Sanaz
Gorilla Joe
So why do you think and/or assume that this is the "sole purpose of government"? You may think this is its sole purpose, but many more want the government to be a lot more than this.newfangle said:
The Right to Ignore the State
- Thread starter insurgent
- Start date
insurgent
Exhausted
Sanaz said:
First of all. The government doesn't own the roads or the land. Just because the government has built the roads, it doesn't deny tourists the right to use it does it? Because you've built a house, you don't forbid people to look at it do you? If the government finds that it is in the interest of its people to have a road, then it will build the road.
Indeed an individual would have to find ways to strike deals with private people to live without cooperating with the government. He would have to buy health insurance, electricity, gas, whatever, if he wants it.
You could go kill the person, but he would most certainly find an other way to protect himself - whether by his own means or by hiring somebody to guarantee his security. Security companies already exist. If the government didn't handle security, they could easily take over this role as a private company.
Your government, however, would protect your wife from being raped. Nothing changes in that respect. After all, if a foreigner came and raped your wife, your government would persecute him, right?
Basically, it would mean that government would have to benefit their people or the threat of secession would be too great. In that way, the government turns into a volunteer "package system" where you pay your taxes for your membership and you receive certain values in return. If people were to leave this system, they could find other ways to get by or simply form their own package system, making the two governments compete.
It's a theoretical point to make, but I think the fact that it would be impossible for governments to implement it, simply because it would not be practical or because it would destroy them, illustrates that the social contract and the very justification for a government is an illusion. In other words, governments have drifted too far from their theoretical purpose.
insurgent
Exhausted
Sanaz said:
Right, and let them have a government that does this. Then kindly don't advocate that the rest of us should be forced to live under the same system.
newfangle
hates you.
My justification for the role of a correct government is a fundamental one.
It stems from the reality that man uses his mind to survive. He lies by the product of reason and logic, and applies it to reality in order to produce items essential to his own survival. Whether this is done through construction, trade, research, or services is irrelavent.
The absolute fundamental for the estabolishment of society is to ensure that a man's life and a man's property may be protected from other men. Otherwise, we simply return to the law of the jungle, and society ceases to exist. To be put another way, the rights of man ensure his survival in a social context. A man does not have "rights" if he lives alone. He does not require them. As soon as two or more humans live in a community, the protection of their lives becomes an irreducible primary. Without such protection, there is no community.
This is where government comes in. Its purpose is to ensure that man's two primary rights (life and property) are maintained. As soon as someone or something arbitrarily assigns things like "education" or "healthcare" as rights, a sole question inevitably pops up. At whose expense? Since life and property are irreducible, any other right that infrignes on these two things cannot be classified as a right.
The only system that follows such guidlines is laissez-faire capitalism. It is the only system in the history of humanity that asserts that a government is always subordinated to moral law. Its role is solely a protector, and its very involvement in any level economics undermines this primary role.
It stems from the reality that man uses his mind to survive. He lies by the product of reason and logic, and applies it to reality in order to produce items essential to his own survival. Whether this is done through construction, trade, research, or services is irrelavent.
The absolute fundamental for the estabolishment of society is to ensure that a man's life and a man's property may be protected from other men. Otherwise, we simply return to the law of the jungle, and society ceases to exist. To be put another way, the rights of man ensure his survival in a social context. A man does not have "rights" if he lives alone. He does not require them. As soon as two or more humans live in a community, the protection of their lives becomes an irreducible primary. Without such protection, there is no community.
This is where government comes in. Its purpose is to ensure that man's two primary rights (life and property) are maintained. As soon as someone or something arbitrarily assigns things like "education" or "healthcare" as rights, a sole question inevitably pops up. At whose expense? Since life and property are irreducible, any other right that infrignes on these two things cannot be classified as a right.
The only system that follows such guidlines is laissez-faire capitalism. It is the only system in the history of humanity that asserts that a government is always subordinated to moral law. Its role is solely a protector, and its very involvement in any level economics undermines this primary role.
Sanaz
Gorilla Joe
newfangle said:
Sure sounds like renouncement to me. I may be misreading, or you may be referring to a different philopsophy than what is proposed in this thread. I am not attacking a philosophy which states that corrupt government is bad for people. I am saying that what is outlined in this paper is silly, unless you love and trust every person or group of people you might ever come into contact with. When "natural law" is pulled into the argument with an assumption that this will lead to peaceful coexistence among all mankind, I become very skeptical. Natural law and survival of the fittest mean that the unjust and unscrupulous will thrive. Check out most of the countries in the world today.
insurgent
Exhausted
Organisation is not wrong. The government's current organisation is wrong because it leaves no choice to its citizens. So, instead of saying "take it or be punished", it could say "take it or leave it".
insurgent
Exhausted
Private, dynamic organisation is what you see in private corporations today. Now, I'm a minarchist, so I believe a state should exist to protect the rights of its citizens, but it need not force its citizens to be members. If you believe this would result in anarcho-capitalism and chaos, then you also admit that government as it is today does not meet the requirements of mutual benefit that is required in the free market. I guess then the theory of spontaneous/dynamic order will be put to the test. I just think it would make governments change their course.
