The way he responded to that quote was odd; I’ve often said that Ron Paul is a moderate libertarian, but he is much too radical to get elected to the presidency.
So, this is left-libertarianism ?
Jon, I’m not sure what part of mutualism you have in mind… I don’t believe in the labor theory of value, which I thought was central to mutualism, but I’m really not very well versed in the ideology. For what it’s worth, minarchism operates under the idea of sovereignty, which I reject, so I’m not sure what that makes me.
Ego, I’m not really sure how I would advocate a movement from our current society to the one I imagine. An integral component of my ideal is that people who live in the same community have the same basic idea of what they want their government to look like, because of the role of voluntary association in my view. That component is conspicuously absent in our current social order, and I’m not sure what would be the best thing to do about it.
Juan, that’s my own view, not “left-libertarianism” broadly conceived. Left-libertarianism is only the view that appropriation ought to be subject to some egalitarian condition. So yea, I’m a left-libertarian, but my views aren’t necessarily indicative of what left-libertarians generally think. You highlighted a number of phrases within my post where I assented to a number of things that a lot of libertarians oppose, presumably with the implication that I was being somehow anti-libertarian by advocating them. Given that I explicitly said that such measures would be based on explicit initial consent, I don’t see why it would be problematic. Presumably you want a job; in the workplace, one’s superiors have the right to impose certain things on her, and she can be required to do certain things which benefit others. But because she voluntarily entered an agreement which involved these things, there is nothing coercive about them. In the same way, I would gladly agree to enter an arrangement in which I was required to contribute to certain ends. There’s nothing anti-libertarian about that.
Just because I want to live in a society in which the poor would not be left to die and public goods would be provided (heaven forbid) doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in freedom. Am I not supposed to want these things? If I got together with people who thought like me and we agreed to have a society like the one I envision, would you have a problem with that? Would you stop me? It’s important to remember that we’re libertarians, and that means that we should support people living the way they want to live, which doesn’t necessarily have to be the way that you want to live.
Danny, is there anything in that proposal with which you disagree? If not, you’re as anarcho-capitalist as anyone!
Niccolo’s proposal? Or Swift’s? If the latter, then no, I agree wholeheartedly [:D]
This:
I know that you responded to it, but you didn’t really say whether or not you agree.
Well if people wanted to provide me with all those things on their own dime, I’d be more than happy to let them! I just don’t think the “voluntary funders” of such an order would be too happy about me not contributing, and they’d want to get together and have their own society where I couldn’t take advantage of their proactiveness without doing my share.
Even considering high taxes and high prices, individuals still contribute generously to charities. With drastically lower prices and tens of thousands of dollars of extra income, do you not think that individuals would manage to scrape together enough money to fund a bare-bones government, especially considering many individuals’ feelings of patriotic duty?
When you say “they”, are they all consenting to form join these clubs/organizations/companies? If so, how is that in contradiction to my stated plan?
My only point is this: if you told me that the government was going to stop providing stuff unless people sent in some donations, in which case it would provide stuff to everyone, I probably wouldn’t send anything on the hope that others would take care of it for me. Does that make me a jerk? Maybe; I’d say it makes me a college student with different priorities for my money. But even if I had the money to contribute, there would be some incentive for me to just free-ride. And a lot of people would do that.
There’s nothing contradictory or immoral about your idea, as far as I can tell. So I’m not objecting to it. I’m just saying that I would imagine that things would be a little more complicated than that. I don’t think the government would work the way we want it to if it just functioned on the donations of certain wealthy donors. If you have reason to believe otherwise, though, I don’t have a problem with that. I’m just a little skeptical is all.
Regardless of skepticism, would you prefer it to the current coercive system? Do you support a coercive system?
Like I said earlier, even considering high taxes and high prices, individuals still contribute generously to charities. With drastically lower prices and tens of thousands of dollars of extra income, do you not think that individuals would manage to scrape together enough money to fund a bare-bones government, especially considering many individuals’ feelings of patriotic duty? Why do people give money to charities at all?
Clearly, there are certain programs that you want to be funded; do you think you are justified to force other individuals at gun-point to pay for it if they don’t want to?
Does that make any sense ?
And would such a claim of mine be far-fetched ?
