Is Taxation Theft?
Mondo Politico
force? What is the scope of the power held by government? What happens
to society when government ignores limits on the scope of its power,
and establishes for itself the power to violate individual rights of
life, liberty and/or property?
These are the questions focussed upon by Frederic Bastiat in his
famous pamphlet, "The Law", which has just been added to the Mondo
Politico library:
http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/thelaw/mpintro.htm
"The Law" is the latest addition to the Mondo Politico Library of
political classics, which currently includes:
- 1984 (Orwell);
- Animal Farm (Orwell);
- Common Sense (Paine);
- The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels);
- The Social Contract (Rousseau);
- Mein Kampf (Hitler); and
- Social Credit (Douglas)
and more classics are on the way. All of the books at Mondo Politico
are formatted for minimal eye strain when reading and, of course, they
are all free.
Regards,
Mondo Politico
http://www.mondopolitico.com
Mondo Politico is a non-profit, non-partisan political zone on the
web, including news (federal, state/provincial/territorial, in the
USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland), political party
and election web site directories, a library, and discussion forums.
Stephen H. Kawamoto
is theft.
So yes, taxation is theft.
Rimu Atkinson
> is theft.
>
> So yes, taxation is theft.
>
>
why is property theft?
Apostle
"Stephen H. Kawamoto" <shkaw...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:iFDK8.85844$Ka.65...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Robert Edwards
elections, we the general public vote for taxes and stability.
"Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote in message
news:yNLK8.87451$Ka.66...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Sage Bodhisattva
Indians had no sense of property except in a collective sense.
Europeans in the Americas made property rights integral to individual
rights.
Back in Europe, the collectivist attitude of property was also followed.
Property rights are a recent innovation.
Nobles practised property as theft against the serfs.
In some cases, the serfs gave rights to the nobles in trade for protection
from robbers etc. but this was centuries after the nobles subjugated the
pheasants and forced them to work for them instead of for themselves.
Property is theft when the rich steal property from the poor.
When the poor steal land i.e. squat, the rich call for the government, which
has a monopoly on force, to steal the property back.
"Rimu Atkinson" <ri...@paradise.net.nz.nospam.thanks> wrote in message
news:UOFK8.5879$7N.9...@news02.tsnz.net...
Sage Bodhisattva
my meaning is invisible to the blind, but is clear to those who can see.
"Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote in message
news:yNLK8.87451$Ka.66...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Sage Bodhisattva
law, and much of the anarchy of ancient times was due to the rich having
access to the force that government has a natural monopoly on.
The poor, being the masses, only have mob rule as their means of force.
In response to this threat, government enacted other laws, to legislate
poverty, mental illness and drug use as well as a relaxation of obscenity
bans so that the mass could be controlled through economic sanctions,
labelling of inappropriate behavior, and drug addiction.
Thus tax laws when unjust are a form of theft especially when the poor pay
more taxes while the rich pay less.
The thievery happens when the rich get richer and the poor poorer due to
unequal tax cuts and subsequent stopgap measures to make up any shortfalls.
"Robert Edwards" <null...@austarnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adg7nr$217d$1...@austar-news.austar.net.au...
Howard Beale
Sage Bodhisattva <sage-bod...@SPAM.webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:2rRK8.178420$GG6.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Tax laws are enacted to legitimize taxation. However, taxation predates
the
> law, and much of the anarchy of ancient times was due to the rich having
> access to the force that government has a natural monopoly on.
>
> The poor, being the masses, only have mob rule as their means of force.
That's the problem with democracy
--
Howard Beale
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"
Smokin'
"Mondo Politico" <con...@mondopolitico.com> wrote in message
news:904ff967.02060...@posting.google.com...
> Is taxation theft?
Is sexual intercourse rape?
Both questions have the same answer.
Peter Lawrence
>
> Is taxation theft?
With certain specialised exceptions, morally speaking it is. However that
does not address the question of lesser evil, any more than accurately
calling Robin Hood a thief would be. Still, it is important to use correct
definitions and understandings or you could end up in a situation where you
had convinced yourself that taxation was different, so there couldn't ever be
any moral objections. Theoretically you could end up with massive tax rates
that way.
Oddly enough, there are ways round this, but it has never suited governments
to try very hard. It appears they prefer to foster the illusion that lesser
evil is no evil, that they should not or need not continually address the
issue and review the necessity.
Where does government get its authority to use
> force?
See what Athens told Malos and Mytilene.
What is the scope of the power held by government? What happens
> to society when government ignores limits on the scope of its power,
> and establishes for itself the power to violate individual rights of
> life, liberty and/or property?
See what G.K.Chesterton wrote about policemen who abused their authority; he
pointed out that it was not a case of using authority improperly but of using
power and pretending that there was authority. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.
Paula
null...@austarnet.com.au wrote on 6/3/02 12:10 PM:
> Without taxes there is no law.
??????
Paula
Petzl
Politico) wrote:
>Is taxation theft? Where does government get its authority to use
>force? What is the scope of the power held by government? What happens
>to society when government ignores limits on the scope of its power,
>and establishes for itself the power to violate individual rights of
>life, liberty and/or property?
>
>These are the questions focussed upon by Frederic Bastiat in his
>famous pamphlet, "The Law", which has just been added to the Mondo
>Politico library:
>
>http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/thelaw/mpintro.htm
Most people over certain income levels (Australia in any case) do not
have to pay tax?
I assume this is the case for many if not most countries
My experience beliefs is tax money is only taken from peoples pay
packets before they have a chance not to pay it. If you get your money
first you can argue about it
Good story here
<http://www.tridentpress.com.au/webcontent39.htm>
Australian Hero
Dr Peter Clyne
His only crime was to write books about how not to pay Tax!
For this Australia (Labor Party) introduced retrospective legislation
just to imprison this man. The government Australian Tax Office (ATO)
had taken him to court on tax charges many times and lost every case
The only Australian Taxes he paid was a cheque for 2 cents. I believe
this to was just to round down the alleged $$$$ amount owed to, or
claimed by the ATO
After the retrospective legislation they tried to have him extradited
from Austria. All they got was a death certificate?
***************
Petzl
Check your system for Virus (Free)
bottom right hand side of web page click the picture
"Check for security risks" http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
Free virus detectors/programs are available eg. http://www.grisoft.com
Bruce Simpson
Futher evidence that the greed of politicians and bureaucrats is the
single largest factor in politics and government.
When you discover that the tax department have more power and are less
accountable for their actions than the police, you realise that the
government is more interested in picking your pocket than protecting
you from rape, robbery or murder.
Nothing is as important as the steady flow of slop to the political
trough and nothing shall be allowed to interfere with that flow.
I believe that taxation is one of the few areas of the law where:
a. you're considered guilty until you can prove your innocence
b. retroactive legislation is allowed and often used
A sad indictment on the power of the mighty dollar and the corupting
effect of that power.
----
I can be contacted via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
Tim Scrivens
"Paula" <spoc...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:B9294F9C.C24F%spoc...@bellsouth.net...
Taxes pay for judges, cops, the army, etc etc etc.
Mike Warren
> "Stephen H. Kawamoto" <shkaw...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:iFDK8.85844$Ka.65...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > If property is theft and money is property, then anything to do
> > with money is theft.
> >
> > So yes, taxation is theft.
(Don't have the above message on my server). Money is not property;
it's an agreement.
--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>
>> "Stephen H. Kawamoto" <shkaw...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:iFDK8.85844$Ka.65...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> > If property is theft and money is property, then anything to do
>> > with money is theft.
>> >
>> > So yes, taxation is theft.
>
>(Don't have the above message on my server). Money is not property;
>it's an agreement.
Ah... but what about money that is made in the form of a gold coin?
That is not just an agreement but it is also property that has
intrinsic value -- and since that value is variable, one can hardly
say that it represents an agreement in the way that a simply
denominated note or coin made from low-value metal or paper has.
And, if money was simply an agreement, why can't I just agree with the
taxman that I owe them $ rather than having to hand over the money?
:-)
Merlin
"Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
news:v6dN8.126084$Ka.87...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > "Stephen H. Kawamoto" <shkaw...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:iFDK8.85844$Ka.65...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > If property is theft and money is property, then anything to do
> > > with money is theft.
> > >
> > > So yes, taxation is theft.
>
> (Don't have the above message on my server). Money is not property;
> it's an agreement.
Property is also an agreement, so what's the difference?
or did you mean "material stuff" when you wrote "property"?
Merlin
"Bruce Simpson" <see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote in message
news:l7pagu89dgidkqdic...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:19:07 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> "Stephen H. Kawamoto" <shkaw...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:iFDK8.85844$Ka.65...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >> > If property is theft and money is property, then anything to do
> >> > with money is theft.
> >> >
> >> > So yes, taxation is theft.
> >
> >(Don't have the above message on my server). Money is not property;
> >it's an agreement.
>
> Ah... but what about money that is made in the form of a gold coin?
So? Money takes many forms, from bits of metal to bits of paper to seashells
to cigarettes. In the final analysis, 'money' is whatever we agree it is.
> That is not just an agreement but it is also property that has
> intrinsic value -- and since that value is variable, one can hardly
> say that it represents an agreement in the way that a simply
> denominated note or coin made from low-value metal or paper has.
Huh? 'Property' is an agreement.
> And, if money was simply an agreement, why can't I just agree with the
> taxman that I owe them $ rather than having to hand over the money?
> :-)
It takes two (or more) to make an agreement, and the taxman probably won't.
But you could, in theory.
Paula
tim.sc...@nz.eds.com wrote on 6/9/02 11:08 PM:
Everything has a price, yes. For the above listed things I am willing to
pay for, however, there are things that are 'not worth my money', and I
greatly resent the mismanagement of my money, too.
Paula
Paula
Pe...@SpamCop.net wrote on 6/9/02 11:50 PM:
> On 2 Jun 2002 11:25:17 -0700, con...@mondopolitico.com (Mondo
> Politico) wrote:
>
>> Is taxation theft? Where does government get its authority to use
>> force? What is the scope of the power held by government? What happens
>> to society when government ignores limits on the scope of its power,
>> and establishes for itself the power to violate individual rights of
>> life, liberty and/or property?
>>
>> These are the questions focussed upon by Frederic Bastiat in his
>> famous pamphlet, "The Law", which has just been added to the Mondo
>> Politico library:
>>
>> http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/thelaw/mpintro.htm
>
> Most people over certain income levels (Australia in any case) do not
> have to pay tax?
>
> I assume this is the case for many if not most countries
>
> My experience beliefs is tax money is only taken from peoples pay
> packets before they have a chance not to pay it. If you get your money
> first you can argue about it
>
If people had to write the govt's (federal, state, and local where
applicable) to pay their taxes themselves, trust me, the tax rates would be
greatly reduced and quickly.
Paula
Scott Hillard
Tim Scrivens <tim.sc...@nz.eds.com> wrote in message
news:ae18ni$um4$1...@hermes.nz.eds.com...
> Taxes pay for judges, cops, the army, etc etc etc.
In other words, the tools of coercion used by the State to extract tribute
from its subjects?
Kim Shepherd
"Scott Hillard" <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:mWvN8.42$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au...
Yes, and also the ones that protect the country from invasions, and put
criminals in jail.
Up to you to figure out whether that's useful or not, but I'm fairly certain
that if you took away those tools (or the State) in any country as it is
today, someone else will show up with cooercive tools/power of their own.
-k.
Mike Warren
> Ah... but what about money that is made in the form of a gold coin?
> That is not just an agreement but it is also property that has
> intrinsic value -- and since that value is variable, one can hardly
> say that it represents an agreement in the way that a simply
> denominated note or coin made from low-value metal or paper has.
You're right that some implementations of money have intrinsic value
beyond the agreement (like gold). Similarly, pennies have value as
copper, except that their value-as-copper is higher than their
value-as-money.
These implementation details don't change the nature of money.
> And, if money was simply an agreement, why can't I just agree with
> the taxman that I owe them $ rather than having to hand over the
> money?
The way you make such an agreement *is* by handing over the money
(which might be done electronically, say, thereby involving no actual
matter)...
Mike Warren
> or did you mean "material stuff" when you wrote "property"?
Yes.
Kim Shepherd
> Bruce Simpson <see.my.sig...@l.address> writes:
> > Ah... but what about money that is made in the form of a gold coin?
> > That is not just an agreement but it is also property that has
> > intrinsic value -- and since that value is variable, one can hardly
> > say that it represents an agreement in the way that a simply
> > denominated note or coin made from low-value metal or paper has.
> You're right that some implementations of money have intrinsic value
> beyond the agreement (like gold). Similarly, pennies have value as
> copper, except that their value-as-copper is higher than their
> value-as-money.
Gold only has value to those who value it. Just like money, or property
agreements. You can argue about gold's many uses worldwide until you're blue
in the face, but any value attached to it remains purely subjective.
There is no such thing as intrinsic value.
-k.
Brian Dooley
But you might consider that there things that you think *are*
worth the money but other people do not.
How do you propose to reslve that?
>and I
>greatly resent the mismanagement of my money, too.
Don't we all, but could you give some examples.
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>But you might consider that there things that you think *are*
>worth the money but other people do not.
How about things that aren't worth the money:
MP's perks -- note that they've just deferred the plans to review
those perks. Can someone else please tell me of any private-sector
employee that offers such wonderful employment and post-employment
benefits? (Of course being the government, they don't have to pay FBT
like the private sector does do they).
How about the 20 extra MPs that the country overwhelmingly voted to
dispense with in the last referendum? Once again -- it seems that our
small core of elected "representitives" have decided that they're not
actually going to be representitives at all when it comes to thinning
out their own ranks. Who said this was a democracy?
How about $120m of unbudgeted spending on the Arts at a time when we
still have major problems with the mental health system, hospital
waiting lists, housing problems, etc. Arts and culture are important
-- but not as important as human life (unless you're a PM that likes
to indulge her own personal interests with taxpayer funds of course).
Never mind -- those people who are unable to get timely radiation
treatment will surely be compensated by the knowledge that the money
that could have saved their lives has brought an evening or two's joy
to all those Remuera folks who went to the ballet last night. So nice
to have the sick and the poor supporting the luxuries of the rich like
that.
There's actually a very long list of things that our tax dollars get
spent on which, given the state of our education, health and welfare
systems, could be better allocated.
>How do you propose to reslve that?
I've made my opinions quite clear on that in the past. I'm not just
whining -- I've offered a solution.
Brian Dooley
What exactly do you mean by 'the State'?
Would it be 99.99+% of the rest of your fellow citizens?
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>>In other words, the tools of coercion used by the State to extract tribute
>>from its subjects?
>
>What exactly do you mean by 'the State'?
>
>Would it be 99.99+% of the rest of your fellow citizens?
Since the total amount of control those 99.99+% of your fellow
citizens have is the casting of a vote once every three years -- no, I
don't think we can equate them with "the state"
"The State" is the mechanism built to serve the citizens but which is
hijacked at three-yearly intervals by a group of 120 self-interested
politicians who are far more interested in their own wellbeing and
future than that of those who elected them.
To believe otherwise is just a little naive.
Smokin'
"Bruce Simpson" <see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote in message
Does that matter? Even if 'the state' really did have the support of 99% for
taxation, that does not justify any taxation of the 1% who view it as a type
of crime.
Bruce Simpson
madness.org> wrote:
>Does that matter? Even if 'the state' really did have the support of 99% for
>taxation, that does not justify any taxation of the 1% who view it as a type
>of crime.
Errr.. no -- in a democracy the minority must agree to be bound by the
decision of the majority.
However, you could challenge the assertion that NZ is a democracy --
after all, 95% of NZ voters agreed that the number of MPs should be
reduced from 120 to 100 -- but that was disallowed by the 120 MPs who
get to hijack the system every three years.
So, perhaps you could claim that the 1% need not be bound by the 99%
since you'd simply be following the example set by our politicians --
but unfortunately, if you do that, you'll learn another of life's
little truths.
They who make the rules will always win.
And it's those 120 MPs who make the rules -- so you can never hope to
beat them.
Even if you were to take a case to the courts and win -- they would
simply retrospectively change the law so that such a ruling would
immedately be rendered null and void. This is particularly true in
the case of taxation where retrospective legislation, while not
common, has been used in the past.
However -- there is a way to beat the system, and an increasing number
of Kiwis know how to do it.
You simply become unemployed (or more accurately -- unemployable).
Then you'll get a regular supply of money and services provided by the
state at other people's expense.
Okay, so it won't be a life of luxury (unless you get together with
six or seven others and share the costs of living while aggregating
your benefits) -- but you will end up on the right side of the tax
ledger -- a net consumer rather than a net contributor.
Smokin'
"Bruce Simpson" <see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote in message
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:46:29 GMT, "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer
> madness.org> wrote:
>
> >Does that matter? Even if 'the state' really did have the support of 99%
for
> >taxation, that does not justify any taxation of the 1% who view it as a
type
> >of crime.
>
> Errr.. no -- in a democracy the minority must agree to be bound by the
> decision of the majority.
People might agree to be bound by the opinions of a majority, or they might
not. Obviously, some people actually do agree to be bound by majority
opinion but other people actually do not. I am curious to know how you
justify the imposition of majority opinions on dissenting minorities.
> However, you could challenge the assertion that NZ is a democracy --
> after all, 95% of NZ voters agreed that the number of MPs should be
> reduced from 120 to 100 -- but that was disallowed by the 120 MPs who
> get to hijack the system every three years.
I have no interest in challenging your assertion.
> So, perhaps you could claim that the 1% need not be bound by the 99%
> since you'd simply be following the example set by our politicians --
> but unfortunately, if you do that, you'll learn another of life's
> little truths.
>
> They who make the rules will always win.
That simply is not true. Every once in a while, dissenting minorities turn
out to be right and they eventually prevail over majority popular prejudice.
It might be a rare thing, but it does happen. In any case, there is
certainly nothing that prevents reght-thinking men and women from supporting
and encouraging dissenting minororities, especially when those minorities
are opposing "they who make the rules" in hopes of a better life for future
generations.
> And it's those 120 MPs who make the rules -- so you can never hope to
> beat them.
People with a defeatist attitude will certainly never hope to beat them.
> Even if you were to take a case to the courts and win -- they would
> simply retrospectively change the law so that such a ruling would
> immedately be rendered null and void. This is particularly true in
> the case of taxation where retrospective legislation, while not
> common, has been used in the past.
Now you are suggesting that the courts have been corrupted, and no longer
adhere to common law or respect the Magna Carta!. These are very serious
accusations indeed, the type of talk that would have led our more-courageous
ancestors to revolution.
> However -- there is a way to beat the system, and an increasing number
> of Kiwis know how to do it.
>
> You simply become unemployed (or more accurately -- unemployable).
> Then you'll get a regular supply of money and services provided by the
> state at other people's expense.
