Do you view taxation as theft?

[Souron]

How many people do you think someone has to murder before they're considered unethical?

If you want to argue that you shouldn't pay your taxes because your government does immoral things, I have no objection. It's a different topic.

 

[Souron]

Even then, there comes a point when a child reaches the age of majority, and not once are they ever asked to volunteer for participation in The People. Doesn't that seem a bit dodgy to you, being signed up for a dues-paying club without ever being asked?

No, for two reasons:
1)Participating in society to reap the benefits of government is a no-brainer.
2)A voting citizen can effect what taxes he is required to pay; you vote for your level of taxation. You could even vote for the state not to collect any taxes with all the horrible consequences that would have.

Why do I have to leave? You say that government authority is conditional on consent, and I'm just as capable of capable of refusing consent here as in another country.

You have to leave because the government's jurisdiction is defined by land, and must be for the government to function in the way it does. (A hypothetical government who's jurisdiction is defined some other way could exist, and then you wouldn't have to leave). As an individual, you are not entitled to any particular location, and the government needs it's land.

As it happens, the world is not wholly within the jurisdiction of one government or another. The good places are, but the Ocean isn't. Neither is space.

Well, what's your criteria for determining legitimate government? If it's legal continuity, then the Westminster government is clearly the legitimate one. If it's popular support, the Republican government is clearly the legitimate one. Is it both, in which case neither was legitimate? Or is it something else altogether?

Popular support trumps legal continuity, but the problem in my mind is whether the popular support of the majority of the UK trumps the popular support of the Irish. The best case would be if the Irish worked within the system, to add the provision they wanted, and to the extent that was possible and the process fair, the Irish were in the wrong to just assert their independence.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's the only entity which has any hope of performing these services at the present time, or in the foreseeable future. Its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of its acquisition of funds through taxation, rests on precisely this fact: nobody has come up with any remotely plausible alternative.

Murderous familial organizations on horseback.

As an individual, you are not entitled to any particular location, and the government needs it's land.

No it doesn't. The Holy See was fine without any for 60 years, the Third Republic also got by. Governments, strictly speaking, do not need land, so it seems they're not entitled to any.

 

[GhostWriter16]

2)A voting citizen can effect what taxes he is required to pay; you vote for your level of taxation. You could even vote for the state not to collect any taxes with all the horrible consequences that would have.

Not really. You can vote for candidates that will lower taxes, but under practically any tax system anybody important is proposing, taxes will still be very burdensome and complex (We're being taxed far more than simple income tax rates will admit) and no candidate would ever propose no taxes so you really can't vote for that unless you write in your own name and you yourself are anti-tax

 

[History_Buff]

Not really. You can vote for candidates that will lower taxes, but under practically any tax system anybody important is proposing, taxes will still be very burdensome and complex (We're being taxed far more than simple income tax rates will admit) and no candidate would ever propose no taxes so you really can't vote for that unless you write in your own name and you yourself are anti-tax

Such is how voting in a realistic world works... the private sector is no different in this regard.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I wasn't even specifically criticizing the fact there. I was simply contradicting Souron's assertation that we can actually vote for no-taxes. We really can't. Maybe that's a good thing, but regardless, its not doable at present.

No taxes, while desirable in theory, is impossible in practice. The inevitable result, in my opinion, of any anarchist system will inevitably lead to the same type of state in a generation or two, so I honestly see no point in trying. I think it would be better to focus on greatly reducing the amount of taxes collected and government spending collected. Not outright abolition of taxes, which are a necessary evil.

 

[Souron]

Not really. You can vote for candidates that will lower taxes, but under practically any tax system anybody important is proposing, taxes will still be very burdensome and complex (We're being taxed far more than simple income tax rates will admit) and no candidate would ever propose no taxes so you really can't vote for that unless you write in your own name and you yourself are anti-tax

Right, but the reason no candidate would remove all taxes is because it's a really bad idea. It's still within the power of the government to change any part of the tax code, including removing all taxes.

 

[Souron]

No it doesn't. The Holy See was fine without any for 60 years, the Third Republic also got by. Governments, strictly speaking, do not need land, so it seems they're not entitled to any.

