Because the United States is the only country in the world that incarcerates 1% of its population, let alone 5%. The U.S. government incarcerates something like twice as many of its population, per capita, then the next closest government.
Because if the government kills those committing civil disobedience in secret, then the people will not fear the government. If the people do not fear the government, and those disobeying appear to be getting away with it, then everyone else will join in as well. If your neighbor is not paying taxes, and apparently getting away with it, then why would you keep paying taxes? State power is based on fear.
No the real question is is if the state would be able to handle 5% dissenters.. it doesn’t need to put them all in jail, it just needs to make an example of a few of them.
Well they are building a lot of fema camps now with barbed wire on the inside of the fences.
Your link was a primary source. So no, my figure was correct.
I was looking for articles just talking about the cost of imprisoning people and showing that those imprisoned are mostly poor. I was not sure exactly what you wanted evidence for.
It has taken how long to get to ~1% of the population? And that being the poorest of the population, in the wealthiest country in the world (measured by GDP).
I don’t understand your question. Could you be more specific?
Which means it would not be in secret. And I do not know of anyone that would be OK with killing their neighbors for not paying taxes. You sound like socialists. They think humans are evil and need to have wealth redistributed and that without government people would kill each other en mass. Maybe you are on the wrong forum?
And I would argue that no one would pay taxes if there were no threat behind it, because no one will pay for someone else to have a free ride on his or her dime.
Would you not agree that there is a point at which the state cannot get more oppressive? Would you not agree that for the state to continue, it requires support of the population? If so, how could it have support of the population if it is imprisoning so many peaceful, productive people?
Why did you take the conversation from democide to prison inmates?
Several years ago some people were ok with beating up anyone who looked like a Muslim in this country. Now they are treated with the utmost suspension and hatred by many people within this state. And this is simple religion.
Blast! You’ve discovered my secret plot to destroy the Mises institute. I was cleverly working in the shadows with my socialist brethren, hoping to convert all the members here to my unholy ideology. Foiled by a mastermind!
And it seems like you are stuck in the Rousseauian theory that everyone is benevolent and only institutions are evil. I don’t think all humans are evil, nor do I think they are all benevolent. Humans are that which they make themselves to be.
I think socialists and certain progressives would still pay taxes, perhaps even some neoconservatives and small government libertarians. Perhaps the percentages would fluctuate but there are people who are willing to pay government for some service because they deem it necessary. I of course would not give the government another dime and I think once government loses its monopoly then it becomes a ‘club’ or business so to speak.
Because there is no evidence of governments slaughtering their own populations, if they are not using armed resistance.
But not with killing them right? Maybe a few extremist white trash, but not the vast majority of the population…
Simple religion?
Really? How? Have you not seen how I have said that I think the government would use aggression against those engaging in civil disobedience?
Do you think they would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes?
So you think people would keep paying for an over-priced piece of shit in the market place, even though the competition is offering a far superior product at a far lower price?
Because it would only be wrong if they killed them?
Yes Islam is a pretty nonchalant. They don’t drink virgin blood or possess the ability to rip people’s hearts out.
It’s in the first quote I addressed. You said “There is no evidence of government slaughtering their own populations, if they are not using armed resistance.” Now either you conflate civil disobedience with violent revolution [ which it is technically not ] or you are being dishonest.
They wouldn’t kill them. That’s obviously the government’s job.
Absolutely. Man is not homo economicus. We do not instantly search out for the lowest price and thus that is our choice. Perhaps I have a love for some mom and pop shop down the road who sell overpriced crappy goods but I shop there because I really like the cashier.
Well, LM really is homo economicus in this instance, since he’s paying for the mom and pop shop as well as the good, both of which he wants. Of course this will cost more than just the good alone.
Even if agents dont always seek out the lowest dollar price, they always seek out the lowest subjective price, that is how expensive is information in terms of time/money/effort etc and how are these parameters subjectively valued?
Anyway: LM I think this is a lost cause. I mean, he’s flat out ignored the civil war example, hitler, stalin and mao’s violation of civil liberties, as well as my very own excellent theory of salamis. I think we can agree most of what we’re on now is tangential. I tried to bring it back to the core argument but he just doesn’t want to budge…
No. Do you have evidence of governments slaughtering large portions of non-violent, non-cooperative portions of their own population?
No, because if they do not kill the non-cooperators, then it will cost them too much to imprison them, and they will go out of business.
No, I am asking if you think religion is not a big deal to people?
Huh? What does this have to do with accusing me of thinking people would not be aggressive? I said the government would not slaughter its population. That is not the same as me saying the government would not be aggressive. I would consider imprisonment aggressive.
You think the U.S. government would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes?
