Ron Paul Forums - Liberty Forest Forums - Blogs

Ron Paul Forums - Liberty Forest Forums - Blogs - Wesker1982 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/blog.php?25804-Wesker1982 Discussion forum for supporters of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, liberty, freedom and a sovereign limited constitutional Republic. en Tue, 21 May 2013 20:18:37 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/rss.jpg Ron Paul Forums - Liberty Forest Forums - Blogs - Wesker1982 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/blog.php?25804-Wesker1982 Law Without Taxation http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?718-Law-Without-Taxation Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:25:35 GMT When most people are exposed to the idea of a society organized without taxation, they often jump to the conclusion that the services provided by... When most people are exposed to the idea of a society organized without taxation, they often jump to the conclusion that the services provided by government would no longer exist. After it is proposed that these services would still exist, but they would be provided by voluntary organizations, they assume only problems and chaos could ensue. Warlords, crooked arbitration, justice for only the rich… surely these are unavoidable consequences of a society without taxation!

These voluntarily organized services would not only exist, but they would do so with more order and efficiency than their coercively funded[1] alternatives. There would be even stronger checks and balances than the beloved U.S. system of government adored by so many people.

How do we get there?

One objection to a society completely free of institutionalized coercion is that after the fall of the current system, it will be a war of all against all. Warlords and criminal gangs will take over as society tries to reorganize itself. This objection fails to acknowledge how Voluntaryists advocate the establishment of a voluntary society in the first place. The objection assumes that we will go from a society organized by taxation to voluntary over night through some sort of violent event. Most Voluntaryists recognize that the only practical way to achieve their ideal society is through education and persuasion.

The reason why our advocated means to achieving this society are important to understand is because if it is arrived at through a peaceful process, then there is no reason to assume there has been any change in the demand for law and order amongst the general population. Yes, if the system were to be violently overthrown without any sort of ideological direction, then there would likely be a power vacuum filled by the first charismatic and powerful person who promises prosperity. But if society changes peacefully due to a change in people’s beliefs, then any potential tyrants would lack the necessary support of the general public.

Utopian?

Some may object at this point on the basis that education and persuasion on a scale of this magnitude is utopian. How could it be possible to change the minds of so many on a subject that is so ingrained in our history and culture? One need only to look at history for the answer.

To quote Robert Higgs[2] :

Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions that ranged from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and violent assault.

In retrospect, however, these reasons seem shabby—more rationalizations than reasons. They now appear to nearly everyone to be, if not utterly specious, then shaky or, at best, unpersuasive, notwithstanding an occasional grain of truth. No one now dredges up these ideas or their corollaries to support a proposal for reestablishing slavery. Although vestiges of slavery exist in northern Africa and a few other places, the idea that slavery is a defensible social institution is defunct. Reasons that once, not so long ago, seemed to provide compelling grounds for opposing the abolition of slavery now pack no intellectual punch.

I think it is safe to say that the original slave abolitionists were scoffed at by the general public for holding such obviously utopian views. Somehow, institutionalized slavery in the western world was abolished. Other movements that seemed utopian by common knowledge standards but ended up becoming a reality include: The American Revolution, the idea of democracies or republics, violence against women being generally unacceptable, etc.

It is my contention that not only is the idea of an organized society free from taxation possible, but it is the natural next step. When I said institutionalized slavery was abolished, what I was referring to is the kind of slavery where the victims were 100% slaves. Right now we are enslaved to the extent that we are forced to pay taxes. Being forced to give up the product of our labor is slavery, even if it is only a percentage of it. I don’t see any reason to think going the last step is utopian when we have made it this far. Going the last inch in a mile journey seems like a very realizable goal.

