When is Taxation acceptable?

[gb13]

I want to get a friendly debate going about taxation. A lot of this will really boil down to what type of libertarian you are (Minarchist, Anarcho-Capitalist, Classical Liberal, Georgist, Utilitarian, etc.) but it should be interesting. There are so many different views that get put under the category of "libertarian", and there is a lot of debatable subject matter among even mostly like-minded people like those on this board.

Here are the questions:

How do you view taxation? Is it ever legitimate, or at least the lesser evil for certain circumstances?

If so, what types of taxes do you support (or tolerate) at the local, state, and federal levels?

For what ends may the local/state/federal governments legitimately tax?

How may tax revenue be used? What types of services and/or agencies should be (even partially) tax-funded at the local/state/federal levels?

[Vessol]

When is theft ever acceptable?

That's all that taxation is. Of course the State loves coming up with fancy words for what they do.

War is outright murder.
Imprisonment is kidnapping.
Public education is indoctrination.

[Aldanga]

Taxation is theft. Private property demands that theft is wrong. Therefore, taxation is immoral. No exceptions.

[pcosmar]

As little as possible to maintain a minimal and limited government.

[heavenlyboy34]

There is no need for a tax, even considering the current regime. It is possible for people to write checks directly to the treasury. I make it a point to tell this to pro-tax folks so they can tax themselves and leave me alone. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Taxation is theft. Private property demands that theft is wrong. Therefore, taxation is immoral. No exceptions.
qft! :cool:

[Vessol]

Not only is taxation theft, it's also backed up through physical violence.

If you don't pay your pound of flesh, mafiso's from your local government enforcement agency will come and bring you to a cage. If you resist or if they feel bored you(or your dog) will be severely injured or killed.

[thehungarian]

Taxation is not acceptable. When you need to use government services they should charge fees.

[Pericles]

During the Revolution and after, the Whigs in the British Parliament were generally sympathetic to the Americans, but the Congress could even exasperate its friends on occasion. When the Congress could not raise the money required to compensate loyalists as required under the treaty that ended the Revolution and recognized US independence, one of the British Whigs remarked "Not only do Americans believe in no taxation without representation, they apparently believe in no taxation with representation as well."

[torchbearer]

a voluntary tax or user fee would fit under moral.

[Vessol]

Taxation is not acceptable. When you need to use government services they should charge fees.

The question is: What about alternatives to those government services. Why should the government be allowed to keep a monopoly on those things as they do currently? They make it illegal to compete. I like competition in ALL sectors.

[Danke]

a voluntary tax or user fee would fit under moral.

As the income tax is.

[Vessol]

As the income tax is.

Loopholes =/= Voluntary

What's going to happen when I start a business, hire employee's and do not deduct taxes from those employee's and do not report and submit taxes? I guess when the IRS audits me, it's just a friendly visit to meet and greet?

[gb13]

For those of you who feel that no taxation is ever fair....

What about taxes on State-Created entities? For instance, excise taxes on corporations, or LLCs?

How do you feel about localities being allowed to choose their own tax system; allowing communities to decide their own affairs concerning what level of governance is ideal? One community could adopt an anarcho-capitalist system eliminating taxation, while another community could adhere to Georgist principles taxing land and resources and using the revenue to fund local services.

Is municipal autonomy acceptable in this regard?

[Danke]

Loopholes =/= Voluntary



Loopholes? Not following?

[pcosmar]

Taxation is not acceptable. When you need to use government services they should charge fees.

There should be no "Government Services", But I do believe that elected representatives should have a basic though minimal pay, and that offices and meeting places (congress, House and Judiciary and Executive) would still need to be maintained.
Though I believe more utilitarian than lavish.
Minimal Government would require minimal taxation.

[Vessol]

Loopholes? Not following?

With a tax code our size, of course there is going to be loopholes.

That doesn't mean the income tax is voluntary. Could you expound on that more?

[Vessol]

For those of you who feel that no taxation is ever fair....

What about taxes on State-Created entities? For instance, excise taxes on corporations, or LLCs?

How do you feel about localities being allowed to choose their own tax system; allowing communities to decide their own affairs concerning what level of governance is ideal? One community could adopt an anarcho-capitalist system eliminating taxation, while another community could adhere to Georgist principles taxing land and resources and using the revenue to fund local services.

Is municipal autonomy acceptable in this regard?

The issue isn't the size of government. It's the fact that they have a monopoly on force over a given piece of land. Ignoring all property rights.

If a bunch of people want to group together and make a bunch of tree houses and dress like barney and cover themselves with honey, I couldn't give a fuck.

As long as I am not forced to take a part of that through violence.

This most importantly means that I don't have to relocate. That's not voluntary. If I own property, others do not have any right or say over my property.

It all falls down to the Non-Agression Axiom: Do not initiate violence against others. It is immoral.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

[Aldanga]

For those of you who feel that no taxation is ever fair....

What about taxes on State-Created entities? For instance, excise taxes on corporations, or LLCs?

How do you feel about localities being allowed to choose their own tax system; allowing communities to decide their own affairs concerning what level of governance is ideal? One community could adopt an anarcho-capitalist system eliminating taxation, while another community could adhere to Georgist principles taxing land and resources and using the revenue to fund local services.

Is municipal autonomy acceptable in this regard?
What you're proposing could easily fall under user fees. Want to be a state-entity? You have to pay.

As long as people aren't forced to pay taxes, I have no problems with monies being collected.

I'd rather have total voluntaryism, but a mix of voluntaryism and panarchism is acceptable to me—though it can easily be argued that those philosophies are one and the same.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

[Danke]

With a tax code our size, of course there is going to be loopholes.

That doesn't mean the income tax is voluntary. Could you expound on that more?

"Loopholes" are for those subject to the tax in the first place.

If you are not involved in a taxable activity, then no tax is due.

[Vessol]

"Loopholes" are for those subject to the tax in the first place.

If you are not involved in a taxable activity, then no tax is due.

What if I do want to be involved in a taxable activity?

What if I do want to exchange my labor for money at a job or if I do want to buy a new TV at Best Buy?

That's not voluntaryism. I own myself, thus I own my labor and thus, my property. This goes for everyone else. For anyone to stand up and say "I'll take a cut of that" is immoral.

That's like saying that drug laws are voluntary. Sure, you won't be arrested and imprisoned if you never take a single illicit drug, yet that doesn't mean that those laws are moral because you own yourself.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

With a tax code our size, of course there is going to be loopholes.

That doesn't mean the income tax is voluntary. Could you expound on that more?

What he is asking you is what is the activity being taxed? What is the taxable event under federal jurisdiction? What privileges and immunities are associated with taxable activities? If the federal political subdivision has express delegated power and the power to tax is qualified... can mere existence can be indirectly taxed?

[ClayTrainor]

How do you view taxation? Is it ever legitimate, or at least the lesser evil for certain circumstances?

If so, what types of taxes do you support (or tolerate) at the local, state, and federal levels?

For what ends may the local/state/federal governments legitimately tax?

How may tax revenue be used? What types of services and/or agencies should be (even partially) tax-funded at the local/state/federal levels?



Taxation is just another word for extortion, when the individuals engaging in the act work for an organization called government. It is the anti-thesis of libertarianism, private property rights and the non-aggression principle, and thus, never acceptable.

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard

[Sola_Fide]

Taxation is theft. Theft is evil.

In 1st Samuel 8, God warns Israel that they shouldn't want a King because a King would take a tithe (a tenth) from them and draft them into wars....but still the Israelites wanted that yoke on them.

God said a tyrannical ruler would take a TENTH of your wealth! A TENTH!? We live under such a tyranny today in America that most of us would LOVE to have only a tenth taken from us.

We are in trouble indeed...

[nate895]

Taxation is theft.

Now, you know that isn't Biblical. We do, in fact, owe revenue to the state, which is God's servant (Romans 13:1-7). Yes, what we have today is excessive in the extreme, but that does not eliminate the idea that the government can, and should, levy taxes for its lawful purposes.

[Sola_Fide]

Now, you know that isn't Biblical. We do, in fact, owe revenue to the state, which is God's servant (Romans 13:1-7). Yes, what we have today is excessive in the extreme, but that does not eliminate the idea that the government can, and should, levy taxes for its lawful purposes.

In my mind (and please correct me if I'm in error here), both positions could be argued from Scripture.

In my thinking, as tithing for the ministry of the Church is voluntary, so can funding the ministry of vengeance be voluntary.

No less an important ministry than the Church is funded voluntarily, why should the magistrate be different?

[low preference guy]

never

[nate895]

In my mind (and please correct me if I'm in error here), both positions could be argued from Scripture.

In my thinking, tithing for the ministry of the Word is voluntary, so can the ministry of vengeance be voluntary.

Taxation is nowhere condemned, only excessive taxation is condemned. Also, the idea that the ministry of vengeance can be voluntary is simply inconceivable. The very idea of the civil authority is to punish people for wrongdoing, and, in general, people would prefer not to be punished, so the entire purpose of civil government just flies right out of the window. Furthermore, the idea that you could fund a government off of voluntary payments and user fees in inane at best; It isn't even worth consideration.

[heavenlyboy34]

Now, you know that isn't Biblical. We do, in fact, owe revenue to the state, which is God's servant (Romans 13:1-7). Yes, what we have today is excessive in the extreme, but that does not eliminate the idea that the government can, and should, levy taxes for its lawful purposes.
Incorrect. The author of Romans 13 writes ""Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." IOW, the civil magistrate cannot do whatever he wants (including legalized theft, aka taxation). He too is restrained by G-d. When the civil magistrate demands something known to be unjust, it is both just and morally obligatory to oppose such unjust actions and stop them if possible.

We don't owe any revenue to the government, but tithes and offerings to G-d are considered obligatory. We owe our existence to G-d, not to any government.

ETA: Chuck Baldwin wrote an interesting piece on this very subject.
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html)Romans Chapter 13 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html)

[nate895]

Incorrect. The author of Romans 13 writes ""Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." IOW, the civil magistrate cannot do whatever he wants (including legalized theft, aka taxation). He too is restrained by G-d. When the civil magistrate demands something known to be unjust, it is both just and morally obligatory to oppose such unjust actions and stop them if possible.

The wrath is God's wrath when you do not obey the authorities. Need I remind you that Paul is writing to Christians in the heart of the Roman Empire, and he's telling them to remain in subjection to them? That does not negate the idea of interposition (lesser magistrates interposing against higher ones), but it does mean that non-magistrates cannot resist outside the authority of lesser magistrates.

[Sola_Fide]

The wrath is God's wrath when you do not obey the authorities. Need I remind you that Paul is writing to Christians in the heart of the Roman Empire, and he's telling them to remain in subjection to them? That does not negate the idea of interposition (lesser magistrates interposing against higher ones), but it does mean that non-magistrates cannot resist outside the authority of lesser magistrates.

I hear what you are saying Nate, and I definitely agree with the principle of nullification, but Peter did interpose himself in Acts 5:

27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead— whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” 33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death."


I don't know if Peter and the other disciples could be considered lesser authorities appropriate enough to interpose, but nevertheless they brazenly rejected the authority of the magistrate in this instance.

[heavenlyboy34]

The wrath is God's wrath when you do not obey the authorities. Need I remind you that Paul is writing to Christians in the heart of the Roman Empire, and he's telling them to remain in subjection to them? That does not negate the idea of interposition (lesser magistrates interposing against higher ones), but it does mean that non-magistrates cannot resist outside the authority of lesser magistrates.
Paul himself defied the civil authorities, and spent plenty of time in jail for it. It seems that the message we are to get from Romans 13 (and other scriptures related to earthly government) is that the civil authorities are also subject to G-d, and when said authorities step over the laws and principles set by God they can and should be resisted.

[heavenlyboy34]

I hear what you are saying Nate, and I definitely agree with the principle of nullification, but Peter did interpose himself in Acts 5:

27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead— whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” 33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death."


I don't know if Peter and the other disciples could be considered lesser authorities appropriate enough to interpose, but nevertheless they brazenly rejected the authority of the magistrate in this instance.
+a zillion. It's also important to note that every apostle except John was murdered by civil authorities at the time.

[nate895]

I hear what you are saying Nate, and I definitely agree with the principle of nullification, but Peter did interpose himself in Acts 5:

27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead— whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” 33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death."


I don't know if Peter and the other disciples could be considered lesser authorities appropriate enough to interpose, but nevertheless they brazenly rejected the authority of the magistrate in this instance.

Whatever that has to do with taxes, I don't know.

Obviously the civil authority cannot intervene in spiritual affair. I assumed that was taken for granted.

[nate895]

Paul himself defied the civil authorities, and spent plenty of time in jail for it. It seems that the message we are to get from Romans 13 (and other scriptures related to earthly government) is that the civil authorities are also subject to G-d, and when said authorities step over the laws and principles set by God they can and should be resisted.

Well, duh, civil authorities are subject to God. What Paul's imprisonment for the Gospel has to do with anything related to taxes, I fail to see.

[Wesker1982]

Now, you know that isn't Biblical. We do, in fact, owe revenue to the state, which is God's servant (Romans 13:1-7). Yes, what we have today is excessive in the extreme, but that does not eliminate the idea that the government can, and should, levy taxes for its lawful purposes.

Romans 13 is explained here: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

And I am with Ron Paul on this one:

If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed. - Ron Paul

[Sola_Fide]

Whatever that has to do with taxes, I don't know.

Obviously the civil authority cannot intervene in spiritual affair. I assumed that was taken for granted.

True. Believe me, I'm still trying to flush this out myself, so don't mind if I play devil's advocate a little bit:).

At what point does the honor we are to pay to non-christian authorities cross over into worship? Spiritual issues and issues of taxation are not too far apart on the scale. Hmmmmm.

[nate895]

Romans 13 is explained here: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

And I am with Ron Paul on this one:

If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed. - Ron Paul

The idea that Jesus was an anarchist is just plain silly. Along with the idea you can fund a government on user fees, it is among those ideas that are so inane that they aren't even worth considering.

[ClayTrainor]

Why Canadians pay Taxes... :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_BLcap6qao&NR=1

[ababba]

Theft is not always immoral. If your family is starving, it could potentially be morally justified to steal to feed them.

The question is whether a given instance of theft has good consequences. Does it benefit some people more than it hurts others?

Obviously this is hard to figure out but in principle taxation is justified to the extent that the harms of taxation are outweighed by the benefits of the tax revenue.

[ClayTrainor]

The idea that Jesus was an anarchist is just plain silly. Along with the idea you can fund a government on user fees, it is among those ideas that are so inane that they aren't even worth considering.

Jesus The Peace Loving Anarchist?...

http://cdn02.cdn.thesuperficial.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/0421-jesus-gun-01-480x339.jpg

Or...

Jesus The Tax Collecting Statist?...

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/freshnothesh/jesus-gun.jpg

:collins:

[Sola_Fide]

This entire debate can't be complete without talking about the hidden taxation that comes from debasement....and we all (hopefully by now) know what Scripture says about debasement. It is theft and evil. God hates a dishonest scale.

The issues are very similar.

[Wesker1982]

The idea that Jesus was an anarchist is just plain silly. Along with the idea you can fund a government on user fees, it is among those ideas that are so inane that they aren't even worth considering.

You make a convincing case...

;)

Any plans on actually reading that article? I know you probably won't, but it makes a good case.

[robert68]

Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!

..

[nate895]

You make a convincing case...

;)

Any plans on actually reading that article? I know you probably won't, but it makes a good case.

It can't make a good case. How do I know this without reading it? I've read the four Gospels, and nothing in there even comes close to the idea that Jesus was an anarchist. Of course, I could also simply point out that Romans 13:2-3 says "Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval." I don't know how this could get any clearer: God appoints the authorities who do his bidding. The government isn't the servant of Satan, but of God. BTW, this could apply in a strange way to a bad government since God's judgment can be wrought via bad government.

[RCA]

As little as possible to maintain a minimal and limited government.

The problem with this line of thinking is where do you draw the line at? I don't really consider myself Pro-Life, but since I can't logically draw a line, I have to be Pro-Life.

[Wesker1982]

I don't know how this could get any clearer: God appoints the authorities who do his bidding. The government isn't the servant of Satan, but of God.

THE government? Which government? All governments?

Jesus himself resisted the government, does this make him a bad person? Was the Nazi government good since they were authorities? Were the Jews who went into hiding disobeying God since the government didn't want them to hide?

What about Joseph and Mary disobeying the King? Were they thus disobeying God?


BTW, this could apply in a strange way to a bad government since God's judgment can be wrought via bad government.

:confused::confused::confused:

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

THE government? Which government? All governments?

Jesus himself resisted the government, does this make him a bad person? Was the Nazi government good since they were authorities? Were the Jews who went into hiding disobeying God since the government didn't want them to hide?

What about Joseph and Mary disobeying the King? Were they thus disobeying God?

:confused::confused::confused:

lol @ Mary and Joseph...

EPIC :)

[Sola_Fide]

Furthermore, the idea that you could fund a government off of voluntary payments and user fees in inane at best; It isn't even worth consideration.


This may be true, but I always go back to the simple truth that if something is not wanted in the market (i.e. our tyrannical government), then it should not be forced on people through coercion. If the ministry of vengeance was funded like the church is, it may be just the size and scope that we want it.

[Qdog]

I am sort of a constitution guy myself... I think they federal government should abolish the income tax (we didn;t have one before 1913). I do think however, that some of the things the government has a responsibility to do as laid out in the constitution is ok... namely, National defense, and the enforcement of the laws/civil liberty. Im even ok with there being some sort of tax for roads etc. No welfare, and no income redistribution though. I think that the pure anarchist ideal is impractical, because I do think that a very limited, and decentralized government can serve a useful purpose.

[awake]

Taxation is a euphemism for theft. Once a person accepts to correct that fundamental misconception the rest becomes crystal clear. The state cringes naked before your very eyes.

[MelissaWV]

Taxation in the current and traditional sense is unacceptable.

Now, fee for use (think tolls, or admission to certain events, or membership fees) is another matter entirely. Voluntary contracts that force contributions in localized areas are also fine with me (think HOAs that you know you are joining when you buy a home in a certain location).

[BuddyRey]

The idea that Jesus was an anarchist is just plain silly.

Whether Jesus was or was not a political anarchist isn't really the issue, IMO, because the way He led His life almost always adhered to the Non-Aggression Principle; in fact, it could be argued that Christ was the first major popularizer of this idea (The Golden Rule). Jesus never forced people to believe in His divinity, nor did He kidnap them for failing to hand over their income to Him or obey His teachings. If a "government" (which can be any societal model, not just a nation-state) is really founded on the tenets of true Christianity, wouldn't it have to conduct itself in the same way Jesus did...non-coercively?

