Blame Canada

[Mr.Macinstache]

You have entered into a contract with the government of the country you live.  It's a social contract.  When you pay taxes you are fulfilling the terms of your contract.  When you don't pay taxes there are consequences.  If you tire of the contract you can move elsewhere.  Calling voluntary acceptance of the terms of living in the society that you do 'theft' is rather uninformed and a child-like way of looking at things.

Oh the mythical "social contract". LOL. Where is this and when did I sign it? Who wrote it? Did Jesus write it? Or other Jesus like founding fathers? What are terms exactly again?

Contracts are signed, not implied. It's the reason I can't move my whole family into your house and telling you that staying in your house you are "voluntarily" accepting OUR terms and if you don't like it, you can move to another house. Seems legit?

[beltim]

You have entered into a contract with the government of the country you live.  It's a social contract.  When you pay taxes you are fulfilling the terms of your contract.  When you don't pay taxes there are consequences.  If you tire of the contract you can move elsewhere.  Calling voluntary acceptance of the terms of living in the society that you do 'theft' is rather uninformed and a child-like way of looking at things.

Oh the mythical "social contract". LOL. Where is this and when did I sign it? Who wrote it? Did Jesus write it? Or other Jesus like founding fathers? What are terms exactly again?

Contracts are signed, not implied. It's the reason I can't move my whole family into your house and telling you that staying in your house you are "voluntarily" accepting OUR terms and if you don't like it, you can move to another house. Seems legit?

False.  There are lots of contracts not directly signed.  Your terrible analogy does nothing to prove your point, since it's not at all applicable.

The fact is, you do have the freedom to opt out – simply leave your state or country of residence.  In some places you may have to renounce citizenship.  There – you're free!

Has any thief ever told you that you could get out of handing over your wallet if you simply decided to walk on another street?  Your view of taxation as theft is like calling a toll road theft – despite the fact that everyone agrees that there is a cost to use the road (and there are many valid discussions about the appropriate cost of the toll), you apparently ignore the giant signs when you get on (along with the "last stop before toll" sign), and then yell loudly that "TOLLS ARE THEFT!"

[Mr.Macinstache]

Meh you're just oversimplifying the relationship between individuals and government to support your viewpoint. Calling taxes theft just keeps supporting your view. Nothing we say will change your mind on it apparently. Your approach just shuts down any actual constructive discussion that can happen regarding taxes in general because you just don't see them the same way that others do. You are no more correct than anyone else. And calling other people insane doesn't make you seem any better. Might want to dial down the insults a bit.

You say individuals and "the government" like they are two different things. Do individuals not make up the government? Or are they a collective group with special rights that other individuals do not have?

Please, try and change my mind. Explain to me how forcing me to pay for something beyond my will isnt stealing. I need a good laugh. LOL.

Why should I tone done my insults? That blog entry called people who disagree with him disingenuous, selfish, short-sighted. So don't lecture me on my insults. I generally find it good practice to insult those who advocate theft and violence. We don't need anymore double standards here, one set will do just fine.

I already told you there is no point in even entertaining a discussion with you. You have an ideological approach to this. There is nothing to say to you that will have any impact.

The blog != the forum. The mods are not in charge of ensuring that people not be dicks in the blog. They are in charge of people not being dicks in the forum. You're being a dick by calling people insane who view things differently than you. You can find anything you want good practice but there are somethings that we accept for being participants on this forum, and a modicum of non-dickishness is one of them. I have no actual power over your posts and am just actually trying to give you a friendly reminder to keep it nice and civil. Feel free to buck that if you want to.

I'm challenging the ideology that the blog put forth, and is echoed throughout the forum. It's not my intention to be a dick, but I would argue that the blog sort of set the tone on this continued discussion. We're all adults here.. I've already been called uniformed (as if I'm a dummy for thinking stealing is wrong! LOL) and child-like by GuitarStv. So, the mods can flesh that out if they need to.

[Mr.Macinstache]

You have entered into a contract with the government of the country you live.  It's a social contract.  When you pay taxes you are fulfilling the terms of your contract.  When you don't pay taxes there are consequences.  If you tire of the contract you can move elsewhere.  Calling voluntary acceptance of the terms of living in the society that you do 'theft' is rather uninformed and a child-like way of looking at things.

Oh the mythical "social contract". LOL. Where is this and when did I sign it? Who wrote it? Did Jesus write it? Or other Jesus like founding fathers? What are terms exactly again?

Contracts are signed, not implied. It's the reason I can't move my whole family into your house and telling you that staying in your house you are "voluntarily" accepting OUR terms and if you don't like it, you can move to another house. Seems legit?

False.  There are lots of contracts not directly signed.  Your terrible analogy does nothing to prove your point, since it's not at all applicable.

The fact is, you do have the freedom to opt out – simply leave your state or country of residence.  In some places you may have to renounce citizenship.  There – you're free!

Has any thief ever told you that you could get out of handing over your wallet if you simply decided to walk on another street?  Your view of taxation as theft is like calling a toll road theft – despite the fact that everyone agrees that there is a cost to use the road (and there are many valid discussions about the appropriate cost of the toll), you apparently ignore the giant signs when you get on (along with the "last stop before toll" sign), and then yell loudly that "TOLLS ARE THEFT!"

False. You completely ignore any recognition of private property. The thief does not own the street. If he tried to take my wallet, I will defend myself and continue on my way. I have the choice whether or not to take a toll road. I do not have the choice if the toll road owners rob me while I'm on a public road.

Preaching about some magical implied social contract is not a valid argument unless you can prove its existence.

Until then your argument amounts to

[GuitarStv]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

[beltim]

You have entered into a contract with the government of the country you live.  It's a social contract.  When you pay taxes you are fulfilling the terms of your contract.  When you don't pay taxes there are consequences.  If you tire of the contract you can move elsewhere.  Calling voluntary acceptance of the terms of living in the society that you do 'theft' is rather uninformed and a child-like way of looking at things.

Oh the mythical "social contract". LOL. Where is this and when did I sign it? Who wrote it? Did Jesus write it? Or other Jesus like founding fathers? What are terms exactly again?

Contracts are signed, not implied. It's the reason I can't move my whole family into your house and telling you that staying in your house you are "voluntarily" accepting OUR terms and if you don't like it, you can move to another house. Seems legit?

