Taxation To Finance Security - When Is It Just?

[Swordsmyth]

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

No he needs his troops, not the other generals.

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

Not a serious one.

That's always true, external enemy or not.

Not when the risk is too great that they will in turn fall to the outside forces. Then they will lose their current share.

[r3volution 3.0]

No he needs his troops, not the other generals.

If that's the case, why does he need the other generals to defend against an external foe?

[r3volution 3.0]

I'd missed this post earlier...

Anarcho-capitalism not possible, because people are bad.

So, anarcho-communism?

So nothing with the prefix "anarcho," for the same reason - not possible.

It's interesting that you bring up anarcho-communism, though, since its unrealistic expectations about how people will behave mirror those of anarcho-capitalists. In anarcho-communism, everyone is supposed to work despite not working (and still taking from the common storehouse) being in their material self-interest. It's assumed that ideological zeal will overcome material self-interest. Similarly, in anarcho-capitalism, people in a position to profitably extort the public (i.e. the owners of the private defense agencies) are supposed to choose not to do so, out of respect for libertarian values.

[Swordsmyth]

If that's the case, why does he need the other generals to defend against an external foe?

Because he needs their troops against the outside force that is more powerful than the people.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because he needs their troops against the outside force that is more powerful than the people.

It could be that, with the end of all external threats, some segment of the ruling class is expendable (it need not be that way); and if that's the case, it could be that the result is civil war (it need not be that way). This certainly doesn't show that every state, or even the average state, must fall to pieces on the outbreak of peace. Look at the US. Despite fighting lots of wars, it has no external threats. Almost the entire military establishment is expendable in that respect - yet no civil war and collapse. And, on the other hand, consider how destabilizing war itself is. How many states have collapsed in civil war or revolution as a result of war? Lots.

[Swordsmyth]

It could be that, with the end of all external threats, some segment of the ruling class is expendable (it need not be that way); and if that's the case, it could be that the result is civil war (it need not be that way). This certainly doesn't show that every state, or even the average state, must fall to pieces on the outbreak of peace. Look at the US. Despite fighting lots of wars, it has no external threats. Almost the entire military establishment is expendable in that respect - yet no civil war and collapse. And, on the other hand, consider how destabilizing war itself is. How many states have collapsed in civil war or revolution as a result of war? Lots.

All states throughout history have had potential enemies to worry about, the U.S. may have weaker neighbors than most but they are still there, and the U.S. is a democracy/republic so the factions can pursue control of the state by means other than civil war.
And with world government the urge to seize it all or to break off their own hunk would be massively greater.

[otherone]

Aliens

Anarchists

[Origanalist]

I'd missed this post earlier...



So nothing with the prefix "anarcho," for the same reason - not possible.

It's interesting that you bring up anarcho-communism, though, since its unrealistic expectations about how people will behave mirror those of anarcho-capitalists. In anarcho-communism, everyone is supposed to work despite not working (and still taking from the common storehouse) being in their material self-interest. It's assumed that ideological zeal will overcome material self-interest. Similarly, in anarcho-capitalism, people in a position to profitably extort the public (i.e. the owners of the private defense agencies) are supposed to choose not to do so, out of respect for libertarian values.

Well, we already know the 'public' defense agencies do this. So your fears are already manifest.

[Origanalist]

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.

See post 67.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, we already know the 'public' defense agencies do this. So your fears are already manifest.

So you're acknowledging that anarcho-capitalism is impossible, because PDAs will simply become states?

[r3volution 3.0]

All states throughout history have had potential enemies to worry about, the U.S. may have weaker neighbors than most but they are still there, and the U.S. is a democracy/republic so the factions can pursue control of the state by means other than civil war.
And with world government the urge to seize it all or to break off their own hunk would be massively greater.

Well, I think it's clear that this question can't be answered a priori.

There's no iron law which ordains that a state must collapse into civil war absent an external threat.

[Origanalist]

So you're acknowledging that anarcho-capitalism is impossible, because PDAs will simply become states?

I think you need your meds adjusted.

[TheTexan]

Anarchists

Anarchist aliens.

[VIDEODROME]

Why create a government with no means in place for funding it? Especially if a major function of it is for common security?


What if a few minutes after putting the Constitution together, every stopped and said "He waitaminute, Taxation is theft." and then an unfunded government fizzled out.


As for the justness of Taxing people, the people deserve a say in it through their Representatives and it should not be either to high or squandered.

[r3volution 3.0]

So nothing with the prefix "anarcho," for the same reason - not possible.

It's interesting that you bring up anarcho-communism, though, since its unrealistic expectations about how people will behave mirror those of anarcho-capitalists. In anarcho-communism, everyone is supposed to work despite not working (and still taking from the common storehouse) being in their material self-interest. It's assumed that ideological zeal will overcome material self-interest. Similarly, in anarcho-capitalism, people in a position to profitably extort the public (i.e. the owners of the private defense agencies) are supposed to choose not to do so, out of respect for libertarian values.

Well, we already know the 'public' defense agencies do this. So your fears are already manifest.

So you're acknowledging that anarcho-capitalism is impossible, because PDAs will simply become states?

I think you need your meds adjusted.

What does the highlighted portion of your post mean?

[bunklocoempire]

No one has to be my slave in order to provide my security.

Why does someone have to be your slave to provide for your security?

(asking no one in particular)