On my Facebook page I posted the George Ought to Help youtube video and someone responded with this argument:
“This line of argument always neglects to consider how much of an role the state had in fostering an environment where “George’s” wealth can be accumulated and protected. The state has a very real, and moral, right to things produced by everyone, and it is nothing like theft.”
This kind of reasoning really frustrated me. This to me seems more of a radical idea than the “radical” ideas of ancaps. I already had a long debate about this and I felt satisfied with how it went and the debate is over but I was just curious of the thoughts of some of you guys here.
To me the whole argument was so fallaciously flawed I didn’t know where to start but a few key things came up. He was blurring the lines of society and state. He somehow came to the conclusion that it was the state that was the sole proprietor of the conditions which lead to my accumulation of wealth. Then he reached another conclusion (assuming that was even true in the first place) that what is “due” back to the state is based on the whims of the majority and the politicians, it’s not even remotely based on what we get “out” of the state.
Where do modern-day people get these ideas? I just finished “The Road to Serfdom” and the things the Nazis were saying resonates with this guy’s arguments. It’s scary.
Most people are brought up believing that the sate’s actions are ipso facto moral. I think they tend to have the same arguments because there are simply few ways to claim a difference between taxation and extortion.
But what’s even more boggling is that somehow the state is credited for the “wonderful environment” it fostered for us so it has the right to claim the fruits of our labor as “pay back” for their deeds. Yet the state didn’t magically materialize roads and police stations and sprinkle them all over the nation, they were only made possible via the funds stolen from the private sector in the first place. They were already paid for by previous generations and unfortunately now things are being paid for out of the pockets of future generations.
First off, the idea that “the majority” and/or politicians decide what is “due” back to the state is inherently totalitarian. Since their decisions can change according to whim, there is no pre-existing standard. Anything and everything is up for grabs.
Second, I think this idea is essentially the same as that embodied in the question “Where would you be without me/us?” It confuses correlation with causation, otherwise known as committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Finally, I’ve come to see statism as an outgrowth of a certain kind of tribalism, namely that which views the tribal elder(s) as the de facto “owner(s)” of the other tribe members. The answer to that view, in my book, is the notion of inherent self-ownership.
Autolykos That’s exactly what I said in one of my responses that we are subject to the whims of the majority and politicians. I also called him out on his post hoc ergo propter hoc. Yet these specific points I made were not addressed in any of his later responses. Just more of repeating the original argument in more/other words.
But I didn’t consider the case of tribalism, that’s an interesting view. In my arguments I made the connection of that train of thought to collectivism. But I suppose they are pretty similar anyways.
Read George Klosko’s “Multiple Principles of Political Obligation”. He basically combines three different problems to make an argument for political obligation similar to the objectiion raised by the commenter to ‘George oughta help’.
If you can take down Klosko, you can take down anyone. By the way, you’re currently receiving the non-excludable public good of having poor people not rioting. So you obviously owe taxes for both welfare and police services (so you can keep enjoying this state of ‘peace’ ).
Read Roderick T. Long and other criticisms of this idea of a social contract (explicit or implicit). Explicit is prima facie invalid, and implicit is question-begging, since you have to assume state territorial legitimacy and monopoly in order to prove that their rules apply to you.
Otherwise this state of peace is merely a gift. Thanks, state.
Then either he didn’t understand your arguments or he wasn’t interested in communicating you. In the latter case, he actually just wanted to use you as a means to help him stroke his own ego. Such people should be left to go on dates with their mental hands, if you get my meaning.
From what I’ve seen, it starts with the idea of parents owning their children and extending that idea across multiple generations. If parents own their children, then who owns their children’s children? One possible answer is that the oldest surviving parent(s) are the true owners of all the surviving offspring. These elders then allow their immediate offspring certain ownership over their offspring once-removed, and so on. It’s a hierarchy of ownership that directly reflects the state’s view of property.
Good point about “public goods” – otherwise known as externalities. Of course, to claim that one owes something for an externality is to claim that 1) it’s not an externality at all and 2) you explicitly agreed to receive it. Two thought-experiments can dispel these notions.
First off, let’s say I made a beautiful sculpture and put it on display in my front yard. Then, whenever someone drives or walks by and looks at it, I demand they pay me a fee for this “public good”.
Second, let’s say the entire cast of Lost actually becomes shipwrecked on a desert island. Luckily, the island is very fertile, with plenty of running water, coconut trees, and other sources of food. Who do they owe something to for all of these “public goods”?
You can convince yourself of anything if you want to enough. He did just that.
The self-selection process that pulls you into debates on the internet will put you up against the most solid wall of cognitive dissonance every time. If 100 see the video on your page, the 1 with the PhD in Statist Propaganda will be the critic that comes forth.
Wow! I started reading it and thought, “this is a long article” and then all of a sudden it was an hour later and I just finished the entire thing in a single sitting. A really good piece! Thanks again.
Autolykos I understand what you mean about the inherited ownership. Sounds like an awful idea. It’s sort of like the rift going on between me and my father. He’s a big Democratic statist and he somehow feels that I have become less of a man and evil because I no longer carry on his statist views and become a free market anarchist.
Caley McKibbin that’s exactly what happens every time I post something to my FB account, same person with that PhD comes forth
I looked up Roderick T. Long and ran into this article of this: