News No representation without taxation

[Moridin]

I have a friend who is an alcoholic. I support my friend. I care about him and the many things that he does for me and others. I give him a place to sleep if he needs it. I buy him food if he needs it. If he asked me for money I would probably give it to him. I also tell him that I do not approve of his alcoholism and I worry about the manner in which he is hurting himself and others. I do what I can to disuade him from his poor choices and if I ever felt that he was beyond hope than I may well cease to be his friend. Does my support of my friend imply support of his alcoholism?

Yes, by giving him money and not acting more strongly against his addiction you are, in fact, his enabler. But your analogy is invalid in the generalities, you cannot cease to support the state without getting kidnapped or having additional things stolen from you. You are unable to escape the contradiction I've exposed. Maybe it is time for you to make your worldview consistent and stop supporting the state?

I will ask you the following: If you think the war in Iraq is morally abhorrent, why support it? You cannot answer that you are supporting a few of all the other things that the state does, because there are free market alternatives.

It provides police? You mean it provides mercenaries for those that can afford them yes? And those who can not are subject to those who can yes? Because those mercenaries will do their job as dictated by their employer.
Dispute resolution? Again for those that can afford it yes? So there is no justice for the poor? And how is the resolution of the paid mediator enforced? By paid mercenaries? And who has paid those mercenaries? Yet another price tag on justice?
Dismantling of monopolies? You're joking right? How would that happen? If people like a particular business it will do better than others. It will be able to afford better products and more resources and advertising to bring in more customers. Wash rinse repeat until you have one business that makes more than any of its competitors and is capable of buying more resources at higher prices dwindling the resources available to its competitors. And there you have your monopoly. What do you do then? Pay for mercenaries to take care of the situation?

There are established free market alternatives for all of these. As with all free market products, the price cannot spiral out of control since there is no state involved that can artificially inflate prices with statist monopolies. You don't know how the free market discourages monopolies? Are you serious? This is economics 101. It is done by competition. If you as a monopoly or cartel to artificially inflate prices (or similar) a competitor can easily exploit this by offering the same products cheaper, which will undermine and break up the monopoly. Competition also prevents prices from becoming too high so that people cannot afford.

The only time a monopoly cannot be dismantled like this is when it is a state monopoly because you will get your resources stolen and kidnapped by hired mercenaries (state police). With state monopolies, you have no competition, so the prices spiral out of control and quality diminishes, which is exactly what we are seeing today with those products and services the state "offers".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes, by giving him money and not acting more strongly against his addiction you are, in fact, his enabler. But your analogy is invalid in the generalities, you cannot cease to support the state without getting kidnapped or having additional things stolen from you. You are unable to escape the contradiction I've exposed. Maybe it is time for you to make your worldview consistent and stop supporting the state?

I will ask you the following: If you think the war in Iraq is morally abhorrent, why support it? You cannot answer that you are supporting a few of all the other things that the state does, because there are free market alternatives.

If I do not support the state I can leave it and I doubt they will come looking for me. If I cease to be friends with the alcoholic I am not going to stick around while he starves and such an not expect him to possibly take from me to get what he needs possibly even by violence.
I am not supporting the war. I merely had hope that things would change. And I would say that things are in fact changing. Had I and all others who did not support the war stopped supporting the state it would have collapsed. On the verge of collapse we could have seen such things as martial law, more violence, and a continued support of the policies of the state by those that have not lost their ability to influence it because they never ceased to support it. Would you fight a war here to stop a war there? Or maybe just contribute to the break down of the state then duck out to avoid the consequences.

I was also unaware that the free market provides free medicine and education for those that can not afford it. Welfare? Unemployment? Is there someone I can pay to protect me from fraud? Does the freemarket make sure that I get paid a fair wage? The list goes on and on.

There are established free market alternatives for all of these.

Yes I mentioned them. You apparently need to pay for justice and hope that your mercenaries are better armed than those of the people who would take from or harm you. And hope that you can afford mercenaries or are in the good graces of those who can.