Perhaps, but I imagine that most people would find it in their best interests is to not pay anything and let others do so.newfangle said:
I don't see why this requires the voluntary system to fail.newfangle said:
Why should people be allowed to benefit from something and not pay for it? Why should a service that benefits everyone, especially one that benefits everyone perfectly equally, be funded only by generous people? Why should the greedy bastards of the world be allowed to freeload? Especially when those who "donate" don't think they should?
And it'd be great if those who don't like it could secede from the state and let that be it. That is, stop funding it and stop benefiting from it. But while the former is possible, the latter isn't, unlike what Herbert Spencer seems to think. That is, unless the disgruntled person goes and lives out in the Pacific or something.
Sanaz
Gorilla Joe
And I'll carry this one step further. If someone is benefitting without paying, that is harming those who are paying. In order to protect themselves from harm, they must take action against those causing the harm. It is the responsibility of government to stop this behavior by action. What form that action takes depends on the situation. I'd be happy with imprisonment of those who "secede" (i.e. those who don't pay taxes). I'd bet the criminals who want the benefits without paying will disagree.WillJ said:
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
I'm a libertarian. However, I do not agree with a "multiple competing government" system. The government should protect the citizens from force and fraud. That is it. Anything more is force or fraud, by the government.
LOVE_Magiska
Warlord
Damnit, I misread the thread title. Thought it said "Right-click to ignore the state" 
newfangle
hates you.
John HSOG said:
Precisely. There are several methods by which such a system could be implimented, but the fundamentals behind it remain the same.
Sanaz
Gorilla Joe
How would this help the majority of people in any country with an established government enough to force a change? I'm talking about the average person, not the power elite with a lot to lose.newfangle said:
Public education and libraries maintain a base level of literacy for everyone. Good roads, rail, and air travel provide means for commerce. Mail and phone ensure communication. Hospitals, police, and fire departments maintain safety. Military and intelligence services provide security. Copyright, patent, and anti-trust law help maintain competition and legality. Government oversight boards ensure public safety (FDA, EPA, AMA, etc.). The established court system provides order. Etc.
These are just a small portion of services paid for by tax dollars in all modern societies. How are these guaranteed in the "new" system, whatever it is called? And why would the average citizen buy in, when it only appears to benefit a small and insignificant fringe of the population? I'm thinking of practicalities, not theories and philosophies, as it will take weight and force to change hundreds of years of progress back to what appears to be the law of the jungle (even if it really isn't, as some claim).
insurgent
Exhausted
John HSOG said:
Right. And if the majority wants more and wants to force this on the minority?
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Sanaz - Rails, phones, hospitals, and air travel are not paid for with tax dollars in the United States.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
*blink*thestonesfan said:
Wow. All this time I thought I was living in the US, but I guess I'm not.
See, here in Texas, we've just passed a new tax law to allow for the creation of "hospital" tax districts, to help support local hospitals. This most recent move shifts the tax burden, but hospitals benefitting from local taxes is nothing new. They've been doing that for at least the last 50 years. How do you think most community hospitals support themselves?
Air travel was most definately developed using tax dollars, and even today, 20 years after deregulation, the industry continues to receive regular infusions of cash from the government. Check out the bailout loans of 2002.
We don't do much with rail in this country these days, but even so tax dollars flow in into it. The state of Texas is considering spending quite a bit of money to build a rail line to the new Toyota plant outside San Antonio.
I don't know about phones, but I'm willing to bet they had help too. It's only natural; infrastructure is one of the few things government is good at, and private industry generally sucks at it. Why use a saw to hammer in nails?
I'm guessing that you meant to say "Are not paid for entirely by tax dollars?"
BassDude726
It's Just a Phase
thestonesfan said:
Correct... except for the massive billions-of-dollars bailouts that the US gov't gave to the airlines after 9/11, which quickly found its way into the pockets of the CEOs.
Anyway, there are people that really do pull this off successfully. There are secessionists in Montana and Idaho that have been living in log cabins, not paying taxes, and generally living free of government for decades. There's a book about how the government tried to arrest one of these families a while back, Assault at Ruby Ridge , in which the ATF basically f***ed up real bad and killed some of them, and consequently got in a whole boatload of trouble. I forget when it happened exactly, I'd have to read the book again, but since then the US gov't has left them pretty much alone. I expected they'd get some trouble after the Unibomber turned out to be one of them, that Ted K-(Polish name) guy.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
This is what lead the southern states in the United States to sucssead from the union leading to the Civil War.
newfangle
hates you.
Thanks for the reply Sanaz.
I'm not sure where your getting here. Are you suggesting that there is not a strong enough movement to incite such change? Or perhaps that a country that already has a well-defined system of intrusion and taxation, that people will simply not be willing to accept a more free society. I'm inclined to agree, if that's the case. Most people are nowhere close to my political beliefs, and its simply something I have to accept. But that won't change me from pursuing a society where I may live that exists according to my standards of proper government. Fortunately, this thread verifies that I am not alone in my quest.
The current system of public infrastructure does do a good job. It does maintain order in society. But it is fundamentally wrong, as I defended in a previous post. I would never aim to destroy any current infrastructure, unless it became unacceptably coersive (Canada is nearing this point).