I only mean that a government makes use of the land that it has. It isn't required to give any up just because you individually wish to secede.

 

[History_Buff]

I wasn't even specifically criticizing the fact there. I was simply contradicting Souron's assertation that we can actually vote for no-taxes. We really can't. Maybe that's a good thing, but regardless, its not doable at present.

Sure, but the only thing stopping you from voting for no tax candidates is people's preferences. The fact that no tax candidates never succeed doesn't necessarily prevent you from voting for them.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I only mean that a government makes use of the land that it has. It isn't required to give any up just because you individually wish to secede.

So being able to make use of land gives you a legitimate claim on it?

 

[Souron]

So being able to make use of land gives you a legitimate claim on it?

No, having land gives you a legitimate claim on it.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Murderous familial organizations on horseback.

And how are you expecting that kind of social form to provide a comprehensive system of rights and services to meet the needs of disabled people in the modern world?

 

[ParkCungHee]

And how are you expecting that kind of social form to provide a comprehensive system of rights and services to meet the needs of disabled people in the modern world?

Mainly by collecting tribute to pay for it. By the way does this mean the moment a government fails to provide a comprehensive system of rights and services to meet the needs of disabled people in the modern world is no longer legitimate?

And for the record this means that government as an absolute neccesity of society started...somewhere around 1990? So I'm actually older then legitimate Government in this country?

No, having land gives you a legitimate claim on it.

So force of arms is self-legitimizing then?

 

[Winston Hughes]

Mainly by collecting tribute to pay for it.

That's not ever actually happened, though, and nor could we ever expect it to without the 'familial organisation' morphing into a state.

By the way does this mean the moment a government fails to provide a comprehensive system of rights and services to meet the needs of disabled people in the modern world is no longer legitimate?

I'm not talking about the legitimacy of particular governments or their policies. This discussion is about the state as a legitimate form of social organisation, and my argument is that it gains considerable legitimacy from being the only means to what are a vast number of unquestionably good ends. That some states are horrific, while none are even close to being perfect, does not diminish the fact that if we want things like comprehensive rights and services for the disabled, the state is a necessity.

Cutlass' original point was right on the money: you have a straight choice - either you get things done within a state system, or you don't get them done at all. And that is precisely the reason why so many people who are engaged in actually trying to improve the world regard anarchism with such contempt: without providing a viable alternative to the state, it's just making empty talk with a self-image of moral heroism.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's not ever actually happened, though, and nor could we ever expect it to without the 'familial organisation' morphing into a state.

Sure it has.

I'm not talking about the legitimacy of particular governments or their policies.

Then you have no argument. Your argument is that there is no alternative to government and in this, you are factually wrong.

So you pull out the qualifier about providing a "comprehensive system of rights and services to meet the needs of disabled people."

So that places legitimate government as a novelty. Your experiment has been going for 22 years now. In that time you have achieved several hundred thousand murders to test out this novelty. Do you call it a success?

 

[Winston Hughes]

Sure it has.

Where?

Then you have no argument. Your argument is that there is no alternative to government and in this, you are factually wrong.

No, I said that there is no alternative to the state which offers anything like the same benefits. And I've yet to see anyone make even the beginnings of a case to the contrary.

So you pull out the qualifier about providing a "comprehensive system of rights and services to meet the needs of disabled people."

That just happens to be an example I'm particularly familiar with, wherein the state does things on a scale and with an effectiveness which no other organisation even comes close to matching. There are plenty of others, in areas as diverse as policing, security, education, health care, support for the elderly, scientific research, transport, environmental policy, etc.

So that places legitimate government as a novelty. Your experiment has been going for 22 years now. In that time you have achieved several hundred thousand murders to test out this novelty. Do you call it a success?

I have no idea how you think that the idea of the state providing benefit to its citizens is 22 years old, or how the particular actions of specific states should be held as conclusive evidence against the very idea of the state, given that plenty of states have not conducted those same actions, and that even the states which were responsible did not do so inevitably.

You can sit there and list every single thing that every state has ever done wrong, and it still won't make your argument even a jot more valid.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Where?

