Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading the "government is tyranny" thread, I saw many things I disagreed with simply because their definition was not the same as my own. It's extremely important to first define what government is if we want a more productive conversation.
Is a government simply people organizing to accomplish things as a society? No, because people work together all the time without it being government.
Is it the group of people who control a territory? Closer, but not quite. A gang or mafia claims a territory and controls it through force or violence, but they aren't the government.
The key element of government is that people believe they have the RIGHT to forcefully control a territory. That's the main difference between government and any old gang.
If people agree on that definition, it's easier to discuss topics like "do we need a government?" because we know specifically what we'd be getting rid of and what we would be able to continue doing. Getting rid of government would be getting rid of the belief that we need someone who tells everyone else what to do under threat of violence, not getting rid of things like social organization and cooperation.
I see what your getting at. It should be an interesting thread. I'm sure I'll learn some things.
So this is your definition of government ---"The key element of government is that people believe they have the RIGHT to forcefully control a territory. That's the main difference between government and any old gang."
Lets take the USA for example. When they declared independence I'm sure they felt that they would have to defend the territory they claimed. They weren't sure they had the ability to do that but they were willing to do it anyway.
If what you mean by the" RIGHT to forcefully control a territory" are you referring to the right to control from the borders inward ? Because clearly they didn't have the ability to do that by force.
I'm trying to make a distinction between defending the territory and control of the interior. Hope I'm making myself clear.
What they needed was cooperation among a group of people willing to die for the the same cause. And that might be today called a gang. I'm sure they were call many things at that time. Terrorist is one that comes to mind.
Lets take the USA for example. When they declared independence I'm sure they felt that they would have to defend the territory they claimed. They weren't sure they had the ability to do that but they were willing to do it anyway.
If what you mean by the" RIGHT to forcefully control a territory" are you referring to the right to control from the borders inward ? Because clearly they didn't have the ability to do that by force.
I'm trying to make a distinction between defending the territory and control of the interior. Hope I'm making myself clear.
When they declared independence, they hadn't yet formed a government. The British government claimed to rightfully control the colonists, but they decided they shouldn't be controlled by people across the ocean. The colonists were the ones who did all the work to settle there, so why should they recognize the British government's right to rule them? So they organized to defend themselves and their property against the redcoats. They weren't forced or coerced into doing that...it was voluntary.
However, the founding fathers (as brilliant as they were) did something I think was wrong. They got together and, although they had good intentions, claimed that a new group would be formed that had the right to tax everyone. They simply declared "congress has the right to take your money if you live here" without anyone else signing any contract or consenting in any way. Unfortunately, people believed this gave them the RIGHT to do it. They just wrote on a very official piece of paper that they had the right to take everyone's money, and people didn't think to question it.
It's essentially like the mafia coming in and saying "we're going to be protecting your neighborhood and providing some services for you. We'll stop by for our payment once a month. Actually, you dont really have a choice...this is happening whether you like it or not...if you don't like it, get out of our neighborhood"...but then having everyone believe that was okay. They have the RIGHT to do that to us.
In that scenario, most of us would think its unjust. When government does it, most think it's legitimate, and even mock the people who don't agree with it. "You're just avoiding your social responsibility. Pay your fair share. What do you mean we don't need the mafia? They protect us and serve us. There would be chaos and mayhem...people stealing our money and attacking us, if not for the mafia." See the irony there?
When they declared independence, they hadn't yet formed a government. The British government claimed to rightfully control the colonists, but they decided they shouldn't be controlled by people across the ocean. The colonists were the ones who did all the work to settle there, so why should they recognize the British government's right to rule them? So they organized to defend themselves and their property against the redcoats. They weren't forced or coerced into doing that...it was voluntary.
However, the founding fathers (as brilliant as they were) did something I think was wrong. They got together and, although they had good intentions, claimed that a new group would be formed that had the right to tax everyone. They simply declared "congress has the right to take your money if you live here" without anyone else signing any contract or consenting in any way. Unfortunately, people believed this gave them the RIGHT to do it. They just wrote on a very official piece of paper that they had the right to take everyone's money, and people didn't think to question it.
It's essentially like the mafia coming in and saying "we're going to be protecting your neighborhood and providing some services for you. We'll stop by for our payment once a month. Actually, you dont really have a choice...this is happening whether you like it or not...if you don't like it, get out of our neighborhood"...but then having everyone believe that was okay. They have the RIGHT to do that to us.
In that scenario, most of us would think its unjust. When government does it, most think it's legitimate, and even mock the people who don't agree with it. "You're just avoiding your social responsibility. Pay your fair share. What do you mean we don't need the mafia? They protect us and serve us. There would be chaos and mayhem...people stealing our money and attacking us, if not for the mafia." See the irony there?
They had formed a government when they declared independence. The Declaration of Independence didn't spring up out of nowhere. Men met together, they chose leaders, they organized a military, and they kept having meetings, people elected representatives. They formed a provisional government. And it should be noted that this provisional government only represented a little over a third of the colonists. There were colonists that remained loyal to the king, and there were many colonists who decided to be neutral.