False.  There are lots of contracts not directly signed.  Your terrible analogy does nothing to prove your point, since it's not at all applicable.

The fact is, you do have the freedom to opt out – simply leave your state or country of residence.  In some places you may have to renounce citizenship.  There – you're free!

Has any thief ever told you that you could get out of handing over your wallet if you simply decided to walk on another street?  Your view of taxation as theft is like calling a toll road theft – despite the fact that everyone agrees that there is a cost to use the road (and there are many valid discussions about the appropriate cost of the toll), you apparently ignore the giant signs when you get on (along with the "last stop before toll" sign), and then yell loudly that "TOLLS ARE THEFT!"

False. You completely ignore any recognition of private property. The thief does not own the street. If he tried to take my wallet, I will defend myself and continue on my way. I have the choice whether or not to take a toll road. I do not have the choice if the toll road owners rob me while I'm on a public road.

Preaching about some magical implied social contract is not a valid argument unless you can prove its existence.

Until then your argument amounts to

There's no argument that isn't better when placed in white text, font impact, in front of an irrelevant picture.

Please don't conflate my argument with those of others - I would most assuredly not argue like others have that you're not entitled to the entire fruits of your labor. 

How am I not recognizing private property?  The rest of your response to the toll road analogy is taking it in a completely different direction from what I said, making it pointless to compare unless I figure out what you mean by recognizing private property.

[Mr.Macinstache]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

[matchewed]

Meh you're just oversimplifying the relationship between individuals and government to support your viewpoint. Calling taxes theft just keeps supporting your view. Nothing we say will change your mind on it apparently. Your approach just shuts down any actual constructive discussion that can happen regarding taxes in general because you just don't see them the same way that others do. You are no more correct than anyone else. And calling other people insane doesn't make you seem any better. Might want to dial down the insults a bit.

You say individuals and "the government" like they are two different things. Do individuals not make up the government? Or are they a collective group with special rights that other individuals do not have?

Please, try and change my mind. Explain to me how forcing me to pay for something beyond my will isnt stealing. I need a good laugh. LOL.

Why should I tone done my insults? That blog entry called people who disagree with him disingenuous, selfish, short-sighted. So don't lecture me on my insults. I generally find it good practice to insult those who advocate theft and violence. We don't need anymore double standards here, one set will do just fine.

I already told you there is no point in even entertaining a discussion with you. You have an ideological approach to this. There is nothing to say to you that will have any impact.

The blog != the forum. The mods are not in charge of ensuring that people not be dicks in the blog. They are in charge of people not being dicks in the forum. You're being a dick by calling people insane who view things differently than you. You can find anything you want good practice but there are somethings that we accept for being participants on this forum, and a modicum of non-dickishness is one of them. I have no actual power over your posts and am just actually trying to give you a friendly reminder to keep it nice and civil. Feel free to buck that if you want to.

I'm challenging the ideology that the blog put forth, and is echoed throughout the forum. It's not my intention to be a dick, but I would argue that the blog sort of set the tone on this continued discussion. We're all adults here.. I've already been called uniformed (as if I'm a dummy for thinking stealing is wrong! LOL) and child-like by GuitarStv. So, the mods can flesh that out if they need to.

No the tone of the blog is not the forum. You may continue to discuss the blog posts in the forum but only within the framework of the rules set forth by the forum. Feel free to take it up w/ a mod if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure they can come in here and correct me on that one.

[GuitarStv]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

The 'mafia' is demanding payment for the police who protect your store.  Payment for the firefighters who protect your store.  Payment for the roads that lead to your store.  Payment for the defense of the vessels that transport the goods to your store.  You're trying to short change the very people who have provided for you.  If you don't want to pay them, then you need to stop using their services . . . by moving somewhere else.  In effect . . . you are trying to steal from the so called 'mafia' in this case by shirking your obligations as a member of society.

[thepokercab]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

So what exactly is the alternative? 

You seem to be making an argument against the fundamental nature of the state, and its relationship with its citizens.  Most of us will have arguments about the extent of that relationship, how big or small it should be, etc.. but at the end of the day most people will agree that some sort of relationship is necessary.  And yes, the central tenet of that relationship is that the citizens gives up a percentage of its labor (taxes) in exchange for a government that provides services.   

You seem to be saying we need to unwind hundreds of years of history, unwind the nature of the state itself, and instead have...... ? 

[Jennifer in Ottawa]

Explain to me how forcing me to pay for something beyond my will isnt stealing.

You choose to continue living in your current country of residence.  Therefore you have chosen to partake in that society and must pay your share.  Citizenship has a cost.

If you choose not to pay your share you are perfectly capable and welcome to change your country of residency.

See, no analogies required.  Just facts.

[thepokercab]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

Also, not to take your analogy further, but you assume that your store would even exist without the mafia/government in the first place?  Who exactly in this world is providing you roads to move your goods, or providing you a world where safe commerce can occur? 

[Mr.Macinstache]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

The 'mafia' is demanding payment for the police who protect your store.  Payment for the firefighters who protect your store.  Payment for the roads that lead to your store.  Payment for the defense of the vessels that transport the goods to your store.  You're trying to short change the very people who have provided for you.  If you don't want to pay them, then you need to stop using their services . . . by moving somewhere else.  In effect . . . you are trying to steal from the so called 'mafia' in this case by shirking your obligations as a member of society.

No, you miss the point. The mafia forces their service of "protection" on to you. They pay off corrupt cops to turn a blind eye. C'mon. Now you're just dodging the fact that the mafia is force. And when youre forced to "accept" their service you did not choose to take it. Calling it a mafia, police or central govt does not change the fact.

[Mr.Macinstache]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

So what exactly is the alternative? 

You seem to be making an argument against the fundamental nature of the state, and its relationship with its citizens.  Most of us will have arguments about the extent of that relationship, how big or small it should be, etc.. but at the end of the day most people will agree that some sort of relationship is necessary.  And yes, the central tenet of that relationship is that the citizens gives up a percentage of its labor (taxes) in exchange for a government that provides services.   

You seem to be saying we need to unwind hundreds of years of history, unwind the nature of the state itself, and instead have...... ?

