No representation without taxation

[Al68]

I'd drop treasonous from this line, it does a disservice to the argument, and I doubt that is what you really mean. Perhaps: self-interested, ignorant of history, even tyrannical. Treason is a wholly different thing and the constitution took care to define it:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

I think the word treasonous applies, since being an enemy of the U.S. Constitution is being an enemy of the U.S., but you make a good point.

It wouldn't be the same as the official crime of Treason.

But what other word would reflect the systematic attack on our constitutional form of government from the inside?

 

[mheslep]

I think the word treasonous applies, since being an enemy of the U.S. Constitution is being an enemy of the U.S., but you make a good point.

It wouldn't be the same as the official crime of Treason.

But what other word would reflect the systematic attack on our constitutional form of government from the inside?

Well I think in the effort to make that case accurately and unambiguously the words will come. Remember Madison, of all people, said that empowering the government and at the same time restraining it is hard, not easy. I think therefore arguments about the government overstepping its bounds also are not easy, and though I definitely tend to agree with that line, I find suspect arguments that claim the case is easy.

 

[Al68]

Well I think in the effort to make that case accurately and unambiguously the words will come. Remember Madison, of all people, said that empowering the government and at the same time restraining it is hard, not easy. I think therefore arguments about the government overstepping its bounds also are not easy, and though I definitely tend to agree with that line, I find suspect arguments that claim the case is easy.

I definitely agree with that. Fighting oppression is hard. Fighting against insider enemies of the U.S. is even harder.

 

[mheslep]

I definitely agree with that. Fighting oppression is hard. Fighting against insider enemies of the U.S. is even harder.

I won't go along carelessly along with calling US citizens 'enemies' either, the US has enough real plane-crashing kill-people enemies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot" is about the limit.

 

[Moridin]

The money is going towards more than war. Quite a bit more generally. If you object to the direction the society you are taking part in is going you can either attempt to change it or leave.

Do you think that the average person is capable of funding all of the infrastructure which allows them to live the way they do? Water line, power line, telephone line, gas line, roads, ect ect? People of the larger community pool money together to make sure that they all can have these advantages. When a smaller community without much in the way of resources is unable to afford these advantages then the next larger community pools money for the purpose of assisting them. And on up the ladder. It is quite likely that at some point money will be spent on something that does not help certain people or which certain people do not agree with. That is just something that is going to happen in an organized community. Ceasing all payments to the community money pool does not fix this. It only shows that you do not appreciate what all that community does for you with that money. It takes money away not only from the people who are doing what you do not agree with but also from people who need food, heat, shelter, education, ect while you continue to enjoy those advantages now without paying for them.

I am afraid that organized community does not imply or equal the state. In fact, the state is almost by definition a formed of organized crime (as well as quite disorganized when it comes to the provision of the "public good". It is an empirical fact that the free market can provide better and cheaper goods and services than the state). There are many other ways of accomplishing all of the above without theft. I also agree that we should not cease donations to a community money pool of sorts. I am simply pointing out that coercion, theft, kidnapping and war is not the solution to the problems we face today and that in fact, the state mafia actually hurts us.

You also seem to want to avoid answering the contradiction I exposed in your belief system. The United States will spend about 3 trillion US Dollars on the war in Iraq. By paying taxes, you are explicitly supporting this activity. Similarity, If I pay the local mafia thousands of dollars per year with the knowledge that they will spend a good portion of that money to molest and slaughter people, then I am de facto supporting this action.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I am afraid that organized community does not imply or equal the state. In fact, the state is almost by definition a formed of organized crime (as well as quite disorganized when it comes to the provision of the "public good". It is an empirical fact that the free market can provide better and cheaper goods and services than the state). There are many other ways of accomplishing all of the above without theft. I also agree that we should not cease donations to a community money pool of sorts. I am simply pointing out that coercion, theft, kidnapping and war is not the solution to the problems we face today and that in fact, the state mafia actually hurts us.