[Sola_Fide]

Interesting articles. I guess I'd like to get Nate's and Theo's opinion on these:


A Calvinist Defense Of Anarcho-Capitalism
http://vftonline.org/VFTfiles/thesis/summary01.htm


Postmillenial Anarcho-Calvinism
http://vftonline.org/VFTfiles/thesis/commentators/state_vs_spirit.htm

[jmdrake]

I want to get a friendly debate going about taxation. A lot of this will really boil down to what type of libertarian you are (Minarchist, Anarcho-Capitalist, Classical Liberal, Georgist, Utilitarian, etc.) but it should be interesting. There are so many different views that get put under the category of "libertarian", and there is a lot of debatable subject matter among even mostly like-minded people like those on this board.

Here are the questions:

How do you view taxation? Is it ever legitimate, or at least the lesser evil for certain circumstances?

If so, what types of taxes do you support (or tolerate) at the local, state, and federal levels?

For what ends may the local/state/federal governments legitimately tax?
i]
How may tax revenue be used? What types of services and/or agencies should be (even partially) tax-funded at the local/state/federal levels?

Taxation is acceptable when it is voluntary.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

The entire government should be run through chipins and moneybombs.

[ItsTime]

When it is 100% voluntary.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Taxation is acceptable when it is voluntary.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

The entire government should be run through chipins and moneybombs.

That is not taxation then. Why can't the functions of Government (Justice and Law) be fulfilled through voluntary means (Polycentric Voluntaryism)? As a Law student you must have studied various forms of Law which arose without the State? These institutions would be much better to handle Justice and Law just like ye' old' Merchant Law & Land Associations / Towns of the American West.

[Travlyr]

Interesting thread. Is there a correct answer?

Taxation is theft.
Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron.
Property rights are fundamental to liberty but they cannot be effectively defined or protected individually.

Personally, I'm fine with paying a 10% maximum tax to fund a sheriff's department, a county clerk's office, a court system for criminal activity, and some emergency services. But that is just me. 10% would be a hell of a lot better than the 50% extortions I have had to endure so far to pay for the excesses of the wasteful destructive elite.

[pcosmar]

Interesting thread. Is there a correct answer?

Taxation is theft.
Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron.
Property rights are fundamental to liberty but they cannot be effectively defined or protected individually.

Personally, I'm fine with paying a 10% maximum tax to fund a sheriff's department, a county clerk's office, a court system for criminal activity, and some emergency services. But that is just me. 10% would be a hell of a lot better than the 50% extortions I have had to endure so far to pay for the excesses of the wasteful destructive elite.

Pretty much where I am at, but not sure 10% is necessary. I am totally opposed to Income Tax, which was supposed to be voluntary when first adopted.
I like the Idea of voluntary support for the necessary support of a limited government, but can accept a minimal tax for upkeep.
Elected officials/Representatives should be paid and necessary buildings maintained, but all of that should be severely limited and costs minimal.
Any other projects and services should be totally voluntary and at the local level.

[Sola_Fide]

Interesting thread. Is there a correct answer?

Taxation is theft.
Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron.
Property rights are fundamental to liberty but they cannot be effectively defined or protected individually.

Personally, I'm fine with paying a 10% maximum tax to fund a sheriff's department, a county clerk's office, a court system for criminal activity, and some emergency services. But that is just me. 10% would be a hell of a lot better than the 50% extortions I have had to endure so far to pay for the excesses of the wasteful destructive elite.


Yes. I agree on the 10% (so does Ron).

On theological grounds, I can't stomach anything over a tithe (a tenth) going to the magistrate because God demands a tithe from me. The government can't demand more from me than God. The government is not God.

If we are to have any tax, it can't be over a tenth, and I base this on 1st Samuel chapter 8.

[jmdrake]

The idea that Jesus was an anarchist is just plain silly. Along with the idea you can fund a government on user fees, it is among those ideas that are so inane that they aren't even worth considering.

The Vatican is a government with a budget larger than many countries and is funded on voluntary contributions and user fees. While I have a lot of problems with the Vatican, I am in complete agreement with how it raises funds. It got into trouble when it wanted to spend beyond its means and started doing super corrupt things like selling indulgences. It didn't really need all of those extravagant cathedrals it was building. The same is true for governments. Most spend beyond their means for garbage they don't need and in some cases only make the lives of their citizens more difficult (like the stinking TSA body scanners).

As for whether or not Jesus was an anarchist, arguing about that is silly. Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. So He never endorsed any particular government (or non government) form. When it came to paying taxes He said render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's. But notice He had to borrow a Roman coin before He could read the inscription on it. He was NOT using Caesar's money. Note when Peter was conned into saying Jesus paid the temple tax, Jesus sent Peter out to catch a fish with a coin in its mouth. Jesus was not using the temple money either. There's a lesson in there for financially savvy Christians who are paying attention.

[jmdrake]

That is not taxation then.

My point exactly. ;)



Why can't the functions of Government (Justice and Law) be fulfilled through voluntary means (Polycentric Voluntaryism)? As a Law student you must have studied various forms of Law which arose without the State?


Are you kidding? Law schools exist for people to learn how to make money manipulating the law. Why would they want to educate lawyers about the possibility of societies without laws? That would be like a medical school teaching its doctors that most people could get well without them if they just ate right, got enough rest, exercise, water, and properly use herbal and other cheap or even free remedies.



These institutions would be much better to handle Justice and Law just like ye' old' Merchant Law & Land Associations / Towns of the American West.

Maybe. I don't know. If we could get back to states being "laboratories of democracy" we could see what worked best.

[reduen]

Taxation is only acceptable when it is voluntary.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Taxation is only acceptable when it is voluntary.

and then it isn't taxation, it's charity ;)

[nate895]

I want someone to run on the "taxation should be voluntary" idea. That would be entertaining to watch.

[Sola_Fide]

Interesting articles. I guess I'd like to get Nate's and Theo's opinion on these:


A Calvinist Defense Of Anarcho-Capitalism
http://vftonline.org/VFTfiles/thesis/summary01.htm


Postmillenial Anarcho-Calvinism
http://vftonline.org/VFTfiles/thesis/commentators/state_vs_spirit.htm


Nate, what's your opinion on these when you have the time?

[A Son of Liberty]

HERE (http://libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/25/new-testament-theology-1/) is a compelling take on "render unto Caesar".

Good website, too.

[nate895]

Nate, what's your opinion on these when you have the time?

Sorry, I didn't notice those at first.

First of all, as with all anarchist literature, the first article (A Calviinist Defense of Anarcho-Capitalism) assumes that all taxation is stealing, and yet there is no Biblical warrant for such an equation. Even in I Samuel 8, where a 10% tax is considered "oppressive" (Oh, how I long for that day!), taxation is not equated to theft. The author then misquotes A.A. Hodge. In context, he is talking about state education (link (http://hisways.org/about/others-AtheismEngine.htm)), not the state in general.

The author then talks about the "divine right of kings" 1,000 years ago, which didn't actually exist as a theory until the 16th century. Monarchies 1,000 years ago were weak. Of course, don't expect the anarchist to admit that. He then says that all vengeance is prohibited, when Romans 13:4 specifically states that the state is to take vengeance.

It is then interesting to note that the defense of capitalism is linked to three non-Christian defenses of capitalism. The theonomy idea is then appropriated for his own ends. One wonders how you enforce laws without the state, but I digress. The invocation of Calvin always intrigues me at this point. The entire predication of Calvinistic social ethics is predicated on the existence of the state. It is also interesting to note that, despite being under heavy persecution from the state, I don't know of a single contemporary or next generation Calvinist Reformer who advocated the abolition of the state. Heck, most of them favored established churches!

The author then invokes the multiple injunctions against taking vengeance for yourself, and then applies the logic to the state. Especially in light of Romans 13:4, where it is seen as good that the state takes vengeance, I wonder how he can take Romans 12:17-21 to support the idea of the abolition of the state. There was a case in the Bible where vengeance was prohibited to everyone, when Cain slew Abel. Know what happened? Humanity degenerated to the point God had to blot all but 8 people. That's the history of "anarcho-capitalism" of the kind suggested here. Yes, vengeance is God's, but he also commanded the execution of murderers in Genesis 9 in response to the anarchy before the Flood.

His interpretation of Mark 10:43 is interesting, if not altogether bogus. Apparently, the fact that the leaders amongst Christians shall be servants means we must abolish the state. That interpretation neglects that this verse is about Church leaders primarily, and even then it does not eliminate the leadership principle as such, but merely redefines it so that one should not lord it over others. Yes, the civil authority should not lord it over its subjects, but that does not mean it should not exist.

The rest of that article basically comes from that premise, so I find it needless to continue at this point. I also find it interesting, however, that at the end he admits that the pre-Flood world was anarcho-capitalist. Think about what happened there. And then God specifically said in Genesis 9:6 that we are to shed the blood of those that shed the blood of man in direct response to the Flood. This author wants us to believe that God apparently did not mean that, really. After all, there are a couple of verses about not taking vengeance! That must mean that God cannot invest the right to take vengeance with anyone. The entire article proceeds from bogus assumptions, as I believe I've demonstrated.

[jmdrake]

Yes. I agree on the 10% (so does Ron).

On theological grounds, I can't stomach anything over a tithe (a tenth) going to the magistrate because God demands a tithe from me. The government can't demand more from me than God. The government is not God.

If we are to have any tax, it can't be over a tenth, and I base this on 1st Samuel chapter 8.

God doesn't demand anything.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Tithing is based on contract.

6 “I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the LORD Almighty.

“But you ask, ‘How are we to return?’

8 “Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me.

“But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’

“In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says the LORD Almighty. 12 “Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the LORD Almighty.

[Sola_Fide]

God doesn't demand anything.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Tithing is based on contract.

6 “I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the LORD Almighty.

“But you ask, ‘How are we to return?’

8 “Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me.

“But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’

“In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says the LORD Almighty. 12 “Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the LORD Almighty.

Eh. I guess if you want to say a tenth is not a hard and fast rule in the New Covenant, then I agree with that (although the verses you quoted do show that God does command giving). The important thing is to recognize the general equity of the OT laws, for example, the tithes being the first-fruits of your labor.

[Sola_Fide]

Sorry, I didn't notice those at first.

First of all, as with all anarchist literature, the first article (A Calviinist Defense of Anarcho-Capitalism) assumes that all taxation is stealing, and yet there is no Biblical warrant for such an equation. Even in I Samuel 8, where a 10% tax is considered "oppressive" (Oh, how I long for that day!), taxation is not equated to theft. The author then misquotes A.A. Hodge. In context, he is talking about state education (link (http://hisways.org/about/others-AtheismEngine.htm)), not the state in general.

The author then talks about the "divine right of kings" 1,000 years ago, which didn't actually exist as a theory until the 16th century. Monarchies 1,000 years ago were weak. Of course, don't expect the anarchist to admit that. He then says that all vengeance is prohibited, when Romans 13:4 specifically states that the state is to take vengeance.

It is then interesting to note that the defense of capitalism is linked to three non-Christian defenses of capitalism. The theonomy idea is then appropriated for his own ends. One wonders how you enforce laws without the state, but I digress. The invocation of Calvin always intrigues me at this point. The entire predication of Calvinistic social ethics is predicated on the existence of the state. It is also interesting to note that, despite being under heavy persecution from the state, I don't know of a single contemporary or next generation Calvinist Reformer who advocated the abolition of the state. Heck, most of them favored established churches!

The author then invokes the multiple injunctions against taking vengeance for yourself, and then applies the logic to the state. Especially in light of Romans 13:4, where it is seen as good that the state takes vengeance, I wonder how he can take Romans 12:17-21 to support the idea of the abolition of the state. There was a case in the Bible where vengeance was prohibited to everyone, when Cain slew Abel. Know what happened? Humanity degenerated to the point God had to blot all but 8 people. That's the history of "anarcho-capitalism" of the kind suggested here. Yes, vengeance is God's, but he also commanded the execution of murderers in Genesis 9 in response to the anarchy before the Flood.

His interpretation of Mark 10:43 is interesting, if not altogether bogus. Apparently, the fact that the leaders amongst Christians shall be servants means we must abolish the state. That interpretation neglects that this verse is about Church leaders primarily, and even then it does not eliminate the leadership principle as such, but merely redefines it so that one should not lord it over others. Yes, the civil authority should not lord it over its subjects, but that does not mean it should not exist.

The rest of that article basically comes from that premise, so I find it needless to continue at this point. I also find it interesting, however, that at the end he admits that the pre-Flood world was anarcho-capitalist. Think about what happened there. And then God specifically said in Genesis 9:6 that we are to shed the blood of those that shed the blood of man in direct response to the Flood. This author wants us to believe that God apparently did not mean that, really. After all, there are a couple of verses about not taking vengeance! That must mean that God cannot invest the right to take vengeance with anyone. The entire article proceeds from bogus assumptions, as I believe I've demonstrated.


Thanks Nate.

[jmdrake]

Eh. I guess if you want to say a tenth is not a hard and fast rule in the New Covenant, then I agree with that (although the verses you quoted do show that God does command giving). The important thing is to recognize the general equity of the OT laws, for example, the tithes being the first-fruits of your labor.

Even in the OT there was no equivalent of a Levitical IRS. The only case recorded of priests trying to take offerings by force was the record of the sins of the sons of Eli. As a Christian if you want to claim the promises of God's blessings in Malachi you have to uphold your part of the contract of at least 10%. If you want God's blessings for health you have to follow His health ordinances. (Christians eating whatever they want and then praying to God to cure them of arthritis and heart disease are only kidding themselves). I believe in paying tithe and I pay an offering on top. But I do it cheerfully and not from a sense of compulsion. The pastor recently in the news for canceling communion because he didn't feel his flock was giving enough money to the church (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/18/pay-and-pray-pastor-accused-of-withholding-communion-after-parishioners-refuse-to-hand-over-their-tax-refunds/) was following the sons of Eli example.

That said, I agree with your point about 10% for everyone being equitable. The so called "progressive" income tax is garbage.

[Krugerrand]

I would consider a poll tax when that is the only money the government gets to raise.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

When you agree to it. I dont see what's so bad about the govt sending a contract to every single working individual and basically saying "Do you agree to pay a n% Tax: Yes or No. If No, then you will not able to receive any government benefits or services."

What's so wrong with that?

If very few people sign up well the smaller the govt. People that want to keep their property get to be left to succeed or fail on their own merits.

[muzzled dogg]

when its voluntary

[IndianaPolitico]

Constitutionally the government has the authority to collect taxes. But if the government went back to doing ONLY the things that the Constitution allowed them to do, then taxes would return to a reasonable level.

[Pericles]

Interesting thread. Is there a correct answer?

Taxation is theft.
Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron.
Property rights are fundamental to liberty but they cannot be effectively defined or protected individually.

Personally, I'm fine with paying a 10% maximum tax to fund a sheriff's department, a county clerk's office, a court system for criminal activity, and some emergency services. But that is just me. 10% would be a hell of a lot better than the 50% extortions I have had to endure so far to pay for the excesses of the wasteful destructive elite.

+1

[ChaosControl]

It is only acceptable when it is voluntary, basically when there is unanimous consent by the governed to pass it.

[Elwar]

I want to get a friendly debate going about taxation. A lot of this will really boil down to what type of libertarian you are (Minarchist, Anarcho-Capitalist, Classical Liberal, Georgist, Utilitarian, etc.) but it should be interesting. There are so many different views that get put under the category of "libertarian", and there is a lot of debatable subject matter among even mostly like-minded people like those on this board.

Here are the questions:



How do you view taxation? Is it ever legitimate, or at least the lesser evil for certain circumstances?


Taxation is the use of force to take money from someone. The only way it could be legitimate would be if it was in response to the initiation of force. Though that term would typically be referred to as a fine.



If so, what types of taxes do you support (or tolerate) at the local, state, and federal levels?

The only legitimate "taxes" would be voluntary taxes in exchange for a service which people are able to choose not to use.



For what ends may the local/state/federal governments legitimately tax?

How may tax revenue be used? What types of services and/or agencies should be (even partially) tax-funded at the local/state/federal levels?


Local/state/federal governments can legitimately spend money any way they want. The act of theft is the problem, not what they do with the ill gotten earnings. They could spend it all on pizza and beer and it would be just as legitimate.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

When you agree to it. I dont see what's so bad about the govt sending a contract to every single working individual and basically saying "Do you agree to pay a n% Tax: Yes or No. If No, then you will not able to receive any government benefits or services."

What's so wrong with that?

If very few people sign up well the smaller the govt. People that want to keep their property get to be left to succeed or fail on their own merits.

Because the State would still have a monopoly on Justice and Law and would send their agents to destroy their competition. Why do people cling to taxation so much even why they know it is immoral and antithetical to private property -- not to mention that the State is a horrible horrible institution to resolve dispute, distribute justice, and codify law. It makes no sense. Let it go.

How about people contract with whom they please as it is their natural right?

[gb13]

Not to be dismissive (I am a Christian), but this was not a religious question in any way whatsoever. Whether or not Jesus or the Bible support taxation, liberalism, anarchy, libertarianism et al is not relevant to a political debate. I respect all of your opinions but I feel this thread has been hijacked to religious discussion when it was intended to be entirely secular in nature.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Taxation is the use of force to take money from someone. The only way it could be legitimate would be if it was in response to the initiation of force. Though that term would typically be referred to as a fine.


The only legitimate "taxes" would be voluntary taxes in exchange for a service which people are able to choose not to use.



Local/state/federal governments can legitimately spend money any way they want. The act of theft is the problem, not what they do with the ill gotten earnings. They could spend it all on pizza and beer and it would be just as legitimate.

Seriously? There is no such thing as a legitimate tax or a voluntary tax and what you just described is called payment for services rendered, which, is called voluntary exchange aka free-enterprise, free-market, etc. The market is antithetical to the State. The State is violence and thievery (along with murder, racketeering, and a host of other crimes).

I know you agree with the above, but why on Earth would you call something a tax when it clearly isn't? It would be akin to saying Target taxes me 19.99$ when I choose to purchase a bath towel from their store.

[AndrewD]

You guys think you have it bad with taxes. Shoot, come to Germany. Big time Socialism going on here. EVERYTHING is taxed. They have public healthcare, but you still have to pay huge amounts out of pocket for copayments and prescriptions. Gas is 1.30 Euro per LITER. I have a Ford Focus and it costs me about 110 dollars to fill up. Why is gas so high? Taxes.

