Can anarchists hold public office?

[rp08orbust]

From another thread:

...it is impossible to be part of an institution with a legal monopoly of aggression while simultaneously being nonviolent. Even one paycheck constitutes your acceptance of stolen money. The very act of participating in the State apperatus causes others' property to be expropriated to support you.

After a couple weeks' thought, I disagree with all of the above points. In order to see what more people think about my reasoning, which goes beyond the topic of the original thread, I thought I'd start a new one.

First of all, acceptance of the Congressional salary by this hypothetical "perfect Ron Paul", who votes against all acts of aggression by the federal government with perfect consistency (meaning he is necessarily a voluntarist/anarcho-capitalist), does not cause anyone's property to be expropriated. Rather, the expropriation is caused by the individuals who vote for, command and execute the expropriation: His fellow congressmen, the president, IRS agents, etc. To assign blame for the expropriation to all members of the institution would be to adopt the same illogic used by the collectivist. Acceptance of the salary itself does not compel the government to raise the revenue needed to pay it through taxes. Instead, the government could, for example, sell assets, hold a voluntary fundraiser, or better yet, declare bankruptcy and shut down. These, of course, are the same options available to a voluntary government, and our perfect Ron Paul would endorse any of these over taxation.

To say that accepting his Congressional salary causes people to be taxed is no less of a fallacy than to say that civil disobedience against an involuntary government causes people to be taxed. After all, the police must be paid to arrest the rebel, the magistrate must be paid to hear his charges, the judge, prosecutor and jurors must be paid to try him, the jailer must be paid to guard him, etc, and all of these payments for services require the expropriation of property. The answer to this fallacy is the same as the answer to the fallacy that accepting Congressional pay causes taxation: No, it doesn't. Everyone in government could see the light of voluntaryism and decide to pay for all of the above services from voluntary funds, or better yet, not arrest you for a victimless crime in the first place. Triggering such enlightenment is of course the purpose of civil disobedience.

Furthermore, it is not always wrong to accept stolen property. For example, there is nothing wrong with a private police department auctioning or raffling off (or simply keeping) stolen property whose owners it has not been able to identify, and there is nothing wrong with bidding on, winning or accepting such property. There is no perfectly just remedy for such a situation, but returning the property to the thieves would surely be the least just!

I would argue that in the case of any given amount of money sitting in the US Treasury, the rightful owner or owners cannot possibly be identified. Unlike the free market, which produces concepts like shares, interests, units etc for rendering justice in dispute settlements and company liquidations, coercive government destroys all possibility of justice. Does a government asset belong to the government's creditors, taxpayers, or some combination of the two? What if the government is insolvent on its own statist terms (i.e., its liabilities to creditors exceeds its assets)? If we decide that all assets on the US government's balance sheet belong to taxpayers before creditors (who are paid back pro rata only after all taxes have been refunded), then on what basis is each individual's share determined? Can children claim refunds for taxes paid by their deceased parents, or grandparents? It takes very little thought to see that determining an individual's "fair share" of the federal government's balance sheet is as impossible as making reparations for slavery.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that at least some of the US government's assets were obtained through voluntary transactions. For example, Warren Buffet is known to complain that he isn't taxed enough, from which we can conclude that all taxes that he does pay are entirely voluntary. Thus some unknowable percentage of the US government's assets were justly obtained, and were our perfect Ron Paul to claim that all of his salary comes from such sources, it would be impossible to argue about it one way or the other.

But there is no doubt that a great deal of the US government's assets were obtained through aggression. Then again, some of that aggression was against Ron Paul the involuntary income tax payer himself, entitling him to some of the proceeds from a liquidation of the US government. But determining exactly what his "fair share" is by considering all of the US government benefits he has received in his lifetime (including, but not limited to, his Congressional salary) on the one hand, and all of the ways in which he has been victimized by the same government on the other, is impossible.

I'm well aware that this reasoning has implications far beyond Ron Paul and his Congressional salary. Am I implying that Octomom is doing nothing wrong by accepting welfare payments for raising her own kids? I sure am. No individual ever commits aggression by merely accepting something from another individual or group when there is no clearly identifiable victim. And "the taxpayers" is not a sufficiently well-defined victim by the rigorously individualistic standards of libertarianism. The crime involved in welfare programs is not in the distribution of benefits, but in the taxation used to fund them in the first place, and acceptance of the benefits need not imply endorsement of the taxation.

Thus, not only should Octomom not be condemned by libertarians, but she, and anyone who milks the government of benefits, should be praised as saboteurs against the state (even if unwitting ones) by helping to hasten its inevitable bankruptcy and collapse. If everyone managed to extract more in benefits from the government than they pay in taxes the way Octomom likely does, then statism would die a quick death. On the other hand, promoting fiscally scrupulous citizenship only helps keep the state alive and well.