I'm honestly curious where you think this is going. Do you really believe stateless societies do not and have never existed?

I have no idea how you think that the idea of the state providing benefit to its citizens is 22 years old

You claimed stateless models are illegitimate because they do not "provide a comprehensive system of rights and services to meet the needs of disabled people in the modern world?"
Now, being very generous and saying your state currently does all of that, it would seem we can only tie that back as far as the American's With Disabilities Act of 1990. That would seem to me then that prior to that time, the United States government completely lacked authority as a force of violence.

or how the particular actions of specific states should be held as conclusive evidence against the very idea of the state, given that plenty of states have not conducted those same actions, and that even the states which were responsible did not do so inevitably.

Right, so if we're throwing out specifics, there go your benefits. Particular actions of specific states should not be held as conclusive evidence for the very idea of a state.

Cutlass is willing to stack bodies all day, but fine, if we can't reference anything the state actually does, we have to boil it down to the core concept:

Do you believe that the use of violence to control other people's behavior is a good or a bad thing?

Yes or No?

 

[Winston Hughes]

I'm honestly curious where you think this is going. Do you really believe stateless societies do not and have never existed?

I know full well that they have. I also know how badly they suck at providing many of the good things which states can be very effective at providing.

You claimed stateless models are illegitimate because they do not "provide a comprehensive system of rights and services to meet the needs of disabled people in the modern world?"

I said the state is a legitimate model because it can provide those things, whereas other models cannot. I did not say anything about the legitimacy of non-state models, other than to point out the lack of argument or evidence that they can, in fact, provide a legitimate alternative to the state in the modern world.

Now, being very generous and saying your state currently does all of that, it would seem we can only tie that back as far as the American's With Disabilities Act of 1990. That would seem to me then that prior to that time, the United States government completely lacked authority as a force of violence.

I'm not American, and I certainly don't regard the USA as anything like the archetype of an ideal state. However, I wouldn't say that it lacked any legitimacy before it made better provision for disabled people, just that it acquired greater legitimacy when it did.

Right, so if we're throwing out specifics, there go your benefits. Particular actions of specific states should not be held as conclusive evidence for the very idea of a state.

But I'm not talking about particular actions of specific states - I'm talking about states having the capacity to do these things, and the resulting legitimacy of the state as a model of social organisation. Where the real world examples come in is to demonstrate that this is not merely theoretical, but that actual states can be better or worse, and more or less legitimate. Dismissing the legitimacy of states per se is a position of complete irrelevance unless you can show how an alternative system can better legitimate itself.

Do you believe that the use of violence to control other people's behavior is a good or a bad thing?

State violence itself is never a good thing, but its absence can be much, much worse.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I know full well that they have. I also know how badly they suck at providing many of the good things which states can be very effective at providing.

Such as what? Without getting into specifics please?

State violence itself is never a good thing,

Well great. Now you're an anarchist. Enjoy your self-image of moral heroism.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Such as what?

Universal healthcare is one good example. There are many states in the world today which have comprehensive systems for providing and paying for modern healthcare in a manner which is at least reasonably fair and efficient. By contrast, there are no examples whatsoever of non-state societies achieving such goods, nor have I heard any plausible suggestion of how it would be possible for such societies to sustain those kinds of systems, let alone to create them in the first place.

Without getting into specifics please?

The problem isn't in referring to specifics, but in thinking that simply mentioning examples of specific states acting badly in specific situations is sufficient to discredit all of the good things states do, and are capable of doing. If you'd offered even the faintest clue about how those things might be done without a state, then we'd have a discussion on our hands. What we've got instead is you trying to stay on the offensive because you've got nothing substantive to defend.

Well great. Now you're an anarchist.

I believe that violence is a bad thing, but, since I don't cling to utopian notions of moral purity, I accept that it is both inevitable and morally necessary.

Moreover, I do not consider authority to be inherently wrong, nor do I believe that human relations can only ever be legitimate if they are entirely voluntary in nature. And, at a time when all mooted alternatives are either vastly inferior or utterly fantastical, I certainly do not regard the state as undesirable or unnecessary.

So, clearly, I am not an anarchist.