There is a 19% flat rate tax on all goods and services too. Anything from a candy bar to a vehicle, to housing rent, add 19%.

I forget what the income tax is, I don't pay that my wife does. But there is an income tax as well.

Shits brutal.

[Krugerrand]

Most common answer in the US would probably be: When everybody else has to pay more taxes than me.

[Seraphim]

Never. And fuck all the retarded rationalizations for them.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Most common answer in the US would probably be: When everybody else has to pay more taxes than me.

AKA Taxation is acceptable if I get the stolen loot. Sad sad state of affairs :( The US is a Nation of Thieves.

[nate895]

The idea that taxation is, by necessity, theft I guess is just taken for granted here. It's really hard to argue with an axiom as strongly held as "taxation is theft" by the libertarians. Never mind the consequences of the idea lead you into the patent absurdity of anarchism, and, yes, anarchism is patently absurd. Just look at Somalia. I've been here for 3.5 years now reading all your arguments. Don't tell me I haven't considered it. The entire system is predicated on radical individualism, the NAP, which leads to the absurd conclusion that one cannot punish getaway drivers or disposers of a body that belonged to a murdered individual because they didn't actually commit an act of aggression themselves, merely abetting one, and that taxation equals theft. I'm sorry, but legislating a tax to pay for police (and, yes, I believe that we should have police/sheriff's departments) and other essential state services is not "theft." The debate in my mind is about what's an essential state service, not whether we should have a state.

If this movement is about advancing voluntary taxation and other libertarian silliness, count me out. I joined to advance Constitutional government, the rule of law, and a modest foreign policy. Not to advance the platform of the Libertarian Party.


Not to be dismissive (I am a Christian), but this was not a religious question in any way whatsoever. Whether or not Jesus or the Bible support taxation, liberalism, anarchy, libertarianism et al is not relevant to a political debate. I respect all of your opinions but I feel this thread has been hijacked to religious discussion when it was intended to be entirely secular in nature.

Well, I believe it is relevant. God rules over the civil magistrate too.

[Krugerrand]

The idea that taxation is, by necessity, theft I guess is just taken for granted here. It's really hard to argue with an axiom as strongly held as "taxation is theft" by the libertarians. Never mind the consequences of the idea lead you into the patent absurdity of anarchism, and, yes, anarchism is patently absurd. Just look at Somalia. I've been here for 3.5 years now reading all your arguments. Don't tell me I haven't considered it. The entire system is predicated on radical individualism, the NAP, which leads to the absurd conclusion that one cannot punish getaway drivers or disposers of a body that belonged to a murdered individual because they didn't actually commit an act of aggression themselves, merely abetting one, and that taxation equals theft. I'm sorry, but legislating a tax to pay for police (and, yes, I believe that we should have police/sheriff's departments) and other essential state services is not "theft." The debate in my mind is about what's an essential state service, not whether we should have a state.

If this movement is about advancing voluntary taxation and other libertarian silliness, count me out. I joined to advance Constitutional government, the rule of law, and a modest foreign policy. Not to advance the platform of the Libertarian Party.



Well, I believe it is relevant. God rules over the civil magistrate too.

No need to count yourself out just because the big RP tent attracts people who you may disagree with.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The idea that taxation is, by necessity, theft I guess is just taken for granted here. It's really hard to argue with an axiom as strongly held as "taxation is theft" by the libertarians. Never mind the consequences of the idea lead you into the patent absurdity of anarchism, and, yes, anarchism is patently absurd. Just look at Somalia. I've been here for 3.5 years now reading all your arguments. Don't tell me I haven't considered it. The entire system is predicated on radical individualism, the NAP, which leads to the absurd conclusion that one cannot punish getaway drivers or disposers of a body that belonged to a murdered individual because they didn't actually commit an act of aggression themselves, merely abetting one, and that taxation equals theft. I'm sorry, but legislating a tax to pay for police (and, yes, I believe that we should have police/sheriff's departments) and other essential state services is not "theft." The debate in my mind is about what's an essential state service, not whether we should have a state.

If this movement is about advancing voluntary taxation and other libertarian silliness, count me out. I joined to advance Constitutional government, the rule of law, and a modest foreign policy. Not to advance the platform of the Libertarian Party.



Well, I believe it is relevant. God rules over the civil magistrate too.

Taxation presumes the State owns you. As a Natural Law Thomist I reject the premise on its face. I have a natural right to dispose of my body as I choose and to dispose of the fruits of my labor as I see fit. It is not a radical notion whatsoever that you are a sovereign individual free by nature and with liberties that are as natural as the air we breath -- anything else is slavery either partial, chattel, or merely indentured servitude.

Finally, I really hate the State-apologists who use the canard that 'anarchists' (Free-Marketeers / Propertarians) are against police aka security services when nothing is further from the truth. I'll leave with this quote and just add in whatever State services you feel like.


"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." - Frederic Bastiat

The State by nature is a socialist institution.

[nate895]

Taxation presumes the State owns you. As a Natural Law Thomist I reject the premise on its face. I have a natural right to dispose of my body as I choose and to dispose of the fruits of my labor as I see fit. It is not a radical notion whatsoever that you are a sovereign individual free by nature and with liberties that are as natural as the air we breath -- anything else is slavery either partial, chattel, or merely indentured servitude.

Finally, I really hate the State-apologists who use the canard that 'anarchists' (Free-Marketeers / Propertarians) are against police aka security services when nothing is further from the truth. I'll leave with this quote and just add in whatever State services you feel like.

Natural rights Thomism implies anarchism? I dare you to tell that to Thomas Aquinas.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Natural rights Thomism implies anarchism? I dare you to tell that to Thomas Aquinas.

Yes. Aquinas contradicted his own philosophy -- whereas Rothbard took Aquinas' and John of Paris philosophy to its natural conclusion. How can one reconcile that you own your own body and the fruits of it -- yet, at the same time deny it by supporting the legitimacy of an institution which claims rights over your body and your labor? It is illogical and contradictory to support Natural Law and support the State.

[nate895]

No need to count yourself out just because the big RP tent attracts people who you may disagree with.

I certainly agree with that, but it seems that certain members of the Ron Paul tent are using to advance their radical ideology and accuse those of us who disagree with it of being a "statist" of some kind. As far as I'm concerned, anarchism is not only wrong, it's dangerous.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I certainly agree with that, but it seems that certain members of the Ron Paul tent are using to advance their radical ideology and accuse those of us who disagree with it of being a "statist" of some kind. As far as I'm concerned, anarchism is not only wrong, it's dangerous.

Ownership of your own body is dangerous! We must have wise overlords to command us!

This is just patently ridiculous seeing as Ron Paul is a voluntaryist. The man follows Spooner, Rothbard, and Bastiat.

[nate895]

Yes. Aquinas contradicted his own philosophy -- whereas Rothbard took Aquinas' and John of Paris philosophy to its natural conclusion. How can one reconcile that you own your own body and the fruits of it -- yet, at the same time deny it by supporting the legitimacy of an institution which claims rights over your body and your labor? It is illogical and contradictory to support Natural Law and support the State.

Love how you demonstrated that. Never mind that "nature" (I'm not a natural law guy, although my philosophy is similar) seems to have universally instituted government. Natural law must be opposed to the state, even though through the course of human development, the instances of anarchism are few and far between, and riddled with problems.

[nate895]

Ownership of your own body is dangerous! We must have wise overlords to command us!

See, look what I'm talking about. They can't have an honest debate. They have to accuse you of wanting a society where the state owns us.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Love how you demonstrated that. Never mind that "nature" (I'm not a natural law guy, although my philosophy is similar) seems to have universally instituted government. Natural law must be opposed to the state, even though through the course of human development, the instances of anarchism are few and far between, and riddled with problems.

Whereas the State is not riddled with problems. This is the common objection from all State-supporters that they transpose the definition of natural as seen in the Oxford Dictionary with the Philosophic connotation and use/definition of Natural Law, when the two couldn't be more seperate and distinct. Natural Law has nothing whatsoever to do with "nature". You should at least know this seeing as you are familiar with Aquinas', John of Paris, Richard Overton/John Lilburne, Spooner, Rothbard, Bastiat, and the rest right?

[Wesker1982]

Never mind the consequences of the idea lead you into the patent absurdity of anarchism, and, yes, anarchism is patently absurd. Just look at Somalia.


Statism is absurd, look at Nazi Germany! FYI: Somalia has improved under
anarchy.

On Somalia: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?290783-Help-Me-Debunk-This&p=3247815&viewfull=1#post3247815



1:10:00 to 1:31:29 on Somalia:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5PbLLBfiM8&feature=feedwll&list=WL
This whole video is very good btw.

Another (and shorter) video on Somalia:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNroxDWDP8w

What if we compare Anarchic Ireland (which was civilized) to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? Stateless Ireland lasted peacefully for over 1,000 years, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had unsustainable economic systems and murdered millions of people. So wouldn't this prove that Anarchy is better than statism?...

Comparing the most successful governments (U.S.A) to the least successful stateless societies (Somalia) doesn't really tell us anything more than comparing anarchic Ireland to government in Nazi Germany...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZi45Mf6jYY

Medieval Iceland (stateless) lasted for like 300 years, it was also better than Nazi Germany, therefore anarchy>government. (according to the logic used by people who use Somalia as an argument against a stateless society)
http://mises.org/daily/1121



Don't tell me I haven't considered it.


After reading:



the NAP, which leads to the absurd conclusion that one cannot punish getaway drivers or disposers of a body that belonged to a murdered individual because they didn't actually commit an act of aggression themselves, merely abetting one

Yes, you have not considered it. That quote proves it. And just curious, do you really think Tom Woods (he is an anarchist) would advocate a system that allows what you suggested?

See:
For a New Liberty http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
The Ethics of Liberty http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
Anarchy and the Law http://mises.org/store/Anarchy-and-the-Law-P335.aspx
The Market for Liberty http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf
Chaos Theory http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

Audio available on all of these except Anarchy and the Law.

[Krugerrand]

See, look what I'm talking about. They can't have an honest debate. They have to accuse you of wanting a society where the state owns us.

Take it for what it is ... a forum of ideas. State your case, support it, and then move on to another thread.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

See, look what I'm talking about. They can't have an honest debate. They have to accuse you of wanting a society where the state owns us.

How does the State not own you when they level taxes (aka compulsion)? There can be no other description where an institution lays claim to your body and your property for itself.

[jmdrake]

The idea that taxation is, by necessity, theft I guess is just taken for granted here. It's really hard to argue with an axiom as strongly held as "taxation is theft" by the libertarians. Never mind the consequences of the idea lead you into the patent absurdity of anarchism, and, yes, anarchism is patently absurd. Just look at Somalia.


Somalia was doing pretty good before the U.S. paid their ancient enemies the Ethiopians to invade. And Somaliland, a different country altogether from Somalia, has a perfectly functioning government, low levels of violence, and all done through voluntary citizen contributions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds7K2QQQK3s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMf89xPcKxg

Also Somalia has arguably done better after it became an anarchy then when it was a government and it does to better than many "governed" similarly situated countries. I'm not an anarchist, but the "look at Somalia" counter argument is weak at best.



I've been here for 3.5 years now reading all your arguments. Don't tell me I haven't considered it.

You apparently haven't considered Somaliland. While it is not an anarchy, it's not a forced taxation state either.




The entire system is predicated on radical individualism, the NAP, which leads to the absurd conclusion that one cannot punish getaway drivers or disposers of a body that belonged to a murdered individual because they didn't actually commit an act of aggression themselves, merely abetting one, and that taxation equals theft. I'm sorry, but legislating a tax to pay for police (and, yes, I believe that we should have police/sheriff's departments) and other essential state services is not "theft." The debate in my mind is about what's an essential state service, not whether we should have a state.


Straw man argument. Do you realize that many communities still have a volunteer fire department? If you can have a voluntary fire department, why can't you have a voluntary police department? You can have essential services without forcing people to pay for them. Again, the Vatican is a state paid for by voluntary donations.



If this movement is about advancing voluntary taxation and other libertarian silliness, count me out. I joined to advance Constitutional government, the rule of law, and a modest foreign policy. Not to advance the platform of the Libertarian Party.


Then by all means count yourself out. Ron Paul said that we should repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/
“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80

Now think about this. Do you really think we need government to be as big as it was in the 1990s? If your answer is yes then we need to maintain corporate taxes, fees and excise taxes. But if the answer is no, if you really believe restoring government to its pre-1913 levels (no welfare state or warfare state) then it should be possible to fund the entire government on fees and voluntary contributions.

[Krugerrand]

Then by all means count yourself out. Ron Paul said that we should repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/
“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80

Now think about this. Do you really think we need government to be as big as it was in the 1990s? If your answer is yes then we need to maintain corporate taxes, fees and excise taxes. But if the answer is no, if you really believe restoring government to its pre-1913 levels (no welfare state or warfare state) then it should be possible to fund the entire government on fees and voluntary contributions.

In fairness to Nate ... RP's income tax line doesn't really apply because the thread conversation was pretty much covering all taxes. RP's line was get rid of income taxes as the OTHER TAXES are enough.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

In fairness to Nate ... RP's income tax line doesn't really apply because the thread conversation was pretty much covering all taxes. RP's line was get rid of income taxes as the OTHER TAXES are enough.

However, Ron has said time and time again his goal is a voluntary society. He is not beyond using the Constitution to move the posts closer to this destination and this is where 'Constitutionalists' get mixed up in Ron's stated destination. Join the ride, and feel free to hop off wherever you feel comfortable. I'll take whatever small victories for my natural rights as I can get.

Off-topic: Constitutionalists really crack me up at times. They hate Hamilton, but yet would vote for Federalist Party propaganda aka Constitution. They would be Hamiltonian supporters in 1780s, whereas libertarians would be Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. If I ever meet a Constitutionalist who supports Yates, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry I never miss a chance to throw a little history in to show how much of a contradictory position they hold if the Constitution is their destination.

[mport1]

Taxation is never acceptable. Taxation is theft and theft is wrong.

[nate895]

Whereas the State is not riddled with problems. This is the common objection from all State-supporters that they transpose the definition of natural as seen in the Oxford Dictionary with the Philosophic connotation and use/definition of Natural Law, when the two couldn't be more seperate and distinct. Natural Law has nothing whatsoever to do with "nature". You should at least know this seeing as you are familiar with Aquinas', John of Paris, Richard Overton/John Lilburne, Spooner, Rothbard, Bastiat, and the rest right?

One of the many reasons I'm not a natural law guy. The idea there is some kind of innate law within nature outside of the authority of personality is manifestly absurd. How a non-person can innately possess a law is just inexplicable. In order for there to be a law, there must be a lawgiver. Of course, I believe that would be God, who revealed the fundamental principles of the law in the Ten Commandments and the greatest commands, and He instituted the state to enforce those laws.

Furthermore, the Roman Catholics and Thomistic Protestants (who, I don't know, actually follow Thomas Aquinas in the same intellectual tradition) generally agree that nature and natural law are related. For instance, the reason why Roman Catholics and many Protestants oppose gay marriage is because nature demands that gays cannot marry because they cannot conjugate the relationship (which requires a penis and a vagina, to put it bluntly). Thus, nature prevents gay marriage.

[nate895]

How does the State not own you when they level taxes (aka compulsion)? There can be no other description where an institution lays claim to your body and your property for itself.

God owns us. Our first fruits should go to Him through the tithe (of course, they don't because of withholding). He also authorized the state to take taxes, which they are in charge of. It isn't that the state owns you, or even the taxes, the state is just made stewards of their portion.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

God owns us. Our first fruits should go to Him through the tithe (of course, they don't because of withholding). He also authorized the state to take taxes, which they are in charge of. It isn't that the state owns you, or even the taxes, the state is just made stewards of their portion.

Well...how can I argue with God. In with the Theocracy!

[nate895]

Statism is absurd, look at Nazi Germany! FYI: Somalia has improved under
anarchy.

On Somalia: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?290783-Help-Me-Debunk-This&p=3247815&viewfull=1#post3247815


If you support the state, you must support Nazi Germany!

As far as Somalia "improving" under anarchy, it's really hard not to improve from the condition they were in pre-anarchy with a totalitarian despotism, which is just as bad as anarchy. Furthermore, what Somalia has is rule by gang, which is exactly what we "statists" expect to happen in non-state societies. Go to a different neighborhood, and a new militia is looking to extort some cash for the enforcement of their social order on their city block. If you try to travel the rural highways, the militias will demand tolls. The malcontents in society, many from the semi-state militias, wind up becoming pirates. And this is what we want society to look like? I'm sorry, but I enjoy the ability to cross country unmolested on the highways. We don't have totalitarian despotism in this country, so I'm not willing to trade it for anarchy anytime soon.

[nate895]

Well...how can I argue with God.

Exactly.

[AndrewD]

If you support the state, you must support Nazi Germany!

As far as Somalia "improving" under anarchy, it's really hard not to improve from the condition they were in pre-anarchy with a totalitarian despotism, which is just as bad as anarchy. Furthermore, what Somalia has is rule by gang, which is exactly what we "statists" expect to happen in non-state societies. Go to a different neighborhood, and a new militia is looking to extort some cash for the enforcement of their social order on their city block. If you try to travel the rural highways, the militias will demand tolls. The malcontents in society, many from the semi-state militias, wind up becoming pirates. And this is what we want society to look like? I'm sorry, but I enjoy the ability to cross country unmolested on the highways. We don't have totalitarian despotism in this country, so I'm not willing to trade it for anarchy anytime soon.

Good point bro. I see the local Anarchists have come out of the woodworks again. What a pity. I never exactly understood what their goal was. Are they out to prove that Anarchism is the BEST way to live? Or that it simply works? That its "better" than statism? I mean there are some quite varying differences between states. You can't just lump them all together. Ah well. There will never be any type of Anarchy in America anyways. Maybe they'll find an island in the Pacific, where they can all go hash it out Lord of the Flies style. As for me, i'll stay put and try my damnest to live in a country that follows our Constitution. I'm good with that.

[heavenlyboy34]

God owns us. Our first fruits should go to Him through the tithe (of course, they don't because of withholding). He also authorized the state to take taxes, which they are in charge of. It isn't that the state owns you, or even the taxes, the state is just made stewards of their portion.

Au contraire. Tax collectors, along with userers, were parasites in Yeshua's time, as now. They were dregs, losers, and scoundrels-thieves employed by the Romans. Although Yeshua showed them grace (including Matthew), this does not mean that taxes or tax collectors were(are) justified. Tax collectors were considered so disgraceful that the Pharisees accused Jesus of being "a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Luke 7:34).