Yes, I know people who do that. The problem is that they then become
near-slaves to government, and lose much of their self-confidence. Their
children also suffer and learn a life of dependent indolence.
> Okay, so it won't be a life of luxury (unless you get together with
> six or seven others and share the costs of living while aggregating
> your benefits) -- but you will end up on the right side of the tax
> ledger -- a net consumer rather than a net contributor.
That is one option. Another option (not as easy, I know) is to become a
refusenik, and file notice with the government that you will henceforth no
longer be a taxpayer. Reclaim all your common law rights and defy any and
all tyrants, majority or otherwise. They might beat you, but it's better to
die on your feet than to live on your knees. Anyhow, that's my thoughts on
the subject
Bruce Simpson
madness.org> wrote:
>> Errr.. no -- in a democracy the minority must agree to be bound by the
>> decision of the majority.
>
>People might agree to be bound by the opinions of a majority, or they might
>not. Obviously, some people actually do agree to be bound by majority
>opinion but other people actually do not. I am curious to know how you
>justify the imposition of majority opinions on dissenting minorities.
The concensus is that if you're not prepared to accept that situation
(majority rule) then you always have the option of going elsewhere --
not that I totally agree with it.
>> They who make the rules will always win.
>
>That simply is not true. Every once in a while, dissenting minorities turn
>out to be right and they eventually prevail over majority popular prejudice.
>It might be a rare thing, but it does happen. In any case, there is
>certainly nothing that prevents reght-thinking men and women from supporting
>and encouraging dissenting minororities, especially when those minorities
>are opposing "they who make the rules" in hopes of a better life for future
>generations.
In a country without the protection of a constitution (such as NZ)
then it becomes very difficult to protect the rights of minority
groups. However, this doesn't seem to worry most people or they'd be
jumping up and down demanding that a constitution is enacted. And if
anyone suggests that the "Bill Of Rights" is the same as a
constitution then they really need to go back to school.
>> And it's those 120 MPs who make the rules -- so you can never hope to
>> beat them.
>
>People with a defeatist attitude will certainly never hope to beat them.
You need to learn the difference between being a defeatist and being a
realist.
>> Even if you were to take a case to the courts and win -- they would
>> simply retrospectively change the law so that such a ruling would
>> immedately be rendered null and void. This is particularly true in
>> the case of taxation where retrospective legislation, while not
>> common, has been used in the past.
>
>Now you are suggesting that the courts have been corrupted, and no longer
>adhere to common law or respect the Magna Carta!. These are very serious
>accusations indeed, the type of talk that would have led our more-courageous
>ancestors to revolution.
No -- the courts are there to enforce the provisions of the law. If
the laws are changed then it's no fault or failing of the courts --
they are the slaves of the legislation they're charged with enforcing.
>> However -- there is a way to beat the system, and an increasing number
>> of Kiwis know how to do it.
>>
>> You simply become unemployed (or more accurately -- unemployable).
>> Then you'll get a regular supply of money and services provided by the
>> state at other people's expense.
>
>Yes, I know people who do that. The problem is that they then become
>near-slaves to government, and lose much of their self-confidence. Their
>children also suffer and learn a life of dependent indolence.
So true -- just look around some parts of the country and you can see
this happening. The silly thing is that some of these people have
SkyTV, a great stereo system, drive a better car than me and drink and
smoke liberally.
If that's slavery or servitude then I can think of worse ways to live.
>> Okay, so it won't be a life of luxury (unless you get together with
>> six or seven others and share the costs of living while aggregating
>> your benefits) -- but you will end up on the right side of the tax
>> ledger -- a net consumer rather than a net contributor.
>
>That is one option. Another option (not as easy, I know) is to become a
>refusenik, and file notice with the government that you will henceforth no
>longer be a taxpayer.
If you do this, the IRD will come in (with the full backing of the
courts and the relevant legislation) and take whatever they think you
owe. Remember -- in the case of taxation, you're presumed guilty of
whatever allegations the IRD makes -- it then becomes your job to
prove your innocence. Funny that eh?
>Reclaim all your common law rights and defy any and
>all tyrants, majority or otherwise. They might beat you, but it's better to
>die on your feet than to live on your knees. Anyhow, that's my thoughts on
>the subject
Unless you're actually prepared to die for your cause, you'll find
that if you refuse to comply with the demands of the IRD you will
either end up in jail for contempt of court, or you will be bankrupted
-- at which stage the state will take whatever it wants from your
assets and then take whatever it wants from whatever income you might
earn (including any benefits you might be paid).
Guess what -- you'll find yourself in that slavery of which you talk
-- but without a full benefit -- a sizeable chunk will simply be taken
away before you even see it.
If you're not happy about the fact that government wants to take a
large chunk of your paypacket then stamp, spindle and mutilate it
before spending what's left on your behalf to buy services you neither
want nor need well then I guess you're out of luck.
The only real way to avoid paying income tax is not to have any
income. It's a strange system that encourages people to become
unproductive and a burden on their peers isn't it?
Smokin'
"Bruce Simpson" <see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote in message
> >People might agree to be bound by the opinions of a majority, or they
might
> >not. Obviously, some people actually do agree to be bound by majority
> >opinion but other people actually do not. I am curious to know how you
> >justify the imposition of majority opinions on dissenting minorities.
>
> The concensus is that if you're not prepared to accept that situation
> (majority rule) then you always have the option of going elsewhere --
> not that I totally agree with it.
Again, the "love it or leave it" option is something that is imposed by the
majority or the local tyrant, or whoever. That too needs to be justified.
Again, I am curious to know how you justify the imposition of such opinions
on dissenting minorities.
> >> They who make the rules will always win.
> >
> >That simply is not true. Every once in a while, dissenting minorities
turn
> >out to be right and they eventually prevail over majority popular
prejudice.
> >It might be a rare thing, but it does happen. In any case, there is
> >certainly nothing that prevents reght-thinking men and women from
supporting
> >and encouraging dissenting minororities, especially when those minorities
> >are opposing "they who make the rules" in hopes of a better life for
future
> >generations.
>
> In a country without the protection of a constitution (such as NZ)
> then it becomes very difficult to protect the rights of minority
> groups. However, this doesn't seem to worry most people or they'd be
> jumping up and down demanding that a constitution is enacted. And if
> anyone suggests that the "Bill Of Rights" is the same as a
> constitution then they really need to go back to school.
What does any of that have to do with "they who make the rules..."?
Countries with constitutions are not any better at protecting dissenting
minorities. Look at Canada or the old USSR. They have lovey "minority
protections" built into constituions, but somehow it is only the favored few
minorities that get defended and everyone else is shipped off to gulags (or
whatever). The reality is that with or without a constitution, majorities
(and their chosen representatives) seem hell-bent on running roughshod over
any dissenting minority that won't obey.
The question is, how does one justify that "running roughshod" over
minorities?
> >> And it's those 120 MPs who make the rules -- so you can never hope to
> >> beat them.
> >
> >People with a defeatist attitude will certainly never hope to beat them.
>
> You need to learn the difference between being a defeatist and being a
> realist.
I know the difference. You lack imagination, or balls, or something.
> >Now you are suggesting that the courts have been corrupted, and no longer
> >adhere to common law or respect the Magna Carta!. These are very serious
> >accusations indeed, the type of talk that would have led our
more-courageous
> >ancestors to revolution.
>
> No -- the courts are there to enforce the provisions of the law. If
> the laws are changed then it's no fault or failing of the courts --
> they are the slaves of the legislation they're charged with enforcing.
Any court that knowingly enforces injustice is corrupt. The courts are
responsible for their own corruption.
> >> You simply become unemployed (or more accurately -- unemployable).
> >> Then you'll get a regular supply of money and services provided by the
> >> state at other people's expense.
> >
> >Yes, I know people who do that. The problem is that they then become
> >near-slaves to government, and lose much of their self-confidence. Their
> >children also suffer and learn a life of dependent indolence.
>
> So true -- just look around some parts of the country and you can see
> this happening. The silly thing is that some of these people have
> SkyTV, a great stereo system, drive a better car than me and drink and
> smoke liberally.
>
> If that's slavery or servitude then I can think of worse ways to live.
Many people are quite comfortable as slaves, provided they get fed regularly
and not whipped too often or too harshly. The thought of their own freedom
frightens them, and the sight of a free man angers them to the point where
the free man must be exiled or jailed. Such people are known as "the
majority".
> >> Okay, so it won't be a life of luxury (unless you get together with
> >> six or seven others and share the costs of living while aggregating
> >> your benefits) -- but you will end up on the right side of the tax
> >> ledger -- a net consumer rather than a net contributor.
> >
> >That is one option. Another option (not as easy, I know) is to become a
> >refusenik, and file notice with the government that you will henceforth
no
> >longer be a taxpayer.
>
> If you do this, the IRD will come in (with the full backing of the
> courts and the relevant legislation) and take whatever they think you
> owe. Remember -- in the case of taxation, you're presumed guilty of
> whatever allegations the IRD makes -- it then becomes your job to
> prove your innocence. Funny that eh?
The world is full of thieves. Protect yourself.
> >Reclaim all your common law rights and defy any and
> >all tyrants, majority or otherwise. They might beat you, but it's better
to
> >die on your feet than to live on your knees. Anyhow, that's my thoughts
on
> >the subject
>
> Unless you're actually prepared to die for your cause...
Well... aren't you? Isn't the cause of freedom for yourself and your sons
something that is worth it? My ancestors thought so, and many of them lost
their lives in the cause of freedom. I sometimes wonder why they bothered,
given the fat and lazy housepets that we have become.
> ..., you'll find
> that if you refuse to comply with the demands of the IRD you will
> either end up in jail for contempt of court, or you will be bankrupted
> -- at which stage the state will take whatever it wants from your
> assets and then take whatever it wants from whatever income you might
> earn (including any benefits you might be paid).
They might try, but you can defend yourself if you take the time to learn
your rights.
> Guess what -- you'll find yourself in that slavery of which you talk
> -- but without a full benefit -- a sizeable chunk will simply be taken
> away before you even see it.
Maybe, but there is a big difference between being forced into slavery by an
oppressive tyrant and choosing it as a lifestyle option because freedom is
too troublesome.
> If you're not happy about the fact that government wants to take a
> large chunk of your paypacket then stamp, spindle and mutilate it
> before spending what's left on your behalf to buy services you neither
> want nor need well then I guess you're out of luck.
The government takes nothing of mine, except what I willingly give. They
sometimes try to take more, but they almost always fail. Contrary to
majority opinion, government is not a god - it is just a bunch of really
silly people.
> The only real way to avoid paying income tax is not to have any
> income. It's a strange system that encourages people to become
> unproductive and a burden on their peers isn't it?
"Income" is a legal term, and having "income" does obligate you to pay. What
is "income" really and why do you need it? Wouldn't it be simpler to just
get money?
Apostle
"Kim Shepherd" <ki...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:10238415...@clint.its.waikato.ac.nz...
>
> "Scott Hillard" <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:mWvN8.42$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > Tim Scrivens <tim.sc...@nz.eds.com> wrote in message
> > news:ae18ni$um4$1...@hermes.nz.eds.com...
>
> > > Taxes pay for judges, cops, the army, etc etc etc.
>
> > In other words, the tools of coercion used by the State to extract
tribute
> > from its subjects?
>
> Yes, and also the ones that protect the country from invasions,
From where??
and put
> criminals in jail.
Criminals would be dealt with just fine without police.... quid pro quo i
believe
> Up to you to figure out whether that's useful or not, but I'm fairly
certain
> that if you took away those tools (or the State) in any country as it is
> today, someone else will show up with cooercive tools/power of their own.
Perhaps, but if the people had the power to take away the state, I am sure
they could do this to anyone.
>
> -k.
>
>
Apostle
> agreements. You can argue about gold's many uses worldwide until you're
blue
> in the face, but any value attached to it remains purely subjective.
> There is no such thing as intrinsic value.
Intrinsic value?, I don't know what you are trying to say by that.
Lets put it like this, If i have a wiget, and you have a Polko, and I want
the wiget, and you are willing to trade me the Polko for the wiget, then
that confers that those two objects are equal in value.
Lets move that to money, or gold. If someone says " an ounce of gold is
worth 1 dollar" and you ahve an ounce of gold that someone is willing to
give you a dollar for, and you trade, then it is worth that.
Pretty simple!
> -k.
>
>
Smokin'
"Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote in message
news:Oc8O8.4104$Lf2.2...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > Gold only has value to those who value it. Just like money, or property
> > agreements. You can argue about gold's many uses worldwide until you're
> blue
> > in the face, but any value attached to it remains purely subjective.
> > There is no such thing as intrinsic value.
>
> Intrinsic value?, I don't know what you are trying to say by that.
"Intrinsic value" means only that the particular form of money (paper or
coin or seashell) has another value that is different from the face value
that is arbitrarily assigned by the issuer and printed on the money.
> Lets put it like this, If i have a wiget, and you have a Polko, and I want
> the wiget, and you are willing to trade me the Polko for the wiget, then
> that confers that those two objects are equal in value.
No. Your wiget is worth a bit more than my Polko, to me. That is why I am
willing to trade. Presumably, you think my Polko has more value than your
wiget, or the trade will never take place.
"Value", like "beauty" is completely in the eye of the beholder.
> Lets move that to money, or gold. If someone says " an ounce of gold is
> worth 1 dollar" and you ahve an ounce of gold that someone is willing to
> give you a dollar for, and you trade, then it is worth that.
>
> Pretty simple!
It is pretty simple, but you haven't got it quite right.
Apostle
"Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote in message
news:gn8O8.18927$vo2.6...@news2.telusplanet.net...
>
> "Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote in message
> news:Oc8O8.4104$Lf2.2...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > Gold only has value to those who value it. Just like money, or
property
> > > agreements. You can argue about gold's many uses worldwide until
you're
> > blue
> > > in the face, but any value attached to it remains purely subjective.
> > > There is no such thing as intrinsic value.
> >
> > Intrinsic value?, I don't know what you are trying to say by that.
>
> "Intrinsic value" means only that the particular form of money (paper or
> coin or seashell) has another value that is different from the face value
> that is arbitrarily assigned by the issuer and printed on the money.
Yes, i know this, what i didn't know is what Kim Shepard was tryin to say.
> > Lets put it like this, If i have a wiget, and you have a Polko, and I
want
> > the wiget, and you are willing to trade me the Polko for the wiget, then
> > that confers that those two objects are equal in value.
>
> No. Your wiget is worth a bit more than my Polko, to me. That is why I am
> willing to trade. Presumably, you think my Polko has more value than your
> wiget, or the trade will never take place.
Perhaps, but perhaps i simply have a few wigests but no polkos, i may be
wiling to trade for something that i dont think has as much value as my
wiget, but because i have many am willing to.
> "Value", like "beauty" is completely in the eye of the beholder.
>
> > Lets move that to money, or gold. If someone says " an ounce of gold is
> > worth 1 dollar" and you ahve an ounce of gold that someone is willing to
> > give you a dollar for, and you trade, then it is worth that.
> >
> > Pretty simple!
>
> It is pretty simple, but you haven't got it quite right.
>
;-)
Apostle
> > ..., you'll find
> > that if you refuse to comply with the demands of the IRD you will
> > either end up in jail for contempt of court, or you will be bankrupted
> > -- at which stage the state will take whatever it wants from your
> > assets and then take whatever it wants from whatever income you might
> > earn (including any benefits you might be paid).
>
> They might try, but you can defend yourself if you take the time to learn
> your rights.
Quite right!
> The government takes nothing of mine, except what I willingly give. They
> sometimes try to take more, but they almost always fail. Contrary to
> majority opinion, government is not a god - it is just a bunch of really
> silly people.
Mostly people who couldn't hack it in private industry ;-)
> > The only real way to avoid paying income tax is not to have any
> > income. It's a strange system that encourages people to become
> > unproductive and a burden on their peers isn't it?
>
> "Income" is a legal term, and having "income" does obligate you to pay.
What
> is "income" really and why do you need it? Wouldn't it be simpler to just
> get money?
>
I'd sure like to get some money!
>
>
>
>
Smokin'
> > > Lets put it like this, If i have a wiget, and you have a Polko, and I
> want
> > > the wiget, and you are willing to trade me the Polko for the wiget,
then
> > > that confers that those two objects are equal in value.
> >
> > No. Your wiget is worth a bit more than my Polko, to me. That is why I
am
> > willing to trade. Presumably, you think my Polko has more value than
your
> > wiget, or the trade will never take place.
>
> Perhaps, but perhaps i simply have a few wigests but no polkos, i may be
> wiling to trade for something that i dont think has as much value as my
> wiget, but because i have many am willing to.
Nonsense. Your oversupply of wigets may persuade you to value them less than
if they were in short supply, but if you value a wiget more than a Polko
then you will not trade.
> > > Pretty simple!
> >
It is pretty simple, but you still haven't got it quite right.
Smokin'
> I'd sure like to get some money!
I recommend something known as "work". Ever heard of it?
;-)
Kim Shepherd
>
> "Kim Shepherd" <ki...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:10238415...@clint.its.waikato.ac.nz...
> >
> > "Scott Hillard" <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:mWvN8.42$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au...
> > >
> > > Tim Scrivens <tim.sc...@nz.eds.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ae18ni$um4$1...@hermes.nz.eds.com...
> >
> > > > Taxes pay for judges, cops, the army, etc etc etc.
> >
> > > In other words, the tools of coercion used by the State to extract
> tribute
> > > from its subjects?
> >
> > Yes, and also the ones that protect the country from invasions,
>
> From where??
I don't think any defense force is geared up to only defend against one
place, so the answer is probably "anywhere that invades".
> and put
> > criminals in jail.
> Criminals would be dealt with just fine without police.... quid pro quo i
> believe
Quid pro quo? Where's the case in point? There aren't many countries without
a police force.
I'd love for you to be right, but I don't remember any anarchist utopias
actually happening yet, and it would pay to remember that without Law, there
would be no official "crime" anyway. Just people doing things you don't
like.
> > Up to you to figure out whether that's useful or not, but I'm fairly
> certain
> > that if you took away those tools (or the State) in any country as it is
> > today, someone else will show up with cooercive tools/power of their
own.
> Perhaps, but if the people had the power to take away the state, I am sure
> they could do this to anyone.
Well, you rest in that faith -- it's a fair point, but I'm not about to
believe that the/a State is as powerful as anyone can get. There will always
be someone nastier, and stronger. Compare the Bolsheviks to the overthrown
Tsar, for example. (and the people helped with that revolution, too.)
-k.
Kim Shepherd
> > Gold only has value to those who value it. Just like money, or property
> > agreements. You can argue about gold's many uses worldwide until you're
> blue
> > in the face, but any value attached to it remains purely subjective.