Likewise, any libertarians who manage to get elected to public office should, first and foremost, oppose all forms of aggression by the governments they are a part of, but additionally, if they want to be serious about abolishing coercive government, they should also support all forms of victimless spending. For example, instead of voting against Congressional medals for Rosa Parks, they should write bills awarding gold medals to every individual American they know until the US government is bankrupt, the Federal Reserve's printing presses break, and the US government's medium of tyranny, the US dollar monopoly, collapses (the printing of money itself is not an act of aggression within a fiat system, since the notes come with no claim to any commodity; rather, the enforcement of monopoly through legal tender laws, income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc, are the acts of aggression that must be opposed by libertarians).

[UnReconstructed]

You can't oppose aggression and take the king's meat because the king takes his meat by force.

Regardless of Ron Paul or any other "pro-liberty" types in government.

By the way, tl&dr

[heavenlyboy34]

"holding office" is antithetical to anarchism, so no. However, campaigning is not evil if one just plans to use the opportunity to give speeches and so on condemning the establishment.

[familydog]

From another thread:


After a couple weeks' thought, I disagree with all of the above points. In order to see what more people think about my reasoning, which goes beyond the topic of the original thread, I thought I'd start a new one.

First of all, acceptance of the Congressional salary by this hypothetical "perfect Ron Paul", who votes against all acts of aggression by the federal government with perfect consistency (meaning he is necessarily a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist), does not cause anyone's property to be expropriated. Rather, the expropriation is caused by the individuals who vote for, command and execute the expropriation: His fellow congressmen, the president, IRS agents, etc. To assign blame for the expropriation to all members of the institution would be to adopt the same logic as the collectivist's. Acceptance of the salary itself does not compel the government to raise the revenue needed to pay it through taxes. Instead, the government could, for example, sell assets, hold a voluntary fundraiser, or better yet, declare bankruptcy and shut down. These, of course, are the same options available to a voluntary government, and our perfect Ron Paul would endorse any of these over taxation.

To say that accepting his Congressional salary causes people to be taxed is no less of a fallacy than to say that civil disobedience against an involuntary government causes people to be taxed. After all, the police must be paid to arrest the rebel, the magistrate must be paid to hear his charges, the judge, prosecutor and jurors must be paid to try him, the jailer must be paid to guard him, etc, and all of these payments for services require the expropriation of property. The answer to this fallacy is the same as the answer to the fallacy that accepting Congressional pay causes taxation: No, it doesn't. Everyone in government could see the light of voluntaryism and decide to pay for all of the above services from voluntary funds, or better yet, not arrest you for a victimless crime in the first place. Triggering such enlightenment is of course the purpose of civil disobedience.

Furthermore, it is not always wrong to accept stolen property. For example, there is nothing wrong with a private police department auctioning or raffling off (or simply keeping) stolen property whose owners it has not been able to identify, and there is nothing wrong with bidding on, winning or accepting such property. There is no perfectly just remedy for such a situation, but returning the property to the thieves would surely be the least just!

I would argue that in the case of any given amount of money sitting in the US Treasury, the rightful owner or owners cannot possibly be identified. Unlike the free market, which produces concepts like shares, interests, units etc for rendering justice in dispute settlements and company liquidations, coercive government destroys all possibility of justice. Does a government asset belong to the government's creditors, taxpayers, or some combination of the two? What if the government is insolvent on its own statist terms (i.e., its liabilities to creditors exceeds its assets)? If we decide that all assets on the US government's balance sheet belong to taxpayers before creditors (who are paid back pro rata only after all taxes have been refunded), then on what basis is each individual's share determined? Can children claim refunds for taxes paid by their deceased parents, or grandparents? It takes very little thought to see that determining an individual's "fair shair" of the federal government's balance sheet is as impossible as making reparations for slavery.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that at least some of the US government's assets were obtained through voluntary transactions. For example, Warren Buffet is known to complain that he isn't taxed enough, from which we can conclude that all taxes that he does pay are entirely voluntary. Thus some unknowable percentage of the US government's assets were justly obtained, and were our perfect Ron Paul to claim that all of his salary comes from such sources, it would be impossible to argue about it one way or the other.

But there is no doubt that a great deal of the US government's assets were obtained through aggression. Then again, some of that aggression was against Ron Paul the involuntary income tax payer himself, entitling him to some of the proceeds from a liquidation of the US government. But determining exactly what his "fair share" is by considering all of the US government benefits he has received in his lifetime (including, but not limited to, his Congressional salary) on the one hand, and all of the ways in which he has been victimized by the same government on the other, is impossible.

