Do you view taxation as theft?

[Traitorfish]

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.

Neither of those answer the question. On what grounds may an organisation force an adult human to join without soliciting their consent?

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.

Why are states "entitled to a particular location" but I'm not?

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.

Why do people in Britain have a right to decide the political status of Ireland? If enough British citizens voted for it, could the UK legitimately annex Belgium despite the will of its residents?

[...]I don't cling to utopian notions[...]

You claim that the application of bureaucratic control through systematic violence is the most desirable way to organise society. If you're not a utopian, then what are you?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

And could China annex the members of the EU?

 

[warpus]

Neither of those answer the question. On what grounds may an organisation force an adult human to join without soliciting their consent?

On the grounds that almost everyone is born into a society; it's just a fact of life. If you don't like it, you are free to move to somewhere else once you are indeed an adult.

 

[Traitorfish]

On the grounds that almost everyone is born into a society; it's just a fact of life.

Are you claiming that what is right is determined by what is commonplace?

If you don't like it, you are free to move to somewhere else once you are indeed an adult.

Why should I?

 

[Souron]

So force of arms is self-legitimizing then?

It is wrong to steal land, but such an act does not entitle a third party to claim that land. It should either go to the conquerer or the conquered, nobody else has a claim.

 

[Souron]

Neither of those answer the question. On what grounds may an organisation force an adult human to join without soliciting their consent?

Well ideally they would get consent, but sometimes like with an infant that's impossible. You could compare it to being taken to a hospital when you're unconscious.

Why are states "entitled to a particular location" but I'm not?

They had it first.

Why do people in Britain have a right to decide the political status of Ireland? If enough British citizens voted for it, could the UK legitimately annex Belgium despite the will of its residents?

Why should the desires of a small region overrule the much larger group of people in the UK? There may be reasons for it, but I don't think an arbitrary region has the right to secede arbitrarily. Not unless they do so through the existing government.

As for Belgium, the Belgians were never part of the UK in the first place. They could conquer it, and Belgium could throw up a white flag and join the UK, but until then Belgium gets to keep it's sovereignty.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well ideally they would get consent, but sometimes like with an infant that's impossible. You could compare it to being taken to a hospital when you're unconscious.

Do they ask anyone? It's hard to believe that of all the sixty million people living in the UK, let alone the three hundred million living in the US, that they can't have asked at least a handful of native-born citizens if they consent to the rule of the state.

They had it first.

So what? Other people had it before them. What makes their claim so uniquely eternal?

Why should the desires of a small region overrule the much larger group of people in the UK? There may be reasons for it, but I don't think an arbitrary region has the right to secede arbitrarily. Not unless they do so through the existing government.

The Irish weren't attempting to dictate anything to the UK, they were seeking independence. Why is it the business of somebody in Manchester or London what government somebody in Dublin lives under, if this Dubliner makes absolutely no attempt to impose that government on the Mancunian or Londoner?

As for Belgium, the Belgians were never part of the UK in the first place. They could conquer it, and Belgium could throw up a white flag and join the UK, but until then Belgium gets to keep it's sovereignty.

Why is history relevant? A majority of the inhabitants of Britain-&-Belgium want Belgium to be incorporated into the UK; what right does a small region have to overrule the much larger group of people in the UK?

But let's another example, maybe a bit more clear cut: Taiwan. Historically, this was part of China, and is claimed as such both by the Mainland and Taiwanese governments. Would you therefore conclude that, if a majority of the people in Mainland-&-Taiwan are of the opinion that the Mainland government should have control over Taiwan, it is within its rights to exercise that control, and to regard the Taiwanese government as an illegal pretender-government?

 

[Souron]

Do they ask anyone? It's hard to believe that of all the sixty million people living in the UK, let alone the three hundred million living in the US, that they can't have asked at least a handful of native-born citizens if they consent to the rule of the state.

It is possible for a state to re-ratify it's foundational documents every so often, but not strictly necessary. If a large group of people wanted to dissolve the state, they could work within the system and do it.

So what? Other people had it before them. What makes their claim so uniquely eternal?

It's not uniquely eternal.

