[Irviding]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Monday, Jun 4 2012, 20:06)

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 00:51) If you really believe that taxation is so abhorrent and you're still paying taxes then you're a disingenuous hypocrite at best. I'm simply trying to discuss alternative philosophical and moral viewpoints, no need to get so hostile.

But he's not hostile. He, sivis, and myself have made numerous counterarguments to what you have said and you've only selectively answered it. I know it can be hard to be the odd man out in these threads (I had to do it in a religion topic) but just choosing things you have an answer for and ignoring the rest, then submitting your post thinking you're right is, to be frank, noncontributory.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 02:34)

and you've only selectively answered it. I know it can be hard to be the odd man out in these threads (I had to do it in a religion topic) but just choosing things you have an answer for and ignoring the rest, then submitting your post thinking you're right is, to be frank, noncontributory.

I don't have enough free-time to answer every question/statement made by everyone (hell, I'm avoiding homework right now), but I've answered some of the ones that I thought were the most important. Basically what I'm saying is I'm not intentionally avoiding the questions, it's just that I have a limited timeframe to answer them (finals are in a week!).

I will be willfully ignoring the "if you don't like it, leave it/move to somalia", however. Somalia has violent warlords that kill people. The lack of a formal, recognized state doesn't mean it's actually without rulers because a warlord is basically a dictator on a local level. I've never been to Somalia, but I'm pretty sure the warlords there would instigate force against me. Even the regular civilians would likely kill me for being an atheist. Since I enjoy living, I'm obviously not going to Somalia. And how, exactly, am I supposed to live in Antarctica? Besides the logistics of getting there, anyone living there would likely starve because you can't grow food. Telling me to go live in either a war-torn, sh*t hole of a country which I don't speak the language of and have no financial means of getting there, or in a frozen wasteland where I would definitely die from hypothermia/starvation soon after arriving, is not really a reasonable possibility, is it?

And the United States has an expatriation tax, so even if I did manage to leave, some of my money would still be legally owed to the IRS.



This post has been edited by Chunkyman on Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 03:21

[Irviding]

Because those are societies in which there is no state ruling over people. You've realized what I wanted you to realize. A stateless society doesn't work. Why is there massive carnage in Somalia and Yemen? Because there is no government to keep people in line. It's that simple. People need government and government needs people. James Madison quote on the last page, read it!

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 03:25)

Because those are societies in which there is no state ruling over people. You've realized what I wanted you to realize. A stateless society doesn't work. Why is there massive carnage in Somalia and Yemen? Because there is no government to keep people in line. It's that simple. People need government and government needs people. James Madison quote on the last page, read it!

And what if the government is out of line? Some governments can be so horrendously evil on so many levels that it makes you sick (like North Korea).

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Monday, Jun 4 2012, 22:44)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 03:25) Because those are societies in which there is no state ruling over people. You've realized what I wanted you to realize. A stateless society doesn't work. Why is there massive carnage in Somalia and Yemen? Because there is no government to keep people in line. It's that simple. People need government and government needs people. James Madison quote on the last page, read it! And what if the government is out of line? Some governments can be so horrendously evil on so many levels that it makes you sick (like North Korea).

Then the people no longer have to follow that government. A country like North Korea is a bad example; they've never EVER had a type of democratic, republican society. All those brutal Korean empires, then Japanese colonial rule, then Soviet Exploitation, then Juche communism. If something like that were to occur in the US, then the people have the right to break the contract by not voting for that group of leaders. It's pretty simple. That's how society works - we need government. All men are not angels.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 03:59)

Then the people no longer have to follow that government. A country like North Korea is a bad example; they've never EVER had a type of democratic, republican society. All those brutal Korean empires, then Japanese colonial rule, then Soviet Exploitation, then Juche communism. If something like that were to occur in the US, then the people have the right to break the contract by not voting for that group of leaders. It's pretty simple. That's how society works - we need government. All men are not angels.

What if the government simply doesn't allow them to not follow their rules? They have armies and tanks and missiles to crush any rebellion. If the citizens tried to rebel/form a better government they would likely be crushed or at least have massive casualties.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Monday, Jun 4 2012, 23:04)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 03:59) Then the people no longer have to follow that government. A country like North Korea is a bad example; they've never EVER had a type of democratic, republican society. All those brutal Korean empires, then Japanese colonial rule, then Soviet Exploitation, then Juche communism. If something like that were to occur in the US, then the people have the right to break the contract by not voting for that group of leaders. It's pretty simple. That's how society works - we need government. All men are not angels. What if the government simply doesn't allow them to not follow their rules? They have armies and tanks and missiles to crush any rebellion. If the citizens tried to rebel/form a better government they would likely be crushed or at least have massive casualties.

