Or to use a parable that more people might be able to relate to, it’s like when a bunch of trendy bars and restaurants start to pop up in a working class neighborhood in order to serve a minority hipster population. Then a bunch of yuppies start to move in. And then the landlord of a working class apartment complex suddenly decides that he wants to make a bunch of renovations. After making these renovations, he tells his tenants that he’s going to raise their rents. So the tenents say, “hey, we didn’t want these fancy bars or these renovations that you’ve made without even asking us!” The landlord and restaurant owners repy, “oh, but we built this and we did that and somebody has to pay for it, money doesn’t grow on trees you know!”
I think the best refuation is to compare the government with mafia. Both provide important services and demand payment under threat of violence. They both act in a similar way.
People are not emotionally prepared to deal with the truth. It really is a lot like the movie The Matrix, you can’t explain the reality of what the State is, people just have to see it for themselves. “I’m trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to walk through it.”
Clayton -
Yes, because responding to changes in the condition of the market by making decisions regarding one’s own property is just exactly like forcing* people to give up their own property to pay for your pet projects.
Clayton -
*Where ‘forcing’ means something backed with the threat of imprisonment or death, not being ‘forced’ to pay higher rent or move to a different neighborhood.
The parable I use to rebut this argument is the random park developer.
Even closer to roads might be a parable of a guy, who without asking you, by night, covers all walkways leading from your house by red carpets, and then in the morning charges you - even if you decide to stay at home.
Roads are not property of the state, roads are “common property”. Everything is common property until a conflict tooks place and the thing becomes private property. In the case of roads, they were estabilished as common property and the state claimed the authority to manage the road conflicts, putting them in a dubious state between “common” and “public”.
See Hoppe here: http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/1-hoppe-private-common-and-public-property/
Yes, because responding to changes in the condition of the market by making decisions regarding one’s own property is just exactly like forcing* people to give up their own property to pay for your pet projects.
Clayton -
*Where ‘forcing’ means something backed with the threat of imprisonment or death, not being ‘forced’ to pay higher rent or move to a different neighborhood.
But people who refuse to pay their rents are forced to move under the threat of imprisonment or some form of violent eviction. When a state government decides to raise taxes, often businesses will move to a state with lower taxes. State governments have thus learned to set the tax rate at a level that will maximize revenue without discouraging businesses from leaving. In other words, market forces determine tax rates in a similar way that they determine rents. If a government raises taxes, it’s merely because they are responding to changes in the condition of the market.
Or like, when neighborhood volunteer groups clean up the streets and build public parks that boost the property value! I didn’t ask for that, and now the rent is going up!
- I do you a favour without asking you if you want me to or not.
- You now owe me.
- I decide how much you owe me.
- I break your legs if you don’t pay up.
Fair, right?
Well, I’m not a pacifist… the problem with the government is not just that it uses force but that it uses unjustified and unjustifiable force. In the case of someone signing a renter’s agreement that includes a clause where the rent can be increased (and the higher rate must be paid on pain of eviction), no one put a gun to the renter’s head forcing him to sign up for that particular house. He could have settled for a lower standard of living.
A fact that those in government would do well to learn. Every city council tyrant has it in his or her head that their constituency lives or dies by the stroke of their pen. Economic law, as Lew Rockwell has said, is more powerful than any government law. From this, it immediately follows that government intervention in the market that attempts to contravene economic law is immoral for the same reason that investing a trillion dollars researching ways to get the human body to fly unaided would be immoral.
Well, no one denies that the government does what it does because it can. That said, taxation is not a market because it does not involve voluntary exchange (catallacty). Speaking of a “market in taxes” is like speaking of a “market in rape” - both are forms of unjustifiable violence. Being inherently coercive, taxation is missing a crucial element that drives market rationality - the dual expectation of each party to a transaction to be better off as a result of the transaction. Nobody thinks they’re better off by virtue of being taxed. The easy way to see this is to ask yourself what would happen if taxes were voluntary. Of course, the government reckons that it’s better off by virtue of taxing, just as the rapist reckons he’s better off by virtue of experiencing the pleasure of rape.
Clayton -
Well, I’m not a pacifist… the problem with the government is not just that it uses force but that it uses unjustified and unjustifiable force. In the case of someone signing a renter’s agreement that includes a clause where the rent can be increased (and the higher rate must be paid on pain of eviction), no one put a gun to the renter’s head forcing him to sign up for that particular house. He could have settled for a lower standard of living.
Well, if your objection to the government is that there is no contract, then it would certainly be easier for libertarians to get the government too make its citizens sign a contract than it would be to stop them from taxing or make them cease from existing. Upon immigrating to the country or once a person reaches a certain age, they could be presented with a contract that says something like, “I hereby grant the government the right to set and raise a tax on my income, my property, or the sale of my products as they see fit. In exchange, the government will give me the right to live and work in its territory and to leave whenever I want.” I’m sure the vast majority of Americans would sign such a contract and we would have exactly the same situation we have now.