I'm well aware that this reasoning has implications far beyond Ron Paul and his Congressional salary. Am I implying that Octomom is doing nothing wrong by accepting welfare payments for raising her own kids? I sure am. No individual ever commits aggression by merely accepting something from another individual or group when there is no clearly identifiable victim. And "the taxpayers" is not a sufficiently well-defined victim by the rigorously individualistic standards of libertarianism. The crime involved in welfare programs is not in the distribution of benefits, but in the taxation used to fund them in the first place, and acceptance of the benefits need not imply endorsement of the taxation.

Thus, not only should Octomom not be condemned by libertarians, but she, and anyone who milks the government of benefits, should be praised as saboteurs against the state (even if an unwitting ones) by helping to hasten its inevitable bankruptcy and collapse. If everyone managed to extract more in benefits from the government than they pay in taxes the way Octomom likely does, then statism would die a quick death. On the other hand, promoting fiscally scrupulous citizenship only helps keep the state alive and well.

Likewise, any libertarians who manage to get elected to public office should, first and foremost, oppose all forms of aggression by the governments they are a part of, but additionally, if they want to be serious about abolishing coercive government, they should also support all forms of victimless spending. For example, instead of voting against Congressional medals for Rosa Parks, they should write bills awarding gold medals to every individual American they know until the US government is bankrupt, the Federal Reserve's printing presses break, and the US government's medium of tyranny, the US dollar monopoly, collapses (the printing of money itself is not an act of aggression within a fiat system, since the notes come with no claim to any commodity; rather, the enforcement of monopoly through legal tender laws, income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc, are the acts of aggression that must be opposed by libertarians).

I agree.

I have a question. What self-proclaimed anarchist does not use some form or another use a public good or service?

If an anarchist holds public office, she/he will be accepting stolen goods. Yet, that same anarchist probably uses public roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc. that also came from stolen goods.

Any monies that the state loses is a good thing. The money one takes from student loans and grants, unemployment checks, payment for services, is not inherently "bad" as long as one uses that money to further dimish the power of the state.

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree.

I have a question. What self-proclaimed anarchist does not use some form or another use a public good or service?

If an anarchist holds public office, she/he will be accepting stolen goods. Yet, that same anarchist probably uses public roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc. that also came from stolen goods.


However, the anarchist has no choice in using public roads (accepting stolen goods). He has a choice in participating in government (the use of State force). These two actions can hardly be considered a valid comparison.

[familydog]

However, the anarchist has no choice in using public roads (accepting stolen goods). He has a choice in participating in government (the use of State force). These two actions can hardly be considered a valid comparison.

I direct you to a piece (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block100.html) written by Walter Block regarding libertarianism and the acceptance of student loans.

You do have a choice in whether to use public roads. Block writes:

"You do indeed have a choice as to whether or not to use the roads (currency, libraries, etc.). You could become a hermit; you could commit suicide."

He also goes on to say:

"If I could get the government to give me $1 million in welfare I wouldn't hesitate. I'd use the money to further weaken them. Merely taking it from them in this manner would weaken them."

Is Block somehow less a libertarian or less an anarcho-capitalist for being willing to accept welfare? Nah.

The issue is the state seizing money. The issue is not that money going back to the people.

[heavenlyboy34]

I direct you to a piece (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block100.html) written by Walter Block regarding libertarianism and the acceptance of student loans.

You do have a choice in whether to use public roads. Block writes:

"You do indeed have a choice as to whether or not to use the roads (currency, libraries, etc.). You could become a hermit; you could commit suicide."

He also goes on to say:

"If I could get the government to give me $1 million in welfare I wouldn't hesitate. I'd use the money to further weaken them. Merely taking it from them in this manner would weaken them."

Is Block somehow less a libertarian or less an anarcho-capitalist for being willing to accept welfare? Nah.

The issue is the state seizing money. The issue is not that money going back to the people.

That's an interesting point. I don't totally agree with it, but it's a valid opinion.

[Andrew-Austin]

I just don't see why its a big deal for anarchist to hold public office. It may not be the best idea, but its nothing to get upset about.

Say a representative votes against everything, never approves of any government expenditures, rails against the government and promotes the free market in the realm of public debate...

This representative is not stealing money from anyone himself, he might just be accepting stolen money that would have been stolen anyways no matter if he was employed in the free market, and to whom the rightful owners of the money are impossible to identify.

This anarchist representative, is essentially a net subtraction on the amount of state coercion that would have existed without him.

[mediahasyou]

Anarchists hate the government, so no anarchist would be the government.

This is like asking "can an atheist be a priest"?