The Irish weren't attempting to dictate anything to the UK, they were seeking independence. Why is it the business of somebody in Manchester or London what government somebody in Dublin lives under, if this Dubliner makes absolutely no attempt to impose that government on the Mancunian or Londoner?

There are benefits to the UK and people in London to having Ireland under the jurisdiction of the UK, otherwise they would not have minded giving it up. Why should they sacrifice those benefits, for the same of a smaller group? Note, I'm not arguing against Irish independence, I'm arguing against the right to arbitrary secession.

Why is history relevant? A majority of the inhabitants of Britain-&-Belgium want Belgium to be incorporated into the UK; what right does a small region have to overrule the much larger group of people in the UK?

But let's another example, maybe a bit more clear cut: Taiwan. Historically, this was part of China, and is claimed as such both by the Mainland and Taiwanese governments. Would you therefore conclude that, if a majority of the people in Mainland-&-Taiwan are of the opinion that the Mainland government should have control over Taiwan, it is within its rights to exercise that control, and to regard the Taiwanese government as an illegal pretender-government?

It's not a matter of history, but consent. Belgium's people never consented or surrendered to being part of the UK, or made use of the benefits that British taxpayers pay for. A new born makes use of the society provided by the state he's in, and it's not unreasonable for the state to require something in return.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is possible for a state to re-ratify it's foundational documents every so often, but not strictly necessary. If a large group of people wanted to dissolve the state, they could work within the system and do it.

Again, that doesn't answer my question. If I have never been asked to consent to membership of a group, then what right does that group have to assume my membership, let alone to do so through force of law?

It's not uniquely eternal.

Then why do I have to leave, and not the state?

There are benefits to the UK and people in London to having Ireland under the jurisdiction of the UK, otherwise they would not have minded giving it up. Why should they sacrifice those benefits, for the same of a smaller group?

Why are the smaller group obliged to furnish the larger group with these benefits against its will? Should American blacks have remained oppressed and even enslaved so long as a majority of Americans believed that they derived some benefit from this oppression?

Note, I'm not arguing against Irish independence, I'm arguing against the right to arbitrary secession.

It wasn't arbitrary, it was established through a majority vote for Sinn Féin candidates running on an openly Republican platform (including known veterans of the 1916 insurrection, notably de Valera, Collins and Markievicz) in the 1919 British general election. It was unilateral, but it was not arbitrary, or at least no more so than the continuation of Unionist government was.

It's not a matter of history, but consent. Belgium's people never consented or surrendered to being part of the UK, or made use of the benefits that British taxpayers pay for. A new born makes use of the society provided by the state he's in, and it's not unreasonable for the state to require something in return.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say that consent is necessary for membership of a given state, but then you say that the state is entitled to wield power over anyone if it feels that the individual owes it some obligation. Which is it?

 

[bhsup]

Because, TF, that's just the way the world civilization has evolved over thousands of years. There isn't a lot you can do about it now unless you want to go find another WWII platform out in the ocean.

 

[Traitorfish]

That may be an explanation for the state, but it's not an argument in favour of cooperating with it. Saying "states exist" doesn't tell me how I should relate to state any more than than saying "animals exist" tells me whether or not I should eat meat.

 

[Souron]

Again, that doesn't answer my question. If I have never been asked to consent to membership of a group, then what right does that group have to assume my membership, let alone to do so through force of law?

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say that consent is necessary for membership of a given state, but then you say that the state is entitled to wield power over anyone if it feels that the individual owes it some obligation. Which is it?

A legitimate state needs consent, but it can assume that it has if from newborns. Newborns need the benefits of the state, and it's a no-brainer for them to opt in, even though they have less of a brain than can contemplate that choice.

Then why do I have to leave, and not the state?

Because the state owns the land right now.

Why are the smaller group obliged to furnish the larger group with these benefits against its will? Should American blacks have remained oppressed and even enslaved so long as a majority of Americans believed that they derived some benefit from this oppression?

I agree that there should be limits on the power of government, like those limits protecting American Blacks, but taxes are not one of those limits.