[heavenlyboy34]

Good point bro. I see the local Anarchists have come out of the woodworks again. What a pity. I never exactly understood what their goal was. Are they out to prove that Anarchism is the BEST way to live? Or that it simply works? That its "better" than statism? I mean there are some quite varying differences between states. You can't just lump them all together. Ah well. There will never be any type of Anarchy in America anyways. Maybe they'll find an island in the Pacific, where they can all go hash it out Lord of the Flies style. As for me, i'll stay put and try my damnest to live in a country that follows our Constitution. I'm good with that.

Well, there has been successful statelessness in America (particularly in the Western frontier), so its not an impossibility. That said, I favor voluntaryism, because many people simply aren't ready for it yet.

[nate895]

Well, there has been successful statelessness in America (particularly in the Western frontier), so its not an impossibility. That said, I favor voluntaryism, because many people simply aren't ready for it yet.

The Western frontier was never under a state of anarchy. It always had a state, albeit a weak one at times. Do you also not remember the history of the Jamestown colony? The Jamestown colony only succeeded after a governor came in and forced people to work. Before it had an effective governor that established law and order, the "gentlemen" would simply steal from the people who worked. Or is that a conspiracy by the "statists" to prove their point?

[Wesker1982]

If you support the state, you must support Nazi Germany!


That is the logic you are using when you say: "anarchy is absurd, look at Somalia." It is just as poor of an argument as saying statism = Nazi Germany.


Furthermore, what Somalia has is rule by gang, which is exactly what we "statists" expect to happen in non-state societies. Go to a different neighborhood, and a new militia is looking to extort some cash for the enforcement of their social order on their city block. If you try to travel the rural highways, the militias will demand tolls. The malcontents in society, many from the semi-state militias, wind up becoming pirates.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXS-Gzz_C9g

41:54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNRzI64L9Q

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The Western frontier was never under a state of anarchy. It always had a state, albeit a weak one at times. Do you also not remember the history of the Jamestown colony? The Jamestown colony only succeeded after a governor came in and forced people to work. Before it had an effective governor that established law and order, the "gentlemen" would simply steal from the people who worked. Or is that a conspiracy by the "statists" to prove their point?

That's not true whatsoever. Please do some research before you spout off lies.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Besides, Quaker Pennsylvania was doing just fine as an anarchy before William Penn came in and fucked everything up.

[Verrater]

He also authorized the state to take taxes, which they are in charge of. It isn't that the state owns you, or even the taxes, the state is just made stewards of their portion.

Their portion of my labor and life?
The state is not the hand of God, that is insane.

I support some taxation to help the basic foundation of society, meaning executing state laws and the Constitution and nothing beyond that.
In my opinion that is part of the social contract.

[Krugerrand]

Their portion of my labor and life?
The state is not the hand of God, that is insane.

I support some taxation to help the basic foundation of society, meaning executing state laws and the Constitution and nothing beyond that.
In my opinion that is part of the social contract.

:eek: Please, tell me you didn't just say "social contract!" :D

[nate895]

Their portion of my labor and life?
The state is not the hand of God, that is insane.

I support some taxation to help the basic foundation of society, meaning executing state laws and the Constitution and nothing beyond that.
In my opinion that is part of the social contract.

Read Romans 13:1-7. It is explicitly stated that the authorities come from God.


That's not true whatsoever. Please do some research before you spout off lies.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Besides, Quaker Pennsylvania was doing just fine as an anarchy before William Penn came in and fucked everything up.

I was talking about Jamestown, not Quaker Pennsylvania or the "Wild West," which had things called "sheriffs," which are government agents, btw. There were also Federal marshals, and laws instituted by governments. Albeit, these institutions were weak, perhaps, but they still did provide a semblance of law and order.

As far as Quaker Pennsylvania, if Penn "fucked everything up," as you put it, what on earth would possess people to name the colony after him when he specifically requested them not to?

[jmdrake]

Read Romans 13:1-7. It is explicitly stated that the authorities come from God.

Yes. God specifically authorized the beheading of Paul. Hallelujah!

[nate895]

Yes. God specifically authorized the beheading of Paul. Hallelujah!

Actually, he did decree in eternity past that Caesar would do that. The idea that government is legitimate is not negated by its improper use by men who do not know the will of God and who are only acting upon their own selfish desires.

[jmdrake]

In fairness to Nate ... RP's income tax line doesn't really apply because the thread conversation was pretty much covering all taxes. RP's line was get rid of income taxes as the OTHER TAXES are enough.

Did you miss the point that Ron said and that I emphasized that other taxes were only necessary if you wanted to fund the federal government at 1990 levels? If you are willing to get rid of the "Great Society", the "New Deal" and the military industrial complex, all positions Ron Paul has taken, then how much in taxes do you really need? And think of the billions spent every 2 years by different groups around the country (including us) trying to certain people elected to office so that can get the government to spend money in a certain way (that would be just about everybody but us). Imagine if instead of all of this campaign spending, people cut out the middle man and just funded what they wanted. You want free healthcare for all? Don't spend money on pro healthcare politicians. Donate directly to organizations offering free healthcare. You want money for Israel? Donate to Israel. You want money for the Palestinians? Donate to the Palestinians. I know that's a pipe dream because one side would invariably cheat, fund their politicians who would then force the rest of us to pay for things we don't agree with. Still it's the right idea.

[KingRobbStark]

When its voluntary.

[jmdrake]

Actually, he did decree in eternity past that Caesar would do that. The idea that government is legitimate is not negated by its improper use by men who do not know the will of God and who are only acting upon their own selfish desires.

Uh-huh. Except the government in power at the time was pagan and directly against God. When Israel ask for a king God told Samuel that they were not rejecting Samuel but God. And I don't recall any of the judges collecting taxes.

[Verrater]

Yes. God specifically authorized the beheading of Paul. Hallelujah!

+1 Paul wasn't writing to the people, he was addressing Rome.
Get real, nate.

[Krugerrand]

Did you miss the point that Ron said and that I emphasized that other taxes were only necessary if you wanted to fund the federal government at 1990 levels? If you are willing to get rid of the "Great Society", the "New Deal" and the military industrial complex, all positions Ron Paul has taken, then how much in taxes do you really need? And think of the billions spent every 2 years by different groups around the country (including us) trying to certain people elected to office so that can get the government to spend money in a certain way (that would be just about everybody but us). Imagine if instead of all of this campaign spending, people cut out the middle man and just funded what they wanted. You want free healthcare for all? Don't spend money on pro healthcare politicians. Donate directly to organizations offering free healthcare. You want money for Israel? Donate to Israel. You want money for the Palestinians? Donate to the Palestinians. I know that's a pipe dream because one side would invariably cheat, fund their politicians who would then force the rest of us to pay for things we don't agree with. Still it's the right idea.

I've never heard RP suggest that the Federal Government should be stripped of all revenue that is not voluntary. Edit - don't forget, my first post on the topic was to let the Federal Government only have a poll tax. (and I haven't even sold myself on the idea.)

[nate895]

Uh-huh. Except the government in power at the time was pagan and directly against God. When Israel ask for a king God told Samuel that they were not rejecting Samuel but God. And I don't recall any of the judges collecting taxes.


Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Yes, civil authorities misuse their lawful authority. No one is questioning that, but deal with the text of Romans 13:1-7.

[nate895]

+1 Paul wasn't writing to the people, he was addressing Rome.
Get real, nate.

He was addressing the Church at Rome, to average Christians. You guys are the ones who need to deal with the text instead of trying to play interpretive gymnastics by asserting how it just doesn't apply to you.

[TheDrakeMan]

Taxation needs to be at a bare minimum. Let taxes provide for basic things like highways, border control, military, etc..

[Bryan]

When it's agree to.

... and suitable alternatives are provided for those who do not want to pay the tax if opting-out it seriously restricts opportunity / freedom (a very rare case).

[jmdrake]

I've never heard RP suggest that the Federal Government should be stripped of all revenue that is not voluntary. Edit - don't forget, my first post on the topic was to let the Federal Government only have a poll tax. (and I haven't even sold myself on the idea.)

I didn't say that he did. That said, here is Ron Paul agreeing with the idea of eventually moving away from government at all and going to self-government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EBbYOAsi00&t=3m57s

But my point wasn't specifically "what is Ron Paul's exact position". Instead it was "If I trust Ron Paul's numbers (and I do) then why do we need more than user fees and voluntary contributions?" Really I don't know why that's not clear. I believe the government was way too big in the 1990s. So logic suggests that the taxes needed to support 1990 levels of spending are too high also.

[Verrater]

He was addressing the Church at Rome, to average Christians. You guys are the ones who need to deal with the text instead of trying to play interpretive gymnastics by asserting how it just doesn't apply to you.

You need to stop looking at text without looking at the historical context, that's irresponsible.

[jmdrake]

Yes, civil authorities misuse their lawful authority. No one is questioning that, but deal with the text of Romans 13:1-7.

That's easy. Paul was making the best of a bad situation. Trying to overthrow the Roman Empire would have been sect suicide. It's no different from Jeremiah telling Judah to submit to the coming Babylonian yoke. That doesn't mean that modern day Iraq should be ruling all Jews. Now you deal with 1 Samuel 8:6-18.

6But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

9Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

10And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

11And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

Editor's note. In the above verse God warns Israel that taxes are a negative consequence of them rejecting Him for an earthly king

16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but sometimes God has allowed His people to take the less than optimum route. It was the same thing with divorce.

Matthew 19:6-8 (King James Version)

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

In the case of divorce or of Israel demanding a king, the problem was of His people's own making. In the case of Romans 13 the problem was an external threat. But it's illogical to extrapolate from Romans 13 that God requires a government like Rome to rule over people, take taxes and behead people for preaching the gospel.

[Krugerrand]

I didn't say that he did. That said, here is Ron Paul agreeing with the idea of eventually moving away from government at all and going to self-government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EBbYOAsi00&t=3m57s

But my point wasn't specifically "what is Ron Paul's exact position". Instead it was "If I trust Ron Paul's numbers (and I do) then why do we need more than user fees and voluntary contributions?" Really I don't know why that's not clear. I believe the government was way too big in the 1990s. So logic suggests that the taxes needed to support 1990 levels of spending are too high also.

I'll readily accept that any lack of clarity was my own fault.

[nate895]

That's easy. Paul was making the best of a bad situation. Trying to overthrow the Roman Empire would have been sect suicide. It's no different from Jeremiah telling Judah to submit to the coming Babylonian yoke. That doesn't mean that modern day Iraq should be ruling all Jews. Now you deal with 1 Samuel 8:6-18.

6But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

9Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

10And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

11And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

Editor's note. In the above verse God warns Israel that taxes are a negative consequence of them rejecting Him for an earthly king

16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

Weren't you accusing me of going to another text to overturn a text in Revelations 3 by an appeal to John 6 (which I wasn't doing in the first place)? And here you are going to I Samuel 8 when I was talking about Romans 13. I thought that you couldn't do that. Strange.

Notice that Paul doesn't say that civil government is bad. He says that it is good, specifically. He doesn't say you should go along with government to make a bad situation better, he's saying that the state comes from God, and they have authority over certain realms. Yes, that authority can be abused, and frequently is. The Bible can also be abused to prove anything (one of us is obviously wrong here). Shall we abolish the Bible?

[Wesker1982]

I've never heard RP suggest that the Federal Government should be stripped of all revenue that is not voluntary.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?291050-Ron-Paul-reconfirms-he-s-a-voluntarist&p=3254157&viewfull=1#post3254157

[x] Voluntary Defense Services
[x] Voluntary National Defense Services
[x] Voluntary Courts

+

If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed.- Ron Paul

= Suggesting voluntary funding.

[jmdrake]

Weren't you accusing me of going to another text to overturn a text in Revelations 3 by an appeal to John 6 (which I wasn't doing in the first place)? And here you are going to I Samuel 8 when I was talking about Romans 13. I thought that you couldn't do that. Strange.

No. I was accusing you of falsely claiming that I was taking Revelations 3 out of context by appealing to John 6. John 6 is not the context of Revelation 3. And I'm not "overturning" a text as you call it. I explained what was wrong with your interpretation of Romans 13. Then I gave you another text to consider (1 Samuel 8).



Notice that Paul doesn't say that civil government is bad. He says that it is good, specifically.

Of course he didn't say Rome was bad. He didn't say Caesar was bad. That would have been stupid and would have given the authorities reason to come crashing down on his fledgling sect. The Jews continually tried to tempt Jesus into attacking Caesar in order to get Rome to do their dirty work for them. They continued this foul tactic under the new regime. But Paul never said that Christians should actually make use of that civil authority. Quite the contrary he rebuked Christians for suing other Christians instead of handling their problems internally. You deal with the hand you are dealt. If you are born into a society where a brutal pagan government is running around looking for excuses to throw people to the lions, you don't preach sermons about how great life would be without this government. But that doesn't mean that if you are in a position to have actual influence that you must create such a brutal and oppressive government.



He doesn't say you should go along with government to make a bad situation better, he's saying that the state comes from God, and they have authority over certain realms. Yes, that authority can be abused, and frequently is. The Bible can also be abused to prove anything (one of us is obviously wrong here). Shall we abolish the Bible?

Taxation itself is an abuse of government power. God said Himself that those who wanted a king were rejecting Him and taxation was an abusive result. Shall we abolish God in favor of Paul? In the book of Philemon Paul described how he told a runaway slave to return to his master. Many fools take that as an endorsement of slavery. They ignore where Paul said that he had a right to demand Philemon set his slave free, but instead he (Paul) requested Philemon do the right thing and offered to pay off whatever debt the slave owned. The lesson here? The Christian method Paul espoused for social change was to try to convince everyone to seek to live peaceably with others (in other words don't start a war with Caesar over taxes), but then to turn around and get people to live an aggression free live themselves. Nowhere do you see Paul advising civil leaders that they should take taxes, only that Christians should go ahead and pay them. Christians should turn the other cheek when smitten too. That doesn't mean that striking people on their cheek is a good thing to do.

Anyway, I'm starting to see why some here are so anti religion. You haven't even attempted an argument as to why you think taxation is actually necessary for a truly minarchist government. Instead you've appealed to "Paul says pay your taxes so taxes must be a good thing." Well Paul said to slaves to return to their masters. That doesn't mean slavery is a good thing. But maybe slavery is a good thing? Either way that leaves us with taxes = slavery.

[nate895]

No. I was accusing you of deceitfully claiming that I was taking Revelations 3 out of context by appealing to John 6. Don't be dishonest now Nate. You're better than that. And I'm not "overturning" a text as you call it. I explained what was wrong with your interpretation of Romans 13. Then I gave you another text to consider (1 Samuel 8).



Of course he didn't say Rome was bad. He didn't say Caesar was bad. That would have been stupid and would have given the authorities reason to come crashing down on his fledgling sect. The Jews continually tried to tempt Jesus into attacking Caesar in order to get Rome to do their dirty work for them. They continued this foul tactic under the new regime. But Paul never said that Christians should actually make use of that civil authority. Quite the contrary he rebuked Christians for suing other Christians instead of handling their problems internally. You deal with the hand you are dealt. If you are born into a society where a brutal pagan government is running around looking for excuses to throw people to the lions, you don't preach sermons about how great life would be without this government. But that doesn't mean that if you are in a position to have actual influence that you must create such a brutal and oppressive government.




Wait, so an Apostle of Jesus Christ was afraid! That's your explanation, really? He specifically said that civil government was good. Specifically. He didn't say obey it because it's convenient and you won't get harassed. He said it's your duty.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ownership of your own body is dangerous! We must have wise overlords to command us!

This is just patently ridiculous seeing as Ron Paul is a voluntaryist. The man follows Spooner, Rothbard, and Bastiat.

lolz ;)

[jmdrake]

Wait, so an Apostle of Jesus Christ was afraid! That's your explanation, really?

:rolleyes: Where did I use the word "afraid"? Paul was being prudent just like Jesus told His followers to be.

Matthew 10:16 (King James Version)

16Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

And also:

Matthew 5:25 (King James Version)

25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

And that's the example Jesus set Himself. Often His enemies sought to entrap Him and Jesus purposefully avoided the controversy because He knew that would distract from His primary mission. A case in point is when Peter told Jesus that he (Peter) had told the Pharisees that Jesus paid the temple tax.

Matthew 17:24-28 (King James Version)
24And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

For someone who claims to be a theology major you have a surprisingly shallow understanding of the scriptures.



He specifically said that civil government was good. Specifically. He didn't say obey it because it's convenient and you won't get harassed. He said it's your duty.

And yet you and I both know the actual civil government of Paul's day was evil and incredibly corrupt. How did the "essential services" of Paul's day help Christians? Did they help by throwing Paul and others in prison? Did the police help buy allowing Paul and his cohorts to be stoned and then turning around and whipping Paul for causing the disturbance? Was Paul ultimately helped by appealing to the courts of Caesar? How about that Roman fire service that Nero had burn Rome only to blame it on the Christians?

Regardless, you really are extrapolating here and avoiding (purposefully perhaps) the real issue. Saying civilian government is a good thing is not the same thing as saying that the civilian government must be funded through taxes. Most of the taxes being taken by the Roman government were uses for things like oppressive imperial armies, lavish palaces for Caesar or debased entertainment for Caesar and his minions. Even the roads existed primarily so that the armies could quickly move to spread oppression. Paul didn't need to say that was bad. That goes without saying and you've even acknowledged that multiple times in this thread. But none of your arguments go to the question of whether a government designed from the ground up to be for the people, of the people and by the people needs to be funded by coercion. I'm beginning to think that you don't actually have an answer to that question.

[A Son of Liberty]

The idea that taxation is, by necessity, theft I guess is just taken for granted here. It's really hard to argue with an axiom as strongly held as "taxation is theft" by the libertarians. Never mind the consequences of the idea lead you into the patent absurdity of anarchism, and, yes, anarchism is patently absurd. Just look at Somalia. I've been here for 3.5 years now reading all your arguments. Don't tell me I haven't considered it. The entire system is predicated on radical individualism, the NAP, which leads to the absurd conclusion that one cannot punish getaway drivers or disposers of a body that belonged to a murdered individual because they didn't actually commit an act of aggression themselves, merely abetting one, and that taxation equals theft. I'm sorry, but legislating a tax to pay for police (and, yes, I believe that we should have police/sheriff's departments) and other essential state services is not "theft." The debate in my mind is about what's an essential state service, not whether we should have a state.