You are making the assertion that the state is somehow separate from citizens. It is not, its made up of citizens. BUT somehow they have the moral authority as a collective to do things that citizens can not. It's very nature is immoral. Can you delegate a right you yourself do not have?

We dont need to get to the alternative until we address the fact of force and inconsistencies. Many of the same arguments were made during slavery. "We've always done it this way in history" and "You are "free" to leave the plantation". But that doesnt change the fact that owning slaves was "legal".

[Mr.Macinstache]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

Also, not to take your analogy further, but you assume that your store would even exist without the mafia/government in the first place?  Who exactly in this world is providing you roads to move your goods, or providing you a world where safe commerce can occur?

That is your theory, but of course voluntary exchange does and can exist if there isn't a mafia standing in front of the door. People do not need an authority or a paved structure to engage in commerce. It's happened since the dawn of time. It's only when the criminals position themselves to create some arbitrary "law", are you force to pay for their service.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Explain to me how forcing me to pay for something beyond my will isnt stealing.

You choose to continue living in your current country of residence.  Therefore you have chosen to partake in that society and must pay your share.  Citizenship has a cost.

If you choose not to pay your share you are perfectly capable and welcome to change your country of residency.

See, no analogies required.  Just facts.

That argument has been addressed already. You need the analogies because you aren't grasping the notion of self ownership and private property. You either believe individuals have them or you don't.

Again, if I move into your house, are you accepting my terms? And if you don't like it you can leave? Do I have that authority? Is your existence implied consent to mine in your house?

[GuitarStv]

That argument has been addressed already. You need the analogies because you aren't grasping the notion of self ownership and private property. You either believe individuals have them or you don't.

Again, if I move into your house, are you accepting my terms? And if you don't like it you can leave? Do I have that authority? Is your existence implied consent to mine in your house?

You don't predate the government.  To use your analogy, you have moved into the government's house and are now upset that they have rules for living under their roof.

[Jennifer in Ottawa]

Explain to me how forcing me to pay for something beyond my will isnt stealing.

You choose to continue living in your current country of residence.  Therefore you have chosen to partake in that society and must pay your share.  Citizenship has a cost.

If you choose not to pay your share you are perfectly capable and welcome to change your country of residency.

See, no analogies required.  Just facts.

That argument has been addressed already. You need the analogies because you aren't grasping the notion of self ownership and private property. You either believe individuals have them or you don't.

Again, if I move into your house, are you accepting my terms? And if you don't like it you can leave? Do I have that authority? Is your existence implied consent to mine in your house?

At this point I think you simply enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing and not for the sake of coming to a point of consensus.  You are the one continually descending into realm of analogy because your point of view is unsupportable in any other fashion.

You only get the rights and privileges that the society of which you are a part decides that you can.  There remains no landmass left on earth that you may claim as your own, and on which you may determine your own rules.  You are then stuck with choosing which set of rules you wish to live with and reside there.

To conclude, taxes are not 'theft'.  They are the price of citizenship, and you don't have to pay the price at all.  Simply revoke your citizenship.  No tickie, no ride.

[thepokercab]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

Also, not to take your analogy further, but you assume that your store would even exist without the mafia/government in the first place?  Who exactly in this world is providing you roads to move your goods, or providing you a world where safe commerce can occur?

That is your theory, but of course voluntary exchange does and can exist if there isn't a mafia standing in front of the door. People do not need an authority or a paved structure to engage in commerce. It's happened since the dawn of time. It's only when the criminals position themselves to create some arbitrary "law", are you force to pay for their service.

So we should have a barter economy?  In your analogy you said you had a store, but the fact is you wouldn't have any store.  It would be you, bartering with other individuals.  Because as soon as you had anything resembling a "store" with an abundance of goods and merchandise, without some sort of central authority, me and my clan would come take your shit.   You obviously take private property very seriously, so who is to stop anyone from just taking your property?  Without some sort of government you have no legal rights to your property, because there aren't any laws. 

[Mr.Macinstache]

That argument has been addressed already. You need the analogies because you aren't grasping the notion of self ownership and private property. You either believe individuals have them or you don't.

Again, if I move into your house, are you accepting my terms? And if you don't like it you can leave? Do I have that authority? Is your existence implied consent to mine in your house?

You don't predate the government.  To use your analogy, you have moved into the government's house and are now upset that they have rules for living under their roof.

"the govt" is not some mystical being in sky that is as old as the universe. Just because you worship the religion of govt and advocate for the aggression principle, doesn't mean you have actual authority over owning other people, and justifying a "legal" system to steal from them.

You have this belief that somehow the "govt" is some how not comprised of individuals, who have no more moral authority or rights than you do. Since when does the govt own anything? That conflicts with "public property" of which the govt is comprised of, the public. Or do you really believe its a supernatural entity in which morals and ethics do no apply?

[grantmeaname]

You say individuals and "the government" like they are two different things. Do individuals not make up the government?

They argument doesn't rest upon the government being a separate entity from the individuals. If it helps you to wrap your mind around it, think of consuming all your nice societal benefits without paying taxes as being an asshole directly to your neighbors rather than just being an asshole their elected representatives and moral sensibilities. That's certainly how your neighbors see it anyway! Look at any opinion poll about how people at large feel about the .01%'s Swiss bank accounts and Bermuda HoldCos.

Or are they a collective group with special rights that other individuals do not have?

Emphatically, YES. We give the government the power to regulate commerce, levy taxes, execute and incarcerate people, and much more. That's part of the social contract in our society, and each of those privileges is one that no member of the populace is granted acting singly. If you don't like it, move to a place without a government given those powers, and do without public goods and the rule of law.

[Mr.Macinstache]

You only get the rights and privileges that the society of which you are a part decides that you can.  There remains no landmass left on earth that you may claim as your own, and on which you may determine your own rules.  You are then stuck with choosing which set of rules you wish to live with and reside there.

So your right to free speech is something that you are not born with, but rather it is granted to you? That is an interesting belief... that you are subject to whim and "authority" of the people who force you to pay for them to scribble down "laws" that you must abide to. By your logic the mob rules and the minority must obey the mob and the rights that are granted to them, from the mob. Interesting ideology that happens to be an ancient, archaic one.