As with all free market products, the price cannot spiral out of control since there is no state involved that can artificially inflate prices with statist monopolies. You don't know how the free market discourages monopolies? Are you serious? This is economics 101. It is done by competition. If you as a monopoly or cartel to artificially inflate prices (or similar) a competitor can easily exploit this by offering the same products cheaper, which will undermine and break up the monopoly. Competition also prevents prices from becoming too high so that people cannot afford.

The only time a monopoly cannot be dismantled like this is when it is a state monopoly because you will get your resources stolen and kidnapped by hired mercenaries (state police). With state monopolies, you have no competition, so the prices spiral out of control and quality diminishes, which is exactly what we are seeing today with those products and services the state "offers".

There have been monopolies of wealth and power all through out history. All it took was for the people to support one person or group of persons over others. And in a free market all it takes is for people to support one merchant or group of merchants over others. Maybe because they like their products better or because they like them better as people. No one needs to inflate prices artificially or otherwise. They just need to do more and better business than their competitors. And this doesn't even take into consideration who has the guns and what they decide to do with them. Or the banks and lenders and who they will or will not lend to.
What you advocate sounds more like the mafia than the state does.

 

[mheslep]

There may be some outsourcing around the edges (i.e. arbitration), but there is no 'established' free market alternative the police and the courts.

 

[Moridin]

If I do not support the state I can leave it and I doubt they will come looking for me.

No, again, you cannot do this. If I go up and down my street and arbitrarily demand money from my neighbors using guns, kidnapping and coercion, can I simply assert that they should leave if they refuse to pay me protection money? Of course not, because they have all the right to live where they live and I have no right to go around demanding money with the threat of violence.

If I cease to be friends with the alcoholic I am not going to stick around while he starves and such an not expect him to possibly take from me to get what he needs possibly even by violence.

I have already disproved this analogy. I also find it funny that you think the state is a dependent alcoholic who cannot manage his own finances.

I am not supporting the war.

You are intentionally paying money to the instigators of the war so they can use that money to continue the war. That is support by definition. If I pay money to a terrorist organization knowing that the money will be used to support their terror actives, I am supporting terror. Yes, it really is as cut-and-dry as this.

I merely had hope that things would change . And I would say that things are in fact changing.

So the state has stopped using guns, coercion and kidnapping as a way of supporting their projects? No.

Had I and all others who did not support the war stopped supporting the state it would have collapsed.

Yes, once you stop paying protection money to the mafia, they run out of money. I completely agree with this.

On the verge of collapse we could have seen such things as martial law, more violence, and a continued support of the policies of the state by those that have not lost their ability to influence it because they never ceased to support it. Would you fight a war here to stop a war there? Or maybe just contribute to the break down of the state then duck out to avoid the consequences.

This is clearly fallacious. I have already disproved the positions that (1) morality is dependent on the state (2) that there are no free market alternatives to security and charity. There are many perfect examples of voluntarism that works, just look at charity and the state itself. The state is in fact the perfect anarchy, since there is no state that controls the state. So if you claim that a stateless society would not work, then you are just assertion that the state does not work itself.

If anything, the state is the one that constantly ducks out to avoid consequences. This is most prominently displayed with their irresponsible policies of war, health care and education. The bottom line is that the (i) state is immoral due to its use of coercion, (ii) the state does not do what it is suppose to do and finally, (iii) there are perfectly valid free market alternatives that does work. Denying any of these three statements is simply a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Moridin]

There may be some outsourcing around the edges (i.e. arbitration), but there is no 'established' free market alternative the police and the courts.

Not at all. Private security companies, dispute resolution organizations etc. Also note that the state police and courts are both immoral (since they are funded by the use of coercion) and bad at what they do (war on drugs and terrorism, to name a few examples).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, again, you cannot do this. If I go up and down my street and arbitrarily demand money from my neighbors using guns, kidnapping and coercion, can I simply assert that they should leave if they refuse to pay me protection money? Of course not, because they have all the right to live where they live and I have no right to go around demanding money with the threat of violence.