Well, no one denies that the government does what it does because it can. That said, taxation is not a market because it does not involve voluntary exchange (catallacty). Speaking of a “market in taxes” is like speaking of a “market in rape” - both are forms of unjustifiable violence. Being inherently coercive, taxation is missing a crucial element that drives market rationality - the dual expectation of each party to a transaction to be better off as a result of the transaction. Nobody thinks they’re better off by virtue of being taxed. The easy way to see this is to ask yourself what would happen if taxes were voluntary. Of course, the government reckons that it’s better off by virtue of taxing, just as the rapist reckons he’s better off by virtue of experiencing the pleasure of rape.
No one thinks they are better off by virtue of being taxed in the same way that no one thinks they are better off by virtue of having rents imposed upon them. One would prefer to live in an apartment without paying rent to living in an apartment and having to pay rent; but one would prefer paying rent for an apartment to living in a cardboard box. Likewise, a person would prefer living in the United States without paying taxes to living in the United States and having to pay taxes; but one would prefer to pay taxes in the United States than to live tax-free on a raft floating in the sea. So in what way are rents voluntary and noncoercive but taxes involuntary and coercive?
It’s an offer I can’t refuse.
Oh boy, it must be an election year, the Ron-Paul-deep-divers are coming out of the woodwork…
It’s the government that we need to sign a contract. But we’ve already tried this… first we tried parliamentary monarchy, then we tried a constitutional republic. Magna Carta, the US Constitution and other similar devices have turned out to be worthless because the same organization that is to be restrained by these documents is also responsible for enforcing their terms. Even a small child could see how silly such a “contract” is.
Your description dovetails quite nicely with Hans Hoppe’s simplified picture of the State’s “contract” with its citizens. The State, in Hoppe’s words, says “I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you – but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service.”
And what gives the government the right to impose such terms on pain of death or economic ostracism? Note that “You will have to move off my property if you do not pay the rent that you agreed to pay” is not the same as “You will have to move off your property if you do not pay an amount you never agreed to pay.”
You might be right. Americans are uniquely gullible toward their government by comparison to most other peoples of the world.
Clayton -
Taxes are not like rent. Even a diehard leftist economist like Paul Krugman wouldn’t support your analogy between taxes and rent.
The implication of your line of reasoning is that national borders are like property boundaries. So who owns the territory within the borders of the United States? Who do we rent our lives and economic freedom from?
Clayton -
I think a big problem in this thread is that ppl are using the words “coercion” and “force” when what they really mean is aggression. Ppl who are defending themselves are also coercing and using force, but they aren’t aggressing. And whether the use of force is aggressive or defensive is dependent on property rights. If Jones takes the wallet currently in possession of Smith, this is aggression if it rightly belongs to Smith, but defense if it rightly belongs to Jones. So one needs a correct theory of property rights to decide whether or not a payment is purchase or a tax.
Fraud. Is consent based on a full disclosure of all enforcable terms for the contract in question?
P.S.
You do not own your car. Private automobile ownership is an illusion. The state owns the car. The state retains the MSO (manufactuers statement of origin) and you receive a certificate of title. Look up the history on the legal definition of a certificate. A certificate is evidence of a contract. So…
The state retains title to the car. You recieve privileges of use subject to the terms and conditions of the contract evidenced by the Certificate of Title. Should you violate the terms of the contract the state will seek an administrative remedy using force to recover leased property. I say administrative remedy because that is what the system labels repossessing property if the lessee has not injured anyone or damaged any property.
There are multiple scenarios where a state would reposses allegedly “your” car when “you” have not injured anyone or damaged any property. If you can’t think of any… maybe you should read the terms of the contract… or ask for a full disclosure before signing it…
It’s the government that we need to sign a contract. But we’ve already tried this… first we tried parliamentary monarchy, then we tried a constitutional republic. Magna Carta, the US Constitution and other similar devices have turned out to be worthless because the same organization that is to be restrained by these documents is also responsible for enforcing their terms. Even a small child could see how silly such a “contract” is.
Well, I guess we need a third party to enforce the contract. How about…the UN? We can make it so that the citizens of a country can file a lawsuit through the UN’s court. If the defendant is found guilty, the UN invades. Or we could just give the job to the US. They pretty much perform this role already.
Your description dovetails quite nicely with Hans Hoppe’s simplified picture of the State’s “contract” with its citizens. The State, in Hoppe’s words, says “I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you – but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service.”
Exactly! It’s also quite like the contract that you sign when you get hired by a business. They don’t tell us what work they’re going to make us do, but whatever it is, if we don’t do it, they punish us. They promise us healthcare, but we don’t agree to the price increases that they implement year after year. The contract doesn’t even guarantee us the job if we follow all of the rules. If hard times come, they can lay us off without any fault of our own. They “unilaterally determine the price that they must pay us for such undefined service” (e.g. if they eliminate one of your coworkers’ positions, they can force you to work more to pick up the slack). And yet we sign this absurdly one-sided contract. Why? Because it’s the only way for most people to obtain the means of life. Contracts always favor the stronger party.