You also seem to want to avoid answering the contradiction I exposed in your belief system. The United States will spend about 3 trillion US Dollars on the war in Iraq. By paying taxes, you are explicitly supporting this activity. Similarity, If I pay the local mafia thousands of dollars per year with the knowledge that they will spend a good portion of that money to molest and slaughter people, then I am de facto supporting this action.

The state is absolutely an organized community and any organized community is a form of government. You seem to choose your words based on your opinion of the particular form of organization. You may as well say the grocer is an extortionist because he knows you need food and demands that you pay him for it.

I do not believe that there is a contradiction. I guess my answer got lost in my rambling. The money that I give to the state goes to many things, several of which I find worthwhile, and the fact that some of the money in the pool to which I contribute goes to things I do not agree with does not mean that I am supporting that activity. The system can correct itself unless all of those who disagree with certain decisions cease to support the system where upon it will collapse and no corrections will be made though the activity with which I disagree may stop. If I find I have no hope in the state then I can leave it.

 

[Moridin]

How can the state be organized when its results are so clearly disorganized (economic break down, breakdown of global health etc.)? How can the state be a community when it only contains a very, very minor amount of people compared to the total amount of people in a country?

The grocer is not an extortionist because he does not steal my money or kidnap me when I do not submit to theft. All of my interactions with my grocer is purely voluntary -- after all, I can freely choose another provider or start my own farm. This is not an option with the state.

If you pay your local mafia money that you know both goes to (1) new sandboxes and (2) mass genocide of kittens, you are supporting mass genocide of kittens by paying regardless of whatever other designations the money goes to. If you also assert that mass genocide of kittens is deeply immoral and that you don't want to have any part in it, you have a contradiction on your hands. I do not see how it is any less contradictory by adding more designations. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this.

Furthermore, If a man gives his daughter the option of marrying one of two men, both of which will abuse her -- can it really be said that the daughter has a choice of whether or not she wants to be abused or not? This is why the "then choose other people" argument fails. You only have the "freedom" to choose your own pharaoh, not to choose if you want to have your money stolen from or not.

The "if you don't like it, leave" argument is equally invalid. If I one day decide that I am going to go up and down my neighborhood and demand that people pay me, say, 30% of their income or I will kidnap and incarcerate them and when they object to this I tell them to leave if they don't like it, I am not making a whole lot of sense, am I?

 

[Moridin]

Furthermore, the free market is an organized community, but not a form of government by definition. This serves as a counter-example to your initial claim in your latest post.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How can the state be organized when its results are so clearly disorganized (economic break down, breakdown of global health etc.)? How can the state be a community when it only contains a very, very minor amount of people compared to the total amount of people in a country?

A state, or community, can take on many forms and one of those is with a governing body composed of representatives elected by the members of the community. There is also a form a government called isocracy where all persons hold equal power.
The poor results of an organization does not refute its existence, it only shows the failure of the organization.

The grocer is not an extortionist because he does not steal my money or kidnap me when I do not submit to theft. All of my interactions with my grocer is purely voluntary -- after all, I can freely choose another provider or start my own farm. This is not an option with the state.

There are only certain providers available and they are only available because others have a preference for their goods. If others did not "vote with their wallets" for your preferred provider he would go out of business. Similarly you vote for your representatives in a government like the US. If others like the representative you like that person may get into office and if they do not then he will not.
As far as providing for oneself you could theoretically do this in the US aswell. If you found a bit of land somewhere, built your own house, grew your own food, ect. then you would not have to pay any taxes. Depending on where you are the state may not like this but there are still plenty of conservative enough states with conservative enough judges that you could do it.

If you pay your local mafia money that you know both goes to (1) new sandboxes and (2) mass genocide of kittens, you are supporting mass genocide of kittens by paying regardless of whatever other designations the money goes to. If you also assert that mass genocide of kittens is deeply immoral and that you don't want to have any part in it, you have a contradiction on your hands. I do not see how it is any less contradictory by adding more designations. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this.