If this movement is about advancing voluntary taxation and other libertarian silliness, count me out. I joined to advance Constitutional government, the rule of law, and a modest foreign policy. Not to advance the platform of the Libertarian Party.

I realize this is some 5 pages back, but I just have to respond to this post...

I can't speak for everyone as I'm relatively new around here, but I advance the "notion" that taxation is theft because it is a logically-consistent "notion" to advance. Nothing in your post refutes this. Again, as a new poster it may be that you've debated this point in the past and haven't the energy to do it now.

There is nothing absurd about anarchism. It also is the only moral, logically consistent position to take. I can understand and appreciate utilitarian arguments in favor of some incarnation of statism, but I've never really encountered a logically consistent and morally sound one.

As a Christian, I'm surprised to interpret a little snark in your comment toward the non-aggression principle from the likes of yourself. There's nothing about anarchism nor non-aggression that presumes that certain acts of aggression cannot be remediated.

Toward your question of "the movement", I think you'll find Dr. Paul to be at a minimum a closet-voluntaryist; my own opinion is that he recognizes the objective truth of philosophical anarchism, but works within the political system to bring about a better-than-what-we've-got-now world.

[Theocrat]

I actually believe that taxes should be paid just as tithes and offerings are paid: voluntarily. Taxes are necessary to have and maintain civil government, which is an institution ordained by God (see Romans 13). As a matter of fact, in Romans 13, God commands that we pay the civil magistrates tribute (or taxes) for their ministry of punishing the wicked (in defense and justice) as well as for praising the righteous (in protection of life, liberty, property, etc.).

The penalty for not paying taxes should not be imprisonment, confiscation of property, loss of privileges, or anything like that. The penalty comes when enough revenue is not generated from refusal to pay taxes to fund the civil government programs which benefit society (in the things the magistrate has the right to do). However, I also see such an act as the people "voting with their wallets," by telling officials in government that they do not support a particular program or policy. That puts pressure on the civil authorities to adjust their program/policies accordingly and/or address the concerns of the taxpayers, as in a negotiation.

[MelissaWV]

Why did this become a Bible thread? Really?

[nate895]

I realize this is some 5 pages back, but I just have to respond to this post...

I can't speak for everyone as I'm relatively new around here, but I advance the "notion" that taxation is theft because it is a logically-consistent "notion" to advance. Nothing in your post refutes this. Again, as a new poster it may be that you've debated this point in the past and haven't the energy to do it now.

There is nothing absurd about anarchism. It also is the only moral, logically consistent position to take. I can understand and appreciate utilitarian arguments in favor of some incarnation of statism, but I've never really encountered a logically consistent and morally sound one.

As a Christian, I'm surprised to interpret a little snark in your comment toward the non-aggression principle from the likes of yourself. There's nothing about anarchism nor non-aggression that presumes that certain acts of aggression cannot be remediated.

Toward your question of "the movement", I think you'll find Dr. Paul to be at a minimum a closet-voluntaryist; my own opinion is that he recognizes the objective truth of philosophical anarchism, but works within the political system to bring about a better-than-what-we've-got-now world.

You guys have never been able to prove that taxation is, actually, theft. Considering we've lived on a tax system since time immemorial with rare exception, it's on the anarchist to prove his point. Taxes are not theft when they are used for the lawful purposes of the state, i.e., the provision of an ordered liberty. Order/Protection of Life comes first, then Liberty, then Property. Libertarians seem to go about it bassackwards, picking property first sometimes, and liberty first others.

[nate895]

Why did this become a Bible thread? Really?

Because the Bible speaks about this subject and I believe that we should apply the teachings of Scripture to every area of life, even politics.

[jmdrake]

You guys have never been able to prove that taxation is, actually, theft. Considering we've lived on a tax system since time immemorial with rare exception, it's on the anarchist to prove his point. Taxes are not theft when they are used for the lawful purposes of the state, i.e., the provision of an ordered liberty. Order/Protection of Life comes first, then Liberty, then Property. Libertarians seem to go about it bassackwards, picking property first sometimes, and liberty first others.

You know, the "We've always had slavery" argument was once in vogue too. Anyway, as Theocrat as so aptly explained, this isn't strictly an anarchist issue. You can believe in civil government and still think that it can be funded through voluntary means. You have put forward no economic argument as to why taxes are required, only an extrapolated theological argument. Paul said Christians should pay their taxes so taxes must be a good thing. Paul said slaves should return to their masters so slavery must be a good thing. No difference between the two arguments.

[jmdrake]

Why did this become a Bible thread? Really?

When Nate ran out of economic arguments.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Wait, so an Apostle of Jesus Christ was afraid! That's your explanation, really? He specifically said that civil government was good. Specifically. He didn't say obey it because it's convenient and you won't get harassed. He said it's your duty.

Obey Paul? Where does this notion come from that Christians are to obey the Apostles and not their Lord?

I say the testimony of the Apostles serves one purpose and one purpose only... evidence. I say the human observations of the Apostles are evidence of Jesus as Lord and King. I say Jesus stated one can not testify about themselves.

I say you can follow commands of Apostles who denied Jesus three times and still not know Jesus. I say you can follow commands of Apostles who were all imperfect men and still not know Jesus. I say you can follow the old Law to the letter and still not know Jesus.

I say render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's encompasses the whole of the command from your Lord and King with regards to civil government. I say if you seek, obtain, and benefit from the privileges and immunities of civil government you should render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. I say if you are persecuted for privileges and immunities of civil government you did not seek, obtain, or benefit from you should testify to the truth before the Pharisees the same way your Lord and King did.

I say Jesus was not an advocate of violence. I say Jesus affirmed the old Laws of Moses and natural Law given to Noah when Jesus stated not one letter of the law will be erased. If you shed man's blood by man shall your blood be shed.

I say Jesus affirmed Moses is the persecutor of the old Law. I say God entered a covenant with Moses and then Moses came down from the mountain and entered a covenant with the people. I say God would surely punish Moses if Moses wrongly persecuted the people.

I say Jesus was the fulfillment of Kings. I say Jesus imparted the Holy Spirit on any man, if he loves God, who will keep his words because the father will love him and come unto him and make an abode within him. I say if you seek, obtain, and benefit from privileges and immunities given by God you should render unto God what is God's.

I say Jesus was the last King appointed directly by God and the best man can do is self govern among men who render unto God for the privileges and immunities granted to them by God.

I say in a free voting society people have the best representation a free voting people can elect. I say it's self evident United States, Inc. is not governed by a board of men who render unto God.

I say if you advocate using violence to perpetuate men being governed by men who do not render unto God you desire to eliminate the possibility for men to govern themselves.

I say Jesus was not an anarchist, he was, is, and will be King and Lord.

[MelissaWV]

Give me half of your money, Nate. I'll use it for a good cause. Of course, if I don't, you can't have it back. If you don't give me enough of your money, I'm going to deprive you of freedom and property until I feel your debt is met, including fees compensating me for the tough work of depriving you of freedom and property. I may storm your business, or I may garnish your wages, or I might just make it impossible for you to do much of anything on paper.

It's not theft.

I expect a PayPal shortly.

[A Son of Liberty]

You guys have never been able to prove that taxation is, actually, theft. Considering we've lived on a tax system since time immemorial with rare exception, it's on the anarchist to prove his point. Taxes are not theft when they are used for the lawful purposes of the state, i.e., the provision of an ordered liberty. Order/Protection of Life comes first, then Liberty, then Property. Libertarians seem to go about it bassackwards, picking property first sometimes, and liberty first others.


You guys have never been able to prove that taxation is, actually, theft. Considering we've lived on a tax system since time immemorial with rare exception, it's on the anarchist to prove his point. Taxes are not theft when they are used for the lawful purposes of the state, i.e., the provision of an ordered liberty. Order/Protection of Life comes first, then Liberty, then Property. Libertarians seem to go about it bassackwards, picking property first sometimes, and liberty first others.

There are anarchists here whom I believe are of intellectual substance, so I suspect my arguments will not be new to you; nevertheless, I'll take your challenge. :)

I happen to believe in God. I believe that God created me, a distinct and sovereign individual. The evidence I find of this is in the fact that I cannot in any way take charge of the body nor mind of any other individual I've ever encountered, nor has anyone ever taken control of me. I exist biologically and spiritually as a distinct and independent individual. I live and operate amongst other sovereign individuals within a construct which we individuals have taken, out of convenience, to refer to as "society". But society has no entity - it cannot think, it cannot feel, it cannot act. "Society" is an arbitrary construct of which the individuals who operate within it accept as a convenient way of describing their generalized interaction with other individuals. "The State" is a pragmatic "organizing" of this arbitrary construct. There is no moral or logical basis for it. An involuntary fee to support this institution is contradictory to the objective truth of individual sovereignty.

[nate895]

You know, the "We've always had slavery" argument was once in vogue too. Anyway, as Theocrat as so aptly explained, this isn't strictly an anarchist issue. You can believe in civil government and still think that it can be funded through voluntary means. You have put forward no economic argument as to why taxes are required, only an extrapolated theological argument. Paul said Christians should pay their taxes so taxes must be a good thing. Paul said slaves should return to their masters so slavery must be a good thing. No difference between the two arguments.

Yes, there is a difference. Paul specifically said that taxes were good. Did he ever do that about slavery? No.

Also, as far as economic arguments for taxes are concerned, my econ teacher actually did this thing where his neighborhood wanted to pave over their old dirt road, and wanted everyone to agree to pay for it (it was a private road). He refused on the grounds he'd get the benefits anyway, thus proving you need to force people to pay taxes for public goods (such as roads, police, the military, etc.). In most groups, there's always the one jackass who won't go along who you need to force for the benefit of everyone else. I suppose that makes me a "socialist," but whatever. Or is it fair that my econ teacher should get the benefits of a newly paved road without paying for it? Doesn't sound fair to me.

Now to this, I suppose someone will assert that education or Social Security are "public goods" that everyone needs to pay for using my logic. The problem is that they aren't. Education is an individual good. It improves (or, in the state system, most likely the opposite) the life of one person at the expense of others. So, the government takes money from Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who are 65 and have already paid for a private education for their son Johnny, and gives it to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their daughter Sally to go to a crappy state high school. Now, we can argue, I suppose, that more educated people is a good thing for society. I'd agree with that. However, it still isn't a "public good," at least not more than eating healthy foods is a "public good" since it would have the effect of increasing productivity. If you want to improve an individual's life in that instance, give to a scholarship fund, and in the process you will help everyone enjoy a slight bump in productivity.

[heavenlyboy34]

I actually believe that taxes should be paid just as tithes and offerings are paid: voluntarily. Taxes are necessary to have and maintain civil government, which is an institution ordained by God (see Romans 13). As a matter of fact, in Romans 13, God commands that we pay the civil magistrates tribute (or taxes) for their ministry of punishing the wicked (in defense and justice) as well as for praising the righteous (in protection of life, liberty, property, etc.).

The penalty for not paying taxes should not be imprisonment, confiscation of property, loss of privileges, or anything like that. The penalty comes when enough revenue is not generated from refusal to pay taxes to fund the civil government programs which benefit society (in the things the magistrate has the right to do). However, I also see such an act as the people "voting with their wallets," by telling officials in government that they do not support a particular program or policy. That puts pressure on the civil authorities to adjust their program/policies accordingly and/or address the concerns of the taxpayers, as in a negotiation.

This is a sensible position-but, I must ask: what "program" does the government offer that the church and other voluntary organizations cannot?

[heavenlyboy34]

Give me half of your money, Nate. I'll use it for a good cause. Of course, if I don't, you can't have it back. If you don't give me enough of your money, I'm going to deprive you of freedom and property until I feel your debt is met, including fees compensating me for the tough work of depriving you of freedom and property. I may storm your business, or I may garnish your wages, or I might just make it impossible for you to do much of anything on paper.

It's not theft.

I expect a PayPal shortly.

LOL! Well done, madame! IOU 1 +rep...I'm out for now. :(

[Theocrat]

I think I have to agree with Nate and say that the phrase "taxation is theft" is wrong. Perhaps what anarcho-capitalists really mean by that phrase is that "the way taxes are procured from the people in our government today is theft," which I agree with, in many ways (the income tax being one such case). Voluntary taxation is not theft, but it is a civil duty to pay for services which civil government (as ordained and defined by God) ministers to the people. I just don't agree with the penalties that have been set up to punish citizens when they don't pay taxes.

[nate895]

I think I have to agree with Nate and say that the phrase "taxation is theft" is wrong. Perhaps what anarcho-capitalists really mean by that phrase is that "the way taxes are procured from the people in our government today is theft," which I agree with, in many ways (the income tax being one such case). Voluntary taxation is not theft, but it is a civil duty to pay for services which civil government (as ordained and defined by God) ministers to the people. I just don't agree with the penalties that have been set up to punish citizens when they don't pay taxes.

I suppose we'll talk about this later.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Yes, there is a difference. Paul specifically said that taxes were good. Did he ever do that about slavery? No.

Also, as far as economic arguments for taxes are concerned, my econ teacher actually did this thing where his neighborhood wanted to pave over their old dirt road, and wanted everyone to agree to pay for it (it was a private road). He refused on the grounds he'd get the benefits anyway, thus proving you need to force people to pay taxes for public goods (such as roads, police, the military, etc.). In most groups, there's always the one jackass who won't go along who you need to force for the benefit of everyone else. I suppose that makes me a "socialist," but whatever. Or is it fair that my econ teacher should get the benefits of a newly paved road without paying for it? Doesn't sound fair to me.

Now to this, I suppose someone will assert that education or Social Security are "public goods" that everyone needs to pay for using my logic. The problem is that they aren't. Education is an individual good. It improves (or, in the state system, most likely the opposite) the life of one person at the expense of others. So, the government takes money from Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who are 65 and have already paid for a private education for their son Johnny, and gives it to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their daughter Sally to go to a crappy state high school. Now, we can argue, I suppose, that more educated people is a good thing for society. I'd agree with that. However, it still isn't a "public good," at least not more than eating healthy foods is a "public good" since it would have the effect of increasing productivity. If you want to improve an individual's life in that instance, give to a scholarship fund, and in the process you will help everyone enjoy a slight bump in productivity.

The whole of the command is render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

-NOT-

Coerce people who do not render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

If Ceasar stopped by your house and asked why do you not pay for the safety Ceasar provides would you write Ceasar a check or would you testify to the truth that Ceasar is not making you safe. Ceasar is in fact making you less safe...

[nate895]

The whole of the command is render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

-NOT-

Coerce people who do not render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

If Ceasar stopped by your house and asked why do you not pay for the safety Ceasar provides would you write Ceasar a check or would you testify to the truth that Ceasar is not making you safe. Ceasar is in fact making you less safe...

Caesar was given the lawful right to use the sword. Therefore, I render him the right to use it. Does Caesar use it wrongly? Yes, an awful lot. And, as I pointed out to jmdrake, people also abuse the awesome privilege to read the Scriptures, does that mean we should abolish the Bible?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, there is a difference. Paul specifically said that taxes were good. Did he ever do that about slavery? No.

Also, as far as economic arguments for taxes are concerned, my econ teacher actually did this thing where his neighborhood wanted to pave over their old dirt road, and wanted everyone to agree to pay for it (it was a private road). He refused on the grounds he'd get the benefits anyway, thus proving you need to force people to pay taxes for public goods (such as roads, police, the military, etc.). In most groups, there's always the one jackass who won't go along who you need to force for the benefit of everyone else. I suppose that makes me a "socialist," but whatever. Or is it fair that my econ teacher should get the benefits of a newly paved road without paying for it? Doesn't sound fair to me.

Now to this, I suppose someone will assert that education or Social Security are "public goods" that everyone needs to pay for using my logic. The problem is that they aren't. Education is an individual good. It improves (or, in the state system, most likely the opposite) the life of one person at the expense of others. So, the government takes money from Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who are 65 and have already paid for a private education for their son Johnny, and gives it to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their daughter Sally to go to a crappy state high school. Now, we can argue, I suppose, that more educated people is a good thing for society. I'd agree with that. However, it still isn't a "public good," at least not more than eating healthy foods is a "public good" since it would have the effect of increasing productivity. If you want to improve an individual's life in that instance, give to a scholarship fund, and in the process you will help everyone enjoy a slight bump in productivity.

Ah. This old public good canard. Hoppe has all ready demolished that one to bits and pieces. Just read Chapter 10 in A Theory of Capitalism and Socialism - HHH. http://mises.org/books/Socialismcapitalism.pdf

I'll just use two quick examples to disprove that a road would never be built because someone who did not pay for it would benefit.

In most major metropolitan areas there are musicians who play their instruments on the sidewalk within the downtown area. Everyone benefits who is in the area from listening to the music being produced. One does not need to pay to receive this benefit / service. Yet, as we all know, people do pay for it by tipping the individual and yet, those who do not pay still receive service. How is this possible?

Property Improvement - If I have a well maintained property, it increases the value of my neighbors and neighborhoods value all without input or contribution from any of those receiving a benefit from me improving the state of my property. Does this keep me from improving my property? Of course not. I could go on and on about the absurdity of so-called public goods, but I'll let Hoppe do the rest (if you actually read the chapter).

Nonetheless, there is no such thing as a 'public good'.

[TheDrakeMan]

I believe taxation is theft, but not immoral. Depending on the amount and what it is used for. Border protection, police, military, some roads, and highways are legitimate government services that justify taxation.

[Zeeder]

I like how statist Chrisitians have pulled the wool over God's eyes. Just changed the word "stealing" into "taxation". It's like magic.
Thou shalt not Steal had a subsection I was not aware of! As long as you have a group of men calling themselves "government" morality gets suspended! God is so stupid. Easily fooled by men and their word games.


This is what I find most disgusting about government. It's a way people can absolve themselves from "sin". I can steal. I can kill. I can give up all personal and moral responsiblility as long as government does it for me.

[nate895]

Ah. This old public good canard. Hoppe has all ready demolished that one to bits and pieces. Just read Chapter 10 in A Theory of Capitalism and Socialism - HHH. http://mises.org/books/Socialismcapitalism.pdf

I'll just use two quick examples to disprove that a road would never be built because someone who did not pay for it would benefit.

In most major metropolitan areas there are musicians who play their instruments on the sidewalk within the downtown area. Everyone benefits who is in the area from listening to the music being produced. One does not need to pay to receive this benefit / service. Yet, as we all know, people do pay for it by tipping the individual and yet, those who do not pay still receive service. How is this possible?

