Well, it’s a FACT that only the state can put drug users in jail or rob Peter to pay Paul. This is not, again, a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.
So individual robbery cannot take place? I cannot get mugged and have my money stolen? Drug users cannot experience an intervention and be placed in rehab?
I’m talking about ‘institutionalized’ crime, aka government. Are you missing my point on purpose ?
So it is a fact that only the government can commit governmental crime? I agree with that statement but it is an odd way to put it and I don’t think that has anything to do with public opinion or the debate over consensual government.
Yes. Do ordinary thieves then use your money to fund ‘public’ education ? I thought so…
Please do not confuse manufactured consent, aka COERCION, with genuine consent. Or are you trying to prove that war is peace ? Are you going to play the “we-are-free-to-not-pay-taxes” game again ?
Indirectly, yes. Sales tax, using that money to pay off property taxes. It is not as if that money just stays with the thief until the end of time.
lol. Are you arguing for argument’s sake ? Surely you realize that there are differences between ordinary and ‘official’ thieves ?
Please, explain the difference. This is the first time I have heard of an ordinary and ‘official’ thief.
Indeed. I would also like to know.
I thought my example (public education) was self-explanatory. Governments are ‘official’ thieves. They pretend to be legitimate and they use the stolen funds for the ‘public’ good. Ordinary thieves don’t claim that what they do is ‘legal’ and don’t use the money they steal “for the benefit of society as a whole”.
My main point though is that the concept of “public opinion” is just a vague generalization which doesn’t provide much information on what’s really going on.
Actually it does. The sense of propriety attached to being legal or “official” is how some people steal without subterfuge and overt violence.
That has been my focus for months now. That the government is fraudulent. That they cannot hold up their end of the social contract, and so to extract taxes to pay for services they cannot render, means they are engaging in fraud.
Well, agreed, but the fact remains that taxes are collected under the threat of force. Now, I don’t mind admitting that some people believe in the goodness of government and are happy with taxes, so, for them, government is really voluntary. Yet that’s not true for everybody, so aggregating all
opinions into something called ‘public opinion’ is misleading, IMO =]
I’m not sure I follow. Their end of the (non)contract is to provide some services and your end is to pay your “fair share”…
Wow! What the hell is going on in this place??? Are the poles on this planet shifting or what?
For what it is worth, Juan, I understand your point completely. You are the only one in this thread that is making sense.
There is so much nonsense in this thread. Yikes.
The two points are not contradictory. The second point just happens to be an unverifiable and subjective opinion.
How the hell can anybody determine how The Power Of Government rests? Who gets to define what constitutes The Power anyway? How do you measure it???
We may as well argue about where The Power of Michael Jackson’s music rests. Sheeesh.
Right, but that doesn’t preclude tax resistance. Millions of people in every country don’t pay taxes. But it is a calculation of risk and reward.
Coercion does not enjoy a 100% success rate. The most effective tool of the state is consent, because then you can get people to police themselves. You get people ratting out their neighbors and reporting people to the police for smoking dope or if they seem to have more money than their job pays and so on.
The social contract is a myth. It doesn’t exist. There is no recourse for a citizen against his state if his state does not protect him or his property.
First, that government is coercive and involuntary, and second, that the power of government rests ultimately on public opinion rather than coercion.
99% of the time governments (or I should say government, since the United States in fact rules the entire world) are not coercive, violent or even particularly unpleasant. And this government does enjoy broad popular support, if for no other reason than people can conceive of no alternative. and the Boeties of the world are best answered by precisely that, that people support ‘tyrannical’ government because 1) they know of no alternative and 2) they have no realistic way of gaining adequate knowledge of these alternatives existence, much less relative plausability.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Federal Government employs 1.8 million people. According to this page, the number of total government employees (including federal, state, and local) is about 20 million. But the relevant group here is the number of people working in the executive function, since they are the ones actually using force.
So let’s say there are ~5 million people working in the executive function. If the U.S. population is ~300 million, it seems that government is indeed a tiny minority. In which case, my original question stands: what’s your explanation for how government can impose its will on the rest of the population? (And furthermore, how do you explain cooperation within the government? Does the president coerce everyone?)
What don’t you get about this?
It is a fact that all members of government taken together are at all times and all places a minority… Government could not possibly rule if it had to supervise each citizen at every second of every hour. It can only rule because the citizens by and large comply with its commands, so that it can concentrate its energies on combating those few recalcitrant individuals or groups who do not so comply. (Myth of National Defense, p. 385)
Uh oh. How many of those 300 million are children or ‘young adults’ (say under 15) ? On the other hand, how many cops, military personnel, bureaucrats, etc, are there ? Are you seriously denying that 5 million people who are badly mistaken and willing to use violence “in the name of the state” are not a formidable threat ? Can I have your rose-colored glasses =P ?
I answered your original question already. The gov’t imposes its will because they have guns. It’s called coercion. Also, the gov’t panders to different special interest and somewhat common fears which means that gov’t has SOME support for SOME things - I presented the so called war on drugs as an example.
How’s that supposed to be an objection ? Don’t we both know that government is a criminal organization ? Just like the mafia is ? The president doesn’t need to coerce his criminal partners. Membership in the government is voluntary. Hey, you live in a democracy. You are ‘free’ to join the government and be above natural law.
Isn’t this Boétie’s position? That government cannot rule by force alone, but must also have some form of support?