What is the moral justification for the state? (2 Viewers)

[SashatheMan]

Another statist refuses to actually answer the questions posed:



Well I would question whether it is true that we "need" the government, and so should you if you are having trouble justifying it morally.

Obviously some people such as myself do not agree that we need the government. Why should we be taxed and forced to be part of the governmental system? I'm not even saying that all governments should be dismantled. You can live in a country with a government if you want. I'm just saying people that don't want to live under a government should be able to buy land and succeed from the nation state.

Given that we can't do this, and are forced to live a some sort of nation state, and pay tax to this state, we are being treated as slaves, as though the government owns us. We are forced into a system we disapprove of. How is this not a moral problem?

Well I have to live somewhere, and every piece of land is claimed by governments, including caves.

You overexaggurate the hold a government like we have here in Australia has over you. Using a word such as "slave" to describe your current condition is nothing short of a lie. It comes not even close to the definition of slavery or the condition actual slaves would face.

You are forced to pay taxes because you use the system, you live within it, you use it's resources. What you are not forced to do is leave the system and seek your own way. I can garantee you, that if you went to some deep Siberian forrest and built your own equavelent of Jonestown you won't be paying taxes any time soon.

 

[copkiller]

You overexaggurate the hold a government like we have here in Australia has over you. Using a word such as "slave" to describe your current condition is nothing short of a lie. It comes not even close to the definition of slavery or the condition actual slaves would face.

Well a slave means someone who is not free to leave their master. We are slaves to governments because we are not free to leave the control of governments.

Just because it does not fit with the typical image of a cruel slave master does not mean it isn't slavery.

Some masters may treat their slaves quite well, often it is more profitable to do this. In the US when they had slavery some slave owners were quite kind and treated their slaves like members of the family. But they were still slaves, because they were not free to leave.

Even if slaves were never beaten or killed, it was the underlying threat that this would happen if they tried to escape that compelled them to stay. Similarly, while the government doesn't actually point guns at your head and demand you pay taxation, it is the underlying threat that they will put you in prison that compels you to pay your taxes, and it is the underlying threat that they will kill you that keeps people escaping from prisons.

Don't believe me? Have a read about this man who was sentenced to thirteen years in prison for not paying taxes even though he has never committed a violent crime in his life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff

You are forced to pay taxes because you use the system, you live within it, you use it's resources. What you are not forced to do is leave the system and seek your own way. I can garantee you, that if you went to some deep Siberian forrest and built your own equavelent of Jonestown you won't be paying taxes any time soon.

If I did that I would be arrested by the Russian government for building a settlement in their state owned forest. As I said before, all the land on this planet is claimed by governments, so what you have postulated is impossible.

 

[dieburndie]

The bureaucratic costs are unfortunate, but I don't think they substantially change the equation which favors wealth redistribution.

Why not? How can wealth be redistributed on a large scale without bureaucracy? If it can't, why doesn't the huge workforce required to inefficiently maintain a system of inefficiency change the equation substantially?

It also creates perverse intensives to not work, since hard work is punished, while sloth is rewarded, thus lowering the overall wealth of society.


Socialism would a good idea if the overall wealth of society could remain constant or increase. Unfortunately, high government intervention is always inefficient and lowers productivity, and as you said incentives against hard work are a problem, actual socialism will be contrary to providing maximum utility.

All government intervention is inefficient and lowers productivity. These intrinsic effects don't magically disappear at a 'basic' or 'limited' level.

If you push much beyond basic welfare, you start to harm utility by reducing the overall pool of wealth for things that aren't absolutely necessary, you'll begin to have the government providing things people may have otherwise gone out and worked for, harming job creation and the ability for people to choose to go out and work for things etc... vicious cycle.

I think there's a balance to be achieved between allowing the government to guarantee basic health, and only introducing a bare minimum of government intervention and disincentives to productivity. Tricky in practice.

Guarantee basic health, guarantee further government intervention to keep costs down. Yes it's "tricky in practice" to achieve the fantasy of "balanced" government.

 

[copkiller]

Stephen you mis-quoted me you cunt. I would never say: "Socialism would a good idea if the overall wealth of society could remain constant or increase."

Socialism is never a good idea.

 

[dieburndie]

You are forced to pay taxes because you use the system, you live within it, you use it's resources. What you are not forced to do is leave the system and seek your own way. I can garantee you, that if you went to some deep Siberian forrest and built your own equavelent of Jonestown you won't be paying taxes any time soon.

Oh of course, the social contract!
Just like a regular contract, except without mutual consent, or the ability to negotiate terms. Also the party in control of the contract isn't obliged to consistently fulfill its supposed responsibilities, which it can change at any point.

That, and its a complete fabrication intended to persuade the subjects of the state that their interests are accounted for.