Property Improvement - If I have a well maintained property, it increases the value of my neighbors and neighborhoods value all without input or contribution from any of those receiving a benefit from me improving the state of my property. Does this keep me from improving my property? Of course not. I could go on and on about the absurdity of so-called public goods, but I'll let Hoppe do the rest (if you actually read the chapter).

Nonetheless, there is no such thing as a 'public good'.

Wait, one musician on the street is the equivalent of the Brooklyn Bridge? If those are the two best points, I don't think I have to. I've already read several anarchists on this topic already. I'm not going to continuously reconsider anarchism because a few people on the internet have a problem with the conclusions I have come to.

[heavenlyboy34]

Caesar was given the lawful right to use the sword. Therefore, I render him the right to use it. Does Caesar use it wrongly? Yes, an awful lot. And, as I pointed out to jmdrake, people also abuse the awesome privilege to read the Scriptures, does that mean we should abolish the Bible?

The scripture in question ("Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's") refers specifically to Roman denari btw, not to all money and wealth throughout history. Trying to use that to justify taxation today is intellectually dishonest.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Caesar was given the lawful right to use the sword. Therefore, I render him the right to use it. Does Caesar use it wrongly? Yes, an awful lot. And, as I pointed out to jmdrake, people also abuse the awesome privilege to read the Scriptures, does that mean we should abolish the Bible?

Given by who? I demand evidence.

I say Jesus stated people diligently study the scriptures because they think by them they possess eternal life.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Wait, one musician on the street is the equivalent of the Brooklyn Bridge? If those are the two best points, I don't think I have to. I've already read several anarchists on this topic already. I'm not going to continuously reconsider anarchism because a few people on the internet have a problem with the conclusions I have come to.

You are as a close minded as any other Statheist. Why do I bother arguing with someone who believes they can never ever be wrong because they have "God" on their side.

[Theocrat]

This is a sensible position-but, I must ask: what "program" does the government offer that the church and other voluntary organizations cannot?

Mainly, it's civil justice that government offers which the Church nor voluntary organizations cannot. Interestingly enough, the Church does have its own form of courts to decide on ecclesiastical matters within the Church (see 1 Corinthians 6:1, 2). However, in matters of murder, theft, arson, rape, etc., it should be civil courts (which are not in it for profit) that settle those types of civil and criminal acts in society.

Since private organizations would be involved in justice based on profit and funded by private donors, it could (and most likely would) work to the benefit of those donors in justice. A malefactor would not be tried in a private court which he did not pay for, so I don't see private courts as being very effective to administer justice by restitution or penalty of law (laws which are civil, not private, by the way).

Defense/military is also a ministry which civil government has the authority to provide for civil society. Of course, private people should protect themselves, but in larger matters of conflict when a sovereign nation goes to war with another sovereign nation, it should be the civil government's job to protect its citizens from foreign threats. Some private citizens can't spend all day protecting life and property, especially when they have a living to make to provide for their families. Civil government makes having a military (on a national level) and sheriffs (on a local level) for defense necessary, in that regard.

[nate895]

The scripture in question ("Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's") refers specifically to Roman denari btw, not to all money and wealth throughout history. Trying to use that to justify taxation today is intellectually dishonest.

That isn't even my primary justification for it. That was Romans 13:1-7. However, it does state a spiritual principle that Caesar does have certain things under his jurisdiction lawfully, including money.

[nate895]

You are as a close minded as any other Statheist. Why do I bother arguing with someone who believes they can never ever be wrong because they have "God" on their side.

And you are as close-minded as any anarchist. Let's not degenerate into name-calling here.

[MelissaWV]

Before this goes on ad nauseum...


Adj. 1. closed-minded - not ready to receive to new ideas

[TheDrakeMan]

Anarchy is an impractical ideology. A large portion of the world still sees rape as an essential part of their culture. A large portion of the world wants to be ruled under strict Sharia Law. A large portion of the world molests children as a cultural norm. Tell me, in a stateless society (from An-Cap to An-Soc) how are we going to prevent these people from coming to our country? How do we control the immigration rate? I'm sure half of China & India would love to move to America. And considering the fact that 19th century Sino-Americans have STILL not assimilated, I really doubt we'll ever be able to assimilate 500,000,000 of them. There would be nothing to stop Mexican-Americans from forming voluntary governments that swear allegiance to Mexico. I could see the entire southwest being annexed by Mexico in literally a decade. These people won't say, "Gee, Libertarian philosophy has really benefited me." They will be like any other immigrant group and demand a centralized, large government to take care of them. New states would form with extreme ethno-religious bonds and dominate the continent. The small PDAs will get their asses kicked.

[Wesker1982]

thus proving you need to force people to pay taxes for public goods (such as roads, police, the military, etc.). In most groups, there's always the one jackass who won't go along who you need to force for the benefit of everyone else.


Debunked many times, I thought you looked into this stuff already?

For starters see: For a New Liberty chapters 10,11, and 12. or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNRzI64L9Q is good too

The road issue becomes ridiculously simple when you ask: Who would build a business with no road access to it? Who would try to sell a house with no road access?


Okay – here’s a scenario for you: a guy builds a road that completely encircles a suburban neighborhood, and then charges $1 million for anyone to cross that road. Isn’t he holding everyone who lives in that neighborhood hostage?

This is fundamentally impossible. First of all, no one is going to buy a house in a neighborhood unless they are contractually guaranteed access to roads. Thus it will be impossible for anyone to completely encircle the neighborhood. Secondly, even if it were possible, it would be a highly risky investment. Can you imagine going to investors with a business plan that said: “I’m going to try to buy all the land that surrounds the neighborhood, and then charge exorbitant rates for anyone to cross that land.” No sane investor would give you the money for such a plan. The risk of failure would be too great, and no DRO would enforce any contract that was so destructive, unpopular and economically unfeasible. DROs, unlike governments, must be appealing to the general population. If a DRO got involved with the encircling and imprisonment of a neighborhood, it would become so unpopular that it would lose far more business than it could potentially gain.


http://board.freedomainradio.com/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/11/14/practical-anarchy-the-book.aspx

The Privatization of Roads and Highways: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You are as a close minded as any other Statheist. Why do I bother arguing with someone who believes they can never ever be wrong because they have "God" on their side.

The ironic thing here is I believe you correctly state people believe they have God on their side (literally) not the father has built an adobe within them.

These same people if asked where they live would testify to the fact they are dead because they would answer anywhere but where they stand at that moment.

[Wesker1982]

Anarchy is an impractical ideology. A large portion of the world still sees rape as an essential part of their culture. A large portion of the world wants to be ruled under strict Sharia Law. A large portion of the world molests children as a cultural norm.

If the majority of people are good, no government is needed. Having a State gives the evil minority the means to oppress the majority. If the majority of people are evil, they will control the State by the virtue of this fact anyways.

In a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos.- Murray Rothbard

You should check out this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286163-Help-me-understand-anarcho-capitalism...

and the links in my signature

[nate895]

Debunked many times, I thought you looked into this stuff already?

For starters see: For a New Liberty chapters 10,11, and 12. or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNRzI64L9Q is good too

The road issue becomes ridiculously simple when you ask: Who would build a business with no road access to it? Who would try to sell a house with no road access?



http://board.freedomainradio.com/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/11/14/practical-anarchy-the-book.aspx

The Privatization of Roads and Highways: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

This may shock you: I've read anarchist literature and I've watched Molyneaux. I remain unconvinced, and I'm not going back through it again. Given I personally know of situations where it works out the way I'm asserting, I'm not going to fall for some academic theoretician.

[Kotin]

to me: Taxation is acceptable when it is voluntary. Period.

[Wesker1982]

This may shock you: I've read anarchist literature and I've watched Molyneaux. I remain unconvinced, and I'm not going back through it again. Given I personally know of situations where it works out the way I'm asserting, I'm not going to fall for some academic theoretician.

So who would build a business or house with no road access?

Have you read Rothbard? If you understand basic AE you should understand how roads can be built. Even most minarchists are aware that the government is not needed for roads.

[TheDrakeMan]

If the majority of people are good, no government is needed. Having a State gives the evil minority the means to oppress the majority. If the majority of people are evil, they will control the State by the virtue of this fact anyways.

In a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos.- Murray Rothbard

You should check out this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286163-Help-me-understand-anarcho-capitalism...

and the links in my signature


I agree psychopaths tend to infiltrate the government. But that still doesn't make Anarchy practical, see the reasons I listed above. I think the best, still imperfect, solution is to have a Paleo-Conservative government with strong state's rights. Have democracy on a local town level (like how the N.H. government is set up) to keep the states in check.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Caesar was given the lawful right to use the sword. Therefore, I render him the right to use it. Does Caesar use it wrongly? Yes, an awful lot. And, as I pointed out to jmdrake, people also abuse the awesome privilege to read the Scriptures, does that mean we should abolish the Bible?


Given by who? I demand evidence.

I say Jesus stated people diligently study the scriptures because they think by them they possess eternal life.


I accept your non-performance/non-response to cite any evidence as de facto evidence that no such lawful right was given...

[Wesker1982]

I agree psychopaths tend to infiltrate the government. But that still doesn't make Anarchy practical, see the reasons I listed above. I think the best, still imperfect, solution is to have a Paleo-Conservative government with strong state's rights. Have democracy on a local town level (like how the N.H. government is set up) to keep the states in check.

This is an unavoidable contradiction in all forms of Statism:

It is self-contradictory to contend that people cannot be trusted to make moral decisions in their daily lives but can be trusted to vote for or accept leaders who are morally wiser than they. - Rothbard

Since the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to allow them liberty, how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their agents form a part of the human race? Do they consider that they are composed of different materials from the rest of mankind? - Frederic Bastiat

The reasoning employed by those who want governmental regulation contains a self-contradiction. On the one hand they assert that the American people are unalterably gullible. They must be protected because, left to their own devices, they become victims. They can be made to think, for example, that if they use a certain brand of aftershave lotion, they will end up with the girl in the ad. On the other hand, the argument assumes that the boobs are smart enough to pick political leaders capable of regulating these sirens. This is impossible.- Walter Block


How can there be collective wisdom and virtue composed of individual ignorance and evil? This is the zillion $ question.

[heavenlyboy34]

This may shock you: I've read anarchist literature and I've watched Molyneaux. I remain unconvinced, and I'm not going back through it again. Given I personally know of situations where it works out the way I'm asserting, I'm not going to fall for some academic theoretician.

But you already have. Constitutionalism is nothing but an academic exercise. It's never worked out in real life as it does in books and essays written by constitutionalist and minarchist scholars. All you HAVE is textbook theory (even the authors of the Constitution were just working off of older models of failed republics and political systems), but anarchists and Voluntaryists can point to real life examples.

[Vessol]

to me: Taxation is acceptable when it is voluntary. Period.

So rape is acceptable when it is voluntary?

I don't mean to attack you Kotin, but those are contradictory words.

How can something that is defined as involuntary be voluntary?

[AndrewD]

If the majority of people are good, no government is needed.

Thats a pretty big if. One that is full of speculation, and an if that just never seems to go away for the Anarchists. Can someone answer for me though, what the point of the Anarchy preaching is?

Are you just defending Anarchy, saying that it works?

Are you saying its the "best" or most effective way to go?

Because really, it comes down to opinion and personal taste. According to your own words the majority of people must be good, but they also must desire Anarchism as well. Obviously. You can have every last good soul in your country, but if the majority don't want what your preachin' its gonna fall flat, and things could get VERY violent. As for me, even if you could somehow convince me that its the most effective way to live, I wouldn't want it. Thats not because i'm stubborn, it's because I desire to live under the state. Not this current state, one of strict Constitutionalism. You guys fight SO hard using pure logic, but you completely fail to recognize that government (or no government at all) is an entirely personal choice as well. You can't tell somebody they are wrong for choosing one or the other based on their own personal principles. And I am not appealing to emotion, I'm appealing to personal choice.

I believe this to be a major roadblock, and understated problem for Anarchists.

[Kotin]

So rape is acceptable when it is voluntary?

I don't mean to attack you Kotin, but those are contradictory words.

How can something that is defined as involuntary be voluntary?


You are getting way too much into semantics ..


By taxation I mean there would be a voluntary fund for whatever programs and people could pay into and receive whatever and if you don't want to then you don't have to and don't receive whatever service or program etc..

That's all I mean lol.

[Vessol]

You are getting way too much into semantics ..


By taxation I mean there would be a voluntary fund for whatever programs and people could pay into and receive whatever and if you don't want to then you don't have to and don't receive whatever service or program etc..

That's all I mean lol.

Here's my main point. Why shouldn't all services be put into a competitive market. Why should we let the government have a monopoly on certain things.

Just because they have a monopoly on many services does not mean that those services cannot be provided without a government.

There's an old Soviet joke I like to use(and butcher horribly): Two Russian women are standing in a bread line in Moscow. They compare how long each other has been in line. One then says "Well, I hear in America that the government doesn't even distribute bread!" Yeah..not much of a joke, but still.

To many Russians. The idea that many services could be provided by the free market was absurd. Food products, consumer goods such as cars, media, etc. Why shouldn't all services our current government provide not be questioned? Wouldn't competition drive down costs and improve quality, just as it does in every other conceivable market?

[LibForestPaul]

Theft is not always immoral. If your family is starving, it could potentially be morally justified to steal to feed them.


Feeding your family someone's else's food is theft? How is it his property if you are starving? What right does he have to claim the food, the earth the food was grown upon and the water that was consumed as his, if you are starving?

[heavenlyboy34]

Here's my main point. Why shouldn't all services be put into a competitive market. Why should we let the government have a monopoly on certain things.

Just because they have a monopoly on many services does not mean that those services cannot be provided without a government.

There's an old Soviet joke I like to use(and butcher horribly): Two Russian women are standing in a bread line in Moscow. They compare how long each other has been in line. One then says "Well, I hear in America that the government doesn't even distribute bread!" Yeah..not much of a joke, but still.

To many Russians. The idea that many services could be provided by the free market was absurd. Food products, consumer goods such as cars, media, etc. Why shouldn't all services our current government provide not be questioned? Wouldn't competition drive down costs and improve quality, just as it does in every other conceivable market?

You did butcher that joke, but the point still shines through. :D Hope you persuade some folks, my friend. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Feeding your family someone's else's food is theft? How is it his property if you are starving? What right does he have to claim the food, the earth the food was grown upon and the water that was consumed as his, if you are starving?

Is this sarcasm?

[Wesker1982]

Thats a pretty big if.

But if most people are evil, then they will be in control the State.


Can someone answer for me though, what the point of the Anarchy preaching is?


Debunking myths. The goal is eduction. Just like Ron Paul. If anyone thinks Ron Paul's goal is anything other than education, you are delusional. The system is fundamentally broken and he knows it. (that is not saying I am against political action, Ron Paul has used political action to educate the public on a massive scale. I hope he becomes president.)




Are you saying its the "best" or most effective way to go?

What we assert is that, given any particular degree of "goodness" or "badness" among men, the purely libertarian society will be at once the most moral and the most efficient, the least criminal and the most secure of person or property. - Murray Rothbard




but you completely fail to recognize that government (or no government at all) is an entirely personal choice as well. You can't tell somebody they are wrong for choosing one or the other based on their own personal principles.


I completely support you living in any way you want as long as you grant me the same respect. I have not heard one market anarchist say otherwise.

[AndrewD]

I completely support you living in any way you want as long as you grant me the same respect. I have not heard one market anarchist say otherwise.

Good to know. And your points made are understandable. It's just that many of the Anarchists here are extremely forceful with their views, and it just gets completely annoying. Like gnats flying all over your face that won't go away.

One of the forum members here (*ahem *cough *cough Conza88) had the GALL to try and tell me that by supporting the state in America, I was forcing my views on him. He failed to realize that I have every right to support my own political desires, and that by removing my support of the state, I would be trading my own moral values for his.

Needless to say, he was quickly debunked and I haven't heard a peep from him since then. Just glad to see your more reasonable that a man of his nature, who thrives on attempting to force-feed Anarchism down the throats of all who cross his path.

[Wesker1982]

One of the forum members here (*ahem *cough *cough Conza88) had the GALL to try and tell me that by supporting the state in America, I was forcing my views on him.


I think where he was probably coming from is that if we decline to participate in your State they will either send us to prison or kill us.

I have never seen a market anarchist advocate "join us or else."

[MelissaWV]

I think where he was probably coming from is that if we decline to participate in your State they will either send us to prison or kill us.

I have never seen a market anarchist advocate "join us or else."

Lamely, I cannot remember names on this one, but I have been told by several forum denizens that any hint at organization or government arising in their anarchist utopia would be just cause for breaking the NAP. In other words, if you are anarchist and AndrewD is not, and he has a sort of small, weak, loose government starting up on his property with his neighbors by voluntary contract, those people would argue it is a slippery slope and is better to quash such actions before they get out of hand. A pre-emptive strike, if you will.

I kid you not.

[Vessol]

You did butcher that joke, but the point still shines through. :D Hope you persuade some folks, my friend. :)

Lol, please correct the joke. I did all sorts of google searches and I couldn't find it, though I did find some other rather hilarious Russian political jokes.

A schoolteacher is leading her students through a park, and they see a baby hare. These are city kids, and have never seen a hare. "Do you know who this is?" asks the teacher. No one knows. "Come on kids", says the teacher trying to lead the children to the answer, "He's a character in many stories, songs and poems we always read." One student "figures it out," pats the hare and says reverently, "So *that's* what you're like, Grandpa Lenin!"


Lamely, I cannot remember names on this one, but I have been told by several forum denizens that any hint at organization or government arising in their anarchist utopia would be just cause for breaking the NAP. In other words, if you are anarchist and AndrewD is not, and he has a sort of small, weak, loose government starting up on his property with his neighbors by voluntary contract, those people would argue it is a slippery slope and is better to quash such actions before they get out of hand. A pre-emptive strike, if you will.

I kid you not.

I know you're above it Melissa, so I don't think you are strawmanning, but I've never seen anyone of any market capitalist stripe say anything like that.

I'm not against government. I'm against the initiation of force.

Our current government and every other existing governments in the past all violate the non-aggression axiom. That's why I really don't understand why anyone here is saying that government can be voluntary. It's an oxymoron considering the precedent set by each and every government in the past.

So much so that if you are advocating a system in which there is competition in all sectors, I don't see why you would call it a government and not a private business or organization.

[Sola_Fide]

Not to be dismissive (I am a Christian), but this was not a religious question in any way whatsoever. Whether or not Jesus or the Bible support taxation, liberalism, anarchy, libertarianism et al is not relevant to a political debate. I respect all of your opinions but I feel this thread has been hijacked to religious discussion when it was intended to be entirely secular in nature.

