On the whole neurosis about delineating what a state is and isn't

[ClaytonB]

So that means “anti-statism” is actually just an attack on a legitimate private enterprise.

If the State were just another private entity, then it would be possible to ask the State to explain why we must obey its rules when driving on public roads but yet we cannot sue the State for deaths that occur on its (our?) roads.

We could ask the State to prove its claim to any of our income, whether called “taxes” “extortion” “unlawful seizure” or whatever.

So, why don’t you explain to us why this supposedly private entity cannot be even asked to explain - let alone justify - its behavior?

Clayton -

[Texas_Trigger]

@Anenome

Not merely take formal ownership, they’d have to actually purchase it. No entity could possibly buy entire countries at this point so that precludes the idea for now. And if they did buy a plot of land, they could contract with individuals to stay on that land for a set fee, sure, but that would not in fact deserve the label ‘taxation’ since it would be an agreed upon sum and involve no element of coercion. It would become mere rent.

While this stipulation would be valid, it would effectively dismantle the state, because the state cannot “purchase” anything legitimately because all of their money was taken coercively. There are four main ways for the government to generate revenue: through taxes, inflation, budget cuts to other programs, or borrowing.

Taxes and inflation are illegitimate because they both involve coercion.

Budget cuts would also fail to work because if you eliminate taxes, there is nothing to cut because there is no money to cut from one program into the purchasing of land.

You could say that they could borrow the money from the people (either foreign or domestic) but the only way they could do so was on their own credit. Since the government has no way to raise money (as just stated) they would have to borrow the money on the credit of its domestic people. For this, they would need the consent of every citizen in the nation. This is impossible, therefore they cannot borrow the money.

There is perhaps a fifth and sixth method. Fifth would be voluntary donations form the people. I think there is a good reason this hasn’t been tried - very few are willing to voluntarily give to the government, which is why they just take it by force. The sixth would be to start up an enterprise (like the post office), and generate money in open competition of the market. If you reduced the government’s revenue growth to these two means, it would, again, cease to be a state because it would essentially be functioning the same way that any private citizen does: either he earns his money by competing or offering his services on the market, or it is given to him through charity. This is why I don’t understand when people claim that we need a government but to make sure it is moral, taxes will be voluntary. What? This is not a government. This is not a state. This is not what we are against.

Hope this cleared some things up for you.

[Anenome]

@The Texas Trigger

@Anenome

Not merely take formal ownership, they’d have to actually purchase it. No entity could possibly buy entire countries at this point so that precludes the idea for now. And if they did buy a plot of land, they could contract with individuals to stay on that land for a set fee, sure, but that would not in fact deserve the label ‘taxation’ since it would be an agreed upon sum and involve no element of coercion. It would become mere rent.

While this stipulation would be valid, it would effectively dismantle the state, because the state cannot “purchase” anything legitimately because all of their money was taken coercively.

Well, naturally I think most libertarians would agree the state cannot exist and remain moral, and if you remove the elements from the state that are immoral and try to create an ethical state, what results is no longer a state.

I should know, I tried it, tried building a state without institutional forms of aggression as a system, and the result is no longer a state. It’s a free association just like libertarians wants. A free society ruled by voluntaryism.

@The Texas Trigger

There is perhaps a fifth and sixth method. Fifth would be voluntary donations form the people. I think there is a good reason this hasn’t been tried - very few are willing to voluntarily give to the government, which is why they just take it by force.

The sixth would be to start up an enterprise (like the post office), and generate money in open competition of the market. If you reduced the government’s revenue growth to these two means, it would, again, cease to be a state because it would essentially be functioning the same way that any private citizen does: either he earns his money by competing or offering his services on the market, or it is given to him through charity. This is why I don’t understand when people claim that we need a government but to make sure it is moral, taxes will be voluntary. What? This is not a government. This is not a state. This is not what we are against.

Hope this cleared some things up for you.

Nah, I agree completely. I was just tyring to get the OP to realize the same