PDA

View Full Version : Is it possible for a government to protect life and liberty without violating property?




Boshembechle
10-19-2014, 02:51 PM
Any Bastiatian libertarian will claim that the mission of law/government is to protect property, life, and liberty of individuals. But how does one protect the latter two, without in some way violating the first? To protect these natural rights, true and just law requires law enforcement to enforce it. This means we need police departments, armies, etc, yet those things require taxation to fund, and isn't any taxation a violation of property rights?

Here is another version of what I am asking: How can a government protect peoples rights to life, liberty, and property, without at first violeting their property rights to raise revenue to fund police forces, armed forces, judges, courts, and other law enforcers?

pcosmar
10-20-2014, 09:46 AM
Here is another version of what I am asking: How can a government protect peoples rights to life, liberty, and property, without at first violeting their property rights to raise revenue to fund police forces, armed forces, judges, courts, and other law enforcers?

When have any of those ever protected peoples rights?

That is not even the purpose of Police.. The very definition of police is "to Control".

they should not even exist in a free society.

fisharmor
10-20-2014, 09:59 AM
Congratulations, you've discovered the truth of the matter.
You now have only two logical positions: either you believe that protection of life and liberty is not the function of the state,
or you believe statelessness is the only possible way to achieve those goals.

acptulsa
10-20-2014, 10:02 AM
Congratulations, you've discovered the truth of the matter.
You now have only two logical positions: either you believe that protection of life and liberty is not the function of the state,
or you believe statelessness is the only possible way to achieve those goals.

How is that an 'or'?

Looks like A or A to me.

fisharmor
10-20-2014, 10:43 AM
How is that an 'or'?

Looks like A or A to me.

Fair enough. I meant to say option A is "The state doesn't protect life or property but I'm so into getting shoved around that it doesn't bother me".

CaptUSA
10-20-2014, 11:05 AM
The premise of the question is flawed. (Not to mention the grammar and spelling)

The idea that taxation must be compulsory is as flawed as the idea the education must be compulsory. If there are benefits to be received from the State, then it stands to reason that people would find value in them. If people find greater value in the benefits than they did from the amount of wealth requested, they would make the exchange.

Taxation is not an affront to property rights; compulsion is.

Christian Liberty
10-20-2014, 11:09 AM
The premise of the question is flawed. (Not to mention the grammar and spelling)

The idea that taxation must be compulsory is as flawed as the idea the education must be compulsory. If there are benefits to be received from the State, then it stands to reason that people would find value in them. If people find greater value in the benefits than they did from the amount of wealth requested, they would make the exchange.

Taxation is not an affront to property rights; compulsion is.

I suppose one could theoretically have "taxes" that are voluntary, but that would be a very different use of that word than usual.

fisharmor
10-20-2014, 12:50 PM
In that case, I pay a "tax" to USAA for automobile insurance, I pay a "tax" to Wegmans every other week for food, etc.

I think I'd like to see a "tax" for services in the real world which isn't compulsory. I don't think it can exist.

CaptUSA
10-20-2014, 12:54 PM
I think I'd like to see a "tax" for services in the real world which isn't compulsory. I don't think it can exist.

Lottery?

There are other methods as well.

fisharmor
10-20-2014, 01:03 PM
Lottery?
In Virginia all lottery proceeds since 1999 have gone toward public education.
But that hasn't done a thing even to lower, let alone eliminate, my compulsory property taxes (IMO the morally worst tax of all).
It really doesn't matter where lottery funds are going though: if it's state funded, it doesn't rely on lottery exclusively.
That was kind of my point... there doesn't appear to be a real-world example of a state "service" which is totally voluntarily funded, the way my auto insurance and groceries are.

Christian Liberty
10-20-2014, 01:21 PM
In that case, I pay a "tax" to USAA for automobile insurance, I pay a "tax" to Wegmans every other week for food, etc.

I think I'd like to see a "tax" for services in the real world which isn't compulsory. I don't think it can exist.

My real question would be whether the term used in Romans 13:6-7 has to be compulsory.

Occam's Banana
10-20-2014, 01:34 PM
I suppose one could theoretically have "taxes" that are voluntary, but that would be a very different use of that word than usual.


I think I'd like to see a "tax" for services in the real world which isn't compulsory. I don't think it can exist.

Actually, we already have a perfectly valid concept for things that are alleged to be denoted by (so-called) "voluntary" taxes.

That concept is called "prices" ...ewwwwwwwwwwww

(NOTE: that "ewwwwwwwwwwww" was inserted by my 4-month old kitten. Apparently, she might be some sorta commie. I didn't want to violate her freedom of speech though, so I left it in. Hopefully, I'll be able to convert her to libertarianism ...)

Christian Liberty
10-20-2014, 02:04 PM
Actually, we already have a perfectly valid concept for things that are alleged to be denoted by (so-called) "voluntary" taxes.

That concept is called "prices" ...ewwwwwwwwwwww

(NOTE: that "ewwwwwwwwwwww" was inserted by my 4-month old kitten. Apparently, she might be some sorta commie. I didn't want to violate her freedom of speech though, so I left it in. Hopefully, I'll be able to convert her to libertarianism ...)

Yes, I agree.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-20-2014, 02:26 PM
Any Bastiatian libertarian will claim that the mission of law/government is to protect property, life, and liberty of individuals. But how does one protect the latter two, without in some way violating the first? To protect these natural rights, true and just law requires law enforcement to enforce it. This means we need police departments, armies, etc, yet those things require taxation to fund, and isn't any taxation a violation of property rights?

Here is another version of what I am asking: How can a government protect peoples rights to life, liberty, and property, without at first violeting their property rights to raise revenue to fund police forces, armed forces, judges, courts, and other law enforcers?

Oh oh; looks like somebody has a school assignment again. LOL.

osan
10-20-2014, 09:06 PM
Any Bastiatian libertarian will claim that the mission of law/government is to protect property, life, and liberty of individuals. But how does one protect the latter two, without in some way violating the first? To protect these natural rights, true and just law requires law enforcement to enforce it. This means we need police departments, armies, etc, yet those things require taxation to fund, and isn't any taxation a violation of property rights?

Here is another version of what I am asking: How can a government protect peoples rights to life, liberty, and property, without at first violeting their property rights to raise revenue to fund police forces, armed forces, judges, courts, and other law enforcers?

FAIL Central reports in yet again. Rotten assumptions yield rotten conclusions.

You are quite competent at rotten.