Yes, sandboxes and kitty genocide... Its just like that isn't it. You can make anything sound the way you want with an absurd enough metaphor.

Furthermore, If a man gives his daughter the option of marrying one of two men, both of which will abuse her -- can it really be said that the daughter has a choice of whether or not she wants to be abused or not? This is why the "then choose other people" argument fails. You only have the "freedom" to choose your own pharaoh, not to choose if you want to have your money stolen from or not.

One has more than two options. There are several representatives in our government and, as opposed to your marriage metaphor, representatives don't hold office for the rest of your life. And again "stolen" is your perception and a word your use because it suits your desire to make taxes sound wrong.

The "if you don't like it, leave" argument is equally invalid. If I one day decide that I am going to go up and down my neighborhood and demand that people pay me, say, 30% of their income or I will kidnap and incarcerate them and when they object to this I tell them to leave if they don't like it, I am not making a whole lot of sense, am I?

Yet another absurd metaphor. You're right. It's just like that. The IRS agent shows up at your door waving a gun and demanding your money or he'll haul you off to jail. Its not as though any of that money goes to build infrastructure, support the police, support the fire department, build schools, or anything like that. They just take your money and all these reasons for taking it are just lies they use to get people to keep giving them money so they don't have to wave the guns around as much. And telling you to leave if you don't like it has nothing to do with it not being right to receive the benefits of the money other people spend when you will not contribute yourself because of course none of those benefits are real. Its just a guy with a gun who wants your money.

Furthermore, the free market is an organized community, but not a form of government by definition. This serves as a counter-example to your initial claim in your latest post.

The free market is an economic strategy a community may adopt, not a community in and of itself.

 

[Moridin]

The poor results of a group of people demonstrates that they are not organized.

As far as providing for oneself you could theoretically do this in the US aswell. If you found a bit of land somewhere, built your own house, grew your own food, ect. then you would not have to pay any taxes. Depending on where you are the state may not like this but there are still plenty of conservative enough states with conservative enough judges that you could do it.

Of course I would have to pay taxes, such as income taxes if I try to do voluntary trade.

Yes, sandboxes and kitty genocide... Its just like that isn't it. You can make anything sound the way you want with an absurd enough metaphor.

Replace sandboxes with health care and roads and kitty genocide with the Iraq war if you would like for a perfect analogy. You are still avoiding to answer your contradiction which forces me to conclude that you admit that your position is invalid.

One has more than two options. There are several representatives in our government and, as opposed to your marriage metaphor, representatives don't hold office for the rest of your life.

Democrats/Republicans are pretty much the only two options you have; voting for an independent is basically throwing your vote away. But I don't mind allowing several, temporary abusive husbands in this analogy, but it does not change the generalities.

And again "stolen" is your perception and a word your use because it suits your desire to make taxes sound wrong.

So I can stop giving my money to the state and they won't kidnap me or use guns against me if I resist? Erm, no. What planet are you living on?

Yet another absurd metaphor. You're right. It's just like that. The IRS agent shows up at your door waving a gun and demanding your money or he'll haul you off to jail. Its not as though any of that money goes to build infrastructure, support the police, support the fire department, build schools, or anything like that.

Or the war in Iraq. Can a local mafia demand that you pay them money for sandboxes as well as their illegal activity? Does their illegal activity because morally righteous just because they build a few sandboxes for the community? The free market can do all of that based on voluntary interaction without the war.

They just take your money and all these reasons for taking it are just lies they use to get people to keep giving them money so they don't have to wave the guns around as much. And telling you to leave if you don't like it has nothing to do with it not being right to receive the benefits of the money other people spend when you will not contribute yourself because of course none of those benefits are real. Its just a guy with a gun who wants your money.

Even though the state makes some limited efforts in addition to their crimes, the negative consequences far outweigh any benefit, benefits that the free market could just as easily produce without theft, violence or kidnapping.