I have responded to this scenario perhaps too sarcastically for you to understand my position. The government is not just some guy with a gun demanding money. You conveniently forget that this "man with a gun" provides services to the people "up and down the street" for which they, or most of them, have voted and requested and appointed persons to obtain them. So what "right" do you have to continue living in a community that provides you with several services (not just "protection") when you are unwilling to contribute to that community?
And I never stated that a person must leave only that they may choose to leave if they are unhappy with the direction in which that community is headed and have no hope for improvement. This can happen in any community of any sort regardless of the existence of a state. Would you live among racists and bigots who execute immoral social pograms absent any realistic means of stopping them (with or without a state) simply because you assert a right to live there? Or would you want to leave and avoid that?

I have already disproved this analogy. I also find it funny that you think the state is a dependent alcoholic who cannot manage his own finances.

My response was in regard to you infering that the state will use violence to obtain what it wishes and the alcoholic will not. You are deflecting.

You are intentionally paying money to the instigators of the war so they can use that money to continue the war. That is support by definition. If I pay money to a terrorist organization knowing that the money will be used to support their terror actives, I am supporting terror. Yes, it really is as cut-and-dry as this.

I refer to support of a system that contains several persons not all of which wish to pursue the war and many of which were striving to end it regardless of the few who started and continue it. No, it is not so cut-and-dry. You over simplify.

So the state has stopped using guns, coercion and kidnapping as a way of supporting their projects? No.

I referred to the Iraq war, not to your opinions regarding the state in general. Again you deflect.

Yes, once you stop paying protection money to the mafia, they run out of money. I completely agree with this.

In absence of a system above this "mafia" to control it, and in absence of those dessenting voices that were within it, what do you believe this "mafia" will do when deprived of resources?

This is clearly fallacious. I have already disproved the positions that (1) morality is dependent on the state (2) that there are no free market alternatives to security and charity. There are many perfect examples of voluntarism that works, just look at charity and the state itself. The state is in fact the perfect anarchy, since there is no state that controls the state. So if you claim that a stateless society would not work, then you are just assertion that the state does not work itself.

(1) I have never asserted that morality is dependant upon the state.
(2) Security I will deal with later. As far as charity there is no assurance of it. It is not a free market alternative since the free market does not dictate charity. It is only a thing that may or may not exist in a free market and so is wholely seperate, not an alternative created by it, and may or may not exist with or without a state.

If anything, the state is the one that constantly ducks out to avoid consequences. This is most prominently displayed with their irresponsible policies of war, health care and education. The bottom line is that the (i) state is immoral due to its use of coercion, (ii) the state does not do what it is suppose to do and finally, (iii) there are perfectly valid free market alternatives that does work. Denying any of these three statements is simply a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

(i) The mercenaries hired to maintain "stability" in the absence of the state will use coercion with no rule of law to restrain it.
(ii) There is just as much, or less, assurance that any entity in the absence of a state will do what it is "supposed" to do.
(iii) "Free market alternatives" are available only to those who can pay with no assurance of equity.

Not at all. Private security companies, dispute resolution organizations etc. Also note that the state police and courts are both immoral (since they are funded by the use of coercion) and bad at what they do (war on drugs and terrorism, to name a few examples).

Private security companies operate under the rule of law. A hired authoritarian force absent a rule of law are called mercenaries.
Hired mediators and other dispute resolution alternatives operate under (and their decisions are upheld by) the rule of law. Absent a state or authoritarian body their decisions are meaningless (mere suggestions) without anyone to enforce them unless one acquires what ever force (such as mercenaries) necessary to do so.
And there is just as much, and more often less, assurance that these alternatives will be "good" or "moral" in what they do.

 

[Moridin]

I have responded to this scenario perhaps too sarcastically for you to understand my position. The government is not just some guy with a gun demanding money. You conveniently forget that this "man with a gun" provides services to the people "up and down the street" for which they, or most of them, have voted and requested and appointed persons to obtain them.