One last objection raised on this point is: “But this has never been done before!”. We will ignore the fact that there are historical examples of every single function of an orderly society being provided without taxation. There are examples even today. There have been fully developed civilized societies organized by totally voluntary means. Voluntarily organized dispute resolution is only beginning to re-emerge. But that is a topic for another work. For now, let’s assume this is a new idea that has never been tried. To that the reply is, so what? If societies had never advanced goals on the grounds “but it has never be done before”, then we would still be living like primitive man. Do you want to form a republic? Well, we can’t even attempt it because it has never been done before. Do you want to abolish slavery? We can’t do that either because it has never been done before. This objection fails to show why we should not pursue new methods of organization.

Dispute Resolution

If tax funded dispute resolution were abolished, there is no reason to assume that people’s desire for peaceful coexistence would disappear. In short, it will be provided because there is a very strong demand for it and plenty of willing people to provide it. So what would dispute resolution look like in a society free of taxation?

Conflicts would be dealt with by voluntarily funded courts and arbitration. Before exchanges are made, the parties will contractually agree to the terms of arbitration in the case of conflict. If there is a conflict between two people who have not made any prior agreements, or even one of the persons made no prior agreement, the case will still be taken to a court or arbitrator.

The party being accused of a crime would be sent a notice saying they are being charged with a crime, but would not be forced to defend themselves in court. They are more likely to have a favorable decision on their part if they provide a defense. It would be in their best interest to show up, but since they are not yet criminals, no force would be used against them.

If the contract assigns a single court to dispute resolution, then this court’s decision is final since the decision was agreed to be binding by both parties. If the two parties contractually agree to be represented by their own separate arbitrators, then the two arbitrators will make a decision. If they agree, then there is obviously no problem. In cases where they have different opinions, the case would be taken to a reputable third-party court or arbitrator. The court or arbitrator that would settle disputes between other courts and arbitrators would probably be agreed upon prior to any disagreements by the respective original agencies.

Why would the courts and arbitrators make prior agreements in cases of disputes? They would do so because of the consumers demand to have peaceful and non-chaotic dispute resolution. If any court or arbitrator had unnecessarily complicated conflict resolution processes, then they would lose business to the more efficient providers.

CONTINUED BELOW ]]> Wesker1982 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?718-Law-Without-Taxation Taxation is Theft (a response to a few criticisms). Happy Theft Day! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?635-Taxation-is-Theft-(a-response-to-a-few-criticisms)-Happy-Theft-Day! Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:21:16 GMT ---Quote--- Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to...

Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects. – Murray Rothbard

Here are a few dictionary definitions of tax:

a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes,property, sales, etc. (dictionary.com)
a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes (webster.com)
a pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government, and is a payment exacted by legislative authority. Essential characteristics of a tax are that it is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1979) http://www.mindserpent.com/American_...ck_5/sec_t.pdf

The third definition leaves no room for confusion. The source for this definition is “the most widely used law book in the United States”. By definition, taxes are not voluntary (i.e. they are theft).

The first two definitions strongly imply that taxation is not voluntary. Money is either demanded or charges are imposed. Some would argue that since services are provided, the money demanded or charges imposed do not equal theft. After all, if you go into a restaurant and order a steak, it is not theft when the bill is “imposed” and then you are “demanded” to pay it. This and similar criticisms is what I will be writing in response to.

Driving on the roads, using services provided by taxation, etc., implies consent.

This a circular argument. The conclusion that using the roads and other services demonstrates consent to taxes relies on the premise that the taxation used for them is voluntary in the first place. Then this is used as evidence that taxation is consensual. To illustrate, imagine that a gang of thieves extort money from you. Then they decide to provide “services” with your money that they now possess. The money used for services (roads, etc.) that they “provide” were not obtained by consent in the first place. Concluding that by using the “services” they provide with your stolen money proves that you consent is fallacious.

Not paying taxes is like ordering food and then not paying.