Nah....The problem is you have accepted the lie that there is a sacred/secular dichotomy in life, which is what atheists want you to believe....there isn't one.

[Danke]

So rape is acceptable when it is voluntary?

I don't mean to attack you Kotin, but those are contradictory words.

How can something that is defined as involuntary be voluntary?

I know on the surface it may not seem this way. But it is all voluntary.

http://www.constitution.org/mercier/incon.htm

[Vessol]

I know on the surface it may not seem this way. But it is all voluntary.

http://www.constitution.org/mercier/incon.htm

Danke, could you please write a ;TLDR version at least outlining what you are saying?

I honestly don't have the time to read through all that. I normally would attempt to, but I seriously don't have the time or energy to.

[Sola_Fide]

Great thread by the way! I've enjoyed reading it...

[PreDeadMan]

Taxation is never acceptable.....voluntary interactions with people, voluntary transactions +1 for liberty.... forcing people to pay for things they don't want =immoral.

[TheDrakeMan]

This is an unavoidable contradiction in all forms of Statism:

It is self-contradictory to contend that people cannot be trusted to make moral decisions in their daily lives but can be trusted to vote for or accept leaders who are morally wiser than they. - Rothbard

Since the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to allow them liberty, how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their agents form a part of the human race? Do they consider that they are composed of different materials from the rest of mankind? - Frederic Bastiat

The reasoning employed by those who want governmental regulation contains a self-contradiction. On the one hand they assert that the American people are unalterably gullible. They must be protected because, left to their own devices, they become victims. They can be made to think, for example, that if they use a certain brand of aftershave lotion, they will end up with the girl in the ad. On the other hand, the argument assumes that the boobs are smart enough to pick political leaders capable of regulating these sirens. This is impossible.- Walter Block


How can there be collective wisdom and virtue composed of individual ignorance and evil? This is the zillion $ question.



This is indeed a conundrum. On one hand, we don't want sociopaths ruling over us. On the other hand, we don't want a 'nation' full of squabbling ethno-religious groups that want dominion over us, and we definitely don't want foreign states using this to their political advantage. (i.e. Mexico)

I would like to comment on a few of these quotes that were posted...


It is self-contradictory to contend that people cannot be trusted to make moral decisions in their daily lives but can be trusted to vote for or accept leaders who are morally wiser than they. - Rothbard


Politicians aren't elected for their knowledge on philosophy, history, or economics. Rather they're elected because they 'sound smart,' make people feel good, and promise government goodies. The answer still isn't anarchy, the solution is Republicanism. Limit the amount of direct control the population has over politicians, which leads to corruption. Revert back to the days when state legislatures elected Senators. Make it so it's extremely hard for any federal law to get passed (extreme state's rights). Split the Executive Branch up like Switzerland has. There are tons of solution.



Since the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to allow them liberty, how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their agents form a part of the human race? Do they consider that they are composed of different materials from the rest of mankind? - Frederic Bastiat

Well I think it's certainly true that Westerners tend to do the 'right' thing. But there are still a large amount of cultures and even religions on this planet that don't want to do what is good, or have a radically different definition of 'good.' In many cultures today, rape is a good thing. In many cultures, such as the Chinese, being loyal to your people and government is a 'good' thing. If we Americans became an Anarcho-whatever type of society, what is to stop Chinese, Muslims, Mexicans, Tribes, etc.. from migrating here en masse and imposing their form of morality on us? And who is to stop them if the Americans become a minority in their own land? What is to stop Shariah law from being the de facto legal system if 90% of Virginia became full of Saudi, Lebs, and Pakistani immigrants? More importantly, what is to prevent war from the competing DROs? Granted, from a western perspective war may be irrational, fiscally liberal, and unproductive and the DRO company wouldn't resort to violence. But from a Muslim radical's perspective, spreading the Shariah law is something noble, and worth dying over. Many would have absolutely no problem risking nuclear war if it meant spreading Islamic Arab values.

I will say this-- from a moral or philosophical perspective the Anarchists may be right. But from a practical standpoint on how the world works, keeping in mind of Islamic fanaticism, ethno-centric tribalism, warped perception on morality, it just won't work out. Mainly because of immigrants with radically different values swarming the nation like a bunch of locusts. Chinese would soon become the majority in a large portion of states or areas of the former U.S. Their DROs would be culturally inclined to side with the Chinese government, perhaps politically. Same with the Mexicans who believe Southwest America rightfully belongs to their people, religion, culture. The other peaceful An-Cap DROs, PDAs, w/e wouldn't want to risk war or deal with it and would migrate to another region of America. Meanwhile large chunks of the continental US will fall under foreign control.

[TheDrakeMan]

Taxation is never acceptable.....voluntary interactions with people, voluntary transactions +1 for liberty.... forcing people to pay for things they don't want =immoral.


Well here's another problem. The Non-Aggression principle can violate my well-being, or someone other's well being, very easily. Let's use child pornography as an example. Someone films an illegal child pornographic movie, distributes the files over the internet. Would you arrest the people who downloaded it? If you didn't, the popularity of such videos would spread and there would be a huge demand for it. Or how about the immigration issue. Let's say you were an American farmer right on the Arizona-Mexico border. You see your neighbors, 16 of them, from Mexico and invite them over to your yard. You all party and talk for a while, then they decide to exit your property, but instead of returning to their property in Mexico, they go on a public street and migrate throughout the United States. Now, surprise, some of them had the swine flu or some other disease. And because of them going to malls, restaurants, or whatever-- they have infected several older people who later died. At what point does your right of property end and my right to safety begin?

Even though taxation may very well be theft, it's for the greater good. And who knows-- perhaps we can live in a State where things like police, roads, highways can be privatized and taxation could be non-existent (which is actually David Ridley's philosophy) or at a bare minimum. As long as the borders remain secured and immigration was controlled.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well here's another problem. The Non-Aggression principle can violate my well-being, or someone other's well being, very easily. Let's use child pornography as an example. Someone films an illegal child pornographic movie, distributes the files over the internet. Would you NOT arrest the people who downloaded it? If you didn't, the popularity of such videos would spread and there would be a huge demand for it. Or how about the immigration issue. Let's say you were an American farmer right on the Arizona-Mexico border. You see your neighbors, 16 of them, from Mexico and invite them over to your yard. You all party and talk for a while, then they decide to exit your property, but instead of returning to their property in Mexico, they go on a public street and migrate throughout the United States. Now, surprise, some of them had the swine flu or some other disease. And because of them going to malls, restaurants, or whatever-- they have infected several older people who later died. At what point does your right of property end and my right to safety begins?

Even though taxation may very well be theft, it's for the greater good.

Can I have my right to healthcare, food, and housing now?

[low preference guy]

Danke, could you please write a ;TLDR version at least outlining what you are saying?

I honestly don't have the time to read through all that. I normally would attempt to, but I seriously don't have the time or energy to.

come on!!!

it's only 565 pages!

[low preference guy]

to me: Taxation is acceptable when it is voluntary. Period.

You probably mean taxation as "funding of the government". Many people refer to taxation as "forced funding of the government".

I agree with you that funding of the government should be voluntary. I oppose taxation, using the second definition.

[A Son of Liberty]

Well here's another problem. The Non-Aggression principle can violate my well-being, or someone other's well being, very easily. Let's use child pornography as an example. Someone films an illegal child pornographic movie, distributes the files over the internet. Would you arrest the people who downloaded it? If you didn't, the popularity of such videos would spread and there would be a huge demand for it. Or how about the immigration issue. Let's say you were an American farmer right on the Arizona-Mexico border. You see your neighbors, 16 of them, from Mexico and invite them over to your yard. You all party and talk for a while, then they decide to exit your property, but instead of returning to their property in Mexico, they go on a public street and migrate throughout the United States. Now, surprise, some of them had the swine flu or some other disease. And because of them going to malls, restaurants, or whatever-- they have infected several older people who later died. At what point does your right of property end and my right to safety begin?

Even though taxation may very well be theft, it's for the greater good. And who knows-- perhaps we can live in a State where things like police, roads, highways can be privatized and taxation could be non-existent (which is actually David Ridley's philosophy) or at a bare minimum. As long as the borders remain secured and immigration was controlled.

The non-aggression principle cannot violate your well-being; everything you describe after this comment is a strawman... child pornography is agression against the child. Borders are a manifestation of the state. Disease is, well, disease, and would exist whether the state was there to "protect" you, or not.

Taxation is theft, and the fantasy that "it provides for the greater good", or that such a fantasy as "the greater good" even exists is so much mental masturbation.

[TheDrakeMan]

The non-aggression principle cannot violate your well-being; everything you describe after this comment is a strawman... child pornography is agression against the child. Borders are a manifestation of the state. Disease is, well, disease, and would exist whether the state was there to "protect" you, or not.

That's true, but I'm referring to the act of distributing child porn and downloading it. Technically, that is perfectly a-OK within the NAP. But if people download such material, it spreads the popularity and helps create a market for it. Which in return ends up hurting more children.

And it's a fact disease control works much better when the borders are closed. Otherwise we would have allowed Chinese tourists and immigrants during the SARS epidemic. My post above pretty much makes the case for borders, without them we would become a bunch of ethno-religious communities operating under different legal systems. And I still believe a State would arise from this disorder.

[low preference guy]

That's true, but I'm referring to the act of distributing child porn and downloading it. Technically, that is perfectly a-OK within the NAP.

I'm not sure about that. They could be considered accessory to a crime, as it helps the criminal finance criminal activities directly by giving them money. It's not too different from paying somebody to record child porn and receive it from them.

[TheDrakeMan]

What happened when the Catholic immigrants migrated to America? They worked for low wages under harsh conditions. In long run they were actually prospering from the Capitalist system, but instead what happened? They voted for big-government Statist Democrats that promised them a lot of things. That's why New England is so liberal today (except for NH thanks to the FSP) It's still going on today with our current Hispanic immigrants. Based on historical examples, this is what would happen in an open-border Libertarian or Anarchic society, these immigrants won't say, "This is great. Due to the fruits of my labor my descendants will be wealthy. I'm glad to be living in Anarcho-Capistan." No, their attitude will be consistent with history, they'll DEMAND a right to free health care. They'll DEMAND to use the high ways for free. They'll DEMAND to keep out alien elements (new immigrants that could steal their jobs). They will DEMAND a new State. People like the Mexican immigrants (no offense to Mexicans here) will even feel justified. It's in their belief that they were robbed at the point of a gun by the Americans. Based on political, cultural, historical, religious, and ethnic identities they will build a new state and align with their homeland.

(Note: I do think Catholics greatly benefitted America. But our system was set up in such a stupid way that it allowed for voting wars. I think we could still accept a decent amount of immigrants as long as our system is set up correctly. )

The only answer I have at the moment is a classical Liberal state.

[A Son of Liberty]

That's true, but I'm referring to the act of distributing child porn and downloading it. Technically, that is perfectly a-OK within the NAP. But if people download such material, it spreads the popularity and helps create a market for it. Which in return ends up hurting more children.

And it's a fact disease control works much better when the borders are closed. Otherwise we would have allowed Chinese tourists and immigrants during the SARS epidemic. My post above pretty much makes the case for borders, without them we would become a bunch of ethno-religious communities operating under different legal systems. And I still believe a State would arise from this disorder.

It ends up hurting more children when more children are aggressed upon, and as such the aggressors by defintition violate the non-aggression principle.

As an anarchist I'll tell you that our movement, unlike the statist - from the total state argument to the minarchist - does not advocate any force whatsoever. Anarchists are necesarily voluntaristic, whereas statists only needs *just* enough violent people to impose their vision of society.

The disease of statism is far greater a threat than any virus, I assure you. No imaginary collective has the right to restrict movement upon any perceived group; typically these restrictions are imposed not because of some biological threat, anyway, but because of some imaginary, conjured "social" "threat".

[qh4dotcom]

As little as possible to maintain a minimal and limited government.

When is taxation not theft? When only the minimum amount necessary for the federal government to comply with its constitutional functions is collected and not a penny more....if the government collects one penny more than that minimum amount, that stolen penny is theft.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not sure about that. They could be considered accessory to a crime, as it helps the criminal finance criminal activities directly by giving them money. It's not too different from paying somebody to record child porn and receive it from them.

This is a grey area for me. By extension, anyone who watched the news footage of any crime could be "guilty" of the original crime. If someone contracted another person to create child porn, that would be a crime-accessory to child molestation/child rape. Although child porn is abhorrent, I am not yet convinced that end users are guilty "just because". I would certainly be open to considering evidence if you have any.

[Vessol]

When is taxation not theft? When only the minimum amount necessary for the federal government to comply with its constitutional functions is collected and not a penny more....if the government collects one penny more than that minimum amount, that stolen penny is theft.

And how will that be figured out?

That's a pretty arbitrary line if there ever was one.

[low preference guy]

This is a grey area for me. By extension, anyone who watched the news footage of any crime could be "guilty" of the original crime.

Paying the hosts and anchors is not the same as paying the actual criminals. I don't think hosts often commit the crimes they use in their shows.

[A Son of Liberty]

And how will that be figured out?

That's a pretty arbitrary line if there ever was one.

:thumbs: For instance - I say no amount is necessary to fund government, because government is morally abhorrent. So qh4dotcom must force me to comply with evem his minarchist vision of society; or, in other words, "tax" me.

We anarchists are often told to justify our position, or told that our position is "impractical". I can understand the utilitarian argument for the state, but let's ask the statists to justify this very clear implementation of force?

[Vessol]

:thumbs: For instance - I say no amount is necessary to fund government, because government is morally abhorrent. So qh4dotcom must force me to comply with evem his minarchist vision of society; or, in other words, "tax" me.

We anarchists are often told to justify our position, or told that our position is "impractical". I can understand the utilitarian argument for the state, but let's ask the statists to justify this very clear implementation of force?

Agreed.

However, my main point is that so many people here support the free market, why can't we have a free market for all the services that the government provides.

I should be able to decide on all of that as a individual without having to relocate.

Telling someone that they have freedom, but if they want to practice it they have to change their geographic location?

That's not freedom. That's tyranny and violation of property rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

Paying the hosts and anchors is not the same as paying the actual criminals. I don't think hosts often commit the crimes they use in their shows.
Exactly. Just as the end users of the product (child porn) are not the "actual criminals" who perpetrated the crime (unless it was a commissioned piece). That was the point of my analogy. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[heavenlyboy34]

Agreed.

However, my main point is that so many people here support the free market, why can't we have a free market for all the services that the government provides.

I should be able to decide on all of that as a individual without having to relocate.

Telling someone that they have freedom, but if they want to practice it they have to change their geographic location?

That's not freedom. That's tyranny and violation of property rights.
+rep

[low preference guy]

Exactly. Just as the end users of the product (child porn) are not the "actual criminals" who perpetrated the crime (unless it was a commissioned piece). That was the point of my analogy. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

I was referring to the people who paid the actual criminals. Pornographers don't work for free. They're paid.

[PreDeadMan]

Well here's another problem. The Non-Aggression principle can violate my well-being, or someone other's well being, very easily. Let's use child pornography as an example. Someone films an illegal child pornographic movie, distributes the files over the internet. Would you arrest the people who downloaded it? If you didn't, the popularity of such videos would spread and there would be a huge demand for it. Or how about the immigration issue. Let's say you were an American farmer right on the Arizona-Mexico border. You see your neighbors, 16 of them, from Mexico and invite them over to your yard. You all party and talk for a while, then they decide to exit your property, but instead of returning to their property in Mexico, they go on a public street and migrate throughout the United States. Now, surprise, some of them had the swine flu or some other disease. And because of them going to malls, restaurants, or whatever-- they have infected several older people who later died. At what point does your right of property end and my right to safety begin?

Even though taxation may very well be theft, it's for the greater good. And who knows-- perhaps we can live in a State where things like police, roads, highways can be privatized and taxation could be non-existent (which is actually David Ridley's philosophy) or at a bare minimum. As long as the borders remain secured and immigration was controlled.

I wouldn't be for punishing people over downloading the movie but for those who initiated the force against the kid and made the video. What stops you right now from catching a sickness from another person in a store or whatever..... you just never know, that's the chance you take when you go into a movie theater or whatever you have no idea if there are people sick in that theater. You can be safe all you want by staying inside your house and not going near people.... you take a chance stepping outside your house and going into a store with people that could be sick... you could catch it you just never know. What can I say I have a strong immune system some people have a weak one....

You admit in your post that "even though taxation is theft"..... you acknowledged it is theft yet you're still defending the theft? What is the moral difference between going to your neighbor and stealing 500 dollars from them to feed the poor or voting for a politician to steal your neighbor's money to "give to the poor" ( so they say).... theft is theft no matter if it's done by 1 person or a group.

[jmdrake]

Caesar was given the lawful right to use the sword. Therefore, I render him the right to use it. Does Caesar use it wrongly? Yes, an awful lot. And, as I pointed out to jmdrake, people also abuse the awesome privilege to read the Scriptures, does that mean we should abolish the Bible?

The problem is nate your reasoning isn't supported by the Bible. Really you aren't giving Bible but your own stretched interpretation of it. Here's your reasoning in a nutshell.

* Paul said civil government is good.
* Paul said that Christians should pay taxes to Caesar.
* Therefore civil government must be supported by taxes.

Total hogwash. Say if a civil government neither wants nor needs taxes? Using your "logic" it must impose taxes simply because you think the Bible says so. Saying something is permitted is not the same as saying its required. At times slavery was permitted. It was still wrong. And it's certainly not required. And I'm not "throwing out the Bible" by pointing that out.

Further I already gave you an example in the Bible of civil government that was not supported by taxes. That was the government of the judges. You just basically ignored that with a misrepresentation of our earlier conversation in another thread. And the only reason Caesar had a "lawful" power to use the sword was because Caesar was the law. It's right by conquest. Whoever when against Caesar was temporarily unlawfully using the sword until he killed Caesar, took over, and magically became "lawful".

[jmdrake]

This is a grey area for me. By extension, anyone who watched the news footage of any crime could be "guilty" of the original crime. If someone contracted another person to create child porn, that would be a crime-accessory to child molestation/child rape. Although child porn is abhorrent, I am not yet convinced that end users are guilty "just because". I would certainly be open to considering evidence if you have any.

Not a good analogy. Criminals don't typically commit crimes so that they can be covered on the news. Child pornographers do abuse their victims for the sole purpose of somebody watching it later. Therefore the consumers of the porn have some indirect effect on the motivation for its production. Consumers of TV news have no measurable effect on crime. Sure some criminals do it for the notoriety. But this negative is balanced by the number of criminals who get caught sooner rather than later because of the publicity.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I should be able to decide on all of that as a individual without having to relocate.