That wouldn't happen in most societies with a generally free government. Look at Egypt - the military did not obey the orders to kill the protestors. Do you think the military of the US would obey a President doing that? Or do you think the cabinet would section 4 his ass out of office in two seconds? The latter, likely. In a place like Syria which is much less democratic and more tyrannical than Egypt(Mubarak was really not a brutal dictator like the media make him out to be, he's not "Egypt's Stalin") we are seeing the very problem you described. But the solution to that problem is not having no government at all.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 04:10)

But the solution to that problem is not having no government at all.

What would be the solution then? What if the revolutionaries were never able to successfully overthrow the evil dictator and were forced to live under his rule?

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Monday, Jun 4 2012, 23:12)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 04:10) But the solution to that problem is not having no government at all. What would be the solution then? What if the revolutionaries were never able to successfully overthrow the evil dictator and were forced to live under his rule?

Then the international community would intervene. Libya, for example. There is too much political pressure to intervene in Syria right now.

[Leftcoast]

Ok, I have been following this topic all day. I didn't have anything of value to add that wasn't already stated. Now, I just have something I want to air.

Chunkyman, you brought this discussion up, there have been a lot of valid points and arguments against your statement(s) and I do understand being too busy with finals, I have been there before. What I want to see are ideas from you since you keep brining up these "what if" statements. For my money and how I make my living, you can't just bring those what if ideas, you have to bring solutions and answers or at least ideas that might work.

I'm not trying to be a punk here, there are times when I have flat out disagreed with Irviding, but this isn't the hold a grudge forum, I have nothing against Irviding just because we don't agree 100%. That being said, honestly, what kind of ideas do you have to replace the system(s) you have disagreement with? You may have some great ideas, but we don't know till we here them.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Monday, Jun 4 2012, 18:06)

I'm simply trying to discuss alternative philosophical and moral viewpoints, no need to get so hostile.

I didn't feel hostile while I was typing it.
I felt like I was challenging you; isn't this what you asked for?

I'd be happy to consider alternatives if alternatives had been presented.
but so far the only alternatives that have been discussed are those that came before the State and failed. a civil society made up entirely of volunteer public services could never meet the needs of a modern / massive metropolitan area; let alone an entire country. private corporations might be an alternative if they hadn't already proven themselves to be incapable of cutting corners in the name of profits. government certainly isn't free of corruption by any means, but at least it has other incentives than the bottom-line dollar. the private sector has shown that it is only concerned with profits upon profits. a corporation will sacrifice it's own long-term interests in the name of short-term profits for the men at the top. at least government is still somewhat beholden to the people that would elect them.

I've yet to see a sound argument for why taxation is immoral or little more than petty theft.
I've yet to see alternatives that don't sound like nothing more than socialist fantasies.

if you want, we can sit around and agree with each other about how nice it would be for someone to finally create a peaceful communist state.
no more dogma, no more entrenched bureaucracy, just people living for today...

but this gets us nowhere.
if you want us to talk about principles in IN THEORY then I'd be obliged to ignore the conversation completely.
I got bored of that in graduate school.

I want to talk about principles IN PRACTICE.
we have to consider the implications of our CURRENT reality or we will forever be stuck in meaningless clouds of intellectual superiority.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 00:04)

QUOTE This argument boils down to whether taxation is forced or not, though. I don't think that citizens are forced kicking and screaming into paying their taxes (well, for the most part anyway), more grudgingly accepted by the vast majority. The fact that the majority pay their taxes willingly, for whatever reason, is a demonstration that as a principle taxation is not forced. It's true that most people pay taxes without serious resistance (unless tax evasion counts as resistance), but I don't believe that changes whether it's forced or not. The state rarely uses actual, physical force in order to collect taxes, but it uses the threat of physical force to make you more compliant.

That's very true, but every social interaction is contributed to by the veiled threat of violence. The two basic branches of any social interaction are coercion and compromise. At the most fundamental level, if any individual wants a better deal from another they are probably going to use coercion of some kind, including the threat of violence, to achieve it. In this, the actions of the state are just an extension of the actions of the person.