The only way for an ideal free society to form is through very slow change, or through the estabolishment of an entirely new society. I'm inclined to believe that the latter is more likely, given how fast human technology is progressing. Just imagine, a liberatarian space station!
First of all, it is not a small portion of tax dollars. Social spending in the US accounts of 65% of government expenditure. This is an absurdly huge figure, given the return that people get on anything handled by the government.
You have a very fair question when you ask how such services are assured. A free society never prevents any such services. It is fairly obvious that people will pursue education (specifically, people's parents). Healthcare and research are very profitable, and any wise businessman would consider them worthy of investment. Police, military, and courts I still consider the realm of government, namely, the government's only roll in society.
For those that are too poor to afford such services as healthcare or education. Well, the latter can be solved with scholarships or home schooling. (keeping in mind that one's intellect will purely be judged based on one's intellect, rather than arbitrary standards such as a high school diploma). If one is sick and dying in the street, it surely is not the roll of the government to come in and force another individual to help this man. But you can be sure that no one forced him into his current predicament. Voluntary, private charity is the only moral recourse in such a situation, because any other method of helping the destitute will infringe on the inalienable rights of other individuals, which is antithetical to the sublime value of human compassion.
Finally, you claim to be a man (or woman) of practicality, rather than principle. I believe there is no dichotomy between realism and idealism, assuming that the ideals have a place in reality.
As evidence I offer the "theory" of communism, and the "practice" of Soviet Russia. As evidence I offer the "theory" of the Declaration of Independence, and the "practice" of the foundations of the only government in history to acknowledge inalienable individual rights.
Regards
Sanaz said:
I'm not sure where your getting here. Are you suggesting that there is not a strong enough movement to incite such change? Or perhaps that a country that already has a well-defined system of intrusion and taxation, that people will simply not be willing to accept a more free society. I'm inclined to agree, if that's the case. Most people are nowhere close to my political beliefs, and its simply something I have to accept. But that won't change me from pursuing a society where I may live that exists according to my standards of proper government. Fortunately, this thread verifies that I am not alone in my quest.
Sanaz said:
The current system of public infrastructure does do a good job. It does maintain order in society. But it is fundamentally wrong, as I defended in a previous post. I would never aim to destroy any current infrastructure, unless it became unacceptably coersive (Canada is nearing this point).
The only way for an ideal free society to form is through very slow change, or through the estabolishment of an entirely new society. I'm inclined to believe that the latter is more likely, given how fast human technology is progressing. Just imagine, a liberatarian space station!
Sanaz said:
First of all, it is not a small portion of tax dollars. Social spending in the US accounts of 65% of government expenditure. This is an absurdly huge figure, given the return that people get on anything handled by the government.
You have a very fair question when you ask how such services are assured. A free society never prevents any such services. It is fairly obvious that people will pursue education (specifically, people's parents). Healthcare and research are very profitable, and any wise businessman would consider them worthy of investment. Police, military, and courts I still consider the realm of government, namely, the government's only roll in society.
For those that are too poor to afford such services as healthcare or education. Well, the latter can be solved with scholarships or home schooling. (keeping in mind that one's intellect will purely be judged based on one's intellect, rather than arbitrary standards such as a high school diploma). If one is sick and dying in the street, it surely is not the roll of the government to come in and force another individual to help this man. But you can be sure that no one forced him into his current predicament. Voluntary, private charity is the only moral recourse in such a situation, because any other method of helping the destitute will infringe on the inalienable rights of other individuals, which is antithetical to the sublime value of human compassion.
Finally, you claim to be a man (or woman) of practicality, rather than principle. I believe there is no dichotomy between realism and idealism, assuming that the ideals have a place in reality.
As evidence I offer the "theory" of communism, and the "practice" of Soviet Russia. As evidence I offer the "theory" of the Declaration of Independence, and the "practice" of the foundations of the only government in history to acknowledge inalienable individual rights.
Regards
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Sanaz said:
The majority of those services are State or Local Government mandates, not Federal. Futhermore, what you cannot seem to understand is that you believe all of these things are beneficial to society, while some of us do not. We believe there are other options and that government intervention, in such things, will only make the situation worse.
Public Education, run by the State, is a failure. The Environmental Protection Agency is a toothless failure, because, afterall, the Government itself is the single largest polluter, in America. The U.S. Postal Service has been losing money for decades. Finally, when speaking of military, emergency services, and court systems, this is where we are in agreement. However, that should be the limit of government.
I am a individual. Any government, anywhere can only rule by the consent of the people. This government has my consent to protect myself and my family from force and fraud. They have my consent to collect taxes for that purpose, through user fees and sales taxes, not income tax. They do not have my consent to take my wealth to investigate the sexual habits of homosexual native Americans, living in San Francisco (actual government program). They do not have my consent to take my wealth and send it to Africa to fail to solve that continent's AIDS issues. They do not have my consent to take my wealth and subsidize the farming industry, or any other industry for that matter. They do not have my consent to take my wealth and redistribute it to anyone else, for any reason other than common defense.