[Mr.Macinstache]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

Also, not to take your analogy further, but you assume that your store would even exist without the mafia/government in the first place?  Who exactly in this world is providing you roads to move your goods, or providing you a world where safe commerce can occur?

That is your theory, but of course voluntary exchange does and can exist if there isn't a mafia standing in front of the door. People do not need an authority or a paved structure to engage in commerce. It's happened since the dawn of time. It's only when the criminals position themselves to create some arbitrary "law", are you force to pay for their service.

So we should have a barter economy?  In your analogy you said you had a store, but the fact is you wouldn't have any store.  It would be you, bartering with other individuals.  Because as soon as you had anything resembling a "store" with an abundance of goods and merchandise, without some sort of central authority, me and my clan would come take your shit.   You obviously take private property very seriously, so who is to stop anyone from just taking your property?  Without some sort of government you have no legal rights to your property, because there aren't any laws.

So you basically just described what a govt does. LOL

What makes you think I don't have my own gang protecting my shit and ready for you when you come to take it? A society can have law or order by a moral code, without theft and violence. If someone wants to practice the aggression principle, then may the force be with them, they do it at their own risk, instead of being protected by a monopoly.

[grantmeaname]

A society can have law or order by a moral code, without theft and violence.

That's an interesting notion. Why don't you give me a quick run-down of all the societies that have endured and functioned effectively without taxation or some other form of "theft" like a government monopoly on an extractive industry?

[GuitarStv]

You say individuals and "the government" like they are two different things. Do individuals not make up the government?

They argument doesn't rest upon the government being a separate entity from the individuals. If it helps you to wrap your mind around it, think of consuming all your nice societal benefits without paying taxes as being an asshole directly to your neighbors rather than just being an asshole their elected representatives and moral sensibilities. That's certainly how your neighbors see it anyway! Look at any opinion poll about how people at large feel about the .01%'s Swiss bank accounts and Bermuda HoldCos.

Or are they a collective group with special rights that other individuals do not have?

Emphatically, YES. We give the government the power to regulate commerce, levy taxes, execute and incarcerate people, and much more. That's part of the social contract in our society, and each of those privileges is one that no member of the populace is granted acting singly. If you don't like it, move to a place without a government given those powers, and do without public goods and the rule of law.

*hug*

[Mr.Macinstache]

You say individuals and "the government" like they are two different things. Do individuals not make up the government?

They argument doesn't rest upon the government being a separate entity from the individuals. If it helps you to wrap your mind around it, think of consuming all your nice societal benefits without paying taxes as being an asshole directly to your neighbors rather than just being an asshole their elected representatives and moral sensibilities. That's certainly how your neighbors see it anyway! Look at any opinion poll about how people at large feel about the .01%'s Swiss bank accounts and Bermuda HoldCos.

Or are they a collective group with special rights that other individuals do not have?

Emphatically, YES. We give the government the power to regulate commerce, levy taxes, execute and incarcerate people, and much more. That's part of the social contract in our society, and each of those privileges is one that no member of the populace is granted acting singly. If you don't like it, move to a place without a government given those powers, and do without public goods and the rule of law.

I'm noticing everyone has to resort to the "love it or leave it argument" Is that seriously all that you have when defending violence and theft? This is the child like bully on the playground mentality. I'm telling the bully, that if he wants to steal from me, HE can and all those who favor theft can leave it. Your argument is invalid.

People are asshole through the function of govt because they can cowardly hide behind it. My neighbor would never knock on my door and demand I pay for his retirement, nor would he cut my grass and steal my bike for the service. But they have no problem doing so through the function of govt because "social contract"

Again by saying WE you are assuming everyone agrees with your vote. You are saying the mob, majority rule can dominate the minority, no matter what the moral or principle is.

[thepokercab]

It wasn't an insult.  I can better explain the use of the term 'childlike' regarding your views:

Children don't tend to think about the bigger picture.  They take a book out from the library, get attached to the book, and then cry when they have to return it.

In the same way, you are benefiting from a society that has provided you with opportunity, safety, and training . . . then turning around and crying about 'theft' when it comes time to pay for your end of the bargain.

Facile analogy. I've already obliterated your argument. but I'll try to explain it again.

If you own a store (let's pretend like you believe you can own things) and a group of thugs called the mafia comes and demands payment for protection and if you don't pay, they wreck your store, kidnap you and put you van and kick it down the hill. So by your logic, did you TAKE their protection service?

You're child-like because you believe you have a right to everything you want, and forcing other people to pay for somehow isn't stealing. It's the kid who was never told NO as a child and his philosophy is simple: GIMMIE IT, IT'S MINE!

Also, not to take your analogy further, but you assume that your store would even exist without the mafia/government in the first place?  Who exactly in this world is providing you roads to move your goods, or providing you a world where safe commerce can occur?

That is your theory, but of course voluntary exchange does and can exist if there isn't a mafia standing in front of the door. People do not need an authority or a paved structure to engage in commerce. It's happened since the dawn of time. It's only when the criminals position themselves to create some arbitrary "law", are you force to pay for their service.

So we should have a barter economy?  In your analogy you said you had a store, but the fact is you wouldn't have any store.  It would be you, bartering with other individuals.  Because as soon as you had anything resembling a "store" with an abundance of goods and merchandise, without some sort of central authority, me and my clan would come take your shit.   You obviously take private property very seriously, so who is to stop anyone from just taking your property?  Without some sort of government you have no legal rights to your property, because there aren't any laws.

So you basically just described what a govt does. LOL

What makes you think I don't have my own gang protecting my shit and ready for you when you come to take it? A society can have law or order by a moral code, without theft and violence. If someone wants to practice the aggression principle, then may the force be with them, they do it at their own risk, instead of being protected by a monopoly.

Huh? On the one hand you acknowledge that you would have your own gang to protect your stuff, but on the other hand say that you and everyone around you don't need laws and can live by a moral code without theft and violence.   Where in history has this arrangement existed?   

I'm really lost. You decry laws and you decry what you view as the mob trampling over the rights of the minority, yet you somehow think that a world without laws is the best way to protect the rights of the minority?  That somehow in your lawless society the rights of the minority are MORE protected? 

[Mr.Macinstache]

A society can have law or order by a moral code, without theft and violence.