[Unspun]

Could an anarchist hold public office? Sure, I suppose so. Would an anarchist ever hold public office? Not without lying through his or her teeth. No public official would ever get elected by making arguments to smash the state and get rid of it completely.

[UnReconstructed]

Actually, imo, I think an anarchist can hold a public office and, like the guy above me said, he would have to lie through his teeth... much like the other scoundrels that are holding public office.

No one ever said that all anarchists were libertarians.

[mediahasyou]

Even if an anarchist DID get elected, all the bureaucrats and other public officials have too much invested in the state to let the anarchist just "abolish it".

There are far more practical, efficient, and moral methods for anarchists: http://agorism.info + http://www.voluntaryist.com/

[rp08orbust]

You can't oppose aggression and take the king's meat because the king takes his meat by force.

OK, so letting the king eat all the meat he steals is a better idea?

[rp08orbust]

"holding office" is antithetical to anarchism, so no.

"Antithetical" means against first principles, which in the case of anarcho-capitalism, is the non-aggression principle. Explain how holding office itself initiates aggression against anyone.

[rp08orbust]

However, campaigning is not evil if one just plans to use the opportunity to give speeches and so on condemning the establishment.

So by your reasoning, you're not allowed to win the election (or if you do win, you must immediately resign). But isn't merely entering the race benefiting from at least a tiny bit of stolen money, since your name must be added to the ballots by some state laborer and bit more ink is consumed in subsequently printing the ballots? I'm sure other subtle forms of government benefits from merely campaigning could be identified.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Antithetical" means against first principles, which in the case of anarcho-capitalism, is the non-aggression principle. Explain how holding office itself initiates aggression against anyone.

Answering that fully would require a really long post which most would probably not read. Maybe I'll do that some other time.

[heavenlyboy34]

So by your reasoning, you're not allowed to win the election (or if you do win, you must immediately resign). But isn't merely entering the race benefiting from at least a tiny bit of stolen money, since your name must be added to the ballots by some state laborer and bit more ink is consumed in subsequently printing the ballots? I'm sure other subtle forms of government benefits from merely campaigning could be identified.

I'm not justifying it at all. Sorry for the confusion there. I'm just putting forth a case in which running could be partially justifiable.

[rp08orbust]

However, the anarchist has no choice in using public roads (accepting stolen goods). He has a choice in participating in government (the use of State force). These two actions can hardly be considered a valid comparison.

Sure it's a valid comparison. Why don't you buy a helicopter and only ever land on private property?

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure it's a valid comparison. Why don't you buy a helicopter and only ever land on private property?

I don't consider such apples-and-oranges scenarios valid. Since you do, feel free to paint yourself into a logical corner. I won't hinder ya.

[rp08orbust]

I don't consider such apples-and-oranges scenarios valid. Since you do, feel free to paint yourself into a logical corner. I won't hinder ya.

I don't see anything wrong with comparing apples and oranges. They're both edible fruit, they're both somewhat spherical, and I wouldn't mind eating either one of them right now... :D

[rp08orbust]

Could an anarchist hold public office? Sure, I suppose so. Would an anarchist ever hold public office? Not without lying through his or her teeth. No public official would ever get elected by making arguments to smash the state and get rid of it completely.

I see nothing wrong with concealing one's ultimate objective in seeking public office. Jesus never explicitly announced that his ultimate objective was to get crucified ;)

Simply declare your criteria for voting:

1. You will never vote to raise or introduce new taxes, and will vote to reduce or eliminate existing taxes at every opportunity.
2. You will work to abolish the government's monopoly over money.
3. You will never vote to authorize an aggressive war.
4. You will oppose conscription.
5. You will vote "yes" (or at least "present") on all spending bills, provided they strip no one of their freedoms.

Only a tiny percentage of the sheople would put these together and deduce that you're trying to abolish the state. Such a platform would have bipartisan support among a large chunk of the sheople (1, and perhaps 2 would appeal to the "right", while 4 and 5 would appeal to the left; since most Americans deny that the US has ever conducted aggressive warfare in its entire history, 3 would not be controversial either).

[tremendoustie]

"holding office" is antithetical to anarchism, so no. However, campaigning is not evil if one just plans to use the opportunity to give speeches and so on condemning the establishment.

I disagree. If the office holder returns all salaries back to the people, and votes/exerts all possible power towards preventing government violence, a voluntaryist can hold public office.

(I don't like the term "anarchist" when used to mean "one who does not believe in aggressively coercive government")

[rp08orbust]

Anarchists hate the government, so no anarchist would be the government.

This is like asking "can an atheist be a priest"?

That's a good analogy. An atheist could become a priest in order to infiltrate and sabotage the Catholic church in the same way that an anarcho-capitalist could run for office in order to infiltrate and sabotage the state.