And what gives the government the right to impose such terms on pain of death or economic ostracism?
Nothing but power.
Note that “You will have to move off my property if you do not pay the rent that you agreed to pay” is not the same as “You will have to move off your property if you do not pay an amount you never agreed to pay.”
One only aquires property throught the legal framework of the state, and is thus subject to its terms. Owning property within a state doesn’t give you absolute dominion over it. It’s more akin to a lease with the state ultimately retaining ownership (in Hong Kong–the poster child of the “free” market–this is explicitly acknowledged).
And who will enforce the contracts between the UN and its subjugates? The UN??
See above.
Wow.
Actually, the employee is the one contracting to perform services. The employee is the seller and the employer is the buyer.
No, really, they don’t. My employer cannot pay me just any wage they like, else I will leave and work for someone else.
On pain of terminating the employment contract, not putting you in prison or forcing you out of the country. You’re really reaching.
Well, it is true that those with more wealth can afford better lawyers and so on. However, there is nothing inherently adversarial about the employer-employee relationship so there is no systematic exploitation in a free market of labor and employment. Cf Hoppe.
Power. That’s the same thing that gives rapists to take what they want from their victims.
Bullshit. Property is logically and temporally antecedent to the State.
Well, that is certainly a true description of the de facto state of affairs. The de facto state of affairs within North Korea is that their government explicitly enslaves them. I suppose North Koreans should, therefore, be content to be enslaved.
Clayton -
And who will enforce the contracts between the UN and its subjugates? The UN??
Who enforces the contracts between courts and its sugjugates in a “libertarian” society? I know Rothbard has outlined some role for courts, but I don’t know the complete details, so this is an honest question.
Actually, the employee is the one contracting to perform services. The employee is the seller and the employer is the buyer.
What differences does it make? The point is they’re both contracts over a trade where one party is stronger. Buying and selling are basically interchangeable terms anyway. People say they “got” a job, they don’t say they “give” a job.
No, really, they don’t. My employer cannot pay me just any wage they like, else I will leave and work for someone else.
My government can’t just raise my taxes any way they like, else I will leave and live somewhere else.
Well, it is true that those with more wealth can afford better lawyers and so on. However, there is nothing inherently adversarial about the employer-employee relationship so there is no systematic exploitation in a free market of labor and employment. Cf Hoppe.
That sounds like a curious argument. I’ll try to give the video a shot when I have time
Power. That’s the same thing that gives rapists to take what they want from their victims.
Yes. Nowhere have I disagreed with your analogies or defended the government. I don’t like them either. I am merely taking the next logical step and extending your critiques to other institutions of capitalism.
Bullshit. Property is logically and temporally antecedent to the State.
Property is a social construct. Our society happens to be statist.
Well, that is certainly a true description of the de facto state of affairs. The de facto state of affairs within North Korea is that their government explicitly enslaves them. I suppose North Koreans should, therefore, be content to be enslaved.
Certainly not. Power should be challenged in whatever form it takes.
Contracts are enforced by the spectre of direct conflict. Most people cannot be sure they will win a fight with most other people. Hence, most disputes exist between disputants who face a great deal of uncertainty regarding the outcome of direct conflict. Hence, arbitration (bargaining out a mutually agreeable settlement) is an attractive alternative. Why bother going to arbitration unless you mean to abide by the contract? Violating the contract just resurrects the spectre of direct conflict which you were originally seeking to avoid.
This is the short answer, I can delve into a lot more detail if you’re interested.
Well, you have to be careful with the word “stronger”. If I accidentally stumble into a bad neighborhood and end up surrounded by a bunch of thugs, I’m in an extremely weak bargaining position by virtue of the immediate threat to my life. Without resorting to direct threats against me or people I care about, a wealthy man is only stronger than me in a very weak and indirect sense. Furthermore, we should expect that - in the modern, economically-advanced world - companies which specialize in the production of security (so-called private defense agencies, PDAs) would permit the poor masses to pool their resources in the form of small payments to obtain the services of a well-funded and powerful defense agency in the same way that stock shares permit even the poor to own shares in giant corporations.
It is my view that the interaction of the wealthy and the poor is inherently and ineradicably dangerous for the poor. I believe that this explains why classes emerge even in the absence of the State. You can’t bump into and scratch a wealthy man’s carriage and end up dead in a ditch if you don’t live anywhere near him or shop where he shops.
Well, please don’t think I’m a rah-rah corporatist neo-mercantilist Republican… the corporate world certainly acts as an extension of the State. Think about it: they are the front-line in tax collection. But it’s important to distinguish - at the philosophical level - between inherently productive and inherently parasitic behavior. We can quibble over the details of which sorts of inherently productive behavior constitute an intrusion on the property of others (for example, a factory that spews smoke into a neighborhood) but there is no room for quibbling on the distinction between mugging someone or growing corn. Mugging is parasitic. It is not productive. It is the seizure by one person of the property of another.
I think you’re missing some pieces of your syllogism.
Clayton -