When you enter a restaurant, it is completely voluntary. No one forces you into it, and no one forces you to buy anything. This is wholly different than the services produced through taxation. You can’t simply decline to pay for the tax funded service in the same way you can simply decline to order food. If you are not happy with the service at a restaurant, you can choose to not pay them anymore. If you are unsatisfied by tax funded services, you are still forced to pay for them. Payment of taxes is not dependent on the services consumed. You are charged for services even if you don’t use or ask for them. Whether or not you pay at a restaurant is directly dependent on receiving a service or product. A simple but effective way to determine whether or not a service is truly voluntary is to find out if you can decline the service and decline the payment. If you can decline the service but are forced to pay, it is not voluntary.

Since you have the option to leave, staying proves consent.

The only thing this proves is that you would rather stay than leave. This alone does not establish what is or what is not consented to. The happiness gained from staying in an area close to family and a good job could simply outweigh the negatives of being taxed. To give a simple example, imagine that you live near all of your family and friends, you have a good job, and the weather is perfect. However, the area you live in has a high crime rate. Let’s say the crime rate is so high that in any given year, there is a 95% chance your car will be broken into. Deciding that staying near your family etc. is more important than avoiding burglary does not prove that you consent to being stolen from. The robbery does not become voluntary just because you would rather put up with it than abandon your family and home.

If you live in a neighborhood and the Mafia takes it over, staying would not prove consent to their rule or “laws”. If staying in the area that the State claims territory to proves consent to taxation, then this same reasoning would have to be used to prove consent to the Mafia’s extortion. Both groups assert a forced territorial monopoly on certain services, but using those services does not prove consent. The threat of violence is used to prevent competition. This necessarily means there are no choices. There is no possibility for consent when choosing all other alternatives is violently prevented.

Without taxes, how will X Y and Z get done?

My purpose here was to show that taxation is theft and respond to a few common criticisms. How society could function without institutionalized theft is a different subject.

All of the services commonly thought to require the State—from the coining of money to police protection to the development of law in defense of the rights of person and property—can be and have been supplied far more efficiently and certainly more morally by private persons. The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary. – Murray Rothbard

]]> Wesker1982 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?635-Taxation-is-Theft-(a-response-to-a-few-criticisms)-Happy-Theft-Day! Ron Paul and Private Courts http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?400-Ron-Paul-and-Private-Courts Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:51:45 GMT We have conclusive evidence that Ron Paul advocates the private production of all defense services. See: ---Quote (Originally by Liberty... We have conclusive evidence that Ron Paul advocates the private production of all defense services. See:

Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 288

The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.

Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 255

If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of "national security" does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat. Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does.

In regards to what makes governance legitimate we have:

Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 70

Lysander Spooner carried this argument further. He believed that only a "few" consented (to the constitution). Therefore, the Constitution should not apply to those who did not give their personal consent to cede any personal liberty (power) to the state. This is an interesting argument, but it's not likely to make much headway at this stage in our history. Enforcing the Tenth Amendment is a big enough challenge to us for now.

All of Spooner's writings are worthy of study.

Ron Paul puts Let's Abolish Government at the end of this chapter as recommended work to study.

This work of Spooner's includes No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which debunks the social contract theory of government, it makes a strong case that the constitution has no legitimate authority. When Ron says "enforcing the Tenth Amendment is a big enough challenge to us for now." He advocates enforcing the Tenth Amendment when applied to the government now, as a stepping stone, but he purposefully says "for now", it is implying that he would eventually like to make Spooner's case. This is the "learning liberty is a marathon, not a sprint" theory applied.

But maybe this still does not convince you. Maybe Ron Paul disagrees with Spooner, and recommends reading his very persuasive work just as a challenge to see if you can get through with out it changing your mind. I doubt it, though.

So is there any proof, from Ron Paul himself, that he agrees with the case Spooner makes? Actually, there is!

Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 126

That authority (of government), gained by explicit consent of the people, should be strictly limited. Consenting to a greater role for government violates the moral defense of freedom.

This is exactly what Spooner argues in No Treason. Government can only be legitimate if it has the explicit consent of those governed. This proves that Ron Paul does not advocate the social contract theory of government (implicit consent theory), and that he uses the Constitution only as a tool (he has said he prefers Voluntaryism compared to the Constitution). He advocates the Constitution as opposed to what we have now (just like all Voluntaryists), but he has clearly shown that he advocates explicit consent (the Constitution does not meet this standard) for any governance to be legitimate.

Also see: In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written. - Ron Paul, End the Fed

Ron Paul has publicly said on TV that all taxes are theft, plus: "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." in Liberty Defined. Taxes are usually justified with the social contract type arguments, etc. And it has been shown that Ron Paul rejects this position.

Without a doubt, he has explicitly advocated positions that are in stark contrast to the minarchist position (private defense and private national defense). These positions alone are strong evidence that he is a pure Voluntaryist. The only possible claim one could make that he is not a Voluntaryist is that he wants a coercive monopoly for the court system. Even if this were true, he would be 2/3 Voluntaryist (voluntary personal defense and voluntary national defense), 1/3 minarchist (involuntary production of courts).

Given the facts above, however, there is no basis to conclude that he advocates a coercive monopoly on the judicial system. It would not be logically consistent at all. Given his positions on private personal defense, private national defense, taxes, and his position that only explicit consent is justifiable criterion for governance, it does not follow that the courts are an exception to privatization. To conclude Ron Paul advocates the coercive production of the courts is to conclude that he is philosophically hypocritical (he would have to abandon his beliefs to advocate violence for court production).

However, my evidence goes beyond just stating "because he advocates the private production of everything else he must advocates private courts as well". I can demonstrate why this conclusion is true.

This is what I found in Liberty Defined on courts:

Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 127

A free people do not use force to mold person moral behavoir, but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise spontaneously within civilization.

Add this to what he said about explicit consent of the governed, and we have already shattered any notion that he might advocate an involuntary monopoly on courts. This is still does not conclude my case, however.

There is one last final and most profound fact to consider. It goes back to the undeniable fact that Ron Paul advocates private personal and national defense. Once you accept the fact Ron Paul advocates private personal and national defense, it is impossible to advocate an involuntary monopoly on courts.

The reason why this is impossible is because the monopolistic courts must rely on the equally monopolistic defense services to enforce their laws, their decisions, their jurisdiction, forcibly extract the funds necessary to function, etc. Without a legally enforced monopoly on defense, the courts automatically become voluntary because any decision they make must be voluntarily enforced by the private defense. Without the courts being under the same entity that provides defense, they have no way to collect the taxes necessary to function.

If people voluntarily pay for the defense services to enforce the courts decision, the courts are by an extension of this act being funded voluntarily. The same market principles would apply. If consumers are not happy with particular courts, they would not provide the funding necessary to enforce their decisions because the enforcers are themselves funded privately.

Thus:
1. Ron Paul explicitly advocates private personal defense
2. Ron Paul explicitly advocates private national defense
3. Ron Paul explicitly views all taxation as theft (proven by 1. and 2. plus his agreements with Spooner)
4. It is impossible to advocate the private production of all defense services while simultaneously advocating an involuntary monopoly on courts
5.The strongest argument the minarchists had against Ron Paul being a Voluntaryist was the courts (for some reason they never used it?), but has been debunked.

Therefore, any claim that Ron Paul is not a Voluntaryist is completely inconsistent given the facts available. ]]> Wesker1982 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?400-Ron-Paul-and-Private-Courts Anarcho-Capitalist Reference List http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?350-Anarcho-Capitalist-Reference-List Fri, 03 Jun 2011 22:39:21 GMT *_General/Introductions to Anarcho-Capitalism_* Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique (http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap18a.asp) by Murray... General/Introductions to Anarcho-Capitalism

Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique by Murray Rothbard (Rothbard destroys many common criticisms against the market, absolutely a must read, for minarchists too.)
The State is Not Great by Jacob Spinney (best video intro in existence. VERY GOOD.)
Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ by Hogeye Bill
The Obviousness of Anarchy by John Hasnas
Evil Monopolies Are Fairy Tales In Free Markets by Jacob Spinney (great video)
Fear of Monopoly by Brad Edmonds
Monopolies by D.T. Armentano (In an economy free of governmental regulation, wouldn't a firm or group of firms obtain a monopoly over some vital resource or product?)
The Myth of Natural Monopoly by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Taxes are the price we pay to... by Mike P (taxation, self ownership, democracy)
What Is Anarchy? by Butler Shaffer
What Libertarianism Is by Stephan Kinsella
Disproving the State by Stefan Molyneux
The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block
The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists by Murray Rothbard
The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives by Stefan Molyneux
Introduction to a Stateless Society Introduction list with multiple articles and authors
The Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard
Society Without a State by Murray Rothbard (Rothbard defines the State and Anarchy here)
Forget The Argument From Efficiency by Stefan Molyneux
War, Peace, and the State by Murray Rothbard (philosophy on nukes here)
Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then and Can't Abolish Government Now by Robert Higgs
Anarchy and the 'Problem of the Commons' by Stefan Molyneux
Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control:a Spatial and Geographical Analysis by Walter Block (theory on nukes included)
Arguments Against Anarchy by Jarret B. Wollstein (warring defense agencies)
Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick T. Long
Objectivism and The State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand by Roy A. Childs, Jr.
Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapproachment Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan by Walter Block
Anarchy by Pete Leeson (very good video.)

Anarchy,Law, and Security

The Myth of the Rule of Law by John Hasnas
Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution by Murray Rothbard
Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion by Bruce L. Benson
Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts, and the Police by David Osterfeld
Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market by George H. Smith
The Production of Security by Gustave de Molinari
Defense Services on the Free Market by Murray Rothbard
How Would An Anarchist Society Handle Child Abuse? by Walter Block
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? by Robert P. Murphy
Criminal Private Courts by Murray Rothbard (awesome video, 10 mins)
Justice Without the State by Bruce Benson (short 3 min intro to private order)
How a Free Society Prevents the Re-emergence of a Government by Stefan Molyneux
The Stateless Society and the Protection of Children by Stefan Molyneux
Pollution by Murray Rothbard
Outlaw Protectors by Murray Rothbard (text of Criminal Private Courts)
Collective Defense by Stefan Molyneux

Social Contract

The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins by Stefan Molyneux
I'm Allowed to Rob You by Larken Rose (video)
Love it or Leave It by FearsEdge
The “social contract” is an empty concept by Mike P
If you don’t like it, leave — for a price by Geoffrey Allan Plauche
No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner (video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJTWa5v24I)
(downloadable audio http://mises.org/media/category/238/...f-No-Authority )

Historical Examples

Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government by Thomas Whiston
The Mild, Mild West by John Tierney
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill
Ireland's Success with the Free Market and Anarchism from For a New Liberty, I think.
Property Rights In Celtic Irish Law by Joseph R. Peden

Miscellaneous/Philosophy

Living in a State-Run World by Murray Rothbard
May a Libertarian Take Money From the Government? by Walter Block
Is there a Human Right to Medical Insurance by Walter Block
Hobbes, Minarchism, and Anarchy by Stephen Krogh (short audio, 12 mins)
Anarchy and Democracy by Stefan Molyneux (video)
Taking Care of the Poor in a Free Society by Stefan Molyneux (video)
Mises Panel Discussion Live FAQ with Roderick Long, Walter Block, Jacob Huebert, Yuri Maltsev and Doug French (video)
Wage Slavery by Stargazer5781 (video)
The Immaculate Conception of the State by Murray Rothbard (The most important attempt in this century to rebut anarchism and to justify the State fails totally and in each of its parts.-Rothbard)
Somalia by Pete Leeson (short video.) ]]> Wesker1982 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?350-Anarcho-Capitalist-Reference-List