Are you a statist?

Heres a line of questioning to find out stoned

Every argument with your average statist. It is no ones work but a simple example since Ush fails to understand. This is a debate, not fishing for arguments, as Ush fails to understand yet again.

Me: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong ' except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence?

Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z.

Me: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive?

Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.

Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail ' where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.

Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays 'protection' money to, can it be really argued that he is making a 'free' choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands ' but will be forced to marry one of them ' can she said to be really 'choosing' marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.

Statist: Well there is a 'social contract,' that binds people to their governments.

Me: There is no such thing as a 'social contract.' Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a 'contract,' then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it 'charity.'

Statist: But I accept the social contract ' and so do you if you drive on the roads.

Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract ' and I have never agreed to a 'social contract' of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.

Me: Can I justly create a 'social contract' that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood ' and say that if people continue to live in 'my' neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?

Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . .

Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is 'the government' not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others ' a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose 'the government,' do you still have a government?

Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point ' you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.

Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master's wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?

Statist: No ' however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.

Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.]

Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Me: Why?

Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US .

Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now ' you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.

Statist: To some degree, of course.

Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes ' and your taxes are not extracted from you through force ' then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?

Statist: I pay my taxes because I'm a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.

Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?

Statist: Of course not!

Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not ' but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: I guess not.

Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it ' and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something ' and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?

Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.

Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you are voluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?

Statist: I can certainly see that position.

Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.

Me: Well, I'm certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools.

Mariuzu

would you define the term "social contract", because it seems you really don't understand what it is referring to.

EDIT: for instance, unless you are the most avid follower of the "Nobel Savage" idea of human prehistory, even anarchist societies have a social contract. ffs, you can apply the concept to the evolution of every pack/social animal in existence [and that is a less abstract comparison than is taxation=violence]

What does prehistory have to do with growing out of such an immoral institution? Evolving passed the need to use violence to gain virtue as we evolved out of overt slavery. Everything else is just progress.

There is no such thing as a social contract. Its made up so its pointless to define it. Its meant to say I am bound by majority vote. Theres a difference between actual contracts signed and this "social contract" that I somehow agreed to by coming out of my mothers womb onto this piece of dirt.

Originally posted by Oliver North
[and that is a less abstract comparison than is taxation=violence]

Don't strawman. Taxation is coercive. Its extortion. Don't let the changing of words fool you, they're tricky. This can ultimately lead to violence if not obeyed but just because it usually doesn't does not change the moral aspect.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Don't strawman. Taxation is coercive. Its extortion. Don't let the changing of words fool you, they're tricky. This can ultimately lead to violence if not obeyed but just because it usually doesn't does not change the moral aspect.

Yes, I agree.

There is no way to "opt out" of the system while in this nation (or most modern nations) without incurring violence against you.

So what's the alternative? No taxes? No govt/state at all?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What does prehistory have to do with growing out of such an immoral institution?

I don't know, why don't you enlighten me, what do Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Nietzsche's views on the natural state of man have to do with the rationale for the social contract... I suppose you could throw Madison in there too.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Evolving passed the need to use violence to gain virtue as we evolved out of overt slavery. Everything else is just progress.

biological evolution was my point. The social contract is almost certainly a biological precondition for any type of animal that lives in groups.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
There is no such thing as a social contract. Its made up so its pointless to define it. Its meant to say I am bound by majority vote. Theres a difference between actual contracts signed and this "social contract" that I somehow agreed to by coming out of my mothers womb onto this piece of dirt.

see, its stuff like this that makes me think you have no idea what the term means, or at the very least, almost no familiarity with any arguments in support of it.

yes, thats cute, but nobody ever said the social contract was a legally binding document that was litigated by attorneys, but gee, you can blather on as if your point means something, simply by pointing out that the word "contract" can mean something different.

Like, seriously, unless you are an anarchist who thinks that the natural state of man is tranquil co-existence (Nobel Savage, read up on your Rousseau), you support the social contract, by tautological definition. Or, I suppose you could support isolated individuals who don't form societies, thus removing the need for it... is that it Mairuzu, are you a hermitist?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
So what's the alternative? No taxes? No govt/state at all?

Well alternative is just what is. The" government" does not exist. Its an illusion of authority that has been apart of our existence/culture forever therefore accepted by the majority. Its a very powerful thing and dangerous. People fight and die in the name of their gods *erm* governments. Sure the people exist, the tanks exist, the men in suits exist, but the illusion is their authority to do is just as no one imagines the mob having the right to do so. Stealing money from us because we are too dumb to think of a way to come up with roads? Just to bring the rest of the destruction to come along with it.

The alternative is freedom.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is no way to "opt out" of the system while in this nation (or most modern nations) without incurring violence against you.

to quote Mariuzu's response when questioned about states rights:

just move

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well alternative is just what is. The" government" does not exist. Its an illusion of authority that has been apart of our existence/culture forever therefore accepted by the majority. Its a very powerful thing and dangerous. People fight and die in the name of their gods *erm* governments. Sure the people exist, the tanks exist, the men in suits exist, but the illusion is their authority to do is just as no one imagines the mob having the right to do so. Stealing money from us because we are too dumb to think of a way to come up with roads? Just to bring the rest of the destruction to come along with it.

The alternative is freedom.

so you have adopted anarchy as a political belief now?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well alternative is just what is. The" government" does not exist. Its an illusion of authority that has been apart of our existence/culture forever therefore accepted by the majority. Its a very powerful thing and dangerous. People fight and die in the name of their gods *erm* governments. Sure the people exist, the tanks exist, the men in suits exist, but the illusion is their authority to do is just as no one imagines the mob having the right to do so. Stealing money from us because we are too dumb to think of a way to come up with roads? Just to bring the rest of the destruction to come along with it.

The alternative is freedom.

Oh, the government very much exists. It's asinine to claim otherwise. I see your point though: you're denying its legitimacy. So, again, what's the alternative?

freedom, c'mon

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't know, why don't you enlighten me, what do Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Nietzsche's views on the natural state of man have to do with the rationale for the social contract... I suppose you could throw Madison in there too.

You tell me your definition of this social contract that I did not sign to a collective that doesn't exists when there is only individuals.

Originally posted by Oliver North

biological evolution was my point. The social contract is almost certainly a biological precondition for any type of animal that lives in groups.

I'm referring to this obligation to pay taxes due to this social contract. I think we are side tracking here.

Originally posted by Oliver North

see, its stuff like this that makes me think you have no idea what the term means, or at the very least, almost no familiarity with any arguments in support of it.

yes, thats cute, but nobody ever said the social contract was a legally binding document that was litigated by attorneys, but gee, you can blather on as if your point means something, simply by pointing out that the word "contract" can mean something different.

Like, seriously, unless you are an anarchist who thinks that the natural state of man is tranquil co-existence (Nobel Savage, read up on your Rousseau), you support the social contract, by tautological definition. Or, I suppose you could support isolated individuals who don't form societies, thus removing the need for it... is that it Mairuzu, are you a hermitist?

Lol, it is you who has no clue what I'm referring to by this social contract. Its not that I don't know what it means, its that you have your own strict definition for it yourself.

Its the idea that I am bound to the collective because I am here living in this country therefore I must pay this taxation or be punished. You cannot justify this theft.

Originally posted by Oliver North
to quote Mariuzu's response when questioned about states rights:

just move

This was when I was a sad little minarchist thinking government can change or help things. I'm open to what is true. You should try it. 😉

States don't exist.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Oh, the government very much exists. It's asinine to claim otherwise. I see your point though: you're denying its legitimacy. So, again, what's the alternative?

The government is nothing but a definition for a group of people who claim the moral right to initiate force within a given geographic area. As I said, the people that pretend to have this right are definition real. The government, as an abstract term, does not exists. What exists are things like gravity, and matter. You must not be aware of whats subjective and objective.