That's an interesting notion. Why don't you give me a quick run-down of all the societies that have endured and functioned effectively without taxation or some other form of "theft" like a government monopoly on an extractive industry?

That is a whole other topic.. we still have people advocating for theft and the aggression principle in the name of their god, lord and savior govt. Show me a society where belief does not exist?

[matchewed]

You only get the rights and privileges that the society of which you are a part decides that you can.  There remains no landmass left on earth that you may claim as your own, and on which you may determine your own rules.  You are then stuck with choosing which set of rules you wish to live with and reside there.

So your right to free speech is something that you are not born with, but rather it is granted to you? That is an interesting belief... that you are subject to whim and "authority" of the people who force you to pay for them to scribble down "laws" that you must abide to. By your logic the mob rules and the minority must obey the mob and the rights that are granted to them, from the mob. Interesting ideology that happens to be an ancient, archaic one.

Uh... yes yes it is "granted" to you by a government document which is formed from the people. Our constitution outlines what rights people have under the government as decided by the people. As noted by several other people, if you find this so objectionable there is no requirement for you to remain a citizen of the United States. I'm not saying it as a love it or leave it argument. It is more of a if you don't want to be subject to laws and taxes there is a clear alternative. You don't have to love it at all. Again this won't convince you because you have a singularly black and white view of all of this. You equate any action by government as illegal. Taxes = theft in your mind and that's it. Your slippery slope argument towards the mob just reinforces the point that you will never see government as a valid entity. This is why it is useless to have this discussion with you. You can pull all the pretty little analogies you want but you just seem to deny the fact that our government formed by individuals within this country and voted in by people in this country get to form laws which affect individuals. I may not agree with every law and actively want some gone completely. And I'll vote that way. But I won't take the perspective of undermining that core concept that our societies form around government in the modern age just because I disagree with some laws.

And you have yet to provide a clear answer. If government is such a bad thing what is an alternative? Feel free to keep dodging that question though.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Huh? On the one hand you acknowledge that you would have your own gang to protect your stuff, but on the other hand say that you and everyone around you don't need laws and can live by a moral code without theft and violence.   Where in history has this arrangement existed?   

I'm really lost. You decry laws and you decry what you view as the mob trampling over the rights of the minority, yet you somehow think that a world without laws is the best way to protect the rights of the minority?  That somehow in your lawless society the rights of the minority are MORE protected?

To help you understand read Bastiat's The Law. An unjust law is not a law at all. One that legalizes theft for some but not for others and so on.

Yes a minority is more protected when crimes are not legalized, allowing the majority to carry them out.

[GuitarStv]

A society can have law or order by a moral code, without theft and violence.

That's an interesting notion. Why don't you give me a quick run-down of all the societies that have endured and functioned effectively without taxation or some other form of "theft" like a government monopoly on an extractive industry?

That is a whole other topic.. we still have people advocating for theft and the aggression principle in the name of their god, lord and savior govt. Show me a society where belief does not exist?

I think that the pushback you're getting stems from the fact that any large group of people when put together will form some sort of government for the good of everyone.  They do this because anarchy sucks for the individual as the rule of the strong always wins.  Your idea of a gang to protect your things is a form of governance.  I'm assuming that you would probably have some rules like 'nobody in the gang can rape anyone else'.  Poof.  You just created a government and a budding legal system.

[thepokercab]

Huh? On the one hand you acknowledge that you would have your own gang to protect your stuff, but on the other hand say that you and everyone around you don't need laws and can live by a moral code without theft and violence.   Where in history has this arrangement existed?   

I'm really lost. You decry laws and you decry what you view as the mob trampling over the rights of the minority, yet you somehow think that a world without laws is the best way to protect the rights of the minority?  That somehow in your lawless society the rights of the minority are MORE protected?

To help you understand read Bastiat's The Law. An unjust law is not a law at all. One that legalizes theft for some but not for others and so on.

Yes a minority is more protected when crimes are not legalized, allowing the majority to carry them out.

Ok, an unjust law is not a law at all.  But you seem to be arguing that government itself is unjust.  So, how would having no government help the minority?  How would their interests not be trampled on by the majority? 

[Mr.Macinstache]

You only get the rights and privileges that the society of which you are a part decides that you can.  There remains no landmass left on earth that you may claim as your own, and on which you may determine your own rules.  You are then stuck with choosing which set of rules you wish to live with and reside there.

So your right to free speech is something that you are not born with, but rather it is granted to you? That is an interesting belief... that you are subject to whim and "authority" of the people who force you to pay for them to scribble down "laws" that you must abide to. By your logic the mob rules and the minority must obey the mob and the rights that are granted to them, from the mob. Interesting ideology that happens to be an ancient, archaic one.

Uh... yes yes it is "granted" to you by a government document which is formed from the people. Our constitution outlines what rights people have under the government as decided by the people. As noted by several other people, if you find this so objectionable there is no requirement for you to remain a citizen of the United States. I'm not saying it as a love it or leave it argument. It is more of a if you don't want to be subject to laws and taxes there is a clear alternative. You don't have to love it at all. Again this won't convince you because you have a singularly black and white view of all of this. You equate any action by government as illegal. Taxes = theft in your mind and that's it. Your slippery slope argument towards the mob just reinforces the point that you will never see government as a valid entity. This is why it is useless to have this discussion with you. You can pull all the pretty little analogies you want but you just seem to deny the fact that our government formed by individuals within this country and voted in by people in this country get to form laws which affect individuals. I may not agree with every law and actively want some gone completely. And I'll vote that way. But I won't take the perspective of undermining that core concept that our societies form around government in the modern age just because I disagree with some laws.

And you have yet to provide a clear answer. If government is such a bad thing what is an alternative? Feel free to keep dodging that question though.

So NOW you want to engage? LOL

I'm not dodging questions at all.. that is a different topic. I'm still blowing holes in all the "love it or leave it arguments" that try to validate the aggression principle you all believe in. I don't have to offer a solution to point out and identify the problem.

Again, you believe some powerful land owners who drafted a contract upon themselves, signed it and subjected it to everyone is somehow just. I don't worship sacred parchment, nor did I sign it. All the constitution did was establish a central govt, and grant magical authority, aka the divine right to rule, to certain individuals, legalize their theft and call it taxation and allow them to borrow money in your name. None of that is my opinion. If you choose to follow those order, fine, but don't expect everyone to believe those things are moral and just when they themselves do not have those natural rights.