Words usually have clear meanings. Imposition and consent are antagonical terms. You can’t seriously argue that people consent to be taxed - that’s sheer nonsense. Governments are either voluntary or not - tertium non datur.
Ego, I certainly don’t approve of the coercive system, but that doesn’t mean I have to advocate every non-coercive system that can be conceived of. The community-based system I advocate is different than the voluntarily funded system you’re describing, and I think it’s better. That’s not to say that your system is bad, or couldn’t work. Maybe it would be great. If you got together with a group of people and wanted to set up a government which would be funded as a non-profit donation-driven entity, that’s great. I would prefer if I didn’t have to live in a community with one of your government’s police forces and fire departments, or at least my community wouldn’t be barred from operating its own alternative police force or fire department. But that’s not inconsistent with your view. If your charity-based government wanted to set up a police station in my town, and you could operate it without breaking any of my community’s mutually agreed-upon rules, then that’s your prerogative. I have no problem with that.
I have a little trouble with the “forcing people at gunpoint” language. If I sign a contract that says that I agree to certain things, and then I don’t agree to them, then you have a right to hold me responsible, no? So if the contract I sign says that I agree to pay a tax (or a “membership due”) which represents a decision which is made in a certain way on how much to spend as a community, then I am responsible for paying that amount. Does that mean that I’m being “forced at gunpoint” to pay it? Well, I guess if I don’t pay it adamantly enough, and part of the agreement was that if I didn’t pay then I could be forced at gunpoint, then maybe yes. Or maybe all that happens is I’m prohibited from leaving my property (at gunpoint!); I acknowledge the people who think that even punishment or restitution must be voluntary, and I’m not taking a position against that. But either way, the gun is being pointed. However, the gun only comes out because of an agreement that I made. I don’t see that as being coercive; I think it’s just part of how society works, even if everything is “voluntary.”
Juan, a lot of that goes for you, too. But your core objection seems to be more semantic than substantive. I’m saying, “If I agree that you can impose certain things on me, then you do not coerce me if you impose those sorts of things on me.” Your objection is, “The word ‘impose’ is incompatible with you agreeing to allow it; if you agree, it’s not an imposition.” The same goes for taxes, where you essentially say “The nature of a tax is that you didn’t agree to pay it; if you agree, it’s not a tax.” To be honest, if that’s how you define those words, then fine. No problem is created for my actual argument. Feel free to replace “imposition” with whatever word you think makes better sense, and “tax” with “procedurally determined membership due which does not require specific consent on the part of the member in order to be due” or whatever makes you happy. I’m going to continue to use the words “impose” and “tax” because I think the terms make perfect sense the way I’m using them, and as long as we understand that there’s a prior agreement in place, I don’t see any reason that there would be any confusion.
Honestly, I fail to see any difference! Under my system, you can practice your system, and (I assume) under your system, I can practice my system. Is that correct?
The view of “the state” that I am proposing is entirely non-coercive, so your rights wouldn’t violated.
Obviously if you agree to pay me in advance for a new car and I take the money and run, you have every right to employ force (or the threat thereof) to rectify things. That is not analogous to a situation in which I decide I want to fund some program so I go out and employ force (or the threat thereof) to make you to pay for it.
I don’t think punishments should be voluntary, and I agree that force should be used to enforce agreements.
Danny, everybody knows what imposition and taxing means, except, apparently, you. You can arrogantly claim that you’re going to redefine and misuse language as you please, of course. Well, some people claim to believe that war is peace and slavery is freedom, you know.
So, government is either voluntary or it is not. And if it is voluntary, it’s not really government. There’s nothing new to be invented in political science. Either your system respects the rights of the individual, in wich case your system is just plain old libertarianism, or else your system violates the rights of the individual and then your system is one of the many varieties of collectivism. Given that your system is ‘community’ based, I think it belongs to the latter category.
Free riders and the “tragedy of the commons” are often brought up in argument against a system of voluntary taxation, and they are valid objections from a utilitarian perspective. Besides the obvious ethical argument (i.e. utilitarian ends don’t justify coercive means), I think that practically free riders won’t make much difference. With politicians embracing their proper function as fund-raisers, there should evolve an upper-crust social pressure to make contributions to these types of public utilities. Social status is a powerful incentive for wealthy folks. There is also the incentive of the positive feelings involved with altruism, evidenced by the large amount of charitable contributions that people make.