[spaceeinstein]

I would relate taxation with paying for housing. People accept the charge of living in this country, so they pay taxes. People accept living in a hotel/apartment so they pay rent. Money gathered from taxes should be generally used to supply public services and improve the country. Money gathered from billing residents should be generally used supply services and improve housing. If you don't agree with the amount you are taxed or how it's used, you can voice that opinion. If you don't agree with the charges that the hotel/apartment is requesting or how it's used, you can voice that opinion. If you don't want to be charged for living in a place that provides services and improves your living conditions, you can leave. Though this would only work if the country leaders are ingenuous. Though this would only work if the hotel/apartment owners are ingenuous. Since I'm guessing most of you live in ingenuous countries with ingenuous property owners, I don't think taxation/charges is considered theft in your areas.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 07:36)

That's very true, but every social interaction is contributed to by the veiled threat of violence. The two basic branches of any social interaction are coercion and compromise. At the most fundamental level, if any individual wants a better deal from another they are probably going to use coercion of some kind, including the threat of violence, to achieve it. In this, the actions of the state are just an extension of the actions of the person.

I don't agree with that at all. When you go to the grocery store, do you threaten them with punishment if they don't give you food, or do you find a way to have a mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange of money for food? Personal relationships are (hopefully) avoid of coercion as well. You don't hit or threaten to hit your girlfriend if she doesn't do as you ask, you find a voluntary means to achieve a solution. At least in my life, none of my day-to-day social interactions involve coercion of any kind. I suppose you might consider social pressure to be coercive, but I wouldn't consider that to be a form of coercion. If your social interactions are involving coercion, there is something wrong.

In our personal lives we reject violence, coercion and the instigation of force because they are morally wrong, but accept and even ask for it on a societal level. I believe that the instigation of force, violence, and coercion are universally immoral, and so I reject the view that taxation is a morally acceptable practice.

QUOTE

I would relate taxation with paying for housing. People accept the charge of living in this country, so they pay taxes. People accept living in a hotel/apartment so they pay rent. Money gathered from taxes should be generally used to supply public services and improve the country. Money gathered from billing residents should be generally used supply services and improve housing. If you don't agree with the amount you are taxed or how it's used, you can voice that opinion. If you don't agree with the charges that the hotel/apartment is requesting or how it's used, you can voice that opinion. If you don't want to be charged for living in a place that provides services and improves your living conditions, you can leave. Though this would only work if the country leaders are ingenuous. Though this would only work if the hotel/apartment owners are ingenuous. Since I'm guessing most of you live in ingenuous countries with ingenuous property owners, I don't think taxation/charges is considered theft in your areas.

Paying for housing and taxation are totally different. For starters, you aren't thrown into a little cage for ten years if you don't pay your rent. Also, the act of buying a house or renting an apartment is a voluntarily agreed upon arrangement by two consenting adults. The landlord cannot force you to rent his apartment, nor can he arbitrarily raise the rent as much as he wants (unless that was specifically stipulated in the contract, but you would have to be a retard to sign that). The only way the landlord can take your money is if you voluntarily agree to all the terms presented in the contract. The state does not use voluntary methods (like a landlord does) to acquire your money, it uses coercion. It operates like the mafia, give me your money or something bad will happen to you.
The fact you may get goodies in return doesn't justify the immoral nature of coercion and theft.

QUOTE

but so far the only alternatives that have been discussed are those that came before the State and failed. a civil society made up entirely of volunteer public services could never meet the needs of a modern / massive metropolitan area; let alone an entire country. private corporations might be an alternative if they hadn't already proven themselves to be incapable of cutting corners in the name of profits. government certainly isn't free of corruption by any means, but at least it has other incentives than the bottom-line dollar. the private sector has shown that it is only concerned with profits upon profits. a corporation will sacrifice it's own long-term interests in the name of short-term profits for the men at the top. at least government is still somewhat beholden to the people that would elect them.

I would argue for free-market capitalism, but this thread was more geared towards the morality side of things as opposed to "How would X function?". Just a little side note, but the problems with corporations right now is a direct result of limited liability (a government granted status). It amazes me how problems directly caused by the state are used as an attack of free markets.

QUOTE

Chunkyman, you brought this discussion up, there have been a lot of valid points and arguments against your statement(s) and I do understand being too busy with finals, I have been there before. What I want to see are ideas from you since you keep brining up these "what if" statements. For my money and how I make my living, you can't just bring those what if ideas, you have to bring solutions and answers or at least ideas that might work.

I hate to be that guy who links you to something as opposed to writing everything myself, but the amount of writing required to answer that question in great detail might kill me. Here is a free book about practical ways to solve things (like roads) without the use of a violent monopoly and taxation.