It wasn't arbitrary, it was established through a majority vote for Sinn Féin candidates running on an openly Republican platform (including known veterans of the 1916 insurrection, notably de Valera, Collins and Markievicz) in the 1919 British general election. It was unilateral, but it was not arbitrary, or at least no more so than the continuation of Unionist government was.

So why couldn't British law have been changed first?

 

[Traitorfish]

A legitimate state needs consent, but it can assume that it has if from newborns. Newborns need the benefits of the state, and it's a no-brainer for them to opt in, even though they have less of a brain than can contemplate that choice.

But, again, most people aren't newborns. Most people are, in fact, adults. Despite this, nobody has ever thought to inquire as to whether they consent to the existence of the state. Why not?

Because the state owns the land right now.

How did the state acquire it?

I agree that there should be limits on the power of government, like those limits protecting American Blacks, but taxes are not one of those limits.

We're not just talking about taxes here, we're talking about the totality of political organisation. What obligation does any one region or indeed individual have to submit to control of others against their will?

So why couldn't British law have been changed first?

The British weren't willing to concede independence. The Republicans, of the understandable opinion that Lloyd George could piss off, decided to take things into their own hands.

 

[Souron]

But, again, most people aren't newborns. Most people are, in fact, adults. Despite this, nobody has ever thought to inquire as to whether they consent to the existence of the state. Why not?

Most people do, and they vote for it's continued existence by not voting for it's disillusion. Those that don't want the state still participate, so they still have to live under the authority of the state until they leave.

How did the state acquire it?

Not from you. See my earlier post.

We're not just talking about taxes here, we're talking about the totality of political organisation. What obligation does any one region or indeed individual have to submit to control of others against their will?

None, if they're not already part of the nation. Otherwise, you don't get to remove the authority the state has over you without leaving, and leaving behind the benefits the state provides. Not if you're fairly represented in the larger nation.

The British weren't willing to concede independence. The Republicans, of the understandable opinion that Lloyd George could piss off, decided to take things into their own hands.

I understand that. But none of that justifies succession.

 

[fishjie]

no......... its part of a social contract.

government is there to help the public and protect them and their rights (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness), and in return, the public helps fund these endeavors. simple.

it is "theft" when government uses it to bail out wall street, fund horrifically pointless wars, and waste it on lavish parties such as what the GSA did in vegas.

but on principle, no its not theft. lulz.

 

[Traitorfish]

Most people do, and they vote for it's continued existence by not voting for it's disillusion. Those that don't want the state still participate, so they still have to live under the authority of the state until they leave.

Why should they have to live under that authority if they did not consent to that? What possible right could the state possess over them?

Not from you. See my earlier post.

Then how do I know that they acquired by any means which I should feel bound to respect?

None, if they're not already part of the nation.

Why not? You've already decided that the majority is always right, so why back out now?

Otherwise, you don't get to remove the authority the state has over you without leaving, and leaving behind the benefits the state provides. Not if you're fairly represented in the larger nation.

Why not? And why is "fair representation" necessary when you've already decided that consent is not?

I understand that. But none of that justifies succession.

Why not (said the broken record)? You seem to think that a majority of Belgians rejecting British rule would justify their continuing to remain outside it, so why doesn't a majority of Irish rejecting British rule justify their leaving it?

 

[Mise]

I enjoy a good old intellectual wankfest over the internet as much as the next navel gazing 20-something, but this has become ridiculous. Do people seriously believe that explicit, unanimous consent is the only valid source of political legitimacy?? Or is this just a debating exercise in picking off the low-hanging fruit?

EDIT: For the record, I agree that many people who claim to be liberals often fail to articulate arguments from the POV of liberty-maximisation, or with liberty-maximisation as a clear goal, or even with any mention of liberty or liberal principles at all. But it could be that there is no need to argue that, say, redistributing wealth to the poor through taxes is liberty enhancing, because this is implicit or well-understood.

 

[Traitorfish]

I enjoy a good old intellectual wankfest over the internet as much as the next navel gazing 20-something, but this has become ridiculous. Do people seriously believe that explicit, unanimous consent is the only valid source of political legitimacy?? Or is this just a debating exercise in picking off the low-hanging fruit?

