Hello, all. Here's an extended reply to a few of your comments. I'm commenting slowly as to not take up too much of my time. My suspicion is that this is not the most effective way to debate, but hopefully it's of some use or interest to you guys.
[quote=davefairtex]
Your whole philosophy is that individual rights should always trump the rights of society. I get that. I don't agree, but I really do understand it.
[/quote]
[quote=davefairtex]
- Society has rights.
- Individuals have rights.
- The nexus of these two circles in the venn diagram is where the struggles occur.
[/quote]
Rights are a tricky issue. Rights are another fiction, some useful, some dangerous. I think the best way to look at rights are "positive," and "negative." Positive rights is the concept that one inherently deserves to get something and that someone/group MUST provide it to him/her. This is a bastardization of the original idea, I think. People think they need states to provide (by force) these positive rights. Healthcare, education, defense, roads etc. are some typical things people think the state must provide to all individuals. When I hear one say they have a "right" to these things, all I hear is "I want these things, and I want it for free." Negative rights, on the other hand, are simply principles that exclude individuals from acting upon you. The right to life and liberty are negative rights. One doesn't need to take action to provide something for you, but they don't have a right to act upon you. The main problem with positive rights is that they require violating the much more rational negative, "liberty" rights. The state cannot provide "positive rights" for free, as someone must pay for the provisions. Positive rights are also illogical, as one cannot claim something is owed (inherently by someone else) to them simply for living. In layman's terms we call these people entitled, and it's just not a healthy or sustainable notion to pander.
As for individual vs societal rights, negative rights cover both. Society is simply a large group of (somewhat) culturally similar individuals interacting together, so any conception of rights must apply to both individuals and society at the same time. For example, it is irrational to say that one person can't initiate force, but if "society" votes to do so it is suddenly acceptable. The notion of societal rights is madness when considering positive rights, as society is put at odds against each other. Suddenly, people believe if they're not getting something for free, somebody else is oppressing them. The truth is, nobody has a responsibility (logically and in reality), enforced at gun point, to provide things to others. Not only is this immoral, but it's highly impractical: if there are positive rights (a universal concept) then everyone owes everyone else something. That's just nonsense. That doesn't mean certain things aren't desirable to many: defense, healthcare, and education; but we can't say these things MUST be provided or your rights are being violated. The only right that can be applied universally and consistently to society is the right to life and liberty (to not be coerced, murdered, raped ,etc). Everyone is capable of universally respecting this proposition and "acting" it out because all that is required is that you respect (don't initiate force upon) individuals and their property.
I think trying to come up with the right alchemy for a state to enforce whatever "rights" they ultimately see fit is a fools quest. When rights can only be rationally sustained in the very basic negative rights, what's the use of a far reaching, violating, centralized entity to supposedly defend those rights? Once again, I just can't bring myself to accept the proposition, "to protect your inalienable rights, one institution must violate those rights."
[quote=gillbilly]
Danny, I'm curious where you draw the line between your beliefs and reality? Taxes are collected to plow and maintain roads, protect ecosystems, provide public assistance and care such as fire departments and police, create laws to protect individuals. Do you own your property outright and never leave the premises?
[/quote]
Yes, taxes are used to provide these things. It's another question entirely whether they must be provided through coercion. I'm obviously not against such things in general, but I think it would be much better to have a society where they weren't "paid" for though violence by a monopolistic entity. I would also argue the state does either a ineffective or hypocritical job at most of these. For example, they create laws (like don't steal) but then make the forceful confiscation of property a bedrock of their practices (hypocrites). They say they want to protect the environment yet support a military industrial complex and then blow shit up way out of proportion for "defense." Do I leave my property? Of course, nobody chose the state they live in and we all must still live within it. Do I use the roads? Of course, but that doesn't mean they can only be built through taxation. Is it wrong for me to use the roads? No. To use a metaphor, if someone puts an iPad in my mailbox with a note that says, "this is for the benefit of society!", and I use it, do they have a right to demand payment at gunpoint accusing me of stealing? No, because I never agreed to purchase the iPad and they are forcing me to pay for it. It's the same with roads and other services, only many are monopolized needs we are born into (not a frivolous iPad), and all of them are provided by force in an absence of choice, therefore it isn't morally wrong to use them.