The founding fathers recognized that if the colonists were to remain independent, that they needed to work together, and needed to organize a defense against England, France, Spain and anyone else that might try to take over. The European countries had resources, and had a presence on our continent that would provide them with a base of operations. One by one, the colonies might well have fallen to Europe's armies. Together, they could defend themselves. Thus, the confederation.
However, it takes money to support an army of defense. Thus, taxes.
You do realize that after the Revolutionary War, that some colonists opted to live outside the United States. In some cases, they went west, outside the jurisdiction of the United States. In some cases, they went north, to Canada, where they could still be loyal to the British monarchy. In some cases, they went back to Europe. Or they went south.
If a colonist CHOSE to remain in the United States, he recognized the need for protection (the War of 1812 validated that need), and that he had a responsibility to the new government. By the way, the individual income tax was introduced during the Civil War. It didn't take hold though, until the advent of the 20th century.
They had formed a government when they declared independence. The Declaration of Independence didn't spring up out of nowhere. Men met together, they chose leaders, they organized a military, and they kept having meetings, people elected representatives. They formed a provisional government. And it should be noted that this provisional government only represented a little over a third of the colonists. There were colonists that remained loyal to the king, and there were many colonists who decided to be neutral.
Yes, correct. Men met up to choose leaders and organize a military...but did every person in the colonies agree to this? If yes, great, but then I don't consider it "government", just social organization. If even one person didn't agree to this, I have a problem with everyone else imposing it on that person. They became "government" when people believed they had the right to control and tax everyone in that area, regardless of consent. Otherwise it was all voluntary cooperation.
Quote:
The founding fathers recognized that if the colonists were to remain independent, that they needed to work together, and needed to organize a defense against England, France, Spain and anyone else that might try to take over. The European countries had resources, and had a presence on our continent that would provide them with a base of operations. One by one, the colonies might well have fallen to Europe's armies. Together, they could defend themselves. Thus, the confederation.
However, it takes money to support an army of defense. Thus, taxes.
They definitely did need to work together, and those who fought against the British chose to do it. They didn't need to be forced to do it. Taxes are involuntary by definition, otherwise its called a donation or voluntary payment. "Consenting to pay taxes" is like "consenting to be raped"...either way it's gonna happen. That said, I think the colonists who were against British rule wanted to defend themselves, which makes taxation unnecessary. Why force them to pay or fight when they all want to anyway?
Quote:
You do realize that after the Revolutionary War, that some colonists opted to live outside the United States. In some cases, they went west, outside the jurisdiction of the United States. In some cases, they went north, to Canada, where they could still be loyal to the British monarchy. In some cases, they went back to Europe. Or they went south.
Yes, and that's great. They had the option to stay under British rule, stay under U.S. rule, or none of the above. Later on, those people out west (who settled and had their own property) were overtaken by the U.S. government (obviously its a bit complicated, as they purchased some of the land, but also stole it from Native Americans, etc., but the point is that in some cases they simply claimed to have control of other people's existing property - people living on the east coast claimed property, that they had never stepped foot on, as their own. Then they said anyone living there was subject to their control.)
Quote:
If a colonist CHOSE to remain in the United States, he recognized the need for protection (the War of 1812 validated that need), and that he had a responsibility to the new government. By the way, the individual income tax was introduced during the Civil War. It didn't take hold though, until the advent of the 20th century.
I suppose that's true until the rest of the territory was under control. After that, there was no choice to be free. Your only option is which ruler you live under.
Yes, correct. Men met up to choose leaders and organize a military...but did every person in the colonies agree to this? If yes, great, but then I don't consider it "government", just social organization. If even one person didn't agree to this, I have a problem with everyone else imposing it on that person. They became "government" when people believed they had the right to control and tax everyone in that area, regardless of consent. Otherwise it was all voluntary cooperation.
They definitely did need to work together, and those who fought against the British chose to do it. They didn't need to be forced to do it. Taxes are involuntary by definition, otherwise its called a donation or voluntary payment. "Consenting to pay taxes" is like "consenting to be raped"...either way it's gonna happen. That said, I think the colonists who were against British rule wanted to defend themselves, which makes taxation unnecessary. Why force them to pay when they all want to anyway?
Yes, and that's great. They had the option to stay under British rule, stay under U.S. rule, or none of the above. Later on, those people out west (who settled and had their own property) were overtaken by the U.S. government (obviously its a bit complicated, as they purchased some of the land, but also stole it from Native Americans, etc., but the point is that they simply claimed to have control of other people's existing property - people living on the east coast claimed property, that they had never stepped foot on, as their own. Then they said anyone living there was subject to their control.)
I suppose that's true until the rest of the territory was under control. After that, there was no choice to be free. Your only option is which ruler you live under.
How could every person in the colonies agree to it?
When can you get millions of people to agree on ANYTHING?
I think your insistence that government isn't government unless it's being coercive is strange.
Government is government whether it's coercive or not.
