from their rightfull owners it wasn't really immoral, it was
> just part of the "Contract". They *were* free to leave... at least during
> most of the 1930's. It was just that no one else would take them... Hey,
> so what. It ain't the governments fault that they can't find anywhere to go.
>
Oh the nazi argument. Say, you aren't one of those right-wing
libertarians confused about the difference between a modern industrial
democracy and a right-wing totalitarian state are you?
> One more question. If government taxation is mearly part of the "Contract".
> And an individual morally "owes" whatever the government demands (even
> more money than they possess after all if I wreck your mercadies I owe
> you more money than I have. It's my problem if I ain't got it) ---
>
> ---- How can I get to be a government?
You can't. Last I heard the taxation rate is less than 100% of income.
Although with penalties you could in fact owe more than you make. Best
to pay up on time I think.
> I'd like to set up a small one here
> locally. I'm mean it's been done before. Countries have been carved out of
> other countries. The Freemen tried it, they just failed. But
> If I had enough fire power I could do it! And then I could go about taking
> everybodies money! Hey they owe the tax! I'm not doing anything immoral mind
> you, I'm just taxing them.
Well actually I have no problem with your establishment of a
government as long as it adheres to modern standards of democracy and
respect for human rights. The current government will however assert
its sovereignity and put you out of business. Such is life. On the
other hand if you just want to impose a tyrannical regime onto your
neighbors then you are just another criminal in need of punsihment.
Koro
On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 01:28:42 GMT, a...@aepix.com wrote:
> mro...@wattanuck.mv.com (Mark Roddy) wrote:
> >Once again, just as for the idiotic "taxation is theft" rant, taxation
> >
> >The same people who argue that taxation is theft(extortion) also claim
> >that the relationship between employee and employer is entirely
> >voluntary, as the employee is always free to quit his job and seek
> >another position with better terms. Fine, then let the right-wing
> >libertarians go and seek another country without the onerous burden of
> >taxation.
> Love it or leave it I always say. :-)
> Is this the "Government Contract" bunk? Because one choses to live a
> country then taxes are really just payment for services and you can't
> complain? How about a store owner who chooses to stay put and pay protection
> money to the local gangster. Hey the store owner could have left, you know?
> He must really *owe* that money to the mob.
> By this reasoning is there *anything* that a government can not morally do?
> After all, you chose to live there (even if it is impossible for you to
> leave). This means that in Germany in the 1930's when Jewish businesses
> were stolen from their rightfull owners it wasn't really immoral, it was
> just part of the "Contract". They *were* free to leave... at least during
> most of the 1930's. It was just that no one else would take them... Hey,
> so what. It ain't the governments fault that they can't find anywhere to go.
> One more question. If government taxation is mearly part of the "Contract".
> And an individual morally "owes" whatever the government demands (even
> more money than they possess after all if I wreck your mercadies I owe
> you more money than I have. It's my problem if I ain't got it) ---
> ---- How can I get to be a government? I'd like to set up a small one here
> locally. I'm mean it's been done before. Countries have been carved out of
> other countries. The Freemen tried it, they just failed.
Naw, the Freemen were just stupid... They declared independance, which is all
good and legal, and made their own, private, land their own country, which is
also legal. Then they tried to take over some more land by force. That's where
they were stupid... If you leave the country, the country isn't going to miss
you much, and you're free! Now, the point is that you're not supposed to wage
war, no matter how large the temptation may be, against america.
> But
> If I had enough fire power I could do it! And then I could go about taking
> everybodies money! Hey they owe the tax! I'm not doing anything immoral mind
> you, I'm just taxing them.
heh heh heh...
KORO
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Naw, the Freemen were just stupid...
Stupid, yes. "Just" stupid, no.
>They declared independance, which is all
>good and legal
"Good" is debatable. "Legal" is also debatable, as I don't know if
the state of Montana has any laws on the subject.
The federal government almost certainly has such laws, but if you
examine the Constitution carefully you will discover that the federal
government has no authority in that area.
>and made their own, private, land their own country, which is
>also legal.
See above.
> Then they tried to take over some more land by force. That's where
>they were stupid...
You forgot to mention knowingly passing bad checks, and a few other
things...
Koro
> ksa...@easyaccess.com (Koro) wrote:
> >Naw, the Freemen were just stupid...
> Stupid, yes. "Just" stupid, no.
> >They declared independance, which is all
> >good and legal
> "Good" is debatable. "Legal" is also debatable, as I don't know if
> the state of Montana has any laws on the subject.
> The federal government almost certainly has such laws, but if you
> examine the Constitution carefully you will discover that the federal
> government has no authority in that area.
Exactly. According to the constitution, you have the right to split
off from the motherland. I don't care if the govt want's to protect
that right, it exists.
> > Then they tried to take over some more land by force. That's where
> >they were stupid...
> You forgot to mention knowingly passing bad checks, and a few other
> things...
Well, yea, but that's minor stuff compared to waging war against the
country with the largest army in the world...
KORO
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
ksa...@easyaccess.com (Koro) wrote:
>> >They declared independance, which is all
>> >good and legal
>> "Good" is debatable. "Legal" is also debatable, as I don't know if
>> the state of Montana has any laws on the subject.
>> The federal government almost certainly has such laws, but if you
>> examine the Constitution carefully you will discover that the federal
>> government has no authority in that area.
>Exactly. According to the constitution, you have the right to split
>off from the motherland. I don't care if the govt want's to protect
>that right, it exists.
You are mistaken. The Constitution does not protect an individual
right to secede (and take one's land, formerly part of the US, with);
it merely fails to allocate any authority to regulate in that area to
the federal government, and notes that the federal government does not
have any authority not allocated to it by the Constitution.
It would be totally in accordance with the US federal Constitution for
a *state* to prohibit such action.
On the other hand, there are several places in the Constitution where
specific rights are explicitly protected on behalf of the
*individual*. The federal government cannot itself imprison people
for saying "The President is a crook!", nor can any state or locality;
and if some state does, it is the sworn duty of the President and all
sworn officers under him, every member of Congress, every federal
judge and many state and local judges, and every member of the US
Armed Forces to see to it that the victim of this imprisonment is
freed and things are set right.
>> > Then they tried to take over some more land by force. That's where
>> >they were stupid...
>> You forgot to mention knowingly passing bad checks, and a few other
>> things...
>Well, yea, but that's minor stuff compared to waging war against the
>country with the largest army in the world...
Waging war was stupid. Initiating it, if they did, was stupid and
wrong. Passing checks which you know do not actually have the value
that you claim for them (even if that value is merely being
exchangeable for pieces of paper that *you* consider legally
worthless, but having certain attributes in the eyes of *others*), is
wrong. Using force or the threat of force to demand wealth from
others is wrong (and is also hypocritical if the wealth demanded is
those same pieces of paper which you claim are legally worthless -- if
I were a judge, I would rule in such a case that the defendant's own
actions prove that he believes the currency has value, thus his
argument that the currency has no value need not be considered.)
As far as I am concerned, people can do *stupid* things all day. When
they go to *wrong* things, and start violating the rights of others,
then I have a problem.
> KORO