The free market is an economic strategy a community may adopt, not a community in and of itself.

No, that economic strategy would be free market capitalism. The free market is just a market community who adopts free market capitalism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You are still avoiding to answer your contradiction which forces me to conclude that you admit that your position is invalid.

You see the thing is that I have already answered your question but you seem to have more fun running me in circles and rewording things with language suited to make everything appear as though it is obviously wrong (mafias, abusive husbands, theft, abduction...). You can decide that my position is invalid all you like, I don't mind, I had only hoped for a better discussion.

No, that economic strategy would be free market capitalism. The free market is just a market community who adopts free market capitalism.

And they have no government? Let's see if I can play your game too.
So I suppose they have no judges only the rule of the mob? no police only hired mercenaries? no leaders save for the rich and greedy business owners? and no law but the all mighty dollar?

 

[Moridin]

How can you not see that it is contradictory to (1) reject the war in Iraq as morally abhorrent yet (2) pay money to the state to ensure that it will continue? Thus, you are both supporting and not supporting the war in Iraq. How is this not a contradiction?

I freely admit that of course it is hard to see this within the bubble of illusion that is statism. Similarly, if you expose the contradictions in the position of, say, a young Earth creationist, they won't really see it at once.

So I suppose they have no judges only the rule of the mob? no police only hired mercenaries? no leaders save for the rich and greedy business owners? and no law but the all mighty dollar?

The free market is able to provide all of those services, including dispute resolution organizations, police and so on. The free market dismantles monopolies on its own. This is very basic economics. No, free market capitalism does not mean lawlessness or moral chaos. If you think that the morality come from the state we can simply put forward Socrates Euthyphro dilemma applied to statism instead of theism: is that which the state claim is moral, moral because it is moral, or moral because the state says so? If it is the previous, then morality is independent of the state. If it is the latter, then morality arbitrarily depends on the state and therefore invalid.

 

[WhoWee]

The free market is able to provide all of those services, including dispute resolution organizations, police and so on. The free market dismantles monopolies on its own. This is very basic economics. No, free market capitalism does not mean lawlessness or moral chaos. If you think that the morality come from the state we can simply put forward Socrates Euthyphro dilemma applied to statism instead of theism: is that which the state claim is moral, moral because it is moral, or moral because the state says so? If it is the previous, then morality is independent of the state. If it is the latter, then morality arbitrarily depends on the state and therefore invalid.

However, the free market breaks down when government picks winners and losers...using tax payer funds.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How can you not see that it is contradictory to (1) reject the war in Iraq as morally abhorrent yet (2) pay money to the state to ensure that it will continue? Thus, you are both supporting and not supporting the war in Iraq. How is this not a contradiction?

I freely admit that of course it is hard to see this within the bubble of illusion that is statism. Similarly, if you expose the contradictions in the position of, say, a young Earth creationist, they won't really see it at once.

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?

The free market is able to provide all of those services, including dispute resolution organizations, police and so on. The free market dismantles monopolies on its own. This is very basic economics. No, free market capitalism does not mean lawlessness or moral chaos.

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?

Where do the laws in a free market system come from? Whom ever can afford the mercenaries?

 

[mheslep]

Most libertarian scholars / economists would say that the police power and the judiciary are about the only service that local governments should execute. The problem lies in administration of the rule of law. Law is necessary to have _free_ transactions, that is, free of coercion, and free markets are the basis for everything else in the libertarian view. If private entities are allowed to take over administration of the law, then you create difficulty in guaranteeing that all subsequent transactions are free.

Edit: 'Guaranteeing' is probably the wrong word, as it implies a white/black comparison between the public and private sector and that's not the case. Execution of the police power by publicly elected governments visibly do not 'guarantee' free markets either - very much the opposite. But they do at least allow for some transparency and occasional corrective action by the governed.

 

[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)?