[rp08orbust]

If the office holder returns all salaries back to the people

Explain how one goes about returning one's salary "to the people".

[tremendoustie]

I see nothing wrong with concealing one's ultimate objective in seeking public office. Jesus never explicitly announced that his ultimate objective was to get crucified ;)

Simply declare your criteria for voting:

1. You will never vote to raise or introduce new taxes, and will vote to reduce or eliminate existing taxes at every opportunity.
2. You will work to abolish the government's monopoly over money.
3. You will never vote to authorize an aggressive war.
4. You will oppose conscription.
5. You will vote "yes" (or at least "present") on all spending bills, provided they strip no one of their freedoms.

Only a tiny percentage of the sheople would put these together and deduce that you're trying to abolish the state. Such a platform would have bipartisan support among a large chunk of the sheople (1, and perhaps 2 would appeal to the "right", while 4 and 5 would appeal to the left; since most Americans deny that the US has ever conducted aggressive warfare in its entire history, 3 would not be controversial either).

I was with you until point 5. How could a principled person support government spending?

[rp08orbust]

I was with you until point 5. How could a principled person support government spending?

By not having principles against victimless spending.

I don't object to the government issuing a medal to Rosa Parks. I object to it forcibly taxing people. They are two separate issues.

Imagine that a 100% voluntarily funded government exists. Then a slim majority of minarchists get elected by its customers and they manage to get a tiny involuntary income tax passed that applies over a territory that includes non-customers in order to fund, say, a border fence. Would the anarcho-capitalists then be obligated to suddenly oppose all of the spending the voluntary government has thus far engaged in, just because the government is now only partially voluntary? Would they be morally obligated to go even further and resign?

Of course not. They would only be morally obligated to seek to abort this fetal state and to seek to wrest control of the organization back from the minarchists.

The current situation only differs from this hypothetical one in degree: Some unknowable percentage of our government's activity is voluntarily funded, and at least some of its programs would continue if it became 100% voluntary. Nothing about anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism prohibits government spending. It only prohibits involuntary taxation, conscription and monopoly.

[Conza88]

I've had this discussion before... I agree with Lysander Spooner & Rothbard mostly.

So far Ron has never personally done anything to agitate for more government / control / centralization.

There are differing opinions / thoughts on this obviously, within the ancap / non-archist camp..

So to the minarchists etc.. don't you dare put up a stone wall around it, because you don't think you could then legitimately support Ron Paul or any other Liberty candidates...

Because you'd be completely wrong.

[tremendoustie]

By not having principles against victimless spending.

I don't object to the government issuing a medal to Rosa Parks. I object to it forcibly taxing people. They are two separate issues.

Imagine that a 100% voluntarily funded government exists. Then a slim majority of minarchists get elected by its customers and they manage to get a tiny involuntary income tax passed that applies over a territory that includes non-customers in order to fund, say, a border fence. Would the anarcho-capitalists then be obligated to suddenly oppose all of the spending the voluntary government has thus far engaged in, just because the government is now only partially voluntary? Would they be morally obligated to go even further and resign?

Of course not. They would only be morally obligated to seek to abort this fetal state and to seek to wrest control of the organization back from the minarchists.

The current situation only differs from this hypothetical one in degree: Some unknowable percentage of our government's activity is voluntarily funded, and at least some of its programs would continue if it became 100% voluntary. Nothing about anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism prohibits government spending. It only prohibits involuntary taxation, conscription and monopoly.

If the money to be spent was originally obtained, in part or in whole, by theft, it is immoral to support its expenditure, because it is stolen property which should be returned to the rightful owners.

[rp08orbust]

If the money to be spent was originally obtained, in part or in whole, by theft, it is immoral to support its expenditure, because it is stolen property which should be returned to the rightful owners.

What if the rightful owner cannot be identified, or even defined?

[tremendoustie]

What if the rightful owner cannot be identified, or even defined?

The rightful owner is whoever the money was taken from in the first place. Assuming tax records exist, one could do quite a good job of returning the stolen property. Even if one did not, the money could be distributed to the "taxpayers" in some other way.

Justice is always imperfect, because we do not have time machines. Thus, if I break your window, I cannot unbreak your window, but I will be required to pay you a best estimate of the cost of its replacement, plus perhaps some money which we guess compensates you for the hassle.

One does the best one can -- but supporting the continued expenditure of stolen money is not moral. I could not morally be in charge of expenditures for Al Capone, unless I use that position to do the best I possibly can to return the extorted and stolen money to the victims.

[South Park Fan]

While I think it is okay for an anarchist to hold public office, I don't think it is a very good strategy for success.

[Kludge]

No. Who would vote for them unless they use fraud to be elected?

[rp08orbust]

No. Who would vote for them unless they use fraud to be elected?

I would.

[tremendoustie]

No. Who would vote for them unless they use fraud to be elected?

Well, that's another question. Once a majority exists to elect a voluntaryist, we probably would not have government anyway, because people would simply refuse to participate.

Some people support the idea of dishonesty in order to get elected, on the basis that it is justified to lie in order to protect people from violence -- although I don't agree.

It is possible to say the truth in a way that could still allow one to get elected, however.

[rp08orbust]

The rightful owner is whoever the money was taken from in the first place. Assuming tax records exist, one could do quite a good job of returning the stolen property. Even if one did not, the money could be distributed to the "taxpayers" in some other way.

Which would be to support spending :D

And not a demonstrably more just way of returning the loot than simply continuing to fund or expand the victimless spending programs that already exist. See my points above about the arbitrariness of trying to define each individual taxpayer's "fair share".

[tremendoustie]

Which would be to support spending :D

And not a demonstrably more just way of returning the loot than simply continuing to fund or expand the victimless spending programs that already exist.

That's not the same thing. The purpose of restitution is to do the best possible job of returning the stolen money from those it was taken from, and as I say, the government, being the ones who took it, could probably do a quite good job.

Your list supports any expenditure, which means your hypothetical politician would be just fine taking a pile of money extorted from bridge playing engineers in deluth who make over 100K, and sending it to a fishing company in Alaska (after taking a big cut for themselves). That's not restitution.

[tremendoustie]

See my points above about the arbitrariness of trying to define each individual taxpayer's "fair share".

It's not arbitrary at all. Add up taxes paid by a particular resident, that's what's due. Everything but sales tax could be reconstructed quite accurately. And the politicians and bureaucrats who supported or enforced the "taxes" are personally liable, although I could support some sort of general amnesty if it would end the continuing theft.

[rp08orbust]

It's not arbitrary at all. Add up taxes paid by a particular resident, that's what's due.

Would estate tax be included? And if so, why not taxes paid by one's deceased parents? And if deceased parents, then why not grandparents? Would previously received welfare payments, student loans, tax credits, etc be deducted from what the government owes an individual? If so, then what about benefits from government that are not as easily quantifiable, like contract awards, protection, monopoly rights, etc?

What if the total amount due to taxpayers were 50 times government assets and the personal assets of government officials (speaking of which, would those personally liable include retired government officials, the beneficiaries of deceased government officials, etc?). Would the government borrow to pay them back? But then what about previously existing creditors--should US bondholders have been paid back pro rata before any restitution of taxpayers were attempted?

The world of taxpayer restitution is absolutely arbitrary.

[BlueCalico]

This representative is not stealing money from anyone himself, he might just be accepting stolen money that would have been stolen anyways no matter if he was employed in the free market, and to whom the rightful owners of the money are impossible to identify.

This anarchist representative, is essentially a net subtraction on the amount of state coercion that would have existed without him.


The only problem here is, YOU would be stealing. Is stealing only wrong if nobody else is doing it?

[Andrew-Austin]

The only problem here is, YOU would be stealing. Is stealing only wrong if nobody else is doing it?

I don't understand what you are saying. This hypothetical anarchist representative would not be steeling himself.

And why cap 'YOU', I never said I was running for office. lol

[fedup100]

Oh who cares. If an anarchist shit in the woods did someone smell it? This "A" nonsense is way out of control here.

[Bucjason]

Can an aborted baby grow up to be an abortion doctor??


What kind of stupid question is this??

[Conza88]

Can an aborted baby grow up to be an abortion doctor??

Evictionism.

So yes.


Oh who cares. If an anarchist shit in the woods did someone smell it? This "A" nonsense is way out of control here.

Haha.. if an anarchist shit in the woods, and then your dog walks in it and enters your home and ruins your carpet... Does the shit exist? :p

[tremendoustie]

Would estate tax be included? And if so, why not taxes paid by one's deceased parents? And if deceased parents, then why not grandparents? Would previously received welfare payments, student loans, tax credits, etc be deducted from what the government owes an individual? If so, then what about benefits from government that are not as easily quantifiable, like contract awards, protection, monopoly rights, etc?

What if the total amount due to taxpayers were 50 times government assets and the personal assets of government officials (speaking of which, would those personally liable include retired government officials, the beneficiaries of deceased government officials, etc?). Would the government borrow to pay them back? But then what about previously existing creditors--should US bondholders have been paid back pro rata before any restitution of taxpayers were attempted?

The world of taxpayer restitution is absolutely arbitrary.

That's true, it could become like restitution for slavery.