> > There is no such thing as intrinsic value.
> Intrinsic value?, I don't know what you are trying to say by that.
I was replying to the two preceeding posts that suggested that money had no
intrinsic value, and that gold did. I agreed with the first assertion, and
disagreed with the second, because value is something that belongs to *you*,
not the object you are judging or valuing.
> Lets put it like this, If i have a wiget, and you have a Polko, and I want
> the wiget, and you are willing to trade me the Polko for the wiget, then
(I'll assume you mean "...and you want the wiget...")
> that confers that those two objects are equal in value.
Why?
I value the wiget for reasons known only to me, and how much I want it is
also known only to me. These things change constantly with different
circumstances, and it's very rare to find two people who find the same value
in the same object.
You have the wiget, and value the Polko. I have the Polko, and value the
wiget. If I value the wiget more than the polko, and you value the polko
more than the wiget, then a trade will mean we both gain something.
It doesn't, however, mean they are equal in value. That's like saying that
because 10 > 5 and 6 > 5, then 10 = 6.
> Lets move that to money, or gold. If someone says " an ounce of gold is
> worth 1 dollar" and you ahve an ounce of gold that someone is willing to
> give you a dollar for, and you trade, then it is worth that.
> Pretty simple!
No. It means I valued the 1 dollar more than the gold, and the person giving
me the dollar valued the gold more than his money. Again, that doesn't mean
1 dollar == my gold. Trade is NOT about equality, and never has been.
Values belong to people, not to objects, which is why our economics system
is so screwed.
-k.
Kim Shepherd
"Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote in message
news:gn8O8.18927$vo2.6...@news2.telusplanet.net...
>
> news:Oc8O8.4104$Lf2.2...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > Lets put it like this, If i have a wiget, and you have a Polko, and I
want
> > the wiget, and you are willing to trade me the Polko for the wiget, then
> > that confers that those two objects are equal in value.
> No. Your wiget is worth a bit more than my Polko, to me. That is why I am
> willing to trade. Presumably, you think my Polko has more value than your
> wiget, or the trade will never take place.
> "Value", like "beauty" is completely in the eye of the beholder.
Yup, that sums it up nicely.
-k.
Kim Shepherd
>
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote in message
> news:gn8O8.18927$vo2.6...@news2.telusplanet.net...
> >
> > "Apostle" <Apo...@god.com> wrote in message
> > news:Oc8O8.4104$Lf2.2...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > > Gold only has value to those who value it. Just like money, or
> property
> > > > agreements. You can argue about gold's many uses worldwide until
> you're
> > > blue
> > > > in the face, but any value attached to it remains purely subjective.
> > > > There is no such thing as intrinsic value.
> > >
> > > Intrinsic value?, I don't know what you are trying to say by that.
> > "Intrinsic value" means only that the particular form of money (paper or
> > coin or seashell) has another value that is different from the face
value
> > that is arbitrarily assigned by the issuer and printed on the money.
It also implies that it has a value that is external of perception.
> Yes, i know this, what i didn't know is what Kim Shepard was tryin to say.
I was trying to say that any given thing is worth whatever you value it at,
that there aren't objective rules for determining value. It depends on the
person, circumstance, etc.
> > > Lets put it like this, If i have a wiget, and you have a Polko, and I
> want
> > > the wiget, and you are willing to trade me the Polko for the wiget,
then
> > > that confers that those two objects are equal in value.
> > No. Your wiget is worth a bit more than my Polko, to me. That is why I
am
> > willing to trade. Presumably, you think my Polko has more value than
your
> > wiget, or the trade will never take place.
> Perhaps, but perhaps i simply have a few wigests but no polkos, i may be
> wiling to trade for something that i dont think has as much value as my
> wiget, but because i have many am willing to.
Sure, that's up to you, and doesn't prove there is some kind of objective
force that gives everything intrinsic values.
Intrinsic properties, yes -- paper is fibrous, made mostly of carbon, etc.
But values are, as Smokin' said, in the eye of the beholder (valuer?).
-k.
Smokin'
> > > "Intrinsic value" means only that the particular form of money (paper
or
> > > coin or seashell) has another value that is different from the face
> value
> > > that is arbitrarily assigned by the issuer and printed on the money.
>
> It also implies that it has a value that is external of perception.
Who was implying that, and where? Is such a thing possible?
> > Yes, i know this, what i didn't know is what Kim Shepard was tryin to
say.
>
> I was trying to say that any given thing is worth whatever you value it
at,
> that there aren't objective rules for determining value. It depends on the
> person, circumstance, etc.
It's much like beauty.
> > Perhaps, but perhaps i simply have a few wigests but no polkos, i may be
> > wiling to trade for something that i dont think has as much value as my
> > wiget, but because i have many am willing to.
>
> Sure, that's up to you, and doesn't prove there is some kind of objective
> force that gives everything intrinsic values.
> Intrinsic properties, yes -- paper is fibrous, made mostly of carbon, etc.
> But values are, as Smokin' said, in the eye of the beholder (valuer?).
Yes. "Value" is not really a property of any object. "Value" is only a
belief or opinion. All of which makes me wonder what people really meant by
"the labor theory of value..." and similar nonsensical claims.
Smokin'
> No. It means I valued the 1 dollar more than the gold, and the person
giving
> me the dollar valued the gold more than his money. Again, that doesn't
mean
> 1 dollar == my gold. Trade is NOT about equality, and never has been.
Quite right.
> Values belong to people, not to objects, which is why our economics system
> is so screwed.
Our system is so screwed because a lot of people believe some mighty odd
things. The belief that things have a property known as "value" is only one
such odd belief. It's a waste of time trying to explain to a true believer
though... it's like a religious belief. Perhaps it is a religious belief,
among socialists and other worshippers of Mammon?
Apostle
> things. The belief that things have a property known as "value" is only
one
> such odd belief. It's a waste of time trying to explain to a true believer
> though... it's like a religious belief. Perhaps it is a religious belief,
> among socialists and other worshippers of Mammon?
>
I can exchange that for anything that has a price tag of 10 dollars or less.
Brian Dooley
For Christ's sake stop whinging. If you don't want to pay your
taxes just don't pay them.
Be brave.
Live up to your ideals.
When you're inside Bruce will be happy to send you a cake - maybe
with a file inside.
But he won't be inside with you.
Will you Bruce?
Smokin'
"Brian Dooley" <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:al9jguofjmdahtbqm...@4ax.com...
> >Does that matter? Even if 'the state' really did have the support of 99%
for
> >taxation, that does not justify any taxation of the 1% who view it as a
type
> >of crime.
> >
> For Christ's sake stop whinging. If you don't want to pay your
> taxes just don't pay them.
So... you can't answer the question?
> Be brave.
>
> Live up to your ideals.
I do.
> When you're inside Bruce will be happy to send you a cake - maybe
> with a file inside.
Nobody goes to prison for tax-refusal, if they do it honestly. People who
lie about taxes might...
> But he won't be inside with you.
>
> Will you Bruce?
Are you Kiwis all sheep, or are there some men among you?
Russil Wvong
> People might agree to be bound by the opinions of a majority, or they might
> not. Obviously, some people actually do agree to be bound by majority
> opinion but other people actually do not. I am curious to know how you
> justify the imposition of majority opinions on dissenting minorities.
Interesting discussion. I think the key question is: is the government
legitimate? Does it exercise an authority that is recognized as legitimate
and is largely independent of its ability to use force? Or is there no
real difference between the government and, say, an armed gang of
extortionists?
I think the strongest argument for the legitimacy of the government
is Hobbes' argument of *necessity*. Human nature is violent and
aggressive. Without a ruler -- that is, someone with an effective
monopoly on the use of violence -- society would be in a state of
perpetual war. This argument justifies the existence and authority
of the ruler, whether democratic or not. (Rulers were certainly
not democratic in Hobbes' time, and many are still not.)
Of course, you're free to reject this argument if you have a more
optimistic view of human nature. IMHO, human history so far tends
to vindicate Hobbes. (Of course, that doesn't meant that it's
impossible for a future society to do without government; the
Internet is an interesting example of an anarchy in action,
complete with flamewars instead of real wars.)
This argument doesn't mean that *all* rulers are necessarily legitimate.
If misrule becomes bad enough, the ruler can be overthrown by force.
In China, for example, this was the idea that if the Emperor lost
the "Mandate of Heaven," he could be overthrown and a new Emperor
established.
Note that if you have no legitimate authority, it's extremely difficult
to rule by force alone: that amounts to military occupation, which
can't be sustained indefinitely.
In the past, the legitimacy of the ruler was supported by dynastic
tradition, divine sanction, or both. In our time, people believe
that a legitimate government requires popular support. And in
Canada, the US, and so on, as part of our political traditions,
we also believe that the government must adhere to the law, it
can't rule arbitrarily, it has to protect the security and
well-being of its citizens, and so on.
So the argument isn't simply that the 99% majority has the right
to impose its will on the 1% minority. It's that *some* form of
governmental authority, binding on everyone (including the ability
to collect taxes), is necessary to maintain order. And the government
derives its legitimacy, in part, from the support of the majority.
What if you refuse to recognize the authority of the government?
I think you have basically three choices: compliance (because
of the government's threat of force, not because you recognize
its authority); resistance, non-violent or violent, up to and
including the overthrow of the government; or leaving the territory
controlled by the government.
In a democracy, elections are a kind of formalization of the second
option. But they only provide for the replacement of elected
officials, they don't allow for destruction of the institution
of government itself.
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
alt.politics.international FAQ: www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/apifaq.html
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>When you're inside Bruce will be happy to send you a cake - maybe
>with a file inside.
>
>But he won't be inside with you.
>
>Will you Bruce?
I don't know -- the taxman and I don't always see eye to eye :-)
My "entrepreneurial" lifestyle means I tend to work for 3-4 years with
next to zero income and then earn 3-4 years worth of dosh all at once.
The net result is that I end up paying more tax than if I were earning
that same amount of money over the 3-4 year period because it's taxed
as a single year's income. This hurts even more now that the top rate
of personal income tax is 39%.
Imagine someone who earns $60K a year for four years -- their top rate
of tax is 33% and over that four-year period they'll pay a total of
$57,918.68 in tax -- an *average* rate of about 24%.
Imagine the same person who earns nothing for four years and then
earns all that income ($240K) in a single year -- they pay a total of
$84,679 in tax -- an average rate of 35%
That's a whole NINE PERCENT more!
So we have a tax system that penalises those who are innovative,
inventive and risk takers -- the very type of person we need to create
new businesses, new jobs, and earn export dollars
Anyone who says that a progressive tax system isn't a disincentive to
economic growth ought to look closely at those figures!
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>This argument doesn't mean that *all* rulers are necessarily legitimate.
>If misrule becomes bad enough, the ruler can be overthrown by force.
Which is why governments around the world are working hard to remove
firearms from private ownership.
They are all aware that armed rebelion is the final power that
citizens have against a corrupt administration -- so why not remove
the guns while you can :-)
Smokin'
"Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afe9ed76.02061...@posting.google.com...
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
> > People might agree to be bound by the opinions of a majority, or they
might
> > not. Obviously, some people actually do agree to be bound by majority
> > opinion but other people actually do not. I am curious to know how you
> > justify the imposition of majority opinions on dissenting minorities.
>
> Interesting discussion. I think the key question is: is the government
> legitimate? Does it exercise an authority that is recognized as
legitimate
> and is largely independent of its ability to use force? Or is there no
> real difference between the government and, say, an armed gang of
> extortionists?
I don't know the answers to all those questions, but I do think I can answer
some of them. (perhaps with more questions, but no matter...)
WRT the question of "legitimate" authority, I think it is a safe assertion
that "legitimate" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, a
dissenting minority will not view the edicts of any majority as legitimate.
The legitimatacy of any giveen government is (again) simply a maytter of
opinion, which begs the question, so we can dispense with that question
entirely.
> I think the strongest argument for the legitimacy of the government
> is Hobbes' argument of *necessity*. Human nature is violent and
> aggressive. Without a ruler -- that is, someone with an effective
> monopoly on the use of violence -- society would be in a state of
> perpetual war. This argument justifies the existence and authority
> of the ruler, whether democratic or not. (Rulers were certainly
> not democratic in Hobbes' time, and many are still not.)
The necessity argument is a very dangerous one, and may not be persuasive.
Using the example of pacific Island tribes (and others) it is quite possible
to show that government is not necessary to prevernt people from murdering
each other.
Another way that the necessity argument fails is: If peopl eare so dangerous
and murderous, then how can we possibly allow people in government to have
such power over others? Wouldn't the murderous people in government kill or
enslave everyone else?
In any case, I think we can devise a strong argument in favor of having
government, without any need of resorting to necessity arguments.
> Of course, you're free to reject this argument if you have a more
> optimistic view of human nature. IMHO, human history so far tends
> to vindicate Hobbes. (Of course, that doesn't meant that it's
> impossible for a future society to do without government; the
> Internet is an interesting example of an anarchy in action,
> complete with flamewars instead of real wars.)
I think it is best to view human nature as exactly what it is, some good and
some bad and mostly in the middle.
Perhaps, but the question is not a pragmatic one. It is a principled one.
Brian Dooley
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:33:46 +1200, Bruce Simpson
<see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote:
>On 14 Jun 2002 17:58:49 -0700, russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong)
>wrote:
>
>>This argument doesn't mean that *all* rulers are necessarily legitimate.
>>If misrule becomes bad enough, the ruler can be overthrown by force.
>
>Which is why governments around the world are working hard to remove
>firearms from private ownership.
>
>They are all aware that armed rebelion is the final power that
>citizens have against a corrupt administration -- so why not remove
>the guns while you can :-)
But that isn't happening here, Bruce.
There is certainly no shortage of guns in this country.
--
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>>They are all aware that armed rebelion is the final power that
>>citizens have against a corrupt administration -- so why not remove
>>the guns while you can :-)
>
>But that isn't happening here, Bruce.
>
>There is certainly no shortage of guns in this country.
Great, can you tell me where I can buy a brand new Chinese import SKS,
or maybe an AK47 semi-auto, or maybe an AR15 semi-auto?
Hmmm... what's that? I can't -- they're a banned import?
But who here in NZ can justify the private ownership of a gun as
dangerous as a military-styled semi-automatic rifle right? They're
only made for one thing -- killing people right? Banning them is only
commonsense right?
Sorry -- wrong answers.
There are numerous sporting and recreational uses for MSSAs that don't
involve killing people.
In fact, the number of people killed with MSSAs in this country (and
Australia) is far less than the number that have been killed with
plain old .22s and shotguns.
And... if, as the anti-gun lobby (and some in government) claim,
banning is justified because there is absolutely no legal use for an
MSSA here -- then why don't we also ban the importation of cars
capable of travelling two (or even three) times the legal speed limit?
There is absolutely no need for cars that can exceed the speed limit
to that extent -- and we are constantly being told that "speed kills."
In fact, you only have to glance at the road toll statistics to
realise that speeding cars killed more people last year than MSSA
firearms have i the previous 100 years.
So please explain the enigma whereby a 17-year-old kid with a
provisional license can import and drive a hotted up Mitsubish Lancer
Evo (with the proven risk to public safety) -- while a responsible,
mature, experienced firearms owner can't import an SKS MSSA which
would only be used for pig-hunting and maybe some sports shooting at
the local gun club.
It gets worse!
When the firearms regulations were reviewed a few years back, it was
decided that no A-cat firearms license holder could own a centrefire
semi-auto rifle with a magazine capacity of more than seven rounds.
In effect it meant cutting down the magazine of that cheap SKS pig gun
so that you could still use it under your existing gun license.
So why don't we do the same with cars?
Why don't our legislators apply the same strategy to addressing the
BIG problem that claims hundreds of lives every year - that of cars
which are capable of travelling significantly above the speed limit.
Why haven't they simply said that all cars must be regulated to a top
speed of no more than 110 or 115Kms/hr. After all -- you cant exceed
100Kms/H without breaking the law so why allow people to drive cars
that have capabilities which have no legal justification?
No... it is clear that there is an agenda within and without
government to gradually slip the ownership of firearms out of the
hands of the public.
We've seen what happened in Australia -- they're semi-autos were all
rounded up and destroyed in a knee-jerk reaction to a mass-shooting.
It's only a matter of time before the same thing (and worse) happens
here -- even though hundreds are killed by cars travelling well above
the speed limit every year and we don't blink an eye over the legality
of such vehicles.
Russil Wvong
> > Interesting discussion. I think the key question is: is the government
> > legitimate? Does it exercise an authority that is recognized as
> > legitimate and is largely independent of its ability to use force?
> > Or is there no real difference between the government and, say, an
> > armed gang of extortionists?
>
> that "legitimate" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, a
> dissenting minority will not view the edicts of any majority as legitimate.
> opinion, which begs the question, so we can dispense with that question
> entirely.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Legitimacy is the difference between
mere force (which is what a gang of extortionists has) and *authority*
(which is what the Canadian government has, for example). The Canadian
government doesn't rule by force alone -- it would need an army patrol
on every street corner and a police informer on every block in order
to do that. Why not? Because most Canadians accept its legitimacy.
Legitimacy isn't merely subjective. The legitimacy of a government
is something concrete and measurable: it's the extent to which the
government rules by authority rather than force. You can measure this
by counting the number of people imprisoned and killed by the police,
for example; and you can use it to compare the legitimacy of
governments in different places and at different times.
> > I think the strongest argument for the legitimacy of the government
> > is Hobbes' argument of *necessity*. Human nature is violent and
> > aggressive. Without a ruler -- that is, someone with an effective
> > monopoly on the use of violence -- society would be in a state of
> > perpetual war. This argument justifies the existence and authority
> > of the ruler, whether democratic or not. (Rulers were certainly
> > not democratic in Hobbes' time, and many are still not.)
>
> The necessity argument is a very dangerous one, and may not be persuasive.
> Using the example of pacific Island tribes (and others) it is quite possible
> to show that government is not necessary to prevernt people from murdering
> each other.
I'm afraid I'm skeptical. In all the years that you've lived, you've
never had the urge to smash someone in the face, despite the fact that
we live in a remarkably peaceful society? You've never gotten into
a fistfight?
Do you have more details on these supposedly non-violent Pacific tribes?
Are you referring to Margaret Mead's description of Samoan society as
a non-violent, sexually free paradise? I did a quick search and found
the following: http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~tawF95/samoans.html.
The *tatau* [tattoo] and the ceremony surrounding it had many
functions in Samoan society. First it was the initiation of a
boy into a man's world. Although it was not officially an
initiation, the ceremony follows the same pattern of most
initiation ceremonies: the seclusion of pre-adult males, an
ordeal or mutilation of the body to show maturity, a simulated
death, and integration back into society as a man (Gell, 56).