[quote=gillbilly]
Farmers used to be responsible for clearing the roads in front of their properties. They discovered they would be more productive (individually) if they hired one person to do it full time so they could concentrate on farming. So they all chipped in (taxes) and hired one person, with one set of machinery to do the work (instead of all farmers having their own resources). They all enjoyed more productivity, more trade with their neighbors, and it reduced the cost and price of their crops.
[/quote]
[quote=gillbilly]
A generation later, along comes the farmer who wasn't a part of this original arrangement, and he doesn't feel like he should have to pay for the guy who clears the roads…but of course he is happy to travel on the roads that have been cleared. He was born well into the continuum of this arrangement and benefits from it, but feels like he should have the right to say no to it. His refusal is seen as "theft" by the rest, and they decide to enact a law to force him to pay. Why? Because once he starts the idea rolling that it's okay to not pay, and there are no repercussions, the agreement begins to unravel and all suffer.
[/quote]
What you've described are NOT taxes. People voluntarily chipping in to have an outside source provide a service is called a voluntary transaction, not taxation. If the road clearing service starts doing a bad job in your scenario, I presume the farmers can stop using that service and choose a new service. If this were a taxation situation, then the road clearing "service" would threaten the farmers if they refused to use their service: send them higher bills saying they must continue paying or they will eventually send thugs with guns.
As for the young farmer who comes along and doesn't want to use a road clearing service, well there are many non-coercive options in dealing with this fellow. Chances are if the farmer is buying the property, he understands and respects the value of voluntary transaction. One could simply explain that they pay for this service and it would be great if he continued (why would he be an asshole when reputation is an important aspect of local business?). The key question is who owns those particular roads? If the road is legitimately owned by a group of farmers (they built or exchanged for them), they have the right to ban him from use if he doesn't buy in and support the cleaners. Rationally, one either has to pay for service or own the roads. So they could set up a gate and charge him a fee if he doesn't want to buy the roads. There are likely hundreds of ways to try and figure out such problems without violence, and all of this would be talked about before he bought the property. Many times, the power of social disapproval and ostracism are enough to get people to do (or not do) something.
[quote=gillbilly]
One reasonable person can go to the town hall, make a case as to why the majority of the town shouldn't pay for something, and if it makes sense, the town will vote for the change…one individual person! It starts locally and then moves to the state level and then on to the federal level. In the Northeast, there was talk that a nuke plant would never close. It closed this past January 1st.
[/quote]
I see what you're saying to a degree. I'm sure there's some more efficacy at a local level. However, it's still not a voluntary position to be in. For example, I cannot go and negotiate what specifically I want to support. I cannot convince them to become donation based, or to abolish property tax as they have no rightful claim to a portion of my property. I cannot tell them that I never asked for them to represent me or my neighborhood or my business, therefore I'm not paying them and I'm not following their regulations. Chances are, eventually they too would send someone to arrest me for noncompliance if I disobeyed their rules. It may be an interesting start (if the only governments were local), but the fundamental issue is still there: you obey and pay for them or they can arrest you. They have a legal right (obligation, even) to violate your property. Perhaps if there's a concept for local governance that doesn't violate property rights, I'd be a little more interested.
[quote=Sterling Cornaby]
Right now, we have a world of ever increasing population and diminishing resources (scarcity). Just that by itself is going to make the world less free and create a world of haves and have nots. The idea of property rights gets stretched very thin in places where needs such as water is getting scarce. In this case you have a old Mormon ranch getting eaten by the water needs of Las Vegas; this is an exact case where the needs of more people doing dumb things crushes an individuals property rights. I would have to say property rights work really well in a world with a moderate level of scarcity, but too much scarcity and this idea really breaks down.