You're just subscribing to the ancient idea oligarchy. There's nothing "progressive" or "conservative" about it.

[thepokercab]

So NOW you want to engage? LOL

I'm not dodging questions at all.. that is a different topic. I'm still blowing holes in all the "love it or leave it arguments" that try to validate the aggression principle you all believe in. I don't have to offer a solution to point out and identify the problem.

Again, you believe some powerful land owners who drafted a contract upon themselves, signed it and subjected it to everyone is somehow just. I don't worship sacred parchment, nor did I sign it. All the constitution did was establish a central govt, and grant magical authority, aka the divine right to rule, to certain individuals, legalize their theft and call it taxation and allow them to borrow money in your name. None of that is my opinion. If you choose to follow those order, fine, but don't expect everyone to believe those things are moral and just when they themselves do not have those natural rights.

You're just subscribing to the ancient idea oligarchy. There's nothing "progressive" or "conservative" about it.

I think Churchill said it best, something along the lines of Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others that have been tried.  If your talking in the philosophical sense, then yes, there is hardly anything "just" about government.  It indeed limits your rights and takes your property. But since some people kind of suck sometimes, yeah, we need a government.  As far as I can tell, its the best thing that we've come up with so far..

Unless your willing to enlighten us on a new path that hasn't been thought of yet? 

[GrayGhost]

Philosophically, I agree with Mr.Macinstache. I guess that makes me an anarcho-capitalist, at least in theory, because I highly doubt that there is a safe way to usurp the various governments in the world at this point in time.

But he is right. Racketeering is a very nasty thing to do, and it should indeed be prosecuted by whatever governing bodies exist--but it's the height of irony that police and military members essentially do the same thing that racketeers do.

It's really remarkable that some people seem to think that your rights are given to you by the society you happen to be born into, or that you've agreed to some sort of "social contract" simply by being born in a given area. I mean, fucking look at the article MMM wrote.

It's all well and good to break laws that you dislike, but when someone else breaks laws that you like such as taxation laws, oh no, they're criminals, they had better be locked up for breaking the "social contract" that they never agreed to because the laws enforcing it were written long before they were even born.

As to how societies might operate without government monopolies on justice, security and others, it's not particularly challenging to answer those questions. There is a very effective and well-regarded private arbitration system in the US. South African private security forces displace and out-perform cops. Health-related services are provided around the world through insurance or out-of-pocket costs. I could go on, but here are two convincing articles of functional societies that have existed without governments as we understand them.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/has-a-libertarian-society-ever-existed/#axzz36usZGbZQ
http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/04/07/how-wild-was-the-wild-west-in-fact/

[totoro]

I think it is interesting that those who are arguing that taxation is some form of theft reside in the USA. 

It is not a sentiment I've heard repeated in Canada except among some folks who embrace a whole set of what might be termed narrow minded and "red necked" attitudes in which their hardships are all due to factors outside their control.  In short: it is only embraced by extreme complainypants.

This makes me think that what is being expressed by folks from the US may possibly be an expression of a fundamentally different experience of government - or we have a cluster of extreme complainypants on this thread.

[CDP45]

That argument has been addressed already. You need the analogies because you aren't grasping the notion of self ownership and private property. You either believe individuals have them or you don't.

Again, if I move into your house, are you accepting my terms? And if you don't like it you can leave? Do I have that authority? Is your existence implied consent to mine in your house?

You don't predate the government.  To use your analogy, you have moved into the government's house and are now upset that they have rules for living under their roof.

So what if I don't predate government, I don't predate slavery either. And the government didn't earn my money I used to pay for my house.

[CDP45]

You only get the rights and privileges that the society of which you are a part decides that you can.  There remains no landmass left on earth that you may claim as your own, and on which you may determine your own rules.  You are then stuck with choosing which set of rules you wish to live with and reside there.

So your right to free speech is something that you are not born with, but rather it is granted to you? That is an interesting belief... that you are subject to whim and "authority" of the people who force you to pay for them to scribble down "laws" that you must abide to. By your logic the mob rules and the minority must obey the mob and the rights that are granted to them, from the mob. Interesting ideology that happens to be an ancient, archaic one.

Uh... yes yes it is "granted" to you by a government document which is formed from the people. Our constitution outlines what rights people have under the government as decided by the people. As noted by several other people, if you find this so objectionable there is no requirement for you to remain a citizen of the United States. I'm not saying it as a love it or leave it argument. It is more of a if you don't want to be subject to laws and taxes there is a clear alternative. You don't have to love it at all. Again this won't convince you because you have a singularly black and white view of all of this. You equate any action by government as illegal. Taxes = theft in your mind and that's it. Your slippery slope argument towards the mob just reinforces the point that you will never see government as a valid entity. This is why it is useless to have this discussion with you. You can pull all the pretty little analogies you want but you just seem to deny the fact that our government formed by individuals within this country and voted in by people in this country get to form laws which affect individuals. I may not agree with every law and actively want some gone completely. And I'll vote that way. But I won't take the perspective of undermining that core concept that our societies form around government in the modern age just because I disagree with some laws.

And you have yet to provide a clear answer. If government is such a bad thing what is an alternative? Feel free to keep dodging that question though.

If you read the constitution you would see that it only addresses how the government is organized and the limitations of it's powers, not the enumerated rights. Likewise the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it merely recognizes some of them and then describes the limits of government's infringement upon them.

You should be worried that your words won't be taken seriously after that post that's so simply demonstrably false.

Here's a link for anyone who wants to know what the constitution says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
and the Bill of Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Application.

[swiper]

That argument has been addressed already. You need the analogies because you aren't grasping the notion of self ownership and private property. You either believe individuals have them or you don't.

Again, if I move into your house, are you accepting my terms? And if you don't like it you can leave? Do I have that authority? Is your existence implied consent to mine in your house?

You don't predate the government.  To use your analogy, you have moved into the government's house and are now upset that they have rules for living under their roof.

So what if I don't predate government, I don't predate slavery either. And the government didn't earn my money I used to pay for my house.