Also, to give a bit of insight as to how different personality types think, I can tell you that I personally don’t mind carrying other people’s weight. I pride myself on my personal strength, and one way that I demonstrate that strength is by being a defender of the weak. Primarily it is my wife, son and immediate acquaintances who receive the benefit of that protection, but the urge extends towards all innocents. I also am fortunate to know others of similar mentality. I strongly believe (and with the assumption of effective inspiring leadership guarantee) that under a system of voluntary taxation, our society will have zero problem funding such things as national defense, police and fire departments, and a system of law. My view is that free riders are probably young, and thus self-centered, not to mention unsure of their as-yet-fully-developed powers. With maturity and strength comes magnaminity and generosity. At least, that’s how I see it.
Absolutely, [Ego,] our conceptions of society aren’t mutually exclusive in any way. I guess my point was only that I would want more socialization than I would anticipate under your system, and that my system would be able to augment yours in order to provide it to those who agreed with me.
But as I said from the beginning, no one would have to join my community if they didn’t want to. If people want to be completely atomic entities, and not have to participate in the building up of a society which takes care of its members as a matter of principle rather than only profit, then that’s fine too. I just think that’s kind of messed up.
Well shouldn’t other voluntary organizations have that same problem then? Is the Catholic Church strapped for cash because all of the free riders? Obviously the Catholic Church doesn’t have the same expenses as any government but it is the same idea. I think if there was a truly minimal government with police and courts I do think it would be possible to fund it privately. If people pay for their church voluntarily, even with taxes as high as they are now, don’t you think they might throw some cash towards something that might very well keep them safe from bad guys? What do you think?
Governments are not only characterized by their coercive funding via taxation, but also on their monopoly of force in a territorial area. Initially, I would think removing the coercive funding part of goverment would still leave a large organization with a monopoly of force that could still be called “the government” without altering its meaning overmuch. Then, over time the government could allow private competitors into the “market” for those things where they retain the monopoly (e.g. fire and police, courts). Eventually the private competitors win and public contributions dry up, and we live in anarchy more or less. But incrementally, over generations certainly. People will only tolerate so much change at once (as much as agorists don’t seem to want to believe it).
I’ve never read any libertarian literature, so I’m sure I’ve missed some good stuff, but this is the most subtly epic quote I’ve ever read!
Juan, if my boss gives me a new responsibility on me, and says that I have to do it or I’ll be fired, I would say that my boss “imposed” a responsibility on me, and people would know what I meant. I’m less uncomfortable with your objection to the word “tax,” which is why I’ve been careful to qualify my use of the term throughout this thread. Your objection to the word “government,” however, is simply wrong. Corporations have governance, and no coercion is involved at all. I specifically defined my government as not being sovereign, which is what sets it apart from a “state,” which is necessarily coercive. I’m not the only one to make this distinction in the field of libertarian philosophy, and I don’t see why you should be so confused by it.
I specifically said that no rights of any individual would be violated by the government I envision on account of the fact that all of its citizens would have to have agreed explicitly to the terms of its operation. Accordingly, it is just plain old libertarianism. It’s just that it’s libertarianism which doesn’t ignore the fact that we want public goods to be provided, and that it’s messed up to let people die just because they’re poor. Nothing’s being forced on anyone. Before you object to another feature of my description, ask yourself this: “Given that everyone who is impacted by this feature will have explicitly agreed to the legitimacy of the feature, is the feature still objectionable?” If you can honestly say “Yes,” then I don’t see how you can coherently call yourself a libertarian.
Maxpot and Solid Choke, I think you’re spot on in saying that mature, socially conscious people will be happy to fund the programs that we need in order to have a society which doesn’t ignore those in need, and which funds the public goods which form the underpinning of our lives. My intuition is based on the idea that the burden of funding those things should be distributed in a way that’s agreeable to everyone, so that we can all work together to bring about an ideal community, rather that trying to independently figure out what we think should be done and having to go out and organize support every time. What I have in mind is a system in which socially desirable programs can be funded collectively based on a decisionmaking procedure which everyone agrees to in advance. It’s really just a way to reduce transactions costs and to provide a safeguard against free riders where they exist. Does that make sense?