So, you claim to have the right to impose laws on innocents? That is consistent with libertarian ideals?
If the law says to pay taxes, and somebody breaks the law, they are not innocent of breaking the law. Would I have the right? No, as president I would have the obligation to enforce law. What are the libertarian ideals, exactly, which contradict presidents performing their paid functions? As president, should I just ignore what my employers have called me for?
In this case the problem is whether the president would use force to collect taxes from the ones that didn’t hire him to do that and don’t want to have any part in the goods created with the money collected with taxation. In the libertarian view the taxing of those who don’t want it is agression and I think that in this scenario not only the president but also his supporters should be seen as agressors if they support his view of taxing the ones that don’t want it. In the libertarian society they would all be subjects to arbitration.
It is impossible for the anarchists to not receive benefits from the goods provided by me. Because my government brings about the rule of law, society is incentivized away from breaking the law and toward a peaceful social order. All citizens receive these benefits, whether they agree or not. In order to ensure a segment of society is not paying for this service for everybody, I would have to force them to pay taxes, force them to leave the country, etc. Anything else betrays my employers.
Where is the law that says that people who do not adhere to your constitution are under the jurisdiction of your law? If these people reject the legislation passed by your government, it is because they consider that it exploits them instead of protecting them.
Do you not see that it is pure exploitation if one group of people can change the law that other people have to follow, then claim they have the right to punish them when they are “breaking the law”?
The United States president under minarchy would then have, in order not to betray the American people, to tax Canada and Mexico.
You aren’t an employee. You’re a tyrant; you’ll be delt with by bullet to the head.
The anarchists didn’t ask you to force rules on other people by the barrel of a gun.
Making up words never results in the perception of intelligence.
We didn’t employ you. We don’t want you. Leave us alone or be delt with.
So… Basically, Jared thinks it’s ok to kill someone for resisting his extortion.
Great, Jared. How do you expect us to react?
I wonder what would be his reaction if tomorrow there where suits at his door telling that it was discovered that for the benefit of a peaceful society he should give up all his property and become a payless employee for the government. All he would get in return would be a roof over his head, a set of clothes for work and some food.
This is essentially a slave contract - i.e. unenforceable nonsense. No reason to respect it.
I always see Marxists talk about exploitation, but I never bothered to look it up because they are rather blatantly wrong. Ironically enough, the dictionary discusses exploitation in terms of using something for one’s own ends. So I’d like to know how, assuming a minarchist legal ethic, anybody is utilizing negative law along with minimal positive laws to enforce the negative laws, in order to push their own ends. Of course we can talk about “oh noes, they can changes teh laws!!1”; that’s the point of a constitution. In order to head off the critique of constitutional minarchism, let me point this out: despots can take power in market anarchy, too. I would even argue that the formation of many states began there! You have to disprove the justice of constitutional minarchy, not where its abolition by tyrants can lead.
Because the United States routinely prosecutes Canadian criminals for the people of Canada? Oh, sorry. I do know what you mean. But in general, the relations of states remains an anarchy, so in a sense, the United States government thinks it gains at least as much by its relationship with Canada over national defense as it costs. There is no problem.
Anarchists can’t call rulers tyrants. Tyrants are rulers that use power unjustly. In order to call me a tyrant you have to concede my “archy”. There’s nothing unjust about taxing people that benefit from the rule of law, either.
Do you propose yellow stars to designate people who don’t want to pay taxes? In plain, less offensive language, how do you propose to the Sons of Liberty a system to clearly mark those not protected by the law, so that not only do they bear no protection, but they are marked so that no anarchist gains the benefit of assumed protection under the law? In a sense, then, I would still be forcing them to show something, or I would be showing their information, which could also be seen as infringing on privacy rights. What do you think?
Look it up in the dictionary again. The inability to make use of dictionary.com does not make you appear smarter.
To term taxation as extortion is impossible for an anarchist. Extortion assumes abuse of authority; if I have no authority in the first place, how is it extortion? And where did we decide death was the penalty for tax evasion?
How does that follow? Taxation for the enforcement of negative law is nothing compared to socialist totalitarianism. Are you seriously so stuck in an absurd absolute libertarianism that you oppose taxes on the same level as the Gulag?
I’ll admit here that I am not a “true libertarian”. As a constitutionalist and minarchist whose constitution has classical liberal tendencies and whose government is very much not a minarchy, I am “politicially libertarian”. I do not think liberty should be the highest goal of man, and as a minarchist, I definitionally find the degrees of government more important perhaps than government at all. In order to clarify the disagreement:
-
I do not find liberty to be so important a goal of mankind, though it has preferability over slavery.
-
Economically, the rule of law incentivizes domestic peace, which benefits everybody. Anybody who remains in the state but evades taxation is effectively stealing from those who pay taxes.
-
I do not think a small degree of government is immoral or unjust.
In order to show why I am wrong, I think you must do the following:
-
Show why liberty deserves to be the political ends even to the destruction of polity.
-
Disprove the existence of security externalities.
-
Show why small government is unjust in light of 2.
This is quite a non sequitur. Tyrants are rulers without justice, in order to call me a tyrant you must concede that I have justice… Wait… WHAT?!?
Anarchists can call anyone a tyrant. Tyrants don’t require the acknowledgment of legitimacy, afterall, if one has legitimacy then he would not be a tyrant. Legitimacy is derived from voluntary consent. I don’t give you voluntary consent to do anything that violates my property rights. I don’t know where you got this logic, but boy it’s… er… I promised I’d be nicer… it’s interesting.