Tattooing also instills "in young men an ethos of violence...
the capacity and disposition to meet force with force, and to
overcome" (Gell, 58). The song that was sung while the boys
were tattooed demonstrates that war and tattooing were
intrinsically connected:
O Fi Filelei, like a necklace of whale's teeth
Aid us when we get ready for war
And Tofou, descended from the gods, aid us
Adorn us with your victories (Gell, 57)
It was thought that as it was sung it would be absorbed into the
body along with the ink and become a part of the boy. Tattoos
were a part of the Samoan psychological warfare as it was with
the Maori. They were intended to scare the enemy, especially
when the grotesque gesturing that occurred before and during the
battle was added. It also had a practical use in battle, similar
again to the Maori, which was to identify the slain (Gell, 57).
Gell also interpreted the grand ceremony and festival associated
with tattooing to have much political importance, by bringing the
community together, as well as being conditioning psychologically,
that is to say, to introduce the boys into a world where they must
be able to endure great amounts of pain and in which they must
become strong warriors, but to indoctrinate them into always obeying
their superior, the chief (Gell, 54).
Violence extends to our prehuman ancestors. In "The Third Chimpanzee,"
Jared Diamond describes the extermination of one common chimpanzee
band by another, observed in a long-term field study by Jane Goodall.
As of the end of 1973 the two bands were fairly evenly matched:
the Kasakela band to the north, with eight mature males and
occupying fifteen square kilometers; and the Kahama band to the
south, with six mature males and occupying ten square kilometers.
The first fatal incident occurred in January 1974, when six of the
Kasakela adult males, one adolescent male, and one adult female
left behind the young Kasakela chimps, traveled south, then moved
silently and more quickly south when they heard chimp calls from
that direction, until they surprised a Kahama male known as Godi.
One Kasakela male pulled the fleeing Godi to the ground, sat on
his head, and held down his legs while the others spent ten
minutes hitting and biting him. Finally, one attacker threw a
large rock at Godi, and the attackers then left. Although able to
stand up, Godi was badly wounded, bleeding, and had puncture
marks. He was never seen again, and presumably died of his
injuries.
The next month, three Kasakela males and one female again traveled
south and attacked the Kahama male De, who was already weak from a
previous attack or illness. The attackers pulled De out of a
tree, stamped on him, bit and hit him, and tore off pieces of his
skin. A Kahama estrus female with De was forced to return
northward with the attackers. Two months later De was seen still
alive but emaciated, with his spine and pelvis protruding, some
fingernails and part of a toe torn off, and his scrotum shrunk to
one-fifth of normal size. He was not seen thereafter.
In February 1975 five adult and one adolescent Kasakela males
tracked down and attacked Goliath, an old Kahama male. For
eighteen minutes they hit, bit, and kicked him, stamped on him,
lifted and dropped him, dragged him over the ground, and twisted
his leg. At the end of the attack Goliath was unable to sit up
and was not seen again.
While the above attacks were aimed at Kahama males, in September
1975 the Kahama female Madam Bee was fatally injured after at
least four nonfatal attacks over the course of the preceding year.
The attack was carried out by four Kasakela adult males, while one
adolescent male and four Kasakela females (including Madam Bee's
kidnapped daughter) watched. The attackers hit, slapped, and
dragged Madam Bee, stamped and pounded on her, threw her to the
ground, picked her up and slammed him down, and rolled her
downhill. She died five days later.
In May 1977 five Kasakela males killed the Kahama male Charlie,
but details of the fight were not observed. In November 1977 six
Kasakela males caught the Kahama male Sniff and hit, bit, and
pulled him, dragged him by the legs, and broke his left leg. He
was still alive the next day but was not seen again.
Of the two remaining Kahama chimps, two adult males and two adult
females disappeared from unknown causes, while two young females
transferred to the Kasakela band, which proceeded to occupy the
former Kahama territory. However, in 1979 the next band to the
south, the larger Kalande band with at least nine adult males,
began to encroach on Kasakela territory and may have accounted for
several vanished or wounded Kasakela chipms. Similar intergroup
assaults have been observed in the sole other long-term field
study of common chimps, but not in long-term studies of pygmy
chimps.
If you can give an example of a society without violence, let me know.
From an evolutionary point of view, that doesn't make much sense --
such a society would quickly be exterminated by its more violent
neighbors.
> Another way that the necessity argument fails is: If people are so dangerous
> and murderous, then how can we possibly allow people in government to have
> such power over others? Wouldn't the murderous people in government kill or
> enslave everyone else?
This is exactly why a government restrained by laws is better than one
ruled by the whim of one man. In a liberal democracy, power is
decentralized, to some extent, so that no one person -- not even the
Prime Minister -- can override the law. Jean Chretien can't have
Paul Martin killed, even if he'd like to.
Our choice isn't between government and no government, but between
one form of government and another.
> > What if you refuse to recognize the authority of the government?
> > I think you have basically three choices: compliance (because
> > of the government's threat of force, not because you recognize
> > its authority); resistance, non-violent or violent, up to and
> > including the overthrow of the government; or leaving the territory
> > controlled by the government.
>
> Perhaps, but the question is not a pragmatic one. It is a principled one.
In a pluralistic society such as ours, different people will have
different principles. If a large enough number of people adopt a
political philosophy which denies the legitimacy of the Canadian
government, then I guess we'll have a civil war.
For anyone reading this who'd like to learn more, a good place to
start would be the article on political philosophy in the
Encyclopaedia Britannia.
Smokin'
> > WRT the question of "legitimate" authority, I think it is a safe
assertion
> > that "legitimate" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, a
> > dissenting minority will not view the edicts of any majority as
legitimate.
> > The legitimacy of any given government is (again) simply a matter of
> > opinion, which begs the question, so we can dispense with that question
> > entirely.
>
> I'm afraid I have to disagree. Legitimacy is the difference between
> mere force (which is what a gang of extortionists has) and *authority*
> (which is what the Canadian government has, for example). The Canadian
> government doesn't rule by force alone -- it would need an army patrol
> on every street corner and a police informer on every block in order
> to do that. Why not? Because most Canadians accept its legitimacy.
Well sure... but that is exactly what is at issue here. You have a large
majority who do accept the ruling regime as a legitimate government, and
then there is some minority who do not.
> Legitimacy isn't merely subjective. The legitimacy of a government
> is something concrete and measurable: it's the extent to which the
> government rules by authority rather than force. You can measure this
> by counting the number of people imprisoned and killed by the police,
> for example; and you can use it to compare the legitimacy of
> governments in different places and at different times.
Perhaps the police imprison and kill everyone who won't accept the
legitimacy of the ruling regime. ;-)
Seriously though, you are barking up the wrong tree. Government does rule by
force. Every government does, every government always will, pretty much by
definition. It is certainly prudent to limit the type and amount of force,
but that is merely convention.
The thing is, employing force is only legitimate under certain
circumstances. Under other circumstances, employing force is not legitimate
and probably unlawful. In general, the distinction is determined by
establishing that the government employs force only with consent of the
governed.
> > The necessity argument is a very dangerous one, and may not be
persuasive.
> > Using the example of pacific Island tribes (and others) it is quite
possible
> > to show that government is not necessary to prevernt people from
murdering
> > each other.
>
> I'm afraid I'm skeptical. In all the years that you've lived, you've
> never had the urge to smash someone in the face, despite the fact that
> we live in a remarkably peaceful society? You've never gotten into
> a fistfight?
I only ever get that worked up toward politicians and other government
personages. In my case (and I am certainly not alone in this) government
actually contributes to more murderous impulses and a higher level of
aggressive behavior. ;-)
Seriously though... people fight and they even kill each other sometimes.
But to really get serious about the "killing each other" stuff requires
government and organization etc. Like I said, the necessity argument for
having government is weak and dangerous, and probably wrong.
> Do you have more details on these supposedly non-violent Pacific tribes?
I didn't say they were non-violent. People everywhere are violent. I said
that they didn't have government as we know, and they got by about as well
as we do... maybe better. Government is not necessary to survival or quality
of life. It might be desirable sometimes, but that does not help your "from
necessity" argument.
...
> If you can give an example of a society without violence, let me know.
> From an evolutionary point of view, that doesn't make much sense --
> such a society would quickly be exterminated by its more violent
> neighbors.
Obviously, violence is necessary to survival. But it does not automatically
follow that government is necessary.
> > Another way that the necessity argument fails is: If people are so
dangerous
> > and murderous, then how can we possibly allow people in government to
have
> > such power over others? Wouldn't the murderous people in government kill
or
> > enslave everyone else?
>
> This is exactly why a government restrained by laws is better than one
> ruled by the whim of one man. In a liberal democracy, power is
> decentralized, to some extent, so that no one person -- not even the
> Prime Minister -- can override the law. Jean Chretien can't have
> Paul Martin killed, even if he'd like to.
I suspect that Jean Chretien could easily have me or you killed, if he
really wanted to.
> Our choice isn't between government and no government, but between
> one form of government and another.
I disagree. I think people could easily choose to have no government if that
was what they really wanted. A few people even do it. However, most people
prefer to be governed, for several good reasons.
> > > What if you refuse to recognize the authority of the government?
> > > I think you have basically three choices: compliance (because
> > > of the government's threat of force, not because you recognize
> > > its authority); resistance, non-violent or violent, up to and
> > > including the overthrow of the government; or leaving the territory
> > > controlled by the government.
> >
> > Perhaps, but the question is not a pragmatic one. It is a principled
one.
>
> In a pluralistic society such as ours, different people will have
> different principles. If a large enough number of people adopt a
> political philosophy which denies the legitimacy of the Canadian
> government, then I guess we'll have a civil war.
No. Civil wars are a clash between competing governments. In order to have a
civil war, people must first be persuaded to choose between two
irreconcilable forms of government.
If a large enough number of people deny the legitimacy of the Canadian
government, then it simply will no longer have any legitimacy. That is
essentially how the British monarchy lost legitimacy, without any civil war.
> For anyone reading this who'd like to learn more, a good place to
> start would be the article on political philosophy in the
> Encyclopaedia Britannia.
Excellent suggestion.
Scott Hillard
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:44:34 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >Tim Scrivens <tim.sc...@nz.eds.com> wrote in message
> >news:ae18ni$um4$1...@hermes.nz.eds.com...
> >> Taxes pay for judges, cops, the army, etc etc etc.
> >In other words, the tools of coercion used by the State to extract
tribute
> >from its subjects?
> What exactly do you mean by 'the State'?
That entity which uses armed force to extract tribute from its subjects.
> Would it be 99.99+% of the rest of your fellow citizens?
Nope, they get tribute extracted from them at gunpoint by the State.
Scott Hillard
Bruce Simpson <see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote in message
> Errr.. no -- in a democracy the minority must agree to be bound by the
> decision of the majority.
"Mob Rule".
No different to two wolves, and one sheep, casting votes on what to have for
dinner.
Smokin'
If 99.99% of the people are being extorted by .01%, then that .01% must be
really tough or really smart, and the 99.99% must be really weak and/or
really stupid. WHich are you... weak or stupid?
Apostle
someone who earns $60K a year for four years -- their top rate
> of tax is 33% and over that four-year period they'll pay a total of
> $57,918.68 in tax -- an *average* rate of about 24%.
>
> Imagine the same person who earns nothing for four years and then
> earns all that income ($240K) in a single year -- they pay a total of
> $84,679 in tax -- an average rate of 35%
>
> That's a whole NINE PERCENT more!
>
> So we have a tax system that penalises those who are innovative,
> inventive and risk takers -- the very type of person we need to create
> new businesses, new jobs, and earn export dollars
>
> Anyone who says that a progressive tax system isn't a disincentive to
> economic growth ought to look closely at those figures!
>
money between years to lower your tax burden.
ie. in the years you make nothing, shift 25% of yer earnings into each of
them, thereby lowering your avg income tax to approx 20%/year
Apostle
>
> If 99.99% of the people are being extorted by .01%, then that .01% must be
> really tough or really smart, and the 99.99% must be really weak and/or
> really stupid. WHich are you... weak or stupid?
>
I think if you are either then you are both.
Bruce Simpson
>This isn't correct, if you acquire income in this fashion, you can move the
>money between years to lower your tax burden.
>
>ie. in the years you make nothing, shift 25% of yer earnings into each of
>them, thereby lowering your avg income tax to approx 20%/year
Sorry -- incorrect.
You can carry forward losses but you can't "backdate" your wages.
Hell, if this was possible then anyone who was unemployed for a couple
of years and then got a job earning more than $30K could simply
backdate their next few years income over the previous two years and
drop their top tax rate from 33% to 19%.
Lucky graduates leaving university and getting a (say) $40K/year job
could backdate that income to the years that they were in varsity and
lower their top rate of tax also.
The Tax department don't allow that -- they are charged with getting
the maximum blood possible from every stone.
Brian Dooley
Gosh, you do carry on so, but then you always have. Nobody could
complain that you're inconsistent. You were saying the same
things five years ago at least.
To zero in on your main (I think) worry.
As we both quite properly point out, long guns and shotguns are
quite sufficient to carry out armed rebellion - although not
being the USA I can't think why you should want to.
Right now I'm trying to think of a successful rebellion of recent
years which wasn't carried out without the backing of the armed
forces, which have lots of exciting reaponry - can you?
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>Gosh, you do carry on so, but then you always have.
Hey, that was the Readers Digest version! :-)
>Nobody could
>complain that you're inconsistent. You were saying the same
>things five years ago at least.
You wouldn't want me to be fickle would you?
Denver Fletcher
"don't allow it" ??!!!
They'd have you in irons before you could say "Ooops!"
Russil Wvong
> > one form of government and another.
>
> I disagree. I think people could easily choose to have no government
> if that was what they really wanted.
I think this is our core disagreement. The most important function of
government is that it has an effective monopoly on the use of violence
within its territory. (In contrast, the welfare state is a recent
innovation.) I don't think you'd find too many people who would be
willing to live in a place where there was no such monopoly, i.e.
where you were exposed to whatever violence other people felt like
inflicting on you (and of course you would be free to inflict violence
on them).
If you think that people today are more civilized and less inclined
to be violent than in the past, I invite you to listen to some
contemporary music, e.g. Limp Bizkit's "Just One of Those Days."
I also disagree when you say that you need government for large-scale
violence; gangs and barbarians are two historical examples. (I think
the reason wars have become so destructive in our time isn't government,
but technology. Machiavelli describes battles -- including some
historically important ones -- in which nobody was killed, or one
man was killed when he fell from his horse.)
If we need a government, then the government needs to be able to
enforce laws which are binding on all its citizens, including
the requirement to pay taxes.
> Perhaps the police imprison and kill everyone who won't accept the
> legitimacy of the ruling regime. ;-)
Exactly! This is certainly what happened under Stalin (of course
he also imprisoned and killed a lot of people arbitrarily).
> > Do you have more details on these supposedly non-violent Pacific tribes?
>
> I didn't say they were non-violent. People everywhere are violent. I said
> that they didn't have government as we know, and they got by about as well
> as we do... maybe better.
The Samoans had tribal chiefs and they had warfare. I don't see how
this is different from government as we know it.
> > This is exactly why a government restrained by laws is better than one
> > ruled by the whim of one man. In a liberal democracy, power is
> > decentralized, to some extent, so that no one person -- not even the
> > Prime Minister -- can override the law. Jean Chretien can't have
> > Paul Martin killed, even if he'd like to.
>
> I suspect that Jean Chretien could easily have me or you killed, if he
> really wanted to.
Is that why you're posting under a pseudonym? :-)
Smokin'
> > "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Our choice isn't between government and no government, but between
> > > one form of government and another.
> >
> > I disagree. I think people could easily choose to have no government
> > if that was what they really wanted.
>
> I think this is our core disagreement. The most important function of
> government is that it has an effective monopoly on the use of violence
> within its territory. (In contrast, the welfare state is a recent
> innovation.) I don't think you'd find too many people who would be
> willing to live in a place where there was no such monopoly, i.e.
> where you were exposed to whatever violence other people felt like
> inflicting on you (and of course you would be free to inflict violence
> on them).
I'm not sure that we actually do disagree on that. I am not at all
recommending "no government" or suggesting that it is likely to happen any
time soon All that I am suggesting is that people could choolse this option
if they wanted to. I am saying that there is no "immutable law of nature" or
anything like that which necessitates having a government. It is purely a
matter of pragmatics and preference, and perhaps habit.
> If you think that people today are more civilized and less inclined
> to be violent than in the past, I invite you to listen to some
> contemporary music, e.g. Limp Bizkit's "Just One of Those Days."
I don't think that.
> I also disagree when you say that you need government for large-scale
> violence; gangs and barbarians are two historical examples. (I think
> the reason wars have become so destructive in our time isn't government,
> but technology. Machiavelli describes battles -- including some
> historically important ones -- in which nobody was killed, or one
> man was killed when he fell from his horse.)
I disagree. In the absence of large-scale organization (government) the
technology of mass destruction would be very minor and largely
self-regulating. Let's not forget that atomic weapons were developed as a
government project.
In any case, my point was not to compare the relative destructiveness of
different social structures, but only to point out that having a government
is not any sort of violence-reduction system.
> If we need a government, then the government needs to be able to
> enforce laws which are binding on all its citizens, including
> the requirement to pay taxes.
But that is the core of my argument... I am suggesting that we do not
actually need government. Rather, we have government as a matter of
preference and convenience.
> > Perhaps the police imprison and kill everyone who won't accept the
> > legitimacy of the ruling regime. ;-)
>
> Exactly! This is certainly what happened under Stalin (of course
> he also imprisoned and killed a lot of people arbitrarily).
It happens pretty much everywhere, although the so-called civilized western
democracies tend to be somewhat less obvious and bloody that socialist
dictatorships in that regard.
> > > Do you have more details on these supposedly non-violent Pacific
tribes?
> >
> > I didn't say they were non-violent. People everywhere are violent. I
said
> > that they didn't have government as we know, and they got by about as
well
> > as we do... maybe better.
>
> The Samoans had tribal chiefs and they had warfare. I don't see how
> this is different from government as we know it.
It may not be that different. Probably the greatest difference was that it
was acceptable to "thumb your nose" at an overbearing chief. Naturally that
entailed a certain risk of retribution from the chief, but it was not
considered "treasonous" or threatening to the fabric of society. Chiefs were
not seen as necessary, just as I am suggesting that government is not
necessary.
> > I suspect that Jean Chretien could easily have me or you killed, if he
> > really wanted to.
>
> Is that why you're posting under a pseudonym? :-)
Fear of retribution from government officials is one of the reasons, yes. If
you hadn't noticed, I sometimes mention certain ideas that aren't terribly
well-received by the ruling political elites.;-)
Brian Dooley
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:23:04 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
<shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>Brian Dooley <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:n90ggu8oo0ttrvv4o...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:44:34 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
>> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >Tim Scrivens <tim.sc...@nz.eds.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ae18ni$um4$1...@hermes.nz.eds.com...
