Taxation To Finance Security - When Is It Just?

[r3volution 3.0]

government cannot constrain itself

Are you saying that every state past or present has been totalitarian?

Some states are not more liberal than others?

[r3volution 3.0]

Maybe you would, or maybe you would be stupid and go bankrupt, many monarchs have.

But we are back to chasing around the same bush again.

I believe my system has better odds you believe Monarchy has better odds and we don't seem able to convince eachother.
This was supposed to be about world government vs. multiple nations.

Well, it was you who made the claim that all forms of government suffer from quis custodiet ipsos custodes. I was just refuting that. And I don't mind briefly derailing my own thread, as this is a line of thought (private city vis a vis monarchy) that we didn't go down in the other thread.

So, how do my incentives as private city owner differ from the incentives of any other private property owner?

[Origanalist]

So all governments throughout history have been Soviet Russia?

I never said that. I just said government is incapable of constraining itself. There are no governments that I'm aware of that did not exceed their boundaries originally set forth.

[Origanalist]

Are you saying that every state past or present has been totalitarian?

Some states are not more liberal than others?

I'm saying they either evolved into that or died. Where is this great state that upheld liberty and adhered to freedom over time?

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm saying they either evolved into that or died.

Hardly any states ever evolved into totalitarianism, or anything remotely close to it.

Where is this great state that upheld liberty and adhered to freedom over time?

There has never been a pure minarchist state.

There have only been a handful of totalitarian states.

The vast majority of states throughout history have been more liberal than our own.

Something like this:

Minarchism ----------[top of bell curve here]--------------------US------------------------------------Totalitarianism

[Swordsmyth]

So, how do my incentives as private city owner differ from the incentives of any other private property owner?

I can't think of any way they do, but you or your decedents might not understand them properly.

[Origanalist]

Hardly any states ever evolved into totalitarianism, or anything remotely close to it.



There has never been a pure minarchist state.

There have only been a handful of totalitarian states.

The vast majority of states throughout history have been more liberal than our own.

Something like this:

Minarchism ----------[top of bell curve here]--------------------US------------------------------------Totalitarianism

That perspective merely reflects what your are willing to tolerate. Try to reject the dictates of the US and see how un-totalitarian it is.

[r3volution 3.0]

I can't think of any way they do

QED

but you or your decedents might not understand them properly.

That's certainly possible, but there is no one else out there with better incentives/understanding to step in.

Management of property by its owners is imperfect, management by anyone other than its owners much more so.

[r3volution 3.0]

Try to reject the dictates of the US and see how un-totalitarian it is.

Sure, if I "reject the dictates" of the American state, it will use violence against me.

But that's true of all states.

So that can't be the meaning of totalitarianism, unless you're claiming all states are totalitarian, which you already denied.

So, no, the US isn't totalitarian - it is less free than the average state throughout history.

[Swordsmyth]

QED



That's certainly possible, but there is no one else out there with better incentives/understanding to step in.

Management of property by its owners is imperfect, management by anyone other than its owners much more so.

I am not going to get back on that merry-go-round.
If the people own the nation they can't all manage it and the debate over what to do about that has been well covered.


As far as property that is and can be privately held, the owners have they right to mismanage, abuse or destroy it if they like.

[Swordsmyth]

That perspective merely reflects what your are willing to tolerate. Try to reject the dictates of the US and see how un-totalitarian it is.

Definition of totalitarianism

• 1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
• 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority
  
  
  They may be trying but the U.S. is not there yet.

[r3volution 3.0]

As far as property that is and can be privately held, the owners have they right to mismanage, abuse or destroy it if they like.

Sure, but they're less likely to do so than people managing it who don't own it.

e.g. the people who happen to live in the area, getting together and voting on what should be done.

monarchy : democracy :: private property : communism

Anyway, back to the main subject of the thread, where were we?

[Swordsmyth]

Anyway, back to the main subject of the thread, where were we?

Bold text is mine.


Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
Which, as we've established, no longer functions ocne the state is small enough.

Suppose the South had seceded, and then some of the Confederate States started oppressing the others. Then what? And so on.

Secession doesn't solve the problem. It just pushes it down to a lower level.


And each time it pushes it down it reduces the problem and the odds that further secession will be required.

{@R3volution 3.0 EDIT}
Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
So then secession is out as a means of restraining the power of the state, once the state is below a certain threshold.
Yes at that point emigration or revolt are the only options. {END OF EDIT}

[r3volution 3.0]

So then, let's consider this "atomic" state, where no further secession is allowed.

What's keeping it from becoming oppressive? I believe you've mentioned two factors:

1. Revolt.

...But does doesn't this apply to all states of any size?

2. Economic competition with others states (for both capital and labor).

...But democratic politicians have very little if any incentive to foster economic growth.

[Swordsmyth]

So then, let's consider this "atomic" state, where no further secession is allowed.

What's keeping it from becoming oppressive? I believe you've mentioned two factors:

1. Revolt.

...But does doesn't this apply to all states of any size?

Revolts are much easier the smaller the state is, every revolution starts with a handfull of conspirators who must survive until their forces grow to rival the forces of the regime, revolt against Rhode Island as an independent state would be much easier than revolt against the union.

2. Economic competition with others states (for both capital and labor).

...But democratic politicians have very little if any incentive to foster economic growth.

Some states of any kind will be more repressive, others less repressive IF you have many different states, the less states you have the worse your odds of having a better place to flee will be.