When the tribal chief orders a goat sacrificed to appease the rain god, it's still the government, it's still a government action, whether the person who owns the goat volunteers or is coerced to give up the goat.
When the Kul Tribe leader decides his daughter will marry the son of the Hot Tribe leader, it's still government, still a government action, whether the two people want to marry or not.
Government is a system of authority that people recognize. The Continental Congress was a government because the colonists who supported it recognized its authority. The subsequent American governments were governments even though some Americans might have continued to think of themselves as British and been loyal to the King of England.
How much force, how fairly/equitably/agreeably it is distributed and exercised is how we categorize the various forms of government.
Ideally, let's say according to perfect libertarianism, government would be the absolute minimum amount of force reqired to get everyone to follow the non-aggression axiom and all relationships would be voluntary, free, etc. But even the ideal libertarian perfection still means government is force. We would all agree that should someone act contrary to perfect voluntaryism or willingly and knowingly violate someone else's natural individual rights, a set of rules would govern our use of retaliatory force against them.
Name any government of any type across all of human history, and it's an arrangement, definition, delineation and structuring of force vis a vis the citizenry.
Quote:
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. - mis-attributed to George Washington, from "The Cry for Justice : An Anthology of the Literature of Social Protest" (1915)
And Max Weber defined "the state" as "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory", which is a concise description of "monopoly on violence" that is one of libertarianism's more popular topics of conversation at our secret meetings.
In virtually every example someone will give you on some necessary function of the government, as in they being the only entity capable of executing some action, you'll find that the truth is the government being the only entity capable of legitimately using force to carry out such an action. For example, taxation expressly for the purpose of personal payments to individuals, such our tax and spend welfare system. This action is the taking of money from one or more citizens and then simply giving that money to one or more other citizens, and doing so by force. At the individual level, we call this theft and have all manner of laws enacted to prevent and punish it, but at the government level, it's called taxation. The reason the same act of initiating force against others is illegal at the individual level yet legal at the government is specifically, exactly because the government holds the monopoly on force, thus, no other "competitor" may legitimately initiate force without running afoul of the monopoly holder.
Common deflections and straw men we can now expect are "oh yeah, I guess you don't want roads or schools" or some such nonsense. This belief that only the government can build a road or a school is nonsense because it leaves out the fine print, which is that only government can fund and plan a road using force against others. Same for a school. Anyone can pave a section of dirt or build a brick/mortar structure and add students and teachers. Only the government can force you to participate in the funding or force you to shut yer yap if you don't like the where/when/why/how of the road or school.
Government is force. Most arguments on this forum are tugs of war over who gets to use that force to their advantage and who doesn't. Name the political topic, and you'll find advocating the application or removal of government force as the true root of the discussion tree.
How much force, how fairly/equitably/agreeably it is distributed and exercised is how we categorize the various forms of government.
Ideally, let's say according to perfect libertarianism, government would be the absolute minimum amount of force reqired to get everyone to follow the non-aggression axiom and all relationships would be voluntary, free, etc. But even the ideal libertarian perfection still means government is force. We would all agree that should someone act contrary to perfect voluntaryism or willingly and knowingly violate someone else's natural individual rights, a set of rules would govern our use of retaliatory force against them.
Name any government of any type across all of human history, and it's an arrangement, definition, delineation and structuring of force vis a vis the citizenry.
And Max Weber defined "the state" as "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory", which is a concise description of "monopoly on violence" that is one of libertarianism's more popular topics of conversation at our secret meetings.
In virtually every example someone will give you on some necessary function of the government, as in they being the only entity capable of executing some action, you'll find that the truth is the government being the only entity capable of legitimately using force to carry out such an action. For example, taxation expressly for the purpose of personal payments to individuals, such our tax and spend welfare system. This action is the taking of money from one or more citizens and then simply giving that money to one or more other citizens, and doing so by force. At the individual level, we call this theft and have all manner of laws enacted to prevent and punish it, but at the government level, it's called taxation. The reason the same act of initiating force against others is illegal at the individual level yet legal at the government is specifically, exactly because the government holds the monopoly on force, thus, no other "competitor" may legitimately initiate force without running afoul of the monopoly holder.
Common deflections and straw men we can now expect are "oh yeah, I guess you don't want roads or schools" or some such nonsense. This belief that only the government can build a road or a school is nonsense because it leaves out the fine print, which is that only government can fund and plan a road using force against others. Same for a school. Anyone can pave a section of dirt or build a brick/mortar structure and add students and teachers. Only the government can force you to participate in the funding or force you to shut yer yap if you don't like the where/when/why/how of the road or school.
Government is force. Most arguments on this forum are tugs of war over who gets to use that force to their advantage and who doesn't. Name the political topic, and you'll find advocating the application or removal of government force as the true root of the discussion tree.
What about when everyone voluntarily participates in government?
Government is power. It's not always force. It's not always coercive. It can be coercive, because it is power. The people give a government its power. Why? Why do people, over and over, in small groups and in large groups, CHOOSE to have leaders, CHOOSE to have a structure, CHOOSE to have rules? Why?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