That is exactly what the state is. No, pretty much no one has voted and requested the particular things the state does, such as the war in Iraq and other failed social projects. There are plenty of people who disagree with the republican or democratic agenda, and they are consequently coerced into handing over money to fund projects they certainly do not agree with. The people acknowledge that the ruling minority support various state agendas, but the state does not respect or acknowledge that most people want no part in it, but they go ahead and coerce money from them under the threat of guns and kidnapping just the same.

So what "right" do you have to continue living in a community that provides you with several services (not just "protection") when you are unwilling to contribute to that community?

Property rights and self-ownership. I have never signed any voluntary contract supporting the war in Iraq or socialized medicine and consequently, they have no right to demand money from me for such projects with the threat of violence. I have no issue with contributing to a community, what I have issue is with this community using coercion to fund plans that I want no part of, such as the war in Iraq or socialized medicine.

And I never stated that a person must leave only that they may choose to leave if they are unhappy with the direction in which that community is headed and have no hope for improvement.

You still don't see why this request is completely unfounded? If I go up and down my neighborhood arbitrarily demanding money with the use of coercion and violence for projects people want no part of, is it reasonable for me to simply assert that they must leave their property if they don't like it? The answer is still no.

My response was in regard to you infering that the state will use violence to obtain what it wishes and the alcoholic will not. You are deflecting.

So no alcoholics use violence to obtain money to fund their abuse? Hardly.

I referred to the Iraq war, not to your opinions regarding the state in general. Again you deflect.

So the state has stopped using coercion, violence and kidnapping to support the war in Iraq? No.

In absence of a system above this "mafia" to control it, and in absence of those dessenting voices that were within it, what do you believe this "mafia" will do when deprived of resources?

Your attempt at rationalizing paying protection money to criminals is clearly unimpressive.

(1) I have never asserted that morality is dependant upon the state.
(2) Security I will deal with later. As far as charity there is no assurance of it. It is not a free market alternative since the free market does not dictate charity. It is only a thing that may or may not exist in a free market and so is wholely seperate, not an alternative created by it, and may or may not exist with or without a state.

(1) Yes, you have several times in this discussion implicitly asserted that morality is dependent on the state, specifically when you claim that moral chaos will result without a state.
(2) Yes, there are, in fact, many free market charities around. Doctors without borders come to mind.

(i) The mercenaries hired to maintain "stability" in the absence of the state will use coercion with no rule of law to restrain it.
(ii) There is just as much, or less, assurance that any entity in the absence of a state will do what it is "supposed" to do.
(iii) "Free market alternatives" are available only to those who can pay with no assurance of equity.

(i) Yes, justified use of force which will not be funded by theft but with voluntary agreements.
(ii) Again, basic economics. The free market assures this.
(iii) That is just communist propaganda. The free market calibrates the supply to the monetary resources of all of its customers. Furthermore, the statist attempt at a solution does not assure equity at all. Just look at the current financial crisis, price of health care and food etc.

Private security companies operate under the rule of law.

As established earlier, morality is not dependent on the state, so this is an invalid argument.

A hired authoritarian force absent a rule of law are called mercenaries.

There is no authoritarian force that controls the state, therefore the state police are mercenaries.

Hired mediators and other dispute resolution alternatives operate under (and their decisions are upheld by) the rule of law. Absent a state or authoritarian body their decisions are meaningless (mere suggestions) without anyone to enforce them unless one acquires what ever force (such as mercenaries) necessary to do so.

(my bold)

Morality (and therefore "the law") is still not dependent on the state as established and agreed upon earlier. There are viable free market alternatives to enforcing dispute resolutions, such as DROs.

As a last section of this post, I would like to ask you a few questions so that we might be able to concertize exactly where our disagreements lie. Do you agree that the state uses coercion, theft and the initiation of the use of force to funds its programs? Do you agree that this is immoral? Do you think the free market is unable to counteract monopolies? Do you think that the state is able to break up monopolies without establishing itself as a monopoly? If you accept that there are free market alternatives to food, clothes, medicine and so on, why is security, dispute resolution different (in theory)?