Its not ALL your money. You've benefited tremendously from the society and environment you are living in and taxes are its cost. I'd buy your argument if you lived in a bubble, but I've never met such as self-made man.   

[CDP45]

Explain to me how forcing me to pay for something beyond my will isnt stealing.

You choose to continue living in your current country of residence.  Therefore you have chosen to partake in that society and must pay your share.  Citizenship has a cost.

If you choose not to pay your share you are perfectly capable and welcome to change your country of residency.

See, no analogies required.  Just facts.

I live where I was born and raised, where my family owns property and where I have employment. I earn my living and pay for my land, I didn't get a free house or land from the government. Those are the facts of reality. The question is why doesn't the government stop harassing me, impeding my lifestyle and business dealings.

Think about what the word "tax" means;  means a percentage of what is not owned, because how could you tax your own property? Yes, and let's try the experiment of voluntary tax payment, gee I bet all you statists aren't in favor of that. And why is that? People you think people are greedy? Are people like MMM greedy by not spending and supporting consumerism? Is he greedy for not being a patron of the arts and not spending thousands of dollars a year on opera and ballet tix? Am I greedy because I don't want to pay for government agents murdering people daily around the planet? Imprisoning my neighbors?  Stealing my retirement via inflation and giving a pittance of social security checks?

[CDP45]

That argument has been addressed already. You need the analogies because you aren't grasping the notion of self ownership and private property. You either believe individuals have them or you don't.

Again, if I move into your house, are you accepting my terms? And if you don't like it you can leave? Do I have that authority? Is your existence implied consent to mine in your house?

You don't predate the government.  To use your analogy, you have moved into the government's house and are now upset that they have rules for living under their roof.

So what if I don't predate government, I don't predate slavery either. And the government didn't earn my money I used to pay for my house.

Its not ALL your money. You've benefited tremendously from the society and environment you are living in and taxes are its cost. I'd buy your argument if you lived in a bubble, but I've never met such as self-made man.

I benefited from the hard productive work of individuals, since when did taxes help motivate people to work harder? The cost of my hard work is sweat, the punishment is taxes.

THIS!!!  Yes now we're getting somewhere: the self-made man. I understand and you have never met a self-made man, but I have been fortunate to have met several. So outside the big cities there isn't much government. Literally virgin soil. And this leads to the question "who built that?" Should Apple be sending all the profits to nokia because they made a cell phone prior? And why does it always seem there is only government where there is wealth and productive activity to be taxed? Is it because they cause the activity? Well clearly not because there has to be some income to tax, so is it government that causes productive activity, or is it government that just leaching off it for their own benefit and has tricked a lot of people? (gee just like consumerist advertisements).

This site is dedicated to not being dependent to your employer, but just as you don't need a 9-5 cube job to be happy, you don't need involuntary coercive government either (shocking!)

[CDP45]

I think it is interesting that those who are arguing that taxation is some form of theft reside in the USA. 

It is not a sentiment I've heard repeated in Canada except among some folks who embrace a whole set of what might be termed narrow minded and "red necked" attitudes in which their hardships are all due to factors outside their control.  In short: it is only embraced by extreme complainypants.

This makes me think that what is being expressed by folks from the US may possibly be an expression of a fundamentally different experience of government - or we have a cluster of extreme complainypants on this thread.

On the contrary in America it is those with the aptitude to produce who realize what a wasteful and evil organization the federal government is. It is the intelligent, productive, and wealthy that employ teams of accountants and lawyers to protect their assets. It is our poor that suffer the most of government reprisals and servitude.

[CDP45]

You equate any action by government as illegal.

Any aggressive violence or threat if it is wrong and illegal.

Taxes = theft in your mind and that's it. Your slippery slope argument towards the mob just reinforces the point that you will never see government as a valid entity. This is why it is useless to have this discussion with you. You can pull all the pretty little analogies you want but you just seem to deny the fact that our government formed by individuals within this country and voted in by people in this country get to form laws which affect individuals.

I may not agree with every law and actively want some gone completely. And I'll vote that way. But I won't take the perspective of undermining that core concept that our societies form around government in the modern age just because I disagree with some laws.

I didn't vote for anything other than to ease the yoke of violence and theft.

And you have yet to provide a clear answer. If government is such a bad thing what is an alternative? Feel free to keep dodging that question though.

The answer is respect: respecting individuals rights, respecting people, ending wars, and living with voluntary government. Feel free to try and argue that people as you might point out it doesn't exist in a widespread area, but there was a time just a few hundred years ago where there weren't areas free of slavery or there weren't areas where womens' rights were respected. It's like argument against the creation of the internet; clearly you won't address the ideas of it but if this were the 1970s one could say ohh it doesn't exist and it's not possible and think of all the bookstores that would be put out of business.

[swiper]

That argument has been addressed already. You need the analogies because you aren't grasping the notion of self ownership and private property. You either believe individuals have them or you don't.

Again, if I move into your house, are you accepting my terms? And if you don't like it you can leave? Do I have that authority? Is your existence implied consent to mine in your house?

You don't predate the government.  To use your analogy, you have moved into the government's house and are now upset that they have rules for living under their roof.

So what if I don't predate government, I don't predate slavery either. And the government didn't earn my money I used to pay for my house.

Its not ALL your money. You've benefited tremendously from the society and environment you are living in and taxes are its cost. I'd buy your argument if you lived in a bubble, but I've never met such as self-made man.

I benefited from the hard productive work of individuals, since when did taxes help motivate people to work harder? The cost of my hard work is sweat, the punishment is taxes.

THIS!!!  Yes now we're getting somewhere: the self-made man. I understand and you have never met a self-made man, but I have been fortunate to have met several. So outside the big cities there isn't much government. Literally virgin soil. And this leads to the question "who built that?" Should Apple be sending all the profits to nokia because they made a cell phone prior? And why does it always seem there is only government where there is wealth and productive activity to be taxed? Is it because they cause the activity? Well clearly not because there has to be some income to tax, so is it government that causes productive activity, or is it government that just leaching off it for their own benefit and has tricked a lot of people? (gee just like consumerist advertisements).

This site is dedicated to not being dependent to your employer, but just as you don't need a 9-5 cube job to be happy, you don't need involuntary coercive government either (shocking!)