I'd certainly cap it at people who are currently alive. Trying to go through history and compensate for every wrong is just impractical. One wouldn't need to do a perfect job -- just try. Certainly one should stop knowingly choosing to spend stolen money, however, which could be retured to the rightful owners.

I mean, the fact that we can't track down the decendents of the victims of Ghengas Khan doesn't stop police from returning jewlery stolen the night before, nor would it justify them keeping it and giving it to their wives.

[dr teeth]

No. Any public office swears to uphold the constitution, which is in effect endorsing the rule of law. I know some anarchists, and if you want to turn a convention upside down, they are a good group to have around. Their agenda fails shortly after that.

[tremendoustie]

No. Any public office swears to uphold the constitution, which is in effect endorsing the rule of law. I know some anarchists, and if you want to turn a convention upside down, they are a good group to have around. Their agenda fails shortly after that.

The constitution puts restraints on government. Since I would be happy to stay well within those restraints, I don't think I'd have a problem swearing to uphold it, although I'd have to study it and think about it carefully.

[mediahasyou]

Oh who cares. If an anarchist shit in the woods did someone smell it? This "A" nonsense is way out of control here.

What's up with all the "A" hating?

[free.alive]

While I think it is okay for an anarchist to hold public office, I don't think it is a very good strategy for success.

Nonsense. What a great strategy! Become the cancer that kills the beast from the inside out!

I intend to work on campaigns, initiatives, referendums, etc. I would prefer to be behind the scenes, work on various projects, not have to be in the public eye and live up to the media's incoherent, sensationalized standards.

However, if I were to believe that there were an office I could get elected to, holding which I could make even greater strides toward freedom, and I would have even a fair chance at winning, you bet your ass I'd run and gleefully "serve."

Because of my actions, the deliberative body would slow down the pace. Challenges to aspects of government some wouldn't understand would start cropping up everywhere. Pressure would be placed on my colleagues in their districts on the most abstract, and most fundamental issues.

I would play to the media and become the darling of the "stick it to the government" types.

But this is all why I'd never get elected...

[free.alive]

Maybe to address the issue of salary, coupled with the issue that the anarchist legislator likely wouldn't be able to work a job (enabling you to not accept it), donations equivalent to the salary could be raised and then returned to each registered voter in the district based on some equation figuring his tax payments/percentage.

However, the potential cost of this may exceed the value of the salary. Even mailing the payments or processing the credit card payments would likely exceed the salary. (For instance, a typical congressional district has 300,000 - 400,000 registered voters, 650,000 inhabitants.)

Maybe the anarchist legislator could not accept the salary (thereby not directly participating in the theft) and try to raise the equivalent value for a salary from supporters. However, this would likely be outlawed by McCain-Finegold or something...

A quandary...

[Kraig]

Maybe to address the issue of salary, coupled with the issue that the anarchist legislator likely wouldn't be able to work a job (enabling you to not accept it), donations equivalent to the salary could be raised and then returned to each registered voter in the district based on some equation figuring his tax payments/percentage.

However, the potential cost of this may exceed the value of the salary. Even mailing the payments or processing the credit card payments would likely exceed the salary. (For instance, a typical congressional district has 300,000 - 400,000 registered voters, 650,000 inhabitants.)

Maybe the anarchist legislator could not accept the salary (thereby not directly participating in the theft) and try to raise the equivalent value for a salary from supporters. However, this would likely be outlawed by McCain-Finegold or something...

A quandary...

I like the way you think, considering that current politicians are payed with FRNs, couldn't you just burn the money and negate a bit of inflation, while living off donations or if that is outlawed just "private funds"?

[nayjevin]

I like the way you think, considering that current politicians are payed with FRNs, couldn't you just burn the money and negate a bit of inflation, while living off donations or if that is outlawed just "private funds"?

That's a good point too, but wouldn't that make this fake economy more 'solvent'? I would think an enemy of heirarchy would rather take as much from the system as possible so that it collapses sooner.

[free.alive]

I like the way you think, considering that current politicians are payed with FRNs, couldn't you just burn the money and negate a bit of inflation, while living off donations or if that is outlawed just "private funds"?

Although, I would urge against doing any "stunts" which would cause you to get unelected. I think that if we can get our people elected, they key to holding office (and I'm not a supporter of term limits) is having as much direct and open contact with the voters as possible, and making libertarian arguments in a sane manner, rather than outing ourselves as the radicals we are. :D

So on those grounds, maybe this inflation-destroying move would be a bad thing. Plus, consider that the effect on inflation would be entirely negligible. Also, what if said legislator was elected in a society with sound or a competing-currency monetary system. Then the payment issue would arise once again.

[newbitech]

he/she would have to leave their house first, so I doubt it.