[r3volution 3.0]

Revolts are much easier the smaller the state is, every revolution starts with a handfull of conspirators who must survive until their forces grow to rival the forces of the regime, revolt against Rhode Island as an independent state would be much easier than revolt against the union.

Is that true?

Suppose the rebels begin as 5% of the population. Why would it matter that they're 5k/100k rather than 5M/100M?

Isn't it all proportional?

Some states of any kind will be more repressive, others less repressive IF you have many different states, the less states you have the worse your odds of having a better place to flee will be.

So then it's not so much about economic competition creating incentives for liberal governance...

...it's that more states increases the odds of at least one just happening to be relatively liberal?

[TheTexan]

It creates a power vacuum that is then filled by criminals and tyrants.

Certainly wouldn't want that to happen!

[Swordsmyth]

Is that true?

Suppose the rebels begin as 5% of the population. Why would it matter that they're 5k/100k rather than 5M/100M?

Isn't it all proportional?

No on Island with 10 other people I can talk to 10% of the people in secret easily, I can't talk to 10% of the U.S. in secret.
Revolts start with a handful of people in any size nation not a % of the people, then they must grow to some % of the people, in a smaller state they start out closer to their goal.

So then it's not so much about economic competition creating incentives for liberal governance...

...it's that more states increases the odds of at least one just happening to be relatively liberal?

It is about both, the odds come into play because not everyone is wise enough to correctly understand what best serves his interests.

[Swordsmyth]

Certainly wouldn't want that to happen!

No you wouldn't. Not if you were smart.

[TheTexan]

No you wouldn't. Not if you were smart.

Yes, it would be horrible indeed. Good thing we have government, to prevent criminals and tyrants from taking power!

[r3volution 3.0]

No on Island with 10 other people I can talk to 10% of the people in secret easily, I can't talk to 10% of the U.S. in secret.
Revolts start with a handful of people in any size nation not a % of the people, then they must grow to some % of the people, in a smaller state they start out closer to their goal.

...

It is about both, the odds come into play because not everyone is wise enough to correctly understand what best serves his interests.

I have quibbles with both of those positions, but let's say I grant them for the sake of argument.

They don't really amount to much in terms of an advantage for interstate anarchy over world government (esp. federal).

Now let's put something on the other side of the scale: the abolition of war.

That's kind of a big deal, no?

[TheTexan]

That perspective merely reflects what your are willing to tolerate. Try to reject the dictates of the US and see how un-totalitarian it is.

Taking 50% of your income in taxes isn't totalitarianism, that's just normal, every country does it. Perfectly normal.

[Swordsmyth]

I have quibbles with both of those positions, but let's say I grant them for the sake of argument.

They don't really amount to much in terms of an advantage for interstate anarchy over world government (esp. federal).

Now let's put something on the other side of the scale: the abolition of war.

That's kind of a big deal, no?

The larger the government the greater the benefits to controlling it, a world government with no outside enemies to unite it's factions would soon fall to civil wars over which faction would control it, like anarchy it simply can't exist as a sustained state of things, GOD is the only entity who is powerful enough in his own right to impose his kingdom on the world.

[r3volution 3.0]

a world government with no outside enemies to unite it's factions would soon fall to civil wars

I don't think a state needs an external enemy to survive.

That kind of logic is mostly a feature of mass democratic politics: boogeymen are great for winning elections (not so important absent elections).

In the pre-democratic age, wars tended to be the cause rather than cure for domestic instability.

This is evident in the changing conduct of war itself; "national wars" are a modern invention.

But even a democratic world state (I shudder at the thought) could get by fine without faking alien invasions et al.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't think a state needs an external enemy to survive.

That kind of logic is mostly a feature of mass democratic politics: boogeymen are great for winning elections (not so important absent elections).

In the pre-democratic age, wars tended to be the cause rather than cure for domestic instability.

Unless you believe that your ruler of the world can hold his throne without the support of competing factions then you are stuck with them, and if you have internal factions they will seek control of the throne for themselves unless they need eachother to defend against an outside force.
They will start civil wars for control of such great wealth and power.

[TheTexan]

Unless you believe that your ruler of the world can hold his throne without the support of competing factions then you are stuck with them, and if you have internal factions they will seek control of the throne for themselves unless they need eachother to defend against an outside force.
They will start civil wars for control of such great wealth and power.

Aliens

[r3volution 3.0]

if you have internal factions they will seek control of the throne for themselves unless they need eachother to defend against an outside force.

Q. Why would they want to help each other defend against an outside force?
A. To maintain power, i.e. to keep milking the domestic population and sharing the loot.
Q. So, absent an outside force, what reason do they have to cooperate?
A. ...to keep milking the domestic population and sharing the loot.

Nothing really changes. They still need each other, and for the same reason.

[Swordsmyth]

Aliens

If they try that then they will need to create phony wars with their aliens.
And world government would be better able to run such a hoax than many separate states.

[Swordsmyth]

Q. Why would they want to help each other defend against an outside force?
A. To maintain power, i.e. to keep milking the domestic population and sharing the loot.
Q. So, absent an outside force, what reason do they have to cooperate?
A. ...to keep milking the domestic population and sharing the loot.

Nothing really changes. They still need each other, and for the same reason.

But they don't still need eachother, and they can improve their share of the take by eliminating eachother.

[r3volution 3.0]

But they don't still need eachother

Sure they do. Is the general going to go out and personally force the 10,000,000 subjects to pay taxes?

You could say that the population itself is an "outside force."

and they can improve their share of the take by eliminating eachother.

That's always true, external enemy or not.