You are asking something akin to "What is the alternative to no slavery?"

Like I said, freedom from theft. Nothing left but a voluntary society.

Originally posted by Oliver North
[b]freedom, c'mon [/B]

That's not an argument. 🙂

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Its the idea that I am bound to the collective because I am here living in this country therefore I must pay this taxation or be punished. You cannot justify this theft.

actually, the social contract is not connected to government policy, taxation, or even the existence of government itself. It is used often to justify those policies, or certain policies are rationalized by appealing to "social welfare" (which is NOT the same as the social contract), but at the end of the day, even the person-to-person interactions you have, say, while engaged in criminal activity or without any interference from the state at all, are all bound by the social contract.

Since you have already declared that you don't care what the political and philosophical history of the social contract is (which I take to mean copying text from Libertarian sites is the extent you have read about the issue), I'll put it with less nuance than I'd like:

You give up the right to behave in socially destructive ways because it benefits you to live in a society. You can deny it all you want [on the internet, sic], but this behaviour is empirically reproducible, cross-culturally, and almost certainly a product of your genes.

so, in my interpretation, sure, I believe it is reasonable to not own assault weapons such that I benefit from being much less likely to be shot by one. This is a matter of policy, not the necessary outcome of the social contract. We can disagree on what restrictions there may be on guns, but unless you are saying "it doesn't matter what is good for society I will do only what I want", you endorse the compromise at the heart of the social contract [its more complex than this, but lets see if you respond to my actual point before I get all nuanced]. Also, if your opinion is to absolutely refuse to weigh the outcome of your actions to society against your own personal motivations, I have no problem with society treating you like the sociopath you are.

Originally posted by Oliver North
to quote Mariuzu's response when questioned about states rights:

just move

Move where?

Exactly.

There is no avoiding it.

The alternative is something I desire:

1. Buy my own island,
2. Make it a sovereign nation.
3. Write my own constitution/rules.
4. ???
5. Live the rest of my life under the rules I want and die in my own personal utopia.

How realistic is that? The chances that any of us posting in this thread will make tens of millions of dollars in the next 2 decades is very slim. No island purchases in sight for me or anyone in this thread.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
The government is nothing but a definition for a group of people who claim the moral right to initiate force within a given geographic area. As I said, the people that pretend to have this right are definition real. The government, as an abstract term, does not exists. What exists are things like gravity, and matter. You must not be aware of whats subjective and objective.

You are asking something akin to "What is the alternative to no slavery?"

Like I said, freedom from theft and a voluntary society.

And yet it exists. We may(here, mainly you, I guess) not like it, disagree with it, question its legitimacy, or even outright deny it. Doesn't change the fact that the state is real and has very real domestic and even foreign power. Sure, it's ultimately enabled and powered by schmucks like you and me, but as of Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013; 4:48:00AM, the govt is real.

Freedom is the opposite of slavery. Both of these things also happen to be real.

That's all nice and dandy, but then, going by your logic, what's exactly preventing me from saying "Bah, bullshit. There ain't no such thing as a voluntary society! Only states are legitimate!" Also, a voluntary society does NOT mean 'freedom from theft.'

Originally posted by dadudemon
How realistic is that?

that was actually the point

though, looking at it, you are talking about taxes rather than the social contract, so we aren't really arguing about the same thing

Originally posted by dadudemon
Move where?

Exactly.

There is no avoiding it.

The alternative is something I desire:

1. Buy my own island,
2. Make it a sovereign nation.
3. Write my own constitution/rules.
4. ???
5. Live the rest of my life under the rules I want and die in my own personal utopia.

How realistic is that? The chances that any of us posting in this thread will make tens of millions of dollars in the next 2 decades is very slim. No island purchases in sight, for me or anyone in this thread.

Your little island paradise would still probably get invaded by the glorious US and A. Don't sweat it too much.