[/quote]
This is an interesting point. You may be right, that in our current approach (deficit spending, debting, distracting ourselves to oblivion) people may wake up one day and find out the Titanic is sinking and they don't have the skills/knowledge/character to cope... and then rip each other apart. But none of this has to do with the legitimacy of private property. I think there IS enough to go around (not at our current consumption levels, forever) and that people can choose to downgrade before killing and robbing each other. I think free markets are capable of adapting and revealing the real price of things, more forcefully convincing people to adapt as well. It's fundamentally thanks to big banks and governments that people live in illusion zone, where they are able to avoid the cost of spending and over consuming now. So yeah, I think it's completely possible to downgrade and accept reality without violence completely taking over (for sure, there will be pockets of society that will go crazy). A key problem is the drug of government spending and the illusion that you can get something for free with no consequences. That toxic, state lie reaches all throughout society. Just take education. Most kids go through government schools. Are they taught about economics, sustainability, and the true costs of government spending? Does the environment of schools even promote critical thinking, resilience, and responsibility in an individual? Can you really expect public schools to take an objective look at government or the state of the country? No, no and no. Yet, public school is an automatic answer to most because it's promoted as good and appears free. Take just "free" education away and shit gets a little realer. It might not be pretty at first, and people would surely throw a fit, but then people would be faced with the real decision of buying education and figuring out it's real value. Then the education could adapt and become a varied, more effective place.
[quote=Mark_BC]
The idea that taxes are evil and should be abolished is absurd on so many levels and reveals an illogical line of thinking. Firstly, there's the practical aspect: since there will always be some form of a government, how will it get funded? Will it just print up its own money to fund its expenditures?
[/quote]
You're basing your rebuttal on a bald assumption: "there will always be some form of a government." You may be right, but I'm not even sure what you mean by government. Are you saying there will always be a group of individuals that claims the right and is able to act out the initiate force in a geographic region? This is not a necessity, nor is it an inevitability. Humanity is quite capable of accepting varied principles and systems (evolving), and the only way a state gets away with what it does is if at least enough people believe in their necessity/morality enough to shoot their guns to force the other end of the population into "acceptance." I think a state's capability to sustain widespread faith and acceptance is diminishing, and less and less people are willing to just blindly shoot the guns for them.
As for funding voluntary "governance" (or rules) I think there are a lot of ways of doing so voluntarily. Discerning and accepting valid property rights plays a large role. If one (or a group) legitimately owns a building, a neighborhood, a road, etc. He/she/they logically gets to set the rules for those who interact with their property, so long as they don't violate basic negative rights. The effectiveness of the rules are determined by the market, as people will not want to participate in a dangerous/ineffective environment. A group of people may also decide to submit themselves to a third party to resolve disputes or protect their property, if necessary. I realize what I'm saying needs a much more thorough breakdown to be truly convincing, so I can refer you to some books if you're interested... In any case, under states we have arbitrary rule. States are not the answer to just and effective rules. The state doesn't own anything legitimately, and can violate other's property to support their actions. Thus, they only make rules that are advantageous to themselves. Lucky for us, we live in a relatively rational and abundant society (at this moment, anyway), so they can't so easily get away with blatant violence. However, the tyranny switch is always there for them to hit, they just need the right excuse and story to sell for it to be advantageous to them.
[quote=Mark_BC]
Secondly, there is always this underlying assumption with anti-taxation advocates that the simple act of private individuals "producing" goods and services and offering them into the market, in and if itself, is sufficient to provide wealth to society and that taxation is nothing more than a parasitic burden to this "production". However, I've never seen anyone who promotes these views actually try to explain how that production actually happens.
[/quote]
What's not to get? If you take away the corrupt power of crony capitalism (the ability for states and corporations to play each other, utilizing the states sole right to coercion, for personal gain) individuals (and groups) have the opportunity to own and produce something and offer it to the market freely. Then other individuals have the opportunity to choose if it's fulfills their needs and desires. Trade ensues, and both parties (in the moment of transaction) win. The market changes over time as society evolves and new information and technology enters consciousness. Some market entities fade or die, and others rise up to meet a new need or desire. These entities can be as vast or limited as the market will accept. Some may produce little, other than peace of mind and intellectual advancement (a ecological reserve, nature park, research centers), and others may produce something tangibly valuable ( from computers to crayons). More open markets have proven over and over again to provide wealth to societies (trade allows many people to utilize and fulfill self interest on a grand scale peacefully). If you take away taxation and state rule from the equation, people are free to try other systems and forms of organization. Perhaps there are better? There's certainly room (and necessity) for charities and non-profits in a free market as well.
What is taxation if not parasitic? INHERENT to taxation is the confiscation of a portion of someone else's production. If taxation didn't inherently rely upon someone else's production, we'd call it something else. Sure, many people may accept it (and thus believe they are giving), but it's not as if they truly have a choice. And yes, taxation is used to do real things (some important), but a clever parasite may also give some back to the host if it allows continued or increased access to life-blood.