>
>> >> Taxes pay for judges, cops, the army, etc etc etc.
>
>> >In other words, the tools of coercion used by the State to extract
>tribute
>> >from its subjects?
>
>> What exactly do you mean by 'the State'?
>
>That entity which uses armed force to extract tribute from its subjects.
>
>> Would it be 99.99+% of the rest of your fellow citizens?
>
>Nope, they get tribute extracted from them at gunpoint by the State.
OK, now try saying that with a straight face.
Russil Wvong
> I disagree. In the absence of large-scale organization (government) the
> technology of mass destruction would be very minor and largely
> self-regulating. Let's not forget that atomic weapons were developed as a
> government project.
Killing on a mass scale long predates the 20th century and atomic
weapons. Again, barbarians are just as capable of massacres as
modern governments. For example:
Genghis also used brutality on a grand scale to psychologically
demoralize future enemies. In 1217, the Mongols attacked a Chinese
city called Chung Tu, which was protected by walls 40 feet high and
18 miles around. The heavily fortified city with 900 guard towers
and a three moats withstood the onslaught for months until they
ran out of food and were forced to surrender or starve. After
months of being battered by 2,500 loads of rock launched from
3,000 catapults (a favorite weapon invented by Genghis to counter
village walls) and 700 firebomb throwing machines, the city finally
fell. Upon surrender, Genghis burned every home and shop to the
ground, killed every resident by the sword, and observers wrote
that, "there were mountains of human bones and the streets were
slick with human fat."
> > If we need a government, then the government needs to be able to
> > enforce laws which are binding on all its citizens, including
> > the requirement to pay taxes.
>
> But that is the core of my argument... I am suggesting that we do not
> actually need government. Rather, we have government as a matter of
> preference and convenience.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm arguing that in the
absence of a government which has an effective monopoly on the use of
violence within its territory, life would be both violent and precarious.
In Canada, we're accustomed to law and order, and so it's easy to
assume that this is just the way things are, government or no government.
But if you look at history, you'll see that this isn't the case at all.
Here's another example, from modern times, describing what happened in
Bosnia; it's an excerpt from an article by Mark Danner in the New York
Review of Books. I should remind readers that Yugoslavia was a
completely modern and civilized country right up until the early 1990s.
It's difficult to read descriptions of brutality like this and maintain
an optimistic view of human nature. If you don't have a strong stomach,
you should probably stop reading here.
[http://www.markdanner.net/wnyrgenocide.htm]
Though guards at Omarska and other camps shot many prisoners, this
was by no means the preferred method. If Auschwitz's killing tended
to be mechanized and bureaucratized, Omarska's was emotional and
personal, for it depended on the simple, intimate act of beating.
"They beat us with clubs, bats, hoses, rifle butts," one survivor
told a Helsinki Watch interviewer. "Their favorite was a thick
rubber hose with metal on both ends." They beat us, said another,
"with braided cable wires" and with pipes "filled with lead."
Next to the automatic rifle, next even to the knife (which was
freely used at Omarska), the club or the pipe is exhausting,
time-consuming, inefficient. Yet the guards made it productive.
A female prisoner identified only as "J" told Helsinki Watch
investigators:
We saw corpses piled one on top of another…. The bodies
eventually were gathered with a forklift and put onto
trucks—usually two large trucks and a third, smaller truck.
The trucks first would unload containers of food, and then
the bodies would be loaded [on]…. This happened almost every
day—sometimes there [were]…twenty or thirty—but usually
there were more. Most of the deaths occurred as a result of
beatings.[5]
One survivor interviewed by United Nations investigators estimated
that "on many occasions, twenty to forty prisoners were killed at
night by 'knife, hammer, and burning.' He stated that he had
witnessed the killing of one prisoner by seven guards who poured
petrol on him, set him on fire, and struck him upon the head with
a hammer." All prisoners were beaten, but according to the UN
investigators, guards in all the camps meted out especially savage
treatment "to intellectuals, politicians, police, and the wealthy."[6]
When four guards summoned the president of the local Croatian
Democratic Union, Silvije Saric, along with Professor Puskar from
nearby Prijedor, for "interrogation," the female prisoner testified,
I heard beating and yelling.... At times it sounded as if wood were
being shattered, but those were bones that were being broken.
...When they opened the door ..., they started yelling at us,
"Ustasa slut, see what we do to them!" ...I saw two piles of blood
and flesh in the corner. The two men were so horribly beaten that
they no longer had the form of human beings.[7]
Apart from obvious differences in scale and ambition, it is the
Serbs' reliance on this laborious kind of murder that most strikingly
distinguishes the workings of their camps from those of the German
death factories. ...
At Omarska ... the out-and-out passion with which a guard
administered beatings and devised tortures could greatly bolster
his prestige. Acts of flamboyant violence, publicly performed, made
of some men celebrities of sadism. In his memoir The Tenth Circle
of Hell, Rezak Hukanovic—a Muslim who was a journalist in Prijedor
before he was taken to Omarska—describes how guards responded when
a prisoner rejected the order to strip and stood immobile amid the
cowering naked inmates:
The guard…fired several shots in the air. The man stood stubbornly
in place without making the slightest movement. While bluish smoke
still rose from the rifle barrel, the guard struck the clothed man
in the middle of the head with the rifle butt, once and then again,
until the man fell. Then the guard…moved his hand to his belt.
A knife flashed in his hand, a long army knife.
He bent down, grabbing hold of the poor guy's hair…. Another
guard joined in, continuously cursing. He, too, had a flashing
knife in his hand.... The guards [used] them to tear away the
man's clothes. After only a few seconds, they stood up, their own
clothes covered with blood....
...The poor man stood up a little, or rather tried to, letting out
excruciating screams. He was covered with blood. One guard
took a water hose from a nearby hydrant and directed a strong
jet at [him]. A mixture of blood and water flowed down his…gaunt,
naked body as he bent down repeatedly, like a wounded Cyclops…;
his cries were of someone driven to insanity by pain. And then
Djemo and everyone else saw clearly what had happened: the guards
had cut off the man's sexual organ and half of his behind.
Hukanovic's memoir (in which he writes about himself in the third
person as Djemo) and the testimony of other former prisoners overflow
with such horror. Reading them, one feels enervated, and also
bewildered: What accounts for such unquenchable blood-lust? This is
a large subject, to which I shall return; but part of the answer may
have to do with the elaborate ideology that stands behind Serb
objectives in the war. In order to achieve a "Greater Serbia," which
will at last bring together all Serbs in one land, they feel they
must "cleanse" what is "their" land of outsiders. Founding—or rather
reestablishing—"Greater Serbia" is critical not only because it
satisfies an ancient historical claim but because Serbs must *protect
themselves from the "genocide" others even now are planning for them*.
In this thinking, such genocide has already begun—in Croatia, in
Kosovo, in Bosnia itself: anywhere Serbs live but lack political
dominance. As many writers, including Michael Sells and, especially,
Tim Judah, point out, such ideas of vulnerability and betrayal can be
traced far back in Serbia's past, and President Slobodan Milosevic,
with his control of state radio and television, exploited them
brilliantly, building popular hatred by instilling in Serbs a
visceral fear and paranoia.
Administering a beating is a deeply personal affirmation of power:
with your own hands you seize your enemy—supposedly a mortally
threatening enemy, now rendered passive and powerless—and slowly,
methodically reduce him from human to nonhuman. Each night at
Omarska and other camps guards called prisoners out by name and
enacted this atrocity. Some of their enemies they beat to death, dumping
their corpses on the tarmac for the forklift driver to find the
next morning. Others they beat until the victim still barely clung
to life; if he did not die, the guards would wait a week or so and
beat him again.
For the Serbs it was a repeated exercise in triumph, in satisfying and
vanquishing an accumulated paranoia. As Hukanovic makes clear in his
account of the first time his name was called out, this torture is
exceedingly, undeniably intimate—not simply because force is
administered by hand but also because it comes very often from
someone you know:
"In front of me," the [bearded, red-faced] guard ordered,
pointing to the White House…. He ranted and raved, cursing and
occasionally pounding Djemo on the back with his truncheon….
...The next second, something heavy was let loose from above,
from the sky, and knocked Djemo over the head. He fell.
...Half conscious, sensing that he had to fight to survive,
he wiped the blood from his eyes and forehead and raised his head.
He saw four creatures, completely drunk, like a pack of starving
wolves, with clubs in their hands and unadorned hatred in their
eyes. Among them was the frenzied leader, Zoran Zigic, the
infamous Ziga.... He was said to have killed over two hundred
people, including many children, in the "cleansing" operations
around Prijedor.... Scrawny and long-legged, with a big black
scar on his face, Ziga seemed like an ancient devil come to
visit a time as cruel as his own....
"Now then, let me show you how Ziga does it," he said, ordering
Djemo to kneel down in the corner by the radiator, "on all fours,
just like a dog." The maniac grinned. Djemo knelt down and
leaned forward on his hands, feeling humiliated and as helpless
as a newborn....
Ziga began hitting Hukanovic on his back and head with a club that
had a metal ball on the end. Hukanovic curled up trying to protect
his head. Zigic kept hitting him, steadily, methodically, cursing
all the while.
The drops of blood on the tiles under Djemo's head [became]
denser and denser until they formed a thick, dark red puddle.
Ziga kept at it; he stopped only every now and then…to fan
himself, waving his shirt tail in front of his contorted face.
At some point a man in fatigues appeared.... It was Saponja,
a member of the famous Bosna-montaza soccer club from Prijedor;
Djemo had once known him quite well.... "Well, well, my old pal
Djemo. While I was fighting..., you were pouring down the cold
ones in Prijedor." He kicked Djemo right in the face with
his combat boot. Then he kicked him again in the chest, so
badly that Djemo felt like his ribs had been shattered…Ziga
laughed like a maniac...and started hitting Djemo again
with his weird club....
Djemo received another, even stronger kick to the face. He
clutched himself in pain, bent a little to one side, and
collapsed, his head sinking into the now-sizable pool of blood
beneath him. Ziga grabbed him by the hair…and looked into Djemo's
completely disfigured face: "Get up, you scum...."
Then Ziga and the other guards forced Djemo to smear his bloody face
in a filthy puddle of water.
..."The boys have been eating strawberries and got themselves
a little red," said Ziga, laughing like a madman.... Another
prisoner, Slavko Ecimovic, ...was kneeling, all curled up, by the
radiator. When he lifted his head, where his face should have
been was nothing but the bloody, spongy tissue under the skin
that had just been ripped off.
Instead of eyes, two hollow sockets were filled with black,
coagulated blood. "You'll all end up like this, you and your
families," Ziga said. "We killed his father and mother. And
his wife. We'll get his kids. And yours, we'll kill you all."
And with a wide swing of his leg, he kicked Djemo right in
the face....
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
alt.politics.international: www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/apifaq.html
Smokin'
> > I disagree. In the absence of large-scale organization (government) the
> > technology of mass destruction would be very minor and largely
> > self-regulating. Let's not forget that atomic weapons were developed as
a
> > government project.
>
> Killing on a mass scale long predates the 20th century and atomic
> weapons. Again, barbarians are just as capable of massacres as
> modern governments. For example:
>
Genghis Khan was not a barbarian. He was successful in war largely because
he ran the most sohisticated government organization of his day.
> ...also used brutality on a grand scale to psychologically
> demoralize future enemies. In 1217, the Mongols attacked a Chinese
> city called Chung Tu, which was protected by walls 40 feet high and
> 18 miles around. The heavily fortified city with 900 guard towers
> and a three moats withstood the onslaught for months until they
> ran out of food and were forced to surrender or starve. After
> months of being battered by 2,500 loads of rock launched from
> 3,000 catapults (a favorite weapon invented by Genghis to counter
> village walls) and 700 firebomb throwing machines, the city finally
> fell. Upon surrender, Genghis burned every home and shop to the
> ground, killed every resident by the sword, and observers wrote
> that, "there were mountains of human bones and the streets were
> slick with human fat."
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me and providing evidence to buttress
my assertion or if you are disagreeing by way of some specious argument
regarding a particular government and historical period.
> > > If we need a government, then the government needs to be able to
> > > enforce laws which are binding on all its citizens, including
> > > the requirement to pay taxes.
> >
> > But that is the core of my argument... I am suggesting that we do not
> > actually need government. Rather, we have government as a matter of
> > preference and convenience.
>
> I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
If nothing turned on the argument then civilized men might agree to let it
go at that. Unfortunately, a great number of important issues turn on this
argument and a difference of opinion has serious real-world implications. A
satisfactory determination should (and can) be found.
The only other alternative would be for those who accept your necessity
argument to also agree to certain "hands off" approached towards people like
myself who think government is not necessary, but may be desirable for some
things. What do you think the liklihood is of your philosophical brethren in
government doing that?
> I'm arguing that in the
> absence of a government which has an effective monopoly on the use of
> violence within its territory, life would be both violent and precarious.
Perhaps, but the same is true in the presence of such government, so I
really don't see what government adds to that particular equation.
> In Canada, we're accustomed to law and order, and so it's easy to
> assume that this is just the way things are, government or no government.
> But if you look at history, you'll see that this isn't the case at all.
I will suggest that we're accustomed to law and order not because of any
special proerty of government, but rather because the Canadian people are
largely law-abiding and Canadian society is largely peaceful. If anything,
the Canadian government seems to inflame people's anger and create strife
where none might otherwise exist.
It is all very well for you to believe in government as an article of faith,
but your faith is not a persuasive argument.
> Here's another example, from modern times, describing what happened in
> Bosnia; it's an excerpt from an article by Mark Danner in the New York
> Review of Books. I should remind readers that Yugoslavia was a
> completely modern and civilized country right up until the early 1990s.
> It's difficult to read descriptions of brutality like this and maintain
> an optimistic view of human nature. If you don't have a strong stomach,
> you should probably stop reading here.
[...]
Tell me Russell, are you being deliberately obtuse or are you truly confused
by a strange and unusual idea? Your example is of horrors committed by the
Serbian government. Do you understand what I am saying? It was not an
un-governed mob in a Hobbesian "state of nature" who committed atrocities in
Bosnia or in the Pol Pot killing fields or Stalin's Russia or the Nazi
Holocaust or Hiroshima or anywhere else in the modern world. It is your
supposed saviour from "short brutal lives"... *government* doing this.
Government is not a violence-reduction system, government is ever more
efficient and better-organized violence on an ever-expanding scale. The
Emperor Has No Clothes, my friend.
Do you understand the flaw in your argument, yet?
Russil Wvong
> Genghis Khan was not a barbarian. He was successful in war largely
I hope your argument isn't going to rest on defining any organization
capable of large-scale killing as a "government." :-) The Mongols,
the Huns, the Goths, the Vandals, the Allemani -- they weren't
really barbarians, they were governments?
> I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me and providing evidence to buttress
> my assertion or if you are disagreeing by way of some specious argument
> regarding a particular government and historical period.
Disagreeing.
> > > > If we need a government, then the government needs to be able to
> > > > enforce laws which are binding on all its citizens, including
> > > > the requirement to pay taxes.
> > >
> > > But that is the core of my argument... I am suggesting that we do not
> > > actually need government. Rather, we have government as a matter of
> > > preference and convenience.
> >
> > I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
> If nothing turned on the argument then civilized men might agree to let it
> go at that. Unfortunately, a great number of important issues turn on this
> argument and a difference of opinion has serious real-world implications. A
> satisfactory determination should (and can) be found.
Certainly, but I don't think it's possible for either of us to convince
the other that he's wrong. (I'm convinced that I'm right and you're
wrong, but you're equally convinced that you're right and I'm wrong.)
> The only other alternative would be for those who accept your necessity
> argument to also agree to certain "hands off" approaches towards people like
> myself who think government is not necessary, but may be desirable for some
> things. What do you think the likelihood is of your philosophical brethren
> in government doing that?
Depends on the specific issue. Marijuana use, for example, no longer
seems to be grounds for arrest here in Vancouver. But tax evasion will
still put you in jail.
> > I'm arguing that in the
> > absence of a government which has an effective monopoly on the use of
> > violence within its territory, life would be both violent and precarious.
>
> Perhaps, but the same is true in the presence of such government, so I
> really don't see what government adds to that particular equation.
Living in Canada, I feel that the risk of violence is relatively small.
This is not true everywhere; that's one of the reasons that we get
refugees from other parts of the world.
> > In Canada, we're accustomed to law and order, and so it's easy to
> > assume that this is just the way things are, government or no government.
> > But if you look at history, you'll see that this isn't the case at all.
>
> I will suggest that we're accustomed to law and order not because of any
> special property of government, but rather because the Canadian people are
> largely law-abiding and Canadian society is largely peaceful.
We've also had an effective government for more than 100 years. If you're
arguing that hypothetically, Canadian society would be just as peaceful
today if it had *not* had this history of government, I think you'd need
to put together a pretty strong case.
> It is all very well for you to believe in government as an article of
> faith, but your faith is not a persuasive argument.
I'm not arguing based on faith. I'm arguing based on what I know of
history and politics in other parts of the world.
> > Here's another example, from modern times, describing what happened in
> > Bosnia; it's an excerpt from an article by Mark Danner in the New York
> > Review of Books. I should remind readers that Yugoslavia was a
> > completely modern and civilized country right up until the early 1990s.
> > It's difficult to read descriptions of brutality like this and maintain
> > an optimistic view of human nature. If you don't have a strong stomach,
> > you should probably stop reading here.
>
> [...]
>
> Tell me Russell, are you being deliberately obtuse or are you truly confused
> by a strange and unusual idea?
I've been reading newsgroup articles by anarcho-capitalists and
anarcho-syndicalists since the late 1980s. I'm familiar with the
idea that we don't need government, I just disagree with it,
based on what I know of history and political philosophy.
> Your example is of horrors committed by the Serbian government.
Correct. Against people in *Bosnia*. People in *Bosnia* suffered
from the predatory nature of the Serbian government because of the
lack of an effective *Bosnian* government.
It's as though the Canadian government lost effective control of its
territory (or we decided to dissolve it), and the United States went
crazy -- say the US government was run by ultra-nationalist
right-wingers. It's as though the US decided to seize the Alberta
oilpatch, but wanted to avoid getting a bunch of Canadian socialists
and left-wingers, so it worked in conjunction with Canadian right-wing
militia -- arming them and training them -- to massacre and expel any
left-wingers in Alberta (mostly from Edmonton, I guess) to Saskatchewan
and BC. That's what happened to Bosnia.