[powerofreason]

Yes, I believe that technically we can. Using public office to commit acts of aggression would of course be wrong. But just occupying the position and taking the salary would not be wrong because accepting stolen property or money is not wrong.

[mediahasyou]

Holding political office is immoral. It is immoral to force the government upon others.

[nayjevin]

Holding political office is immoral. It is immoral to force the government upon others.

The first one is not true if it is possible to hold office without forcing the government upon others, and only if.

The argument is that if a person satisfies the salary question by returning it somehow (or using the money in a way that satisfies morality), and votes at every turn to repeal existing laws, and against new laws, (never otherwise) that person is not forcing government upon others, but the exact opposite.

My realist position is that a person can come close enough to doing that to be an alright guy in my book, and I respect those that try.

[paulitics]

Holding political office is immoral. It is immoral to force the government upon others.

It is not immoral to hold office with the intent to shrink the government and fight for liberties.

[Kludge]

Holding political office is immoral. It is immoral to force the government upon others.

Hm... I could see it being immoral if you accept money, or help meet government goals in being an employee of a government(-funded) organization. However, if a congressman did not accept any funds/perks, and voted against all bills which require funding or lessened individual liberties, I'm not seeing the conflict, certainly nothing more immoral than paying any taxes.

Representatives represent individuals, not government..... Well, except government representatives.

[tremendoustie]

Yes, I believe that technically we can. Using public office to commit acts of aggression would of course be wrong. But just occupying the position and taking the salary would not be wrong because accepting stolen property or money is not wrong.

You don't believe knowingly accepting stolen money and property is wrong?

[rp08orbust]

You don't believe knowingly accepting stolen money and property is wrong?

That's a good question. The state would certainly like its citizens to feel guilty about possessing stolen property under all circumstances, because naturally, that means they must hand all stolen property over to the state for safekeeping instead ;) However, we anarcho-capitalists reject the state's claim to a monopoly on providing justice, so why should we accept it (the thief in the first place) as the monopoly guardian of stolen property and therefore leave all stolen property in its hands? Isn't Ron Paul as good of a guardian of stolen property as anyone else? I, for one, would prefer him to guard my stolen tax dollars over the US Treasury.

A guardian of known stolen property is only required to keep guarding the property (as opposed to selling or consuming it) as long as there is hope of identifying the owner and returning the property to him. How much hope, and for how long the guardian must wait, is a fuzzy area. Hmm, I'm not sure he is required to guard the property at all, because why should he provide a service to someone with whom he has not contracted to do so, and for which he cannot negotiate any compensation? Thus, I'm tempted to give a flat-out answer of "No" to your question and say that a recipient of stolen property can immediately consume or sell it, and becomes liable for it only if a victim comes forth and proves that it was his. I'd love to know what Murray Rothbard had to say about this, if anything.

But I don't believe it's necessary to even answer this question, because as I've argued earlier in this thread,

1) There is no hope of ever identifying the victims of government theft, and all government aggressions for that matter, and determining how much of government assets they are entitled to.

2) A significant portion of government assets are not stolen at all, but consensually donated to the US Treasury by big-business liberals like Warren Buffet, who feel their taxes are more than adequately compensated with government business contracts and privileges. Also, much of the sheople out there feel they are adequately protected from their enemies and themselves in exchange for at least some of their tax dollars. Thus, not all of government assets are "loot". Who is to say that every libertarian congressman's salary comes entirely out of the stolen portion of government assets as opposed to the pool of donations and revenue from voluntary transactions?

The US government, like any organization, achieves a mixture of honest and ill-gotten gain (but with a higher proportion of the latter), and commits both just and unjust acts of violence. The US government does actually catch some criminals once in a while, give some of them fair trials, and keep some of them in jail for at least some of their sentence, which are sometimes just. To treat the entire government and anyone who does any business with it (or even votes) as poisoned by its acts of violence and dishonesty is to adopt the same sort of collectivist reasoning that leads warmongers to justify the killing of civilians under enemy states because they implicate themselves with the enemy state by simply voting or receiving welfare.

Congressmen contract with the US government to uphold the Constitution in exchange for a salary. If they aren't entitled to the rewards of their contracted labor, then no government contractors are. But then none of us are entitled to salaries we receive from any organization we work for that likewise isn't 100% honest and non-violent. That is a needlessly and excessively high standard.

[rp08orbust]

Holding political office is immoral. It is immoral to force the government upon others.

To be convinced something is immoral, I must see a specific act of concrete aggression against a specific individual.

The mere possession of the title of US Representative of the Xth district of state Y is not an act of aggression against anyone. It's what one does with that title that matters, and in the end, it's only the actions that matter, not the title one committed them under.