*sigh* if you discount pretty much every positive influence of government on your own life, the lives of these other “productive individuals” or any other externalities ... yeah, there isn’t much to discuss. But considering the number of posters who disagree with you, I’d at least reexamine the assumptions that lead you down this path.

What this conversation reenforces for me is that when you take any single value/virtue to an extreme you get some pretty bizarre conclusions. Happily, your views are in an extreme minority and unlikely to influence my life or those I care about :)

[CDP45]

*sigh* if you discount pretty much every positive influence of government on your own life, the lives of these other “productive individuals” or any other externalities ... yeah, there isn’t much to discuss. But considering the number of posters who disagree with you, I’d at least reexamine the assumptions that lead you down this path.

What this conversation reenforces for me is that when you take any single value/virtue to an extreme you get some pretty bizarre conclusions. Happily, your views are in an extreme minority and unlikely to influence my life or those I care about :)

No it's just clear to me the benefits aren't worth the cost, and that I have principles and I believe there are universal human rights that should be respected. Evidently you won't address the merits my ideas, and you regress to conservative consolations of "you're in the minority and the boogy man won't influence my life." Well I got news for you bud, times are changing. Here we are, if this is the first time you've encountered the ideas of Liberty I an honored, and the ideas of freedom are able to spread faster than ever before ala internets. No longer can the truth be silenced. Look at this site, the message of freedom MMM brings. The rejection of dependence. I bring the same message of freedom, but freedom from coercive violence. Your gnashing of teeth will not stop the the past 400 years spreading of Liberty. Don't worry, it's a good thing, it's awesome. Just like there is more security when you depend on your 'stash and nest egg, there is also more security depending on your family and friends instead of coercive government. Security is found in strength and trust, not violence and dependence.

You have the same reaction as many did to abolitionists and womens' suffragists and the flat earth society. Don't worry, relax, have a homebrew, it's going to get a lot better!

[thepokercab]

The answer is respect: respecting individuals rights, respecting people, ending wars, and living with voluntary government.

This is all well and good, but what happens when you have some people you live with that don't want to respect your rights? What happens when people disagree?  The whole point of representative government is to arbitrate these things.   

I am no fan of government, and I don't believe that our rights flow from the government, but I think its a necessary evil. 

I'm also perplexed by the arguments here that somehow the poor and minority view points are MORE in danger with a government than without it. Its the economic elite and land owners throughout history that have exploited and taken for themselves the fruits of the poor's labor. Government is the one who finally told the elite that actually you have to respect the rights of workers, and pay them a fair wage, and give them a safe environment to work in. 

And without government, who exactly is going to protect my right to worship the god I want to, or say the things I want to say? Because if history has shown us anything, its that the majority isn't exactly extremely tolerant of minority view points and beliefs.  I'd love to think that "respect" will rule the day but the track record just isn't there. Once again, government isn't perfect, but I'll take my chances with that, vs a lawless mob. 

Finally, can you really not draw a line between the most prosperous time in human history (now) and representative Democracy being the dominant political system? 

[CDP45]

The answer is respect: respecting individuals rights, respecting people, ending wars, and living with voluntary government.

I am no fan of government, and I don't believe that our rights flow from the government, but I think its a necessary evil. 

Finally, can you really not draw a line between the most prosperous time in human history (now) and representative Democracy being the dominant political system?

Yes there is a correlation between prosperity and the degree which government respects property rights, my argument is causation where wealth cannot be created without some property rights. That's my argument against Canada's greater taxation than the US.

That's how the American revolution ,which created the first democracy , came to be. The settlers had very broad property rights that were eroded over time from what they were used to and rebelled. They came to live in freedom with the fruits of their labor, not start a democracy.

[CDP45]

The answer is respect: respecting individuals rights, respecting people, ending wars, and living with voluntary government.

This is all well and good, but what happens when you have some people you live with that don't want to respect your rights? What happens when people disagree?  The whole point of representative government is to arbitrate these things.   

I am no fan of government, and I don't believe that our rights flow from the government, but I think its a necessary evil. 

I'm also perplexed by the arguments here that somehow the poor and minority view points are MORE in danger with a government than without it. Its the economic elite and land owners throughout history that have exploited and taken for themselves the fruits of the poor's labor. Government is the one who finally told the elite that actually you have to respect the rights of workers, and pay them a fair wage, and give them a safe environment to work in. 

And without government, who exactly is going to protect my right to worship the god I want to, or say the things I want to say? Because if history has shown us anything, its that the majority isn't exactly extremely tolerant of minority view points and beliefs.  I'd love to think that "respect" will rule the day but the track record just isn't there. Once again, government isn't perfect, but I'll take my chances with that, vs a lawless mob.

Well the reality is that governments have the most blood on their hands, and typically enforced slavery and oppressed dissenters. Speaking of workers rights, I think the Soviet Union is an example of pure coercive government, I don't think the workers did too well there despite the actions taken in their name. Is the govt in china ensuring a fair wage and safe conditions? It's the "people's republic." Or it is only governments that happen to respect property rights which correlate to better working conditions?

[matchewed]

What is voluntary government? And when does it stop being voluntary? Just when someone disagrees with it?

[GuitarStv]

Here are ten people: a first generation Chinese immigrant, a native american, a KKK member, a gay couple, a southern baptist minister, a muslim imam, a pedophile, a doctor who performs abortions, and a sociopath who enjoys killing people.

How do you get these people from disparate backgrounds, with different interests, and with little in common to agree to work together in a voluntary way on even basic and important issues?

- Should native Americans have special compensation for the damage that was done to their culture and the land that was stolen from them?
- Should Chinese people be allowed the same access to facilities as everyone else?  Should they have to learn the commonly spoken language of the land, or be allowed to keep their mother tongue?
- Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?
- Should sex with young children be allowed?
- What role should religion play in decisions made by the group?
- What is the group's stance on murder?  Is abortion murder?


Governing people is tricky business.  It involves developing answers to tough questions.  It's not possible to have a government that pleases all people, because in pleasing some you inevitably piss off others.  Voluntary government is a nice concept, but can't work in practice.  To take any action a government will annoy some people.  To take no action will annoy some people.  Either way no matter what you do you will lose the 'voluntary' part.