It's not enough to say that, "If *nobody* had a government, there'd
be a lot less violence." That's like saying that the world would
be a better place if nobody had any guns or armies. For people living
in territory A with neighbors B and C, can people in A do without their
government? What happens if they get attacked by the governments of
B and C? If people in A, B, and C decide to dissolve their
governments at the same time, what happens if they get attacked
by government D? Or barbarians from somewhere else?
I'm not saying that "government is good." I'm saying that *you
can't ensure your own security on an individual basis*; to ensure
your security, you need an effective government. The fact that
in modern times, you mostly need protection from *other governments*
may be ironic, but it's not a counter-argument. It's like saying
that you wouldn't need a government for protection if you could
convince everyone else in the world simultaneously that they didn't
need a government, either. First, that's a utopian dream, it's
not a strategy. Second, it's not true, as history demonstrates:
even without predatory governments, you still have to worry about
barbarians and internal threats, such as criminals and gangs.
Again, I doubt I've convinced you of anything. :-) But for anyone
else reading this, my point is that *our choice isn't between
government and no government, it's between good government and
bad government*.
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
alt.politics.international FAQ: www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/apifaq.html
Smokin'
> > Genghis Khan was not a barbarian. He was successful in war largely
> > because he ran the most sophisticated government organization of his
day.
>
> I hope your argument isn't going to rest on defining any organization
> capable of large-scale killing as a "government." :-) The Mongols,
> the Huns, the Goths, the Vandals, the Allemani -- they weren't
> really barbarians, they were governments?
I wasn't intending to debate the definition of government, no. It seems
clear to me that all your examples of large scale violence have all been
those that were committed at the behest of some government. Genghis Khan was
a government leader. Do you dispute that?
> > I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me and providing evidence to
buttress
> > my assertion or if you are disagreeing by way of some specious argument
> > regarding a particular government and historical period.
>
> Disagreeing.
Well then, perhaps you could provide some evidence that government actually
is necessary to reduce the level of violence between people.
> > > I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> >
> > If nothing turned on the argument then civilized men might agree to let
it
> > go at that. Unfortunately, a great number of important issues turn on
this
> > argument and a difference of opinion has serious real-world
implications. A
> > satisfactory determination should (and can) be found.
>
> Certainly, but I don't think it's possible for either of us to convince
> the other that he's wrong. (I'm convinced that I'm right and you're
> wrong, but you're equally convinced that you're right and I'm wrong.)
You are still of the opinion that government is all that prevents people
from murdering each other for sport?
> > The only other alternative would be for those who accept your necessity
> > argument to also agree to certain "hands off" approaches towards people
like
> > myself who think government is not necessary, but may be desirable for
some
> > things. What do you think the likelihood is of your philosophical
brethren
> > in government doing that?
>
> Depends on the specific issue. Marijuana use, for example, no longer
> seems to be grounds for arrest here in Vancouver. But tax evasion will
> still put you in jail.
The specific issue is irrelevent. Regardless of the issues or the ideology
or the style of government, a choice must be made about a fundamental issue.
Either a government will govern with the consent of each person who is
governed, or it will rule by 'divine right' or some similar justification.
You appear to be taking the "divine right" position.
> Living in Canada, I feel that the risk of violence is relatively small.
> This is not true everywhere; that's one of the reasons that we get
> refugees from other parts of the world.
What are those people usually seeking refuge from? Anarchy and the unruled
mob? Or some insane government?
> > I will suggest that we're accustomed to law and order not because of any
> > special property of government, but rather because the Canadian people
are
> > largely law-abiding and Canadian society is largely peaceful.
>
> We've also had an effective government for more than 100 years. If you're
> arguing that hypothetically, Canadian society would be just as peaceful
> today if it had *not* had this history of government, I think you'd need
> to put together a pretty strong case.
I am not arguing that at all. I am arguing that we have government as a
matter of convenience and preference and because it is useful. It is useful
for the purpose of preservation of peace. You are arguing that we have
government because it is vitally necessary to our survival, and I am
disagreeing with you about that - and only that.
> > It is all very well for you to believe in government as an article of
> > faith, but your faith is not a persuasive argument.
>
> I'm not arguing based on faith. I'm arguing based on what I know of
> history and politics in other parts of the world.
Well then, do you agree or disgaree with my observation that most (all?)
large-scale kiling and violence is perepetrated at the behest of some
government? Do you agree or disagree that the greatest short-term threat to
the survival of our entire species is the weaponry held by various world
governments?
> > > Here's another example, from modern times, describing what happened in
> > > Bosnia; it's an excerpt from an article by Mark Danner in the New York
> > > Review of Books. I should remind readers that Yugoslavia was a
> > > completely modern and civilized country right up until the early
1990s.
> > > It's difficult to read descriptions of brutality like this and
maintain
> > > an optimistic view of human nature. If you don't have a strong
stomach,
> > > you should probably stop reading here.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Tell me Russell, are you being deliberately obtuse or are you truly
confused
> > by a strange and unusual idea?
>
> I've been reading newsgroup articles by anarcho-capitalists and
> anarcho-syndicalists since the late 1980s. I'm familiar with the
> idea that we don't need government, I just disagree with it,
> based on what I know of history and political philosophy.
I don't understand your objection. If someone argued that we don't need
automobiles or airplanes, would you disagree with that? Food and water is
necessary. Air to breathe is necessary. Some sort of shelter from the
elements is necessary. Government is not necessary. It is desirable and
potentially useful, but it is not necessary.
> > Your example is of horrors committed by the Serbian government.
>
> Correct. Against people in *Bosnia*. People in *Bosnia* suffered
> from the predatory nature of the Serbian government because of the
> lack of an effective *Bosnian* government.
I would say from the lack of an effective Bosnian army. They could have as
much government as they liked, and it would have done them no good
whatsoever in the absence of an effective army.
You seem to be arguing a straw man here. Nobody (except you) is arguing for
(or against) having a government.
The question we were discussing, before you wandered off into the
stratosphere, was whether government is *necessary* or if it is merely
*desirable*.
You have not persuaded me that government is necessary. I am persuaded that
government is desirable, and potentially useful, provided it is a consenual
style of government and not one of those tyranny types.
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:01:03 +1200, Bruce Simpson
<see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:09:11 +1300, Brian Dooley <bri...@clear.net.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>Gosh, you do carry on so, but then you always have.
>
>Hey, that was the Readers Digest version! :-)
>
>>Nobody could
>>complain that you're inconsistent. You were saying the same
>>things five years ago at least.
>
>You wouldn't want me to be fickle would you?
Nope, and I don't expect to be disappointed either.
How are the home-grown veges coming along?
Scott Hillard
Gladly, I'll be in Rotorua on the 12th of July. See you there.
Russil Wvong
> You have not persuaded me that government is necessary. I am persuaded
> that government is desirable, and potentially useful, provided it is
You mentioned earlier that you regard food and shelter as necessary.
I'm arguing that security -- that is, protection from violence --
is also necessary; and that this security cannot be provided on an
individual basis. There's no way for you to provide for the security
of your household against a determined attack by a criminal gang,
for example.
In my view, providing security is the most important role of government.
An effective government is one which has a monopoly on the use of
violence within its territory (typically because it has an army and
a police force; a government without an army won't do you much good,
as you pointed out). You find this throughout history. In medieval
Europe, for example, the First Estate (the knights) provided protection,
the Third Estate (the peasants and merchants) provided for society's
material needs. (The Second Estate was the clergy, which provided for
society's spiritual needs.) Brad DeLong talks about princes and
merchants. Jane Jacob talks about guardians and traders.
Security is a basic human need, and if there's no way to provide
security without a government, then we need government. It's not
just that having a government is *better* than not having a
government; it's that doing without a government is not a
practical alternative.
Some possible counter-arguments:
1. That security is not a basic human need. I'm not sure how you
would argue this.
2. That I'm exaggerating the threat of violence that would exist
without a government. Well, Canada has its fair share of
psychopaths, robbers, rapists, and other people with poor
impulse control. Right now, we put them in jail. I'm not sure
what you think would happen if we had no government.
3. That the most significant threat of violence comes from
*other governments.* That's certainly true, but unless you
can convince everyone else in the world that they don't need
a government either, I don't see how we can do without a government.
I should also point out that in Canada, we have lots of things that
other people might want -- territory, oil, minerals, farms,
factories and equipment, living space, housing.
4. That there's other ways to provide security besides government.
I've already mentioned the historical precedent of mercenary armies.
> The specific issue is irrelevent. Regardless of the issues or the ideology
> or the style of government, a choice must be made about a fundamental issue.
> Either a government will govern with the consent of each person who is
> governed, or it will rule by 'divine right' or some similar justification.
That sounds more like a social club than a government! :-)
Let's look at it descriptively (how things actually work) and
prescriptively (how things *should* work).
In Canada, if you refuse to pay your taxes, you go to jail. That's
a descriptive statement; I assume we both agree on this statement.
As I understand it, you regard this as tyrannical; you believe that
Canadian laws should only apply to those individuals who explicitly
agree to be bound by them. That's a prescriptive statement.
I don't regard this as tyrannical. I believe that we need a government
in order to provide for our security (from internal and external threats),
that our history and tradition of government -- liberal democracy on the
British model, whereby we periodically elect representatives to act as
our officials -- is a good one for our situation, and that the Canadian
government is legitimate. In particular, the government needs to be
able to establish laws which are binding on all people on its territory.
That includes laws regarding tax evasion.
Don't get me wrong, I think the anarcho-capitalist vision of a world
based on informed consent is admirable, in many ways. But as a
political philosophy, I don't think it's practical. It doesn't address
the problems of human nature identified by political philosophers
such as Hobbes. In the real world that we live in, we have both rights
and responsibilities as Canadian citizens. And one of our
responsibilities is to pay our taxes. I don't think it's tyrannical
to hold you to your responsibilities.
Smokin'
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
> > You have not persuaded me that government is necessary. I am persuaded
> > that government is desirable, and potentially useful, provided it is
> > a consensual style of government and not one of those tyranny types.
>
> You mentioned earlier that you regard food and shelter as necessary.
> I'm arguing that security -- that is, protection from violence --
> is also necessary; and that this security cannot be provided on an
> individual basis. There's no way for you to provide for the security
> of your household against a determined attack by a criminal gang,
> for example.
I'll go along with some sort of security being a necessity almost as
important as food. I think I could provide modearte security for my home,
and I think there are many people who would be quite skilled at it. For
those who lack skills, they could do something similar to hiring a plumber
or gardener. After all, food is necessary and we somehow manage to eat
without any need of resorting to a government monopoly on farming. ;-)
That said, I have no objection whatsoever to having government provide such
services but I am not so sure that a monopoly is necessary or desirable.
Well... is it an absolute necessity that government have a monopoly on the
delivery of security services? Or is it simply that the government monopoly
is desirable, or a habit? Keep in mind that there are private security
companies in existence even in our mostly-monopolized system.
> > The specific issue is irrelevent. Regardless of the issues or the
ideology
> > or the style of government, a choice must be made about a fundamental
issue.
> > Either a government will govern with the consent of each person who is
> > governed, or it will rule by 'divine right' or some similar
justification.
>
> That sounds more like a social club than a government! :-)
Sure, why not? Government and the "old boys network" largely is a social
club of cronies who truly believe they are best suited to rule over the rest
of us. Perhaps they are right, I don't know.
> Let's look at it descriptively (how things actually work) and
> prescriptively (how things *should* work).
>
> In Canada, if you refuse to pay your taxes, you go to jail. That's
> a descriptive statement; I assume we both agree on this statement.
I'm not sure that they do jail very many people for that in Canada. They
might not jail anyone for it. I don't really know. In any case, it is now a
practical problem for you because there are far too many tax dissenters to
jail them all.
> As I understand it, you regard this as tyrannical; you believe that
> Canadian laws should only apply to those individuals who explicitly
> agree to be bound by them. That's a prescriptive statement.
I don't think I did say that. Can you quote anything where I said that?
> I don't regard this as tyrannical.
Then it isn't... for you.
> I believe that we need a government
> in order to provide for our security (from internal and external threats),
> that our history and tradition of government -- liberal democracy on the
> British model, whereby we periodically elect representatives to act as
> our officials -- is a good one for our situation, and that the Canadian
> government is legitimate. In particular, the government needs to be
> able to establish laws which are binding on all people on its territory.
> That includes laws regarding tax evasion.
That's fine for you, and you are certainly welcome to govern yourself
accordingly. You have not yet explained why your views on the matter should
be imposed (by force!) on people who disagree.
Do you dismiss the objections of dissenters as unimportant? Do you consider
yourself to be somehow superior to dissenters, and therefore entitled to
compel them to accept your views? That is exactly what happens, if
sufficient numbers of people feel as you do and the government acts on your
views.
It is simply a fact that the Canadian government does not have authority
over quite a number of people within it's territorial boundaries, for a
number of very good reasons. This is especially true wrt people who are
exempt from any requirement to file or pay taxes. The Canadian government
acknowledged that it *is not able* to establish laws that are binding on all
people on it's territory. Criminal code violations are another matter, of
course.
> Don't get me wrong, I think the anarcho-capitalist vision of a world
> based on informed consent is admirable, in many ways. But as a
> political philosophy, I don't think it's practical.
I think the anarcho-capitalists are far from admirable, and have done more
harm than good with their strange views. But I digress...
If you are not committed to your views as a matter of principle or
necessity, then it should be possible for you to consider workable
alternatives.
> It doesn't address
> the problems of human nature identified by political philosophers
> such as Hobbes.
I think that we now have answers to the problems identified by Hobbes et al.
> In the real world that we live in, we have both rights
> and responsibilities as Canadian citizens.
Of course, but the linkage between particular rights and particular
responsibilities is very poorly defined at the moment. You yourself appear
to be of the view that "we have a right to security of person" and therefore
must have "an obligation to pay taxes". That is an absurd view, and should
be addressed in some rational manner.
>And one of our
> responsibilities is to pay our taxes. I don't think it's tyrannical
> to hold you to your responsibilities.
Nobody is suggesting that it is tyrannical to expect people to meet their
obligations.
I am stating that it is tyrannical to impose obligations. Do you disagree?
Brian Dooley
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:07:47 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
<shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>Brian Dooley <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:daqtgugsqn4aeibcu...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:23:04 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
>> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >Nope, they get tribute extracted from them at gunpoint by the State.
>
>> OK, now try saying that with a straight face.
>
>
>Gladly, I'll be in Rotorua on the 12th of July. See you there.
I meant without laughing.
What do *you* mean?
Russil Wvong
> I'll go along with some sort of security being a necessity almost as
> and I think there are many people who would be quite skilled at it. For
> those who lack skills, they could do something similar to hiring a plumber
> or gardener. After all, food is necessary and we somehow manage to eat
> without any need of resorting to a government monopoly on farming. ;-)
That's a reasonable counterargument, but unfortunately, it turns out
that you don't just need a security guard -- you need an army, and
if you rely on a mercenary army, how do you protect yourself from the
mercenary army? The explanation will have to wait until my next chance
to post. :-)
> > In the real world that we live in, we have both rights
> > and responsibilities as Canadian citizens.
>
> Of course, but the linkage between particular rights and particular
> responsibilities is very poorly defined at the moment.
Not sure what you mean by "linkage." We don't have the option of
saying, "I'll give up these rights if I can also give up these
responsibilities." We can't pick and choose which rights and
responsibilities we want to accept. :-)
I'll try to explain more in my next posting.
Merlin
> > I'll go along with some sort of security being a necessity almost as
> > important as food. I think I could provide moderate security for my
home,
> > and I think there are many people who would be quite skilled at it. For
> > those who lack skills, they could do something similar to hiring a
plumber
> > or gardener. After all, food is necessary and we somehow manage to eat
> > without any need of resorting to a government monopoly on farming. ;-)
>
> That's a reasonable counterargument, but unfortunately, it turns out
> that you don't just need a security guard -- you need an army, and
> if you rely on a mercenary army, how do you protect yourself from the
> mercenary army? The explanation will have to wait until my next chance
> to post. :-)
I'm not sure that I do need an army for anything excpt UN PR exercises, but
no matter. If it turns out that an army is needed, then it will be not just
me that needs it - many millions of people will need it. So, we would
volunteer. At least, that is the usual way that free men band together for
common defense.
> > > In the real world that we live in, we have both rights
> > > and responsibilities as Canadian citizens.
> >
> > Of course, but the linkage between particular rights and particular
> > responsibilities is very poorly defined at the moment.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "linkage." We don't have the option of
> saying, "I'll give up these rights if I can also give up these
> responsibilities." We can't pick and choose which rights and
> responsibilities we want to accept. :-)
I agree, we cannot pick and choose. Particular rights will match only with
responsibilities of the relevent kind. (I can explain that in more detail if
required). I would say that you (and many others) make a terrible mistake
when you pick a right and then attach a responsibility to pay taxes.
Clearly, the only rights that create an obligation to pay taxes are those
'rights' that consist of tax-funded benefits, and even those are suspect in
cases of artificially-created government monopolies.
Denver Fletcher
news:b54R8.56093$ia2.4...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:afe9ed76.02062...@posting.google.com...
> > "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
> > > > In the real world that we live in, we have both rights
> > > > and responsibilities as Canadian citizens.
> > >
> > > Of course, but the linkage between particular rights and particular
> > > responsibilities is very poorly defined at the moment.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by "linkage." We don't have the option of
> > saying, "I'll give up these rights if I can also give up these
> > responsibilities." We can't pick and choose which rights and
> > responsibilities we want to accept. :-)
>
> I agree, we cannot pick and choose.
Of course we can pick and choose.
We can do any damned thing we like.
We only need to recognise that we should be prepared to pay the cost (and
that part of that cost, if not all of it, comes from stupid people who want
everyone to live exactly as they do).
Scott Hillard
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:07:47 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >Brian Dooley <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> >news:daqtgugsqn4aeibcu...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:23:04 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> >> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >Nope, they get tribute extracted from them at gunpoint by the State.
> >> OK, now try saying that with a straight face.
> >Gladly, I'll be in Rotorua on the 12th of July. See you there.
> I meant without laughing.
Naturally, I thought you wanted evidence I could say it without laughing?
I'm deadly serious.
Brian Dooley
>"Merlin" <merlin@ round table.org> wrote in message
>news:b54R8.56093$ia2.4...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:afe9ed76.02062...@posting.google.com...
>> > "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
>...
>> > > > In the real world that we live in, we have both rights
>> > > > and responsibilities as Canadian citizens.
>> > >
>> > > Of course, but the linkage between particular rights and particular
>> > > responsibilities is very poorly defined at the moment.
>> >
>> > Not sure what you mean by "linkage." We don't have the option of
>> > saying, "I'll give up these rights if I can also give up these
>> > responsibilities." We can't pick and choose which rights and
>> > responsibilities we want to accept. :-)
>>
>> I agree, we cannot pick and choose.