This post has been edited by Chunkyman on Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 01:26

[Leftcoast]

QUOTE

QUOTE Chunkyman, you brought this discussion up, there have been a lot of valid points and arguments against your statement(s) and I do understand being too busy with finals, I have been there before. What I want to see are ideas from you since you keep brining up these "what if" statements. For my money and how I make my living, you can't just bring those what if ideas, you have to bring solutions and answers or at least ideas that might work. I hate to be that guy who links you to something as opposed to writing everything myself, but the amount of writing required to answer that question in great detail might kill me. Here is a free book about practical ways to solve things (like roads) without the use of a violent monopoly and taxation.

I don't mind links, but I still don't understand how this is going provide the needed services that the government provides. There just isn't a way around taxes at the moment, they are necessary to maintain our, yours included, way of life and standard of living. Anarchy certainly isn't the answer, tho it may look good on paper, we are not perfect and never will be; therefore, anarchy is not a viable option. If we aren't perfect then we require laws to govern our behavior.

I do see where your going with the articles you posted, and your ideas about volunteer fire departments ect; however, when implemented in reality these either don't work or do not work for the vast majority of communities.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 00:35)

I hate to be that guy who links you to something as opposed to writing everything myself, but the amount of writing required to answer that question in great detail might kill me. Here is a free book about practical ways to solve things (like roads) without the use of a violent monopoly and taxation.

I will respond to your comments in more depth, but I dipped into that thesis (sorry, its not a book), most accurately page 38 when it discusses the idea of anarchist self-defence, and immediately burst out laughing. When an author or authors go to such astonishing lengths to reduce organised society, state-centric politics and democracy to demeaning, clunky and childish characterised such as those presented in this work, I will struggle to take anything else they may say seriously. They may well have a great idea for how public services can be provided in a stateless society (it doesn't actually explain how roads can be effective funded in a society with no overriding hierarchical organisation which can commit to decisions on a financial level- assuming that concepts such as "business", "ownership" and "finance" are not eradicated entirely which would lead to over fundamental questions, nor whom would actually be involved in the building (anarchist models tend to focus on many small societal groups rather than a few large ones, and without the expertise required for technically challenging projects to take place on those small levels and no real incentive for mutual cooperation as "mutually beneficial" is a very objective statement and recompense deals must use some kind of tangible profit in order to have any worth) but even if they did (which they don't) I would struggle to take them seriously.

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (Leftcoast @ Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 17:26)

I do see where your going with the articles you posted, and your ideas about volunteer fire departments ect; however, when implemented in reality these either don't work or do not work for the vast majority of communities.

It's totally fine that you want a government run fire department. It's your belief, and you have a right to act on that belief. I would never dream of using force or advocating the use of force against you if you wanted to give your money to fund the fire department. It's your money, you can give it to whomever you want. You giving your money to the state does not harm me, so it would be wrong of me to try and stop you. I never would send people in blue costumes with guns to prevent you from acting on your beliefs. Would you give my beliefs the same respect I give yours, or would you advocate force being used against me?

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 14:35)

Would you give my beliefs the same respect I give yours, or would you advocate force being used against me?

because you don't want to pay taxes?

I could only respect that belief if you did not live in the same society as myself and my family.
if you want to live in the same society that we live in, then you're going to have to pay your taxes.

if you want to live in the same society that we live in but not pay taxes, then I have no respect for your belief.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 16:48)

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 14:35) Would you give my beliefs the same respect I give yours, or would you advocate force being used against me? because you don't want to pay taxes? I could only respect that belief if you did not live in the same society as myself and my family. if you want to live in the same society that we live in, then you're going to have to pay your taxes. if you want to live in the same society that we live in but not pay taxes, then I have no respect for your belief.

Agreed. Please construct your own roads to get around, buy your own firetruck, etc.

Does it matter that what you're calling for is what existed before the 19th century (no police forces really existed before then for example) and what we have today is a result of the evolution of the very things you want?

[Chunkyman]

So you two (and likely everyone else here) advocate violence and/or the threat of violence against me if I don't give you my money to fund your vision for society. It's easy to advocate for the instigation of force when it's spoken in terms of things like "The government should make you pay taxes", but would you personally be willing to force me to give you money in order to fund your ideals? If I we were standing face to face, would you be willing to point a gun at me in order to get my money? Would you be willing to lock me in a little cage for a decade if I refused? What if I refused to be in the cage, would you then be willing to pull the trigger? Since you advocate people in blue costumes either threatening me with guns to get my money, locking me in a cage if I don't surrender my property, and killing me if I refuse to be in the cage, surely you would be willing to do this yourselves.

This post has been edited by Chunkyman on Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 23:36