Who is kidding who here...

If you live in a 99% statist community how much is liberty insurance going to cost you?

People have some bias against relocating but it is an important part of the free market. I don't think people who complain about moving fully realize there are higher costs associated with being in a minority.

[TheDrakeMan]

I wouldn't be for punishing people over downloading the movie but for those who initiated the force against the kid and made the video. What stops you right now from catching a sickness from another person in a store or whatever..... you just never know, that's the chance you take when you go into a movie theater or whatever you have no idea if there are people sick in that theater. You can be safe all you want by staying inside your house and not going near people.... you take a chance stepping outside your house and going into a store with people that could be sick... you could catch it you just never know. What can I say I have a strong immune system some people have a weak one....

This is true, and the State can't protect us from everything. But it still stands that things like border control can help prevent diseases.


You admit in your post that "even though taxation is theft"..... you acknowledged it is theft yet you're still defending the theft? What is the moral difference between going to your neighbor and stealing 500 dollars from them to feed the poor or voting for a politician to steal your neighbor's money to "give to the poor" ( so they say).... theft is theft no matter if it's done by 1 person or a group.


Yes, force is needed to run a society for the reasons I listed in my last post. Too many ethnicities, religious groups, cultures would immigrate to An-Capistan and impose their morals on everyone else. What is good for us Westerners, specifically Americans, isn't 'good' for people from Saudi Arabia. The non-agression principle would get it's ass kicked by cultures who have been following the Shariah law for the past 1500 years and have a religious & cultural justification for defending their islamic laws, even if it means dying. (war with NAP-abiding PDA's/DROs) That's why Molyneux's argument, "war is too expensive, no business would go to war" doesn't hold up. To any American, this may be true. But to someone who believes they're on Earth to fulfill Allah's will, or to serve their government and people at all costs (Chinese), war is perfectly justifiable. Even if it means losing everything.

With the State, we can regulate & control immigration from non-western societies. That's why in Europe, they don't accept too many Muslim immigrants. They don't want them becoming a majority or not assimilating to their individual secular cultures. AnCapistan or AnSocistan doesn't have these barriers.

[osan]

Here are the questions:

How do you view taxation? Is it ever legitimate, or at least the lesser evil for certain circumstances?

Taxation is theft by one set of individuals against another set. I see no circumstance under which such force is legitimate.


For what ends may the local/state/federal governments legitimately tax?

None, since taxation is inherently criminal.

[TheDrakeMan]

None, since taxation is inherently criminal.

Like I said, taxation is wrong. All of you Anarchists on this board are morally in the right. But what is the alternative? Living in a world where Shariah law, congo gang rapes, and mexican nationalism becomes the norm in America? That's the reality of the situation, immigrants generally don't respect the philosophy of their host nation. They will bring with them values from the old world. Like I mentioned in my last post, the DRO's and PDA's built upon the NAP will get their ass kicked by cultures who have been following the Shariah law for 1500 years and believe they should force their morality on everyone else. This is exactly why I left Anarchism, and now prefer Paleo-Conservatism. Basing how our society should be run on morality or some philosophical principle like the NAP, rather than facts & statistics is suicide.

I would advise you guys to check out this Mises debate between a classical liberal & an AnCap:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/17464.aspx?PageIndex=1

[Wesker1982]

But what is the alternative? Living in a world where Shariah law, congo gang rapes, and mexican nationalism becomes the norm in America? That's the reality of the situation, immigrants generally don't respect the philosophy of their host nation.

Not sure if srs.


They will bring with them values from the old world. Like I mentioned in my last post, the DRO's and PDA's built upon the NAP will get their ass kicked by cultures who have been following the Shariah law for 1500 years and believe they should force their morality on everyone else.

Do you realize that in a libertarian society there would be no centralized authority? This issue falls under "national" defense and all of the arguments (fueled by irrational fear) are addressed in the various writings. You have not proposed any new argument that hasn't be answered many times, you are just replacing "what if the Chinese invade and make us commies!" into "Evil Muzzzlums will enforce Sharia Law!".

[jmdrake]

Like I said, taxation is wrong. All of you Anarchists on this board are morally in the right. But what is the alternative? Living in a world where Shariah law, congo gang rapes, and mexican nationalism becomes the norm in America? That's the reality of the situation, immigrants generally don't respect the philosophy of their host nation. They will bring with them values from the old world. Like I mentioned in my last post, the DRO's and PDA's built upon the NAP will get their ass kicked by cultures who have been following the Shariah law for 1500 years and believe they should force their morality on everyone else. This is exactly why I left Anarchism, and now prefer Paleo-Conservatism. Basing how our society should be run on morality or some philosophical principle like the NAP, rather than facts & statistics is suicide.

I would advise you guys to check out this Mises debate between a classical liberal & an AnCap:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/17464.aspx?PageIndex=1

Let me see if I understand you. If get rid of taxes the Muslims and Congolese will take over? Are you being serious? :confused:

[TheDrakeMan]

Muslims would definitely immigrate here en masse. What is to stupid them from imposing Shariah law on non-muslims? These won't be the secular westernized muslims that lead these nations back home, these will be peasants that believe it's their duty to spread Islam, even if involuntarily. Right now Islamic radicals are taking of semi-stateless Somalia in Africa, why couldn't it happen here in the USA? They're slaughtering and raping people in the Congo, which is largely tribal and stateless. So what makes people think this won't happen in America? Granted, we wouldn't be tribalistic anarchists. But still-- I don't see how we can effectively combat extremists and non-NAP fanatics in our own country.

I understand the An-Cap argument, that peace and the NAP will be the norm, and no PDA/DRO will go to war over another one unless it was a last resort. But I just don't see how that will actually be the case. If an Islamic Shariah DRO is imposing it's will on a non-Muslim person, what's seriously going to happen? Will the non-muslim's DRO fight back through war? What if these muslim immigrants are willing to be martyred to spread their beliefs? I would guess the American would move to another more peaceful part of the country and more Shariah muslims will move on in.

And yeah I'm not anti-Muslim, but I am anti-Shariah law and extremism. My argument comes down to this:
1) most of the world doesn't respect Western ideas, so allowing immigration from ANYWHERE would be suicidal.
2) Non-Americans have a different view on what 'good' is, and will enforce their standards on us. They'll reject the NAP.

I understand there's no central authority, sure. But I'd assume most DROs and PDA's would follow the Non-Aggression Principle.

[jmdrake]

Muslims would definitely immigrate here en masse. What is to stupid them from imposing Shariah law on non-muslims?

So let me get this straight. You really believe that the reason Muslims aren't immigrating here en masse (and they aren't no matter what some right wing talk show idiot might tell you) is because they're afraid of the TAXES? You have GOT to be kidding! So the reason Muslims are moving from low tax countries in North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa to high tax European countries is......?

And for the record, the overwhelming majority of immigrants coming to this country are Catholic, not Muslim.

[A Son of Liberty]

A seriously don't get all the bedwetting over this Sharia thing. Yes, it's an awful system. Yes, it's oppressive and bizarre, and aggressive against individual liberty. But it is dramatically NOT a threat to the vast majority of people in this country. This is Fox News manufactured hysteria meant to perpetuate the GWOT.

[A Son of Liberty]

And for the record, the overwhelming majority of immigrants coming to this country are Catholic, not Muslim.

Ah - thus highlighting the previous nativist bugaboo - POPERY! OH NOEZ!!11!!!1 Teh Cat-licks iz gonna enforce teh rule from Roam11!!1!!!!

[TheDrakeMan]

So let me get this straight. You really believe that the reason Muslims aren't immigrating here en masse (and they aren't no matter what some right wing talk show idiot might tell you) is because they're afraid of the TAXES? You have GOT to be kidding! So the reason Muslims are moving from low tax countries in North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa to high tax European countries is......?

And for the record, the overwhelming majority of immigrants coming to this country are Catholic, not Muslim.

Well I'm discussing Anarcho-Capitalism. If there's a society that can function without taxation and STILL keep a state, I would be for it.

But here's some things to remember...

1) The State is keeping people from migrating to America en masse. Except for illegals but that's another story. Muslim immigrants in Europe are already launching Shariah law campaigns, but Europeans keep a limit on how many muslims can immigrate. Without a State, these barriers are erased and a new culture will emerge seemingly overnight. Since there will be no time to assimilate them. Same goes for secular muslim nations like Turkey.

2) Without taxation, AnCapistan would be so prosperous that everyone from around the world would swarm into the new nation. Now without any State to keep immigration from getting out of hand-- the 'natives' would be swamped with immigrants who have a different moral, religious, and cultural outlook on things. Like to a Muslim following strict Islamic code, beating your wife is acceptable. This is confirmed by a multitude of Islamic scholars and the only people who disagree with this are Westernized Muslims. What if this behavior is going on in AnCapistan and all the muslims agree to this legal system? What can the NAP-following DROs & PDA's seriously do?

3) Immigrants will demand a new State. Someone working in an AnCapistan factory, making 2 dollars an hour, isn't going to say "Gee, this Anarcho-Capitalist system works out swell. My descendants will prosper from the fruits of my labor." They will want things like free health care, free high ways, free this & that. How do I know? Because most immigrants tend to act this way, that's why the Democratic Party is the party of immigrants. I don't see why a Stateless society would be any different. Except in a stateless society-- people can group together and form their own voluntary government. Now what happens when these voluntary governments starting aligning with nations like Canada or Mexico? Or nations of their origin? Before you know it, they'll annex huge parts of America and give it to their allies. Foreign governments would even be able to openly promote such endeavors without any consequence from the American state, since there will be no State. I could see corrupt states like Mexico doing this, easily. And a bunch of peasants working in some factory would go along with it.

[jmdrake]

Well I'm discussing Anarcho-Capitalism. If there's a society that can function without taxation and STILL keep a state, I would be for it.

But here's some things to remember...

1) The State is keeping people from migrating to America en masse. Except for illegals but that's another story. Muslim immigrants in Europe are already launching Shariah law campaigns, but Europeans keep a limit on how many muslims can immigrate. Without a State, these barriers are erased and a new culture will emerge seemingly overnight.

2) Without taxation, AnCapistan would be so prosperous that everyone from around the world would swarm into the new nation. Now without any State to keep immigration from getting out of hand-- the 'natives' would be swamped with immigrants who have a different moral, religious, and cultural outlook on things.

3) Immigrants will demand a new State. Someone working in an AnCapistan factory, making 2 dollars an hour, isn't going to say "Gee, this Anarcho-Capitalist system works out swell. My descendants will prosper from the fruits of my labor." They will want things like free health care, free high ways, free this & that. How do I know? Because most immigrants tend to act this way, I don't see why a Stateless society would be any different. Except in a stateless society-- people can group together and form their own voluntary government. Now what happens when these voluntary governments starting aligning with nations like Canada or Mexico? Before you know it, they'll annex huge parts of America and give it to their allies. Foreign governments would even be able to openly promote such endeavors without any consequence from a centralized state.

LOL. So let me read your argument back to you.

1) If we get rid of taxes we will become more prosperous.
2) If we become more prosperous there will be more immigrants.
3) If there are more immigrants there will be more Muslims.
4) If there are more Muslims, they will enforce Sharia law.

Therefore keep taxes high so that we won't be prosperous. Really, that's your argument. :rolleyes:

Anyway here's what's ridiculous about your argument. For one thing the majority of the rest of the word is NOT Muslim. So if immigrants from around the world came in equal number we would never have a Muslim majority. Further the people most likely to immigrate here are from our southern border and from Caribbean nations where Muslims are a TINY minority. If you were fear mongering about a Catholic takeover that would make at least some sense. But fretting over a Muslim takeover of the U.S. is just silly.

[jmdrake]

Ah - thus highlighting the previous nativist bugaboo - POPERY! OH NOEZ!!11!!!1 Teh Cat-licks iz gonna enforce teh rule from Roam11!!1!!!!

Well at least Catholics have a demographic possibility of becoming a majority. Worrying about a Muslim majority is like worrying about Native Americans taking over again.

[TheDrakeMan]

And I'm just using Muslim immigrants as an example, by the way. The same could apply for any non-western immigrant that has radically different ideas than us Americans.

[TheDrakeMan]

LOL. So let me read your argument back to you.

1) If we get rid of taxes we will become more prosperous.
2) If we become more prosperous there will be more immigrants.
3) If there are more immigrants there will be more Muslims.
4) If there are more Muslims, they will enforce Sharia law.

Therefore keep taxes high so that we won't be prosperous. Really, that's your argument. :rolleyes:

Anyway here's what's ridiculous about your argument. For one thing the majority of the rest of the word is NOT Muslim. So if immigrants from around the world came in equal number we would never have a Muslim majority. Further the people most likely to immigrate here are from our southern border and from Caribbean nations where Muslims are a TINY minority. If you were fear mongering about a Catholic takeover that would make at least some sense, especially considering that Catholics and Jews are in control the Supreme Court. But fretting over a Muslim takeover is just silly.

Well, Mexican & Hispanic Catholic immigrants are just as big as a threat, due to Aztlan and La Raza. But I was just using Muslims as an example. My argument is this


1) Classical Liberalism WORKS. We have scientific evidence that supports this. We know what good Classical Liberalism can do to a nation. Why do we have to be Anarchists?
2) Without a State, we would be invaded by a bunch of different cultures, religious ideas, and by people with a different outlook on philosophy and morality. This will interfere with our NAP. Some, like the AnSocs & Libertarian Socialists will morph the NAP into something different entirely. They'll start claiming that property itself is theft.
3) The State should be used to REGULATE things essential to our culture. Like immigration.

[pcosmar]

Well, Mexican & Hispanic Catholic immigrants are just as big as a threat, due to Aztlan and La Raza. But I was just using Muslims as an example. My argument is this



Who the fuck cares what race or religion someone is?

Oh,, that's right, , you.
:(

[jmdrake]

And I'm just using Muslim immigrants as an example, by the way. The same could apply for any non-western immigrant that has radically different ideas than us Americans.

So "western" immigrants with radically different ideas from "us Americans" (whoever that is) like from France or England are okay, but hardworking non-western immigrants seeking a nice tax free life are not.


Well, Mexican & Hispanic Catholic immigrants are just as big as a threat, due to Aztlan and La Raza. But I was just using Muslims as an example. My argument is this

1) Classical Liberalism WORKS. We have scientific evidence that supports this. We know what good Classical Liberalism can do to a nation. Why do we have to be Anarchists?
2) Without a State, we would be invaded by a bunch of different cultures, religious ideas, and by people with a different outlook on philosophy and morality. This will interfere with our NAP. Some, like the AnSocs & Libertarian Socialists will morph the NAP into something different entirely. They'll start claiming that property itself is theft.
3) The State should be used to REGULATE things essential to our culture. Like immigration.

Well technically I'm just advocating an end to the state coercing money out of people (taxes) instead of going for user fees or voluntary contributions.

But that said, are you aware that back when this nation was "classically liberal" immigration was not regulated? Are you aware that there is no immigration power enumerated in the constitution? We existed fine before we had an INS just like we did before we had an IRS. Now I'm not an open border person, but I find your argument here to be without merit.

[Wesker1982]

I understand there's no central authority, sure.

Yeah, then who cares if a group X is the majority in some isolated community? It effects nobody else but those living there.

[aGameOfThrones]

Who the fuck cares what race or religion someone is?

Oh,, that's right, , you.
:(

He has been going on this Mexican/Hispanic nonsense for a few days now. *Sigh*

[Southron]

And I'm just using Muslim immigrants as an example, by the way. The same could apply for any non-western immigrant that has radically different ideas than us Americans.

This thread is way off topic but I think you are wrong about Muslims necessarily being a threat with open immigration. Seems more likely India and China would dump their populations on us. China could dump half their population and just make us a colony.

But I endorse tariffs and sales (non-specific, low) taxes over any income taxes. Couple that with a hard backed currency and I feel we will be in good shape.

[CanadaBoy]

Some taxes are needed.

How else would we pay for roads, sewers, dams, parks, snow removal, libraries... small public services.

[low preference guy]

Some taxes are needed.

How else would we pay for roads, sewers, dams, parks, snow removal, libraries... small public services.

Charing those who use the services directly.

Theft is always wrong.

[A Son of Liberty]

Charing those who use the services directly.

Theft is always wrong.

Be advised: you have been + rep'd for this comment. ;)

[highprofile]

Paying taxes in similar to giving Gun to a monkey. The monkey will fire the gun anywhere.

When you pay taxes multi-Trillion dollars gets collected in the hands of few government people who are worth few billion dollars. They spend the tax money anywhere without the confirmed permission of tax payers.

[heavenlyboy34]

Charing those who use the services directly.

Theft is always wrong.
+rep

[Sola_Fide]

Some taxes are needed.

How else would we pay for roads, sewers, dams, parks, snow removal, libraries... small public services.


How else would we pay? Uh...how about voluntarily?

Do you think it requires force from the government in order to have roads and sewers? If the government didn't force us to pay for sewers, we'd still be crapping in holes in the ground? Is that what you think?

[Cutlerzzz]

If it were not for taxes most of you would be laying dead in a ditch, and the rest of you would be working 70 hours a week for $5.00 an hour in coal mines.

[Travlyr]

If it were not for taxes most of you would be laying dead in a ditch, and the rest of you would be working 70 hours a week for $5.00 an hour in coal mines.

Makes no sense. What are you talking about?

[Wesker1982]

Some taxes are needed.

How else would we pay for roads, sewers, dams, parks, snow removal, libraries... small public services.

Who would build a business or try to sell a house with no roads or sewer access?

Check out this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNRzI64L9Q

[heavenlyboy34]

If it were not for taxes most of you would be laying dead in a ditch, and the rest of you would be working 70 hours a week for $5.00 an hour in coal mines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id3nik5Rldw&feature=player_embedded#at=13

[low preference guy]

Makes no sense. What are you talking about?

Sarcasm, my friend.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Like I mentioned in my last post, the DRO's and PDA's built upon the NAP will get their ass kicked by cultures who have been following the Shariah law for 1500 years and believe they should force their morality on everyone else.

1500 years? Let me add it up... 9th century + 10th century + etc. = 1500?

How does your theory hold up against United States, Inc or Israel PDA versus the Iraq or Iran PDA?

[Travlyr]

Sarcasm, my friend.

Ah ha - clear as mud. :rolleyes:

[Pericles]

Makes no sense. What are you talking about?
Idea being that those who beat their swords into plowshares, plow for those who didn't.