>
>
>Of course we can pick and choose.
>
>We can do any damned thing we like.
And the last time you didn't declare your income was - when?
Denver Fletcher
So typically Dooley.
Note for those who can actually read: there was a qualifying statement
which Dooley has emended from his response.
When was the last time you had anything relevant to say, Dooley?
You answer me and I'll answer you, as the man said.
Russil Wvong
> I'll go along with some sort of security being a necessity almost as
> important as food. I think I could provide modearte security for my home,
> and I think there are many people who would be quite skilled at it. For
> those who lack skills, they could do something similar to hiring a plumber
> or gardener. After all, food is necessary and we somehow manage to eat
> without any need of resorting to a government monopoly on farming. ;-)
That's a reasonable counterargument, but unfortunately, it turns out
that you don't just need a security guard -- you need an army. Why
is that? It's basically an empirical question:
What's the minimum size of a political unit which is large enough
to defend itself?
This minimum size isn't constant; it's gotten bigger and bigger over the
last five hundred years, as military technology has become more and more
powerful and more and more expensive. For example, in medieval times,
Italian city-states were able to defend their independence, until cannon
improved to the point where an attacker could knock down city walls.
Today, you don't just need rifles to be able to fight a war, you need
tanks and airplanes, which are hugely expensive. (Imagine infantry
armed with rifles trying to stop tanks.)
Was there ever a time when it was possible for an individual or a single
household to defend itself, e.g. against mounted nomads? It's hard to
imagine. Even a village would probably be unable to resist a mounted
attack. You'd at least need a walled town.
Do nuclear weapons (and other relatively cheap weapons of mass destruction
with no effective defense) change this trend towards larger and larger
political units? Maybe -- nuclear weapons are so new and so destructive
that the military implications are largely theoretical at this point.
But you'd still need a fairly large organization, capable of developing
nuclear weapons, maintaining them, and keeping them under effective control.
(Neal Stephenson's novel "Snow Crash" features a one-man nuclear power:
he rides around on a motorcycle with a nuclear warhead in a sidecar, wired
to a dead-man switch that will detonate it if his heart stops. It's an
interesting scenario, but of course it's a horrific risk to whoever's
territory he happens to be on: what happens if he crashes his motorcycle,
or somebody who doesn't happen to know that he's a nuclear power kills
him, or he turns out to have a fatal peanut allergy? I think that this
would be a sufficient threat that there would be a concerted attempt to
abduct him and disconnect his nuclear warhead. He has to sleep some of
the time, right?)
To summarize, we need security, and a government capable of raising an army
appears to be the only effective way to provide this security. (At least,
in our situation. Someone living alone on a desert island doesn't need
government, because he doesn't have any security concerns.)
Could we defend ourselves with a volunteer army, as suggested by Merlin?
Perhaps, if all we needed was rifles, but I don't think that's the case.
Canada has a great deal of wealth, providing a strong incentive for
someone to launch a large-scale attack. I don't see how it's possible
to defend Canada without tanks, airplanes, and battleships, which cost
billions of dollars to build and maintain.
> > Let's look at it descriptively (how things actually work) and
> > prescriptively (how things *should* work).
> >
> > In Canada, if you refuse to pay your taxes, you go to jail. That's
> > a descriptive statement; I assume we both agree on this statement.
>
> I'm not sure that they do jail very many people for that in Canada. They
> might not jail anyone for it. I don't really know. In any case, it is now a
> practical problem for you because there are far too many tax dissenters to
> jail them all.
I'm skeptical; if there were that many people refusing to pay tax, I think
that the question of what to do with them would have become a major issue
by now (outside the Internet). If that ever becomes the case, then yes,
that'll be a practical problem.
> > As I understand it, you regard this as tyrannical; you believe that
> > Canadian laws should only apply to those individuals who explicitly
> > agree to be bound by them. That's a prescriptive statement.
>
> I don't think I did say that. Can you quote anything where I said that?
I was basing this on your earlier comment:
Either a government will govern with the consent of each person who
is governed, or it will rule by 'divine right' or some similar
justification.
> That's fine for you, and you are certainly welcome to govern yourself
> accordingly. You have not yet explained why your views on the matter should
> be imposed (by force!) on people who disagree.
It's simple: I don't see a practical alternative.
Suppose, hypothetically, that we need a government. (Again, I'm basing
this view on the argument that it's not possible to provide security on
an individual basis, and that modern military technology is extremely
expensive; people with a more optimistic view of human nature may disagree.)
How can we raise the money required to run the government? In particular,
is taxation -- that is, mandatory payment -- required? Or is it possible
to fund the government through *voluntary* payments -- that is, donations?
(That's how we fund charities, for example.) If government is so necessary,
won't people be willing to pay for it voluntarily?
My belief is that the answer is no, that the kinds of public goods provided
by government (such as security) are so expensive that people are only willing
to pay for them *as long as everyone else is also required to do so*; that
contributing a fair share of taxes is one thing, but providing security for
people who aren't willing to pay their share is another.
> Do you dismiss the objections of dissenters as unimportant? Do you consider
> yourself to be somehow superior to dissenters, and therefore entitled to
> compel them to accept your views? That is exactly what happens, if
> sufficient numbers of people feel as you do and the government acts on your
> views.
No, I don't consider dissenters to be unimportant or inferior. I have friends
who are dedicated libertarians. But I think libertarianism, like other forms
of utopian political philosophy, suffers from a fatal flaw. As Peter Nelson
puts it:
It's the classic cars -vs- magic carpets argument. Compared
to magic carpets, cars are *terrible*: they're dirty, noisy,
unsafe, unreliable, expensive to own and maintain, polluting,
and a general pain in the a**. But they EXIST. Magic carpets
are far better in every respect. But they don't exist and there's
no schedule for when we can expect delivery.
We need a government. Alas. It's expensive and it's irritating,
but it doesn't look like we can do without it.
Since we're Canadian citizens, the government has responsibilities towards
us -- my interpretation of what "rights" means -- and we have responsibilities
towards the government. In Canada, these respective responsibilities are
defined by our laws and our political traditions.
(Note that in some countries, there's very little relation between the
laws of the country and what actually happens there. Laws aren't
sufficient by themselves, if people don't have a tradition of respecting
the law.)
Because there's such a vast difference in scale between the power of
the government (with the army, the police, the bureaucracy) and the
power of the individual, there must be a balance of power within the
govenment itself -- in Canada, primarily between Parliament and the
courts -- to protect the individual from the government.
Conversely, if you don't live up to your responsibilities -- if you break
the law -- you're liable to prosecution, up to and including jail. That
includes the laws on tax evasion. There's no provision for "opting out."
> It is simply a fact that the Canadian government does not have authority
> over quite a number of people within its territorial boundaries, for a
> number of very good reasons. This is especially true wrt people who are
> exempt from any requirement to file or pay taxes. The Canadian government
> acknowledged that it *is not able* to establish laws that are binding on all
> people on its territory.
I'm skeptical of this claim. The only exception I can think of is that
diplomats have immunity (so that Canadian diplomats have immunity abroad).
> > In the real world that we live in, we have both rights
> > and responsibilities as Canadian citizens.
>
> Of course, but the linkage between particular rights and particular
> responsibilities is very poorly defined at the moment. You yourself appear
> to be of the view that "we have a right to security of person" and therefore
> must have "an obligation to pay taxes".
No, I'd put the argument like this:
1. We need security. (*Not* that we have a "right" to security.)
2. To provide security, we need an institution -- the government -- which is
capable of maintaining an army and a police force.
3. The government has responsibilities towards the individual, and the individual
has responsibilities towards the government, which are defined by our laws
and our political traditions.
4. In particular, we need to raise money to pay for the government. Under
our current laws and traditions, one of the obligations of the individual
is to pay taxes, and not only that, to do so without being forced to
hand over the money at gunpoint. (It'd be an exaggeration to say that
you're obliged to pay your taxes cheerfully, of course; a certain amount
of complaining is a long-standing Canadian tradition.) If you refuse to do
so, I believe you're failing to live up to your responsibilities.
> I am stating that it is tyrannical to impose obligations. Do you disagree?
I would agree that it's tyrannical to impose *arbitrary and unreasonable*
obligations. But I would disagree that all imposed obligations are tyrannical.
We impose all sorts of obligations, both by law and by custom: driving on the
right side of the road, joining the end of a lineup, not shoving people off
the curb when the light changes, not running over pedestrians (even obnoxious
ones), not eating spaghetti in public with your hands, not stealing if you can
get away with it.
I don't think requiring you to pay your taxes is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Brian Dooley
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:52:09 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
<shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:7v07hu04086adqbn9...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:07:47 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
>> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >Brian Dooley <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>> >news:daqtgugsqn4aeibcu...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:23:04 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
>> >> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >> >Nope, they get tribute extracted from them at gunpoint by the State.
>
>> >> OK, now try saying that with a straight face.
>
>> >Gladly, I'll be in Rotorua on the 12th of July. See you there.
>
>> I meant without laughing.
>
>Naturally, I thought you wanted evidence I could say it without laughing?
>
>I'm deadly serious.
You are also deadly wrong.
Scott Hillard
> >I'm deadly serious.
Wanna bet?
Try refusing to surrender tribute to the State. Men with guns will come to
extract it from you.
Smokin'
All the same arguments can be made regarding farming and food distribution.
The question not whether food and defense are necessary, the question is
whether or not taxation is required to provide these things. If taxation is
the only possible way to provide for necessities (food and defense) then you
might have an argument.
> > I'm not sure that they do jail very many people for that in Canada. They
> > might not jail anyone for it. I don't really know. In any case, it is
now a
> > practical problem for you because there are far too many tax dissenters
to
> > jail them all.
>
> I'm skeptical; if there were that many people refusing to pay tax, I think
> that the question of what to do with them would have become a major issue
> by now (outside the Internet). If that ever becomes the case, then yes,
> that'll be a practical problem.
Quite a large number, and growing. It seems that your "necessity" argument
has been expnded to include things like "culture" and "insurance', and those
things are now tax-funded. People resent being taken advantage of in this
manner, and large numbers of people who continue to pay taxes would stop if
they thought they could manage it without reprisals. Like I said before,
your argument isn't simply wrong - it is dangerous.
> > > As I understand it, you regard this as tyrannical; you believe that
> > > Canadian laws should only apply to those individuals who explicitly
> > > agree to be bound by them. That's a prescriptive statement.
> >
> > I don't think I did say that. Can you quote anything where I said that?
>
> I was basing this on your earlier comment:
>
> Either a government will govern with the consent of each person who
> is governed, or it will rule by 'divine right' or some similar
> justification.
I said nothing about "explicitly". "Implicit" is sufficient, I think. The
key is consent, you either have it or you do not.
> > That's fine for you, and you are certainly welcome to govern yourself
> > accordingly. You have not yet explained why your views on the matter
should
> > be imposed (by force!) on people who disagree.
>
> It's simple: I don't see a practical alternative.
You never will see any alternative explored or developed, so long as
taxation occurs. There is no incentive to find alternatives.
> Suppose, hypothetically, that we need a government. (Again, I'm basing
> this view on the argument that it's not possible to provide security on
> an individual basis, and that modern military technology is extremely
> expensive; people with a more optimistic view of human nature may
disagree.)
>
> How can we raise the money required to run the government? In particular,
> is taxation -- that is, mandatory payment -- required? Or is it possible
> to fund the government through *voluntary* payments -- that is, donations?
> (That's how we fund charities, for example.) If government is so
necessary,
> won't people be willing to pay for it voluntarily?
>
> My belief is that the answer is no, that the kinds of public goods
provided
> by government (such as security) are so expensive that people are only
willing
> to pay for them *as long as everyone else is also required to do so*; that
> contributing a fair share of taxes is one thing, but providing security
for
> people who aren't willing to pay their share is another.
I am of the view that teh society whose members will not voluntarily defend
it, probably does not deserve to be defended. Furthermore, slaves make very
poor defenders, and that is exactly what you create when people are forced
to provide security (or anything else).
> > Do you dismiss the objections of dissenters as unimportant? Do you
consider
> > yourself to be somehow superior to dissenters, and therefore entitled to
> > compel them to accept your views? That is exactly what happens, if
> > sufficient numbers of people feel as you do and the government acts on
your
> > views.
>
> No, I don't consider dissenters to be unimportant or inferior. I have
friends
> who are dedicated libertarians. But I think libertarianism, like other
forms
> of utopian political philosophy, suffers from a fatal flaw. As Peter
Nelson
> puts it:
>
> It's the classic cars -vs- magic carpets argument. Compared
> to magic carpets, cars are *terrible*: they're dirty, noisy,
> unsafe, unreliable, expensive to own and maintain, polluting,
> and a general pain in the a**. But they EXIST. Magic carpets
> are far better in every respect. But they don't exist and there's
> no schedule for when we can expect delivery.
>
> We need a government. Alas. It's expensive and it's irritating,
> but it doesn't look like we can do without it.
Some people may wish to have alternative government. For example, native
tribes may wish to govern themselves and exempt themselves from certain
Ottawa laws and taxes. Is that a problem?
> Since we're Canadian citizens, the government has responsibilities towards
> us -- my interpretation of what "rights" means -- and we have
responsibilities
> towards the government. In Canada, these respective responsibilities are
> defined by our laws and our political traditions.
>
> (Note that in some countries, there's very little relation between the
> laws of the country and what actually happens there. Laws aren't
> sufficient by themselves, if people don't have a tradition of respecting
> the law.)
>
> Because there's such a vast difference in scale between the power of
> the government (with the army, the police, the bureaucracy) and the
> power of the individual, there must be a balance of power within the
> govenment itself -- in Canada, primarily between Parliament and the
> courts -- to protect the individual from the government.
>
> Conversely, if you don't live up to your responsibilities -- if you break
> the law -- you're liable to prosecution, up to and including jail. That
> includes the laws on tax evasion. There's no provision for "opting out."
And yet, people are opting out. And native tribes are being exempted from
taxes. Your edifice of government is starting to crumble, all because you
cannot find any way except threats of jail and other threats of violence to
persuade people to pay for your government. Doesn't it bother you that
people don't consider your government a sufficiently valuable service to pay
for it without threats? Shouldn't that fact alert you to serious worsening
problems?
> > It is simply a fact that the Canadian government does not have authority
> > over quite a number of people within its territorial boundaries, for a
> > number of very good reasons. This is especially true wrt people who are
> > exempt from any requirement to file or pay taxes. The Canadian
government
> > acknowledged that it *is not able* to establish laws that are binding on
all
> > people on its territory.
>
> I'm skeptical of this claim. The only exception I can think of is that
> diplomats have immunity (so that Canadian diplomats have immunity abroad).
Native tribes are another example.
So, taxes are merely a tradition? Like the Canada Day picnic?
> > I am stating that it is tyrannical to impose obligations. Do you
disagree?
>
> I would agree that it's tyrannical to impose *arbitrary and unreasonable*
> obligations. But I would disagree that all imposed obligations are
tyrannical.
> We impose all sorts of obligations, both by law and by custom: driving on
the
> right side of the road...
That is clearly a public safety issue, and is subject to necessity
arguments. Unless you can think of alternatives, of course.
> joining the end of a lineup...
There is no such obligation. It is merely custom.
> , not shoving people off
> the curb when the light changes
Safety issue.
> , not running over pedestrians (even obnoxious
> ones),
Liberty issue.
> not eating spaghetti in public with your hands,
Feel free, nobody cares.
> not stealing if you can
> get away with it.
Liberty issue.
> I don't think requiring you to pay your taxes is arbitrary and
unreasonable.
There is no safety issue, and it is a clear violation of people's liberty to
force them to pay taxes. You implied that taxes are merely tradition and I
think you might be right about that.
Smokin'
"Scott Hillard" <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:jeTR8.2745$5l4....@ozemail.com.au...
That depends. If you are a "taxpayer" then you do have an obligation to
surrender tribute. If you are not a taxpayer, then the men with guns
probably will not have cause to bother you. Which is not to say that they
might not mistakenly bother you, but it should be fairly easy to sort it
out.
Brian Dooley
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:43:16 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
<den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
snip---
>> >Of course we can pick and choose.
>> >
>> >We can do any damned thing we like.
>>
>> And the last time you didn't declare your income was - when?
>
>So typically Dooley.
>
You reckon you can pick and choose to do any damned thing you
like. The subject under discussion is tax, so I take it that you
reckon you can refuse to pay tax if you so wish.
Nobody has said you must - but with the proviso that you must
expect to go suffer some sanction if you don't. I just want to
see whether your practice is as good as your principles.
>Note for those who can actually read: there was a qualifying statement
>which Dooley has emended from his response.
>
From you, Denver, there always is.
>When was the last time you had anything relevant to say, Dooley?
>
>You answer me and I'll answer you, as the man said.
>
How about this then.
You resent paying taxes, and you are always moaning about it.
Nobody really likes it but most don't waste their time moaning
about it.
Is that relevant enough for you?
Denver Fletcher
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:43:16 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
> <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> snip---
> >> >Of course we can pick and choose.
> >> >
> >> >We can do any damned thing we like.
> >>
> >> And the last time you didn't declare your income was - when?
> >
> >So typically Dooley.
> >
> You reckon you can pick and choose to do any damned thing you
> like. The subject under discussion is tax, so I take it that you
> reckon you can refuse to pay tax if you so wish.
>
> Nobody has said you must - but with the proviso that you must
> expect to go suffer some sanction if you don't. I just want to
> see whether your practice is as good as your principles.
Which is exactly the qualification I made initially, which you then
snipped, and now (below) object to.
You like to have it both ways, hmmm?
Understandable, but not really indicative of any maturity or intelligence.
> >Note for those who can actually read: there was a qualifying statement
> >which Dooley has emended from his response.
> >
> From you, Denver, there always is.
I do try to say exactly what I mean.
Sorry if this offends you, but those who like to live in the spaces where
ambiguity and imprecision hide their innate inadequacies, in turn offend
me.
Such is life.
> >When was the last time you had anything relevant to say, Dooley?
> >
> >You answer me and I'll answer you, as the man said.
> >
> How about this then.
>
> You resent paying taxes, and you are always moaning about it.
No, I simply point out that the vast majority of it is wasted at best and
actually harmful more often than not. For those people who have the idea
that politicians exist to serve some positive objective in society, this
ought to be a matter of some concern.
> Nobody really likes it but most don't waste their time moaning
> about it.
Bollocks. Those here who prefer tax and spend leftism are actively
promoting it (admittedly they are usually ignorant of this necessary
implication of their favoured social engineering fantasies, but
nevertheless....).
> Is that relevant enough for you?
Moreso than previous efforts, certainly.
Now, if you could say soemthing that was relevant AND accurate, you'd be
making real progress towards becoming a mature, thinking, autonomous, and
intelligent entity.