Yes there is. I did not concede to your laws, I did not employ you to make them. Whether I benefit from externaliteis or not is an irrelevancy more commonly known as the “public goods argument.” You know what else tends to benefit people? Churches in communities. Should one be forced to pay the church for its existence, also?
Nah, I propose you just leave us alone. How hard is that, really?
I don’t propose anything, because it’s not my problem. The inability for you to distinguish between those who desire your state of irrational idolatry does not justify the extortion of innocent individuals not desiring to be subjugated by your cowardly acts of injustice. Your argument here stems from the public goods theory, a truly ridiculous tenant within the statist arsenal.
Essentially you are suggesting that any positive externalities are… negative and that it is your job to eliminate them at every corner. Why? I don’t know, maybe you can explain why positive externalities are Pareto-inoptimal.
If you want a suggestion as to how your state can compete with the Anarchist society, I can’t give it to you, state’s are the grand embodiment of the communist economic system. Ala Mises, your state will never be able to compete with the free market in anything, including defense and arbitration. In a free market society as suggested by the Anarchists, however, all property being private suggests that all property comes with some level of private protection. With that level of private protection enforced on the free market, there occurs no need for a grand police-state to impose restrictions on man’s virtue on the basis of assumptions made by pompous little bureaucrats wearing no clothes. When the Agorist revolution comes, and the Agora succeeds against the great adversary of justice, there will be no turning back. The revolution will be a wonderful infection that purges the evil of the state while promoting the virtue of the free market.
It does? Really? because I thought “to extort” meant to obtain from another by coercion or intimidation.
Because extortion requires no authority…? Does the Mafia possess any authority? Then why does your government call their actions extortion?
When you attempt to collect your funds from me, I will resist. If you persist in your attempts, I will take out my gun. Do you plan on killing me for defending myself?
Logical ends = Absurd
[^o)]
You either have liberty or slavery. Make a logical distinction between the two if you disagree.
First, when did the “rule of law” become synonymous with the state?
Second, peace requires an absence of violence. How are you abstaining from violence while actively pursuing violent tactics to extort funds from non-violent individuals?
Third, logically prove that peace requires the “rule of law” without making an assumption.
First, what state? Who gave you the right to put arbitrary and non-homesteaded borders around any piece of land you desired?
Second, how does one steal from another without directly taking from them? You’re talking about a free rider, though I do not imagine you know what that means or can articulate it, a free rider is not a thief, he is merely someone taking advantage of an open system. That does not require thievery.
Third, I as an individual do not force another person to pay taxes. If they pay taxes, that’s their issue. I neither want to pay, nor do I want to receive your services. Leave me alone, please.
You don’t believe a small amount of rape is immoral or unjust.
Proudhon said it best when he stated, Anarchy is order. The state is the number one cause of chaos, through the imposition of involuntary means to extract resources to use inefficiently, the state does the opposite of orderly organization through an efficient system. On the other hand, ala Mises, we understand that the free market system provides the greatest order to be seen.
Why? What’s wrong with an externality again? Why shouldn’t I be forced to pay for the Mosque down the road?
Because violently subjugating people to the will of another man is WRONG.
If my employer tells me to shoot you should I do it?
If the President of the United States declares you to be a guilty of breaking his new law against being named Jared are you a criminal?
Actually, freedom, trade, and voluntary association bring about the disincentives to break the law and are, by defintion, what creates a peaceful society.
Government is the system where some men are sheltered, by “the Law”, from the natural market penalties for violence against their fellow men.
How much more do you prefer it to slavery? Or is it only preferable to you being the slave?
You can’t control your externalities, so we are stealing? Who said you get to decide what or who the state is? What just means did you use to get that state?
Cool, go have your small government, just leave me out. Unless you want an immoral and unjust government that uses forces to make me participate, to pay for laws you want, to do your bidding. I am not asking for it.
I don’t advocate liberty though politics. I think the two are mutually exclusive.
Again, your externalities are not my concern. The ball is in your court to find a mutally agreeable way to deal with them that doesn’t include the use of force, which I will not accept. Keep your bees out of my apple trees if you think I am getting something for nothing, the trees aren’t moving.
The same reason big government is unjust. The use of force to recoup the loses of your own lack of ability to find a mutually agreeable solution to a problem created by your own desires is not my concern.
If you provide a good and are unable to recoup the full benefits of doing so, yet go ahead and do it anyway, it’s your own problem - to say that you have the right to force others into paying for this good (bad even? it’s not desired to begin with by some) is an unjust imposition. Furthemore, why not extend it to all such benefits, e.g. the benefit my wearing cologne may have upon someone who likes the scent but who did nothing to pay for it?
That is not an answer to my question. If minarchy implies a legislative power, that means that some people have the right to impose new laws upon other people. And appealing to the constitution is irrelevant: the people whom you are imposing your law on reject the constitution as well. We are not claiming that constitutional minarchy will be abolished by tyrants, we are claiming that its functional nature is tyrannical.
If the rulers of Canada and the United States can have mutually beneficial protection relationships without one having to tax the other one, why could that not be true at the individual level as well?
No, the new government should not fight to subjugate them, but if they violate the laws of the government, which since the government is limited should only occur when the anarchists have violated the property of citizens, and it should let them live in peace. As far as government services, then those who refuse to pay taxes should not be given any services that the government offers.
Exactly why does minarchism imply that a government has the right to levy taxes on people who haven’t voluntarily entered into an agreement with it?
I was under the impression that a libertarian government could only impose its will on people who had voluntarily become citizens (assuming the imposition wouldn’t violate the terms of the agreement), or if non-citizens violated the state-protected rights of citizens. No? And if not, then why can’t that work?