What other source of political legitimacy do you imagine might exist? I admit that it's a position that doesn't lend itself particularly well to public policy, but speaking only for myself I tend to be suspicious of arguments that begin with their conclusion.

 

[lovett]

I enjoy a good old intellectual wankfest over the internet as much as the next navel gazing 20-something, but this has become ridiculous. Do people seriously believe that explicit, unanimous consent is the only valid source of political legitimacy?? Or is this just a debating exercise in picking off the low-hanging fruit?

Yes, some people do actually. And it is not a particularly implausible position, as long as we have a precise understanding of what legitimacy means. If we think that legitimacy is the only reason we could have to act as a government commands, this position becomes untenable.

Precisely, I think this position is plausibly if and only if we think that a body is legitimate when we have reason to allow its commands to pre-empt our reasons. This means that we have reason to follow its commands whatever reasons for action we believe we have. Such cases can exist; if I know that my brother Jim is far better at playing the stock market then am I, I have reason to allow his advice on how to play the stockmarket to pre-empt my own thoughts. Even if I disagree with him about particular cases, I have reason to follow his advice; I know I am wrong more often than him. Considering governments, if we thought that governmental commands should pre-empt our own reason in this way (and, if we are soldiers and the government is commanding us, perhaps they should) that government is legitimate. Informed consent, it seems to me, is an excellent way of establishing if governments have this pre-emptory authority; if they are legitimate. If we consent when informed, we will only do so when we see that consenting is too the good.

This means that no modern government is legitimate. But this is not that surprising, when one makes legitimacy as demanding a feature as have I. There are no modern government which I can think of which we would entrust with pre-emptory power like that described.

But these conclusions are a long way from the the conclusion that we should tear down all modern governments or that we have no obligations to act in the way they command. In many cases we will. Our moral obligation still hold even if we have not consented to government, and in many cases resisting the commands of governments will be immoral. On this account of legitimacy, illegitmate governments can still be good governments. And we fulfill our moral obligation only if we act in the way commanded by such governments.

 

[Winston Hughes]

You claim that the application of bureaucratic control through systematic violence is the most desirable way to organise society. If you're not a utopian, then what are you?

Firstly, I do not agree with your loaded definition. Bureaucracy is certainly a common feature of the state - in fact, it is one of the reasons why states are able to provide so many benefits which other social forms cannot. But it need not be ubiquitous across all aspects of society, and, in practice, is usually far more limited in scope than your hint at totalitarian control suggests. (Another point to note is that those who campaign for the interests of the weakest and the poorest in society are virtually unanimous in calling for greater levels of state intervention, as it is by far the most likely approach to yield real improvements in living standards.)

Furthermore, while the state's monopoly on legitimate violence provides a necessary backdrop for its powers, and while there are certainly many examples of this capacity being misused, it is far from being the case that the use of systematic violence is a necessary feature of state action. To the contrary, in many (most?) places around the world it is sufficiently rare that few citizens will ever see agents of the state commit any acts of violence whatsoever. (It's worth noting the actions of many avowed anarchists here - I have known perhaps 30 or 40 of them personally, and nearly all have been involved in committing acts of violence against police officers during protests/riots, many of them taking great pride in doing so, and several traveling around Europe to find new venues for their violence. Oh, and most of these people were living off state benefits at the time.)

Secondly, as I've already made clear in this thread and in previous discussions, I do not regard the modern state as some kind of end game for social development. It is simply the best model we have yet figured out. I harbour no illusions of its perfectibility, nor do I assume that it will always be the best model. What I can say with absolute certainty, however, is that states are ubiquitous in the world today, that there are innumerable cases of states providing enormous benefits to their citizens, and that nobody has yet given even a remotely plausible explanation of how we could keep those benefits whilst getting rid of the states themselves.

In this context, the aim should be to make states work better; refusing to cooperate with them on principle is just *urinating* in the wind.

On this account of legitimacy, illegitmate governments can still be good governments. And we fulfill our moral obligation only if we act in the way commanded by such governments.

Doesn't that suggest that this particular account of legitimacy is rather inadequate for the job at hand?