Then what is the point of producing a better/cheaper product if people will not choose your product over the competition?
Yeah, that’s what the state-controlled public schools tell us, but the South really wanted peace. Like I said:
"All the South wanted was to leave peacefully and they even offered to buy all current federal ground in the South and offered to take their share of the national debt, but somehow Lincoln still made the Union look the good guys and justified the killing of 620,000 Americans to the public in order to “save the Union”.
Lincoln goaded the South into attacking first at Fort Sumter. Lincoln then used this as justification because the South had “fired the first shot” (most newspapers of the time were well aware of this and were in outrage). The Confederacy wanted nothing but peace from start to end. Even when the South was winning, they offered peace meetings with Lincoln, but Lincoln refused all of them. Who were the real aggressors?
Lincoln completely convinced the public that southerners were aggressive radicals, when in reality they only wanted peaceful secession which Lincoln would not allow (which was clearly a constitutional right).
I always love this quote by Lincoln in his earlier political career:
"“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit” - Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848
Abraham Lincoln was the greatest master manipulator of American history, he did what any other president would and will do in order to preserve their tax base. No morality, no mercy.
You are right, but the act of overthrowing or seceding should be thought of as seperate from the later act of establishing your own state.
Not your main point, but actually you only need one victim to give you the green light to act in its name. The same way you can execute a serial killer after convicting him for just one of his murders.
With a requirement of 100% support of the people it would become impossible even for a private induvidual to legitimately combat a regime.
I don’t disagree that the South wanted peace. What I disagree with is the way they went about trying to get it. They attacked one of the North’s bases. Violence against the state will always bring down the full wrath of the state, because it is easy for the state to then justify the murder. If the Confederate government had not attacked one of the North’s bases, and instead would have just refused to obey the U.S. government, I believe they would have had peace.
Yeah, the South did attack the North, I really didn’t mean to argue that (although my post sounds like it).
Do you think that it would have been impossible for Lincoln to justify doing the same thing if the South did not attack? The public was well aware of the political implications of Fort Sumter and that Lincoln used it as an excuse to start war (many people speaking out against the action were sent to prison without trial).
If the South had refused to bring up arms and instead stopped paying taxes, then Lincoln would have started sending them to prison and killing them without a trial (probably justifying it by calling them greedy for not paying their fair share of public expense, Northerners already had a dislike for Southerners anyways). Lincoln did this to an estimated 13,000 political opponents of his in the North (including newspaper editors, elected officals, and even Congressmen), and he didn’t even have any excuses, he just threw them in jail. He didn’t need to imprison ALL of his opposition, just enough to get his point across and install fear, at which he was successful, people were thrown more and more into passive dissent. What would have stopped him from doing this in the South if they decided to disobey taxes? At least then he would have had a reason to justify throwing them in jail.
In theory, you could say it would have amassed public outrage, which it had in the North when he threw Congressmen in jail, but this was put down by Lincoln’s insane use of military force. Certainly there was massive passive (lol) dissent, but Lincoln cared not.
After a while of imprisonment and executions, how much willpower would have been left in a “peaceful” solution to secession? The Southerners would have either gave up or brought up arms.
I’m just saying, I think you underestimate how much the State can get away with. I believe Lincoln could have easily justified (or at least suppressed the opposition of) the same acts even if the South never raised arms. Sure you could say that 5% of the population that had absolutely no fear whatsoever might be able to take down government, but we are humans, I wouldn’t take a bullet for the hope that all of my comrades will do the same. This is the same thing that happened to opposition of the war in the North, the fear was installed and it conquered.
Well isn’t dollar price the subjective price? What the value of the good is in terms of monetary units?
Spidey isn’t a ‘lost cause’ [;)] Let’s not lose ourselves in argument. I would like to hear more about this salami theory though because I saw a picture of salami and that made me scratch my head.
The Cultural Revolution and the Anti-Rightist campaigns in Communist China are the first things that come to my mind. I have some recommendations on literature of that period if you would like them.
Wait, I am confused now. If governments didn’t kill non-cooperators then they would have to suffer bankruptcy from imprisoning them…doesn’t that then make them more inclined to kill non-cooperators thereby contradicting your previous statement that there is no evidence of large scale democide?
To some people it is and to others it isn’t.
Well I think Robert Higgs in one of his articles states that there were 170 million deaths by government from 1900 to 1980’s [ I think it was the 80’s ] and these deaths were not war causalities. One should wonder how all these people died. Do you have an opinion on their deaths?
They’ve killed for less. Apparently ‘cults’ are horrible menaces to the security of the US.
This isn’t some all or nothing question. Not all are willing to pay high prices and not all are going to get the cheapest. Economics tends towards equilibrium, it never achieves it.