Good Luck.
Russil Wvong
> > To summarize, we need security, and a government capable of raising
> > an army appears to be the only effective way to provide this security.
> > (At least, in our situation. Someone living alone on a desert island
> > doesn't need government, because he doesn't have any security concerns.)
>
No. A farmer doesn't need to worry that a neighbouring farmer is going to
seize his farm. There's no minimum farm size. It's quite feasible for
an individual or a family to run a farm.
Security is different. It's not possible for an individual or a family
to provide for their own security.
> The question not whether food and defense are necessary, the question is
> whether or not taxation is required to provide these things.
Correct. Taxation isn't required to provide food, but it's required to
provide defense.
> > I'm skeptical; if there were that many people refusing to pay tax, I think
> > that the question of what to do with them would have become a major issue
> > by now (outside the Internet). If that ever becomes the case, then yes,
> > that'll be a practical problem.
>
> Quite a large number, and growing. It seems that your "necessity" argument
> has been expanded to include things like "culture" and "insurance', and
> those things are now tax-funded.
I think it's arguable whether the government ought to provide welfare-state
programs (public education, health, pensions, etc.); certainly such services
weren't provided by governments prior to the late 19th century. But my
main argument is that at a minimum, you need government and taxation for
security.
Whether the welfare state ought to be abolished is debatable, but it's
a separate issue.
> [regarding consent]
> I said nothing about "explicitly". "Implicit" is sufficient, I think.
Fair enough.
> > > That's fine for you, and you are certainly welcome to govern yourself
> > > accordingly. You have not yet explained why your views on the matter
> > > should be imposed (by force!) on people who disagree.
> >
> > It's simple: I don't see a practical alternative.
>
> You never will see any alternative explored or developed, so long as
> taxation occurs. There is no incentive to find alternatives.
I've seen a great deal of discussion of alternatives, both on the Internet
and in science fiction. I don't think the problem is lack of incentive.
I think it's a practical problem. If someone invents a way of providing
individual defense -- some kind of impenetrable force field -- then
our need for government will disappear, and I'm sure a lot of governments
will break down. Until then, we're stuck in the world as we know it.
> I am of the view that the society whose members will not voluntarily defend
> it, probably does not deserve to be defended. Furthermore, slaves make very
> poor defenders, and that is exactly what you create when people are forced
> to provide security (or anything else).
Absolutely true. As I said, if the Canadian government ruled by force
alone, it'd need to have an army patrol on every corner. The reason it
doesn't need to do this is that most Canadians accept the authority of
the Canadian government.
> Some people may wish to have alternative government. For example, native
> tribes may wish to govern themselves and exempt themselves from certain
> Ottawa laws and taxes. Is that a problem?
No, as long as they can get agreement from the Canadian government. But
the Canadian government retains overall jurisdiction over Canadian
territory. It can send in the military if it has to.
> And yet, people are opting out. And native tribes are being exempted from
> taxes. Your edifice of government is starting to crumble, all because you
> cannot find any way except threats of jail and other threats of violence to
> persuade people to pay for your government.
Taxation in Canada has *always* been backed up by the authority of the
Canadian government and its ability to use force. And Canada's been in
existence for more than a century, which is a long time in politics.
I don't see taxes as a threat to the stability of Canadian society,
particularly since tax levels are being reduced.
> Doesn't it bother you that people don't consider your government
> a sufficiently valuable service to pay for it without threats?
No. That's always been the case -- not just in Canada, but under
all governments at all times.
> Native tribes are another example.
Good point. But in this case, the Canadian government is delegating
its authority to native governments. Native bands do *not* have
sovereignty.
> So, taxes are merely a tradition? Like the Canada Day picnic?
No. Taxation is a tradition (along with the rule of law, parliamentary
government, party politics, and other Canadian political traditions),
but it's not *just* a tradition; taxation is also a necessity. The
Canada Day picnic is not.
> > I don't think requiring you to pay your taxes is arbitrary and
> > unreasonable.
>
> There is no safety issue,
Sure there is. If there's no army and no police, there's a major safety
issue (or what's to stop someone from shooting you in the back so he can
live in your house?). You can't pay for an army and a police force
without taxes.
Liberty is certainly important, but so is security. I think Canadian
society strikes a reasonable balance between liberty and security.
And I think the security and stability that we enjoy shouldn't be taken
for granted. As I said earlier, we have our fair share of psychopaths
and criminals.
> You implied that taxes are merely tradition and I
> think you might be right about that.
"Merely" is the wrong adjective for a tradition. :-) I think we have
a tendency to overlook the force and the usefulness of our traditions
and our history. The history of the 20th century is in large part
the history of radical political philosophies, promising to bring
about utopian changes in society by sweeping away old traditions,
and resulting in enormous slaughter and misery. Even the French
Revolution followed this pattern.
Smokin'
> "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org> wrote:
> > "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > To summarize, we need security, and a government capable of raising
> > > an army appears to be the only effective way to provide this security.
> > > (At least, in our situation. Someone living alone on a desert island
> > > doesn't need government, because he doesn't have any security
concerns.)
> >
> > All the same arguments can be made regarding farming and food
distribution.
>
> No. A farmer doesn't need to worry that a neighbouring farmer is going to
> seize his farm. There's no minimum farm size. It's quite feasible for
> an individual or a family to run a farm.
Yes. Farming is the only effective way to create food, and food is necessary
to sustain life. Is farming exactly the same thing as defense? Obviously
not.
Can all your arguments be applied to farming in exactly the same way you
apply them to defense? Yes. Try it.
> Security is different. It's not possible for an individual or a family
> to provide for their own security.
Security is different, but not insofar as it is almost as necessary as food
to survival. Some families can provide for their own security, just as some
families can provide their own food.
> > The question not whether food and defense are necessary, the question is
> > whether or not taxation is required to provide these things.
>
> Correct. Taxation isn't required to provide food, but it's required to
> provide defense.
You claim that taxation is the only way to provide for defense, but you
offer no evidence for that.
> I think it's arguable whether the government ought to provide
welfare-state
> programs (public education, health, pensions, etc.); certainly such
services
> weren't provided by governments prior to the late 19th century. But my
> main argument is that at a minimum, you need government and taxation for
> security.
>
> Whether the welfare state ought to be abolished is debatable, but it's
> a separate issue.
Once the camel's nose is in the tent...
> > You never will see any alternative explored or developed, so long as
> > taxation occurs. There is no incentive to find alternatives.
>
> I've seen a great deal of discussion of alternatives, both on the Internet
> and in science fiction. I don't think the problem is lack of incentive.
> I think it's a practical problem. If someone invents a way of providing
> individual defense -- some kind of impenetrable force field -- then
> our need for government will disappear, and I'm sure a lot of governments
> will break down. Until then, we're stuck in the world as we know it.
I'd probably accept taxation for defense, if it was limited to that.
Unfortunately, the world as we know it does not work that way.
> > I am of the view that the society whose members will not voluntarily
defend
> > it, probably does not deserve to be defended. Furthermore, slaves make
very
> > poor defenders, and that is exactly what you create when people are
forced
> > to provide security (or anything else).
>
> Absolutely true. As I said, if the Canadian government ruled by force
> alone, it'd need to have an army patrol on every corner. The reason it
> doesn't need to do this is that most Canadians accept the authority of
> the Canadian government.
Yes. Which makes me wonder why all the fuss over a few dissenters who won't
pay taxes? It's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, and (as you
say) the vast majority of Canadians love the current system.
> > Some people may wish to have alternative government. For example, native
> > tribes may wish to govern themselves and exempt themselves from certain
> > Ottawa laws and taxes. Is that a problem?
>
> No, as long as they can get agreement from the Canadian government. But
> the Canadian government retains overall jurisdiction over Canadian
> territory. It can send in the military if it has to.
But that's exactly the point... the agreement of the Canadian government is
irrelevent.
> > And yet, people are opting out. And native tribes are being exempted
from
> > taxes. Your edifice of government is starting to crumble, all because
you
> > cannot find any way except threats of jail and other threats of violence
to
> > persuade people to pay for your government.
>
> Taxation in Canada has *always* been backed up by the authority of the
> Canadian government and its ability to use force. And Canada's been in
> existence for more than a century, which is a long time in politics.
> I don't see taxes as a threat to the stability of Canadian society,
> particularly since tax levels are being reduced.
yes, I don't suppose that you would see it.
> > Doesn't it bother you that people don't consider your government
> > a sufficiently valuable service to pay for it without threats?
>
> No. That's always been the case -- not just in Canada, but under
> all governments at all times.
You are mistaken.
> > Native tribes are another example.
>
> Good point. But in this case, the Canadian government is delegating
> its authority to native governments. Native bands do *not* have
> sovereignty.
They do not pay taxes.
> > So, taxes are merely a tradition? Like the Canada Day picnic?
>
> No. Taxation is a tradition (along with the rule of law, parliamentary
> government, party politics, and other Canadian political traditions),
> but it's not *just* a tradition; taxation is also a necessity. The
> Canada Day picnic is not.
Taxation is not necessary.
> > > I don't think requiring you to pay your taxes is arbitrary and
> > > unreasonable.
> >
> > There is no safety issue,
>
> Sure there is. If there's no army and no police, there's a major safety
> issue (or what's to stop someone from shooting you in the back so he can
> live in your house?).
I'm not worried about it.
> You can't pay for an army and a police force
> without taxes.
Sure you can. You lack imagination and creativity.
> Liberty is certainly important, but so is security. I think Canadian
> society strikes a reasonable balance between liberty and security.
There is no such balance. Without liberty, you have the style of security of
a prson or a police state.
> And I think the security and stability that we enjoy shouldn't be taken
> for granted. As I said earlier, we have our fair share of psychopaths
> and criminals.
Fearmongering is not an argument.
> > You implied that taxes are merely tradition and I
> > think you might be right about that.
>
> "Merely" is the wrong adjective for a tradition. :-) I think we have
> a tendency to overlook the force and the usefulness of our traditions
> and our history. The history of the 20th century is in large part
> the history of radical political philosophies, promising to bring
> about utopian changes in society by sweeping away old traditions,
> and resulting in enormous slaughter and misery. Even the French
> Revolution followed this pattern.
Yes, there certainly are a few traditions that I'd like to see revived.
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:16:01 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
<shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:vtvehu40qqlqu9o0k...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:52:09 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
>> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >I'm deadly serious.
>
>> You are also deadly wrong.
>
>Wanna bet?
>
>Try refusing to surrender tribute to the State. Men with guns will come to
>extract it from you.
>
No they won't, but they might quite politely take you to prison -
and they certainly won't need a gun to do it.
Are you really as foolish as you seem?
Russil Wvong
> Can all your arguments be applied to farming in exactly the same way you
> apply them to defense? Yes. Try it.
If I try it, I get the following:
We pay individual farmers and companies to provide food. Why can't
we pay individuals and private companies to provide security?
Modern defense requires a very large organization, capable of
fielding artillery, armor, air power, and so on. So if you hire
a private company to provide your security, you're basically hiring
a very large, well-equipped mercenary army.
The problem is, *who's going to protect you from your mercenaries?*
Security is different from food. If I grow food and you don't, you
can still feed yourself; you can pay me and I'll give you food. But
if I've got an army and you don't, I have security and you don't.
You can't ensure your security by paying me -- if I decide to simply
take what you have, you can't stop me. (You can hire someone with
a different army, of course, but you end up with the same problem --
how do you protect yourself from this third person?)
> > > The question not whether food and defense are necessary, the question
> > > is whether or not taxation is required to provide these things.
> >
> > Correct. Taxation isn't required to provide food, but it's required to
> > provide defense.
>
> You claim that taxation is the only way to provide for defense, but you
> offer no evidence for that.
I don't see how you can finance an army and a police force with voluntary
payments, i.e. donations.
> I'd probably accept taxation for defense, if it was limited to that.
> Unfortunately, the world as we know it does not work that way.
Absolutely correct. And this is the key weakness of the democratic
political system: *it depends on the responsibility and maturity of
the people*. If the people vote themselves benefits out of the
public treasury, there's no-one to stop them. A benefit which
has been provided for a long time is regarded as an entitlement;
thus benefits accumulate over time. Eventually the treasury is
bankrupted.
Over the last 10 years or so, the trend in Canadian politics has
been in the other direction -- government services have been cut
back and taxes reduced, first in Alberta, then federally, in
Ontario, and elsewhere. That may or may not last, of course.
So there definitely *is* an obvious weakness in our current political
system. But that doesn't mean that we can do without government.
At a minimum, we need government in order to provide an army and
a police force.
> > And I think the security and stability that we enjoy shouldn't be taken
> > for granted. As I said earlier, we have our fair share of psychopaths
> > and criminals.
>
> Fearmongering is not an argument.
I'm not sure why you think this is fearmongering. We *do* have psychopaths
and criminals. It's not as though Canadians have somehow transcended human
nature. (And even if we had, we'd still need to figure out how to defend
ourselves against people who hadn't.) Of course we can't predict what would
happen if the authority of the government were to collapse, but from reading
about other parts of the world (e.g. China during the first half of the
20th century), my guess would be warlords, gangsters, and foreign invasions.
Not liberty.
As I said earlier, I don't think either of us will be able to convince
the other, so maybe I'll let you have the last word.
Smokin'
> > Can all your arguments be applied to farming in exactly the same way you
> > apply them to defense? Yes. Try it.
>
> If I try it, I get the following:
>
> We pay individual farmers and companies to provide food. Why can't
> we pay individuals and private companies to provide security?
>
> Modern defense requires a very large organization, capable of
> fielding artillery, armor, air power, and so on. So if you hire
> a private company to provide your security, you're basically hiring
> a very large, well-equipped mercenary army.
Modern farming requires large organization, capable of fielding millions
(possibly billions) of dollars worth of sophisticated heavy equipment. If
this is not done, millions of people will starve to death.
> The problem is, *who's going to protect you from your mercenaries?*
The problem is, "who is going to save you from starvation?"
> Security is different from food. If I grow food and you don't, you
> can still feed yourself; you can pay me and I'll give you food. But
> if I've got an army and you don't, I have security and you don't.
Wrong comparison. If I have a farm and you don't, then I can withold food
and you will starve. Security and foods are quite similar in that respect.
> You can't ensure your security by paying me -- if I decide to simply
> take what you have, you can't stop me. (You can hire someone with
> a different army, of course, but you end up with the same problem --
> how do you protect yourself from this third person?)
You can't ensure your food supply by paying me, I will sell to the highest
bidder. If that isn't you, then tough noogies. Security and food are quite
similar in that regard.
> > You claim that taxation is the only way to provide for defense, but you
> > offer no evidence for that.
>
> I don't see how you can finance an army and a police force with voluntary
> payments, i.e. donations.
Neither do I. What is your point?
> > I'd probably accept taxation for defense, if it was limited to that.
> > Unfortunately, the world as we know it does not work that way.
>
> Absolutely correct. And this is the key weakness of the democratic
> political system: *it depends on the responsibility and maturity of
> the people*. If the people vote themselves benefits out of the
> public treasury, there's no-one to stop them. A benefit which
> has been provided for a long time is regarded as an entitlement;
> thus benefits accumulate over time. Eventually the treasury is
> bankrupted.
I don't give a rat's ass about the treasury. It's "the majority" depriving
people like me of basic fundamental rights that is of concern. Any society
that allows that sort of thing is on it's way to oblivion.
> Over the last 10 years or so, the trend in Canadian politics has
> been in the other direction -- government services have been cut
> back and taxes reduced, first in Alberta, then federally, in
> Ontario, and elsewhere. That may or may not last, of course.
>
> So there definitely *is* an obvious weakness in our current political
> system.
No shit, sherlock. The fundamental weakness originates in a fundamental
logical/philosophical/ideological mistake. One that you seem to be overly
fond of defending.
> But that doesn't mean that we can do without government.
Why do you insist on repeating that? Who is suggesting that anyone do
without government?
> At a minimum, we need government in order to provide an army and
> a police force.
I am sure that a legitimate geovernment will find plenty of consent (and
paying citizens) for that idea. Nobody - absolutely nobody - needs to be
forced to pay for that. You are so brilliant!
> > > And I think the security and stability that we enjoy shouldn't be
taken
> > > for granted. As I said earlier, we have our fair share of psychopaths
> > > and criminals.
> >
> > Fearmongering is not an argument.
>
> I'm not sure why you think this is fearmongering.
Because it is fearmongering. Scaring people with the bogeyman, to justify a
tax grab. You should be ashamed.
> We *do* have psychopaths and criminals.
Yes but not very many. Certainly not in sufficient numbers to warrant any
infringement of basic fundamental rights.
> It's not as though Canadians have somehow transcended human
> nature. (And even if we had, we'd still need to figure out how to defend
> ourselves against people who hadn't.) Of course we can't predict what
would
> happen if the authority of the government were to collapse, but from
reading
> about other parts of the world (e.g. China during the first half of the
> 20th century), my guess would be warlords, gangsters, and foreign
invasions.
> Not liberty.
What makes you think that the Canadian government actually has any
authority? From my perspective, it has power and no authority.
> As I said earlier, I don't think either of us will be able to convince
> the other, so maybe I'll let you have the last word.
I am surprised that you so casually reject my thoughts with your specious
"no government" nonsense. I am suggesting nothing more than a way for the
Canadian government to acquire authority and be able to use power
legitimately. That is something that you ought to be interested in,
especially as you seem to be aware of the dreadful flaws in our system that
these ideas would neatly and harmlessly address.
Well... "harmless" is a matter of perspective, I suppose. Anyone who
currently enjoys sufficient political power to exercise force and compel
obedience (or tax payment or whatever) will view my ideas as very harmful to
their ambitions. Most political operators (large and small) do.
Kim Shepherd
> >Try refusing to surrender tribute to the State. Men with guns will come
to
> >extract it from you.
> No they won't, but they might quite politely take you to prison -
> and they certainly won't need a gun to do it.
> Are you really as foolish as you seem?
If you take it to its extreme, and refuse to willingly obey their
instructions, then they will need to either physically force you into the
cells, or coerce you with threat of even worse punishment (hence, the guns,
although I feel that even coerced action like this could be classed
'willingly', because you're still making the choice to heed the advice of
the gun-wielding cop and not get shot).
Guns probably wouldn't make too much of an appearance in New Zealand, but
ultimately it's still force, because they'll make sure you end up in prison,
even if you won't come voluntarily.
I think that's what was being said.
-k.
Brian Dooley
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:05:23 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
<den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
snip---
>Now, if you could say soemthing that was relevant AND accurate, you'd be
>making real progress towards becoming a mature, thinking, autonomous, and
>intelligent entity.
>
>Good Luck.
Thanks, kid, but I made it before you were born.