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.
It means I was unilaterally threatened with violence without contracting with someone all under the name of property. I was walking along and someone threatened me. Shouldn't I be free of this statist tyranny?
Perhaps it was tyranny of the non-statist property owner who thought their property extended beyond where it really does.
If you believe that government steals from you, I think you need to check yourself. I don't get why people think it is theft. The only thing that could be theft is when cops seize property from you. Taxes aren't something I like paying but without them, I honestly fear what the U.S. and state of Arizona would be like. Even with them, Arizona is an anti-welfare state with people hating on welfare queens sucking on government's teet. I'm a lot of more pragmatic than the anarcho-capitalists we see on this thread and others in this forum and realize volunteerism could bring out charity in people but not enough for the problems we have.
If theft is taking something that belongs to someone else without their consent, then taxation is theft...unless you consent, but they don't give you a choice either way. It's like someone deciding to rape you and you decide you're okay with it...they were gonna do it whether you wanted them to or not. That's one reason I did this social contract topic. People always use it to claim that "we all consent", so taxation isn't theft, but that can't be true.
It's fine that you think we need taxes, but that doesn't mean it isn't theft. You just think we need to steal because the result would be worse if we didn't. I disagree, but I realize that's how you're looking at it. I actually watched a video recently that talked about the church leaders long ago telling people they must donate to the church if they cared for the poor, and then they end up with these big cathedrals and all the best art in the world, etc. Compare that today, where political leaders shame anyone who doesn't support their welfare programs (which haven't worked and just make it harder for people to get out of poverty) and they actually end up taking a lot of that tax money to use on other things. I just think the whole thing is a joke and that we'd be better off cutting out the middleman.
And I wanted to make sure you know...its voluntaryism, not volunteerism. Volunteerism would mean that everyone volunteers to do everything without pay. Voluntaryism is the idea that all human interaction should be voluntary, not coerced.
It means I was unilaterally threatened with violence without contracting with someone all under the name of property. I was walking along and someone threatened me. Shouldn't I be free of this statist tyranny?
If it was actually their property, that isn't statism. The state acts like they own everything within their borders when they don't, and they violate the actual property rights of citizens.
Actually, one thing libertarians (the anarchist type at least) say is that you should only use the amount of force necessary in a given situation. So this guy should have asked you to leave his property first, and if you resisted enough then maybe he could get the gun to get you to leave. Violence should be the last resort.
If theft is taking something that belongs to someone else without their consent, then taxation is theft...unless you consent, but they don't give you a choice either way. It's like someone deciding to rape you and you decide you're okay with it...they were gonna do it whether you wanted them to or not. That's one reason I did this social contract topic. People always use it to claim that "we all consent", so taxation isn't theft, but that can't be true.
It's fine that you think we need taxes, but that doesn't mean it isn't theft. You just think we need to steal because the result would be worse if we didn't. I disagree, but I realize that's how you're looking at it. I actually watched a video recently that talked about the church leaders long ago telling people they must donate to the church if they cared for the poor, and then they end up with these big cathedrals and all the best art in the world, etc. Compare that today, where political leaders shame anyone who doesn't support their welfare programs (which haven't worked and just make it harder for people to get out of poverty) and they actually end up taking a lot of that tax money to use on other things. I just think the whole thing is a joke and that we'd be better off cutting out the middleman.
And I wanted to make sure you know...its voluntaryism, not volunteerism. Volunteerism would mean that everyone volunteers to do everything without pay. Voluntaryism is the idea that all human interaction should be voluntary, not coerced.
Think of it this way, you consent to government by living there, even in the case of a voluntarlyism based society. Wait, WHAT? I am sure you and other voluntarism believers are scratching your heads but in reality you face issues if you don't abide by the rules. In a "statist" society like 90% of the world, it is through laws through legislative bodies (say ObamaCare) and statutes through the courts (say legalization of gay marriage and abortion.) In a voluntsry society it is much more like an HOA who can say that you should keep your lawn green and free of weeds. The point is, you consent to these forces (not in the sense of aggressive force) by living there. This is why I point to countries that don't have taxes to those who complain about taxes being theft and immoral because you consent to pay them by buying goods and services, earning income and your investment portfolio. In a voluntary society, you can be discriminated against because you didn't put enough money in the tray at church or have an issue with a local businessman. This is basically social contract theory 101. Even in a voluntary society you have a contract, the issue is you don't really have a court to render a verdict, in a statist society you do.
Think of it this way, you consent to government by living there, even in the case of a voluntarlyism based society. Wait, WHAT? I am sure you and other voluntarism believers are scratching your heads but in reality you face issues if you don't abide by the rules. In a "statist" society like 90% of the world, it is through laws through legislative bodies (say ObamaCare) and statutes through the courts (say legalization of gay marriage and abortion.) In a voluntsry society it is much more like an HOA who can say that you should keep your lawn green and free of weeds. The point is, you consent to these forces (not in the sense of aggressive force) by living there. This is why I point to countries that don't have taxes to those who complain about taxes being theft and immoral because you consent to pay them by buying goods and services, earning income and your investment portfolio. In a voluntary society, you can be discriminated against because you didn't put enough money in the tray at church or have an issue with a local businessman. This is basically social contract theory 101. Even in a voluntary society you have a contract, the issue is you don't really have a court to render a verdict, in a statist society you do.
There are a bunch of things in here, so I'll try to explain it all.
You said you face issues if you don't abide by the rules. That's true in both a state-run society and a stateless society. However, in a state-run society, there is one uniform set of rules chosen by others that are forced on you, but you may have never consented to those terms. In a stateless society, you are only subject to rules that you've knowingly agreed to beforehand.
Imagine the land currently called the United States, but take away all the imaginary lines and borders. You're left with private property owners who make the rules for their own property. If I own a house and an acre of land, I can decide what people can and can't do on my own property, and my neighbor can't just come in and dictate what I do there. That's how it is now between private citizens, except people think it's fine to tell this group called the state to ignore those rights because they want to overrule things that their neighbor is doing that they dislike. That's the thing that has to go.
If I want to move into an apartment building, I don't own that apartment. I just rent it. That means I have to agree to the rules of the apartment owner(s) to be allowed to live there. I then have to decide whether those rules are acceptable to me or not, and then decide whether I want to sign the lease. It would be the same type of thing in a stateless society. If you want to live somewhere owned by someone else, you live by those rules. If you want to live on your own, you aren't subject to anyone else's rules.
Maybe a community comes together and says "all the houses in this neighborhood should have a big plastic unicorn in their front yard", but if the houses are all privately owned, nobody can be forced to put the unicorn up. They can't say "well we all agreed, so we're putting one in your yard, and if you try to take it down we'll do bad things to you". They can keep asking that house to do it, but can't just overrule them.
You mentioned were that there wouldn't be any courts, but why not? It also sounded like you think refusing service is equal to the social contract. Nobody is forcing you to do anything by not wanting to interact with you. They might have something you want, but you can't make them give it to you...and if they don't give it to you they aren't acting as a government.
In a stateless society, you are only subject to rules that you've knowingly agreed to beforehand. Or rules that someone else has made up and decides to impose on you. And in your stateless society, if they are able to engage greater force than you, then their rules get to be imposed on you.
Imagine the land currently called the United States, but take away all the imaginary lines and borders. You're left with private property owners who make the rules for their own property. If I own a house and an acre of land, I can decide what people can and can't do on my own property, and my neighbor can't just come in and dictate what I do there. That's how it is now between private citizens, except people think it's fine to tell this group called the state to ignore those rights because they want to overrule things that their neighbor is doing that they dislike. That's the thing that has to go.
Clearly you aren't a homeowner. What your neighbor does impacts you. And your imaginary country isn't going to change that. If he decides that his property is now a nudist home, and he wanders outside naked, in your scenario, he's entitled to expose himself to your children. Right?
You mentioned were that there wouldn't be any courts, but why not? It also sounded like you think refusing service is equal to the social contract. Nobody is forcing you to do anything by not wanting to interact with you. They might have something you want, but you can't make them give it to you...and if they don't give it to you they aren't acting as a government.
Maybe there would be courts, maybe not. Since you expect people to simply volunteer to be judges and clerks and juries, I think the most likely thing would be that we would have courts that would make rulings based on who gave them the most donation. Want a ruling for you? Pay the judge!
As for refusing service. That is, actually, a form of coercion. When you provide, say mail service (because after all, no government, no postal service), and you decide not to deliver Mr Smith's mail, you are actually harming him. If you are a pharmacist and you decide you don't want to sell to women, denying a woman life-saving drugs is harm. And the thing is, most denials of service are intended to achieve something. It may be to keep black people out of your town. It may be a personal vendetta. It may be to keep some strange sense of purity intact. But the end result, is that it's a form of pressure to achieve your goals. Coercion. A subtle form of force.
It's also illogical and unjust, but I guess that doesn't matter.
The unintended irony.
It's a theory. About human beings and their relationship to their governments. Rousseau used a motif that most people could easily relate to, to provide a framework for his theory.
I think the only principle involved is that if you legally immigrate to the USA (as an example), come here and love the country and become part of the existing culture.
Obviously people come here because it sucked where they came from, so we want them to embrace America and our culture; don't expect Ameicans to embrace your suck.
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.