 

[dieburndie]

Stephen you mis-quoted me you cunt. I would never say: "Socialism would a good idea if the overall wealth of society could remain constant or increase."

Socialism is never a good idea.

Er, that's not me. Unless his name is also Stephen.

edit: Haha, oh shit I thought that was a confused McCain quote I was replying to. Will edit.

edit2: Turns out it was him, just had your username instead of his in the quote for some reason

 

[John McCain]

Because rights to health and welfare don't exist.

Ignoring how vague those two terms are, individuals must be ultimately responsible for obtaining the resources necessary to maintain a given standard of living for themselves. The enforcement of these 'rights' creates a complementary obligation on others. This obligation remains in place even if the welfare recipient decides to spend their time sprawled in alleys, high on paint thinner and concrete powder. Other, hard working individuals must be expected to deliver this individual food, ensure his position in the alley on each evening is sheltered and comfortable etc etc. It's his right.

Why is the creation of complementary obligations bad? The creation of heavy requirements for those receiving welfare I fully support, such as the requirements to be seeking work, and to accept any job offer. The individual described above would be forced to make a sincere effort in applying for work, and without the minimum wage, he would almost certainly find it hard to avoid securing a job in short order.

If the individual is not making an honest effort to improve their situation, then the obligation to assist them is removed.

Should I provide more examples of the absurd requirements of "welfare" and "health" being enforced as rights?
What happens in cases of famine or natural disaster?
Rapidly increasing unemployment? Do you constantly adjust welfare in line with wages, or allow entrenched unemployment to be incentivised? (Oh yeah, the minimum wage right?)

We respond as best we can provide in those circumstances? You keep welfare way down at all times so people have only what they need, anything they want they will have incentive to work for.

It is impossible to consistently enforce positive rights. Furthermore, the line where entitlements end is always arbitrary.

I disagree that it has to be arbitrary. It's possibly to absolutely define and guarantee physical health and freedom from disease, to set limits on provisions based on what is needed for survival.

Because you have no absolute moral obligation to prevent people from starving.

From what frame of reference? If you're a nihilist I suppose. In any other value system it would be hard to justify letting people die unnecessarily.

If you did, wouldn't you have to help every starving person regardless of geographical proximity? What if you have a very scarce supply of food, should you still help him? When do you stop helping? Exactly how poor do you have to be before you are no longer obliged to give?

There is no limit to your obligation, so long as you yourself have any more than your minimum standard to survive. You are only no longer obliged to give when you are at the bare minimum.

In practice, it is moral to hold greater wealth, if you choose to use that wealth in producing further capital and growing the total pool of global wealth.

Also, unless you have a guarantee of receiving charity or welfare when you fall on hard times, it is moral to store wealth as protection for your own good in case of a downturn.

Even on utilitarian grounds it can't be justified. If applied consistently, the collectivist system created would fail to provide the necessities demanded by a large population. Many more people would die. You of course know this, and don't support such a level of redistribution. Yet you have failed to draw a line. "To the extent that is best for everyone" simply won't cut it. Any semblance of a consensus on what that means is an impossibilty

I draw the line at adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, health care. All of which are easy to set absolute standards on what should be provided

These are the only goods that provide certain utilitarian benefit, anything more is of uncertain value in increasing utility. The cost of guaranteeing education, for example, could come at the expense of job creation, reducing individuals ability to secure some of the above needs.

 

[copkiller]

I draw the line at adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, health care. All of which are easy to set absolute standards on what should be provided

Food and water is pretty clear, although I still disagree that it should be "guaranteed." As you said, it would be very easy for most people to find work without minimum wage laws. Furthermore without all the money being stolen from us through taxation, private charity could easily provide for those who are genuinely unable to work.Even based on current contributions to charity in Australia, there would be enough to ensure people have basic food and water.

Shelter, clothing and healthcare are not at all easy to set absolute standards about what should be provided.

For instance is a tent sufficient shelter? Arguably shelter is not a necessity at all in warm climates? The same can be said of clothing.

How much healthcare should be provided? If someone needs an operation that costs $100 000 to save their lives, does society have a responsibility to provide it. What if it costs $1 million, or $10 million? Where do you draw the line? Do we give healthcare to people that have willfully damaged their own health? How do we make such determinations as to who can recieve heathcare without huge administrative costs and potential for corruption and rent seeking.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Yes; a State is morally justified (presuming you are referring to a modern, democratically controlled state). Morality[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] is a system of thinking about (and maximizing) the well being of conscious creatures like ourselves. Hence there can be right and wrong answers to moral questions; there are empirical answers as to which [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]personal habits, uses of attention, modes of discourse, social institutions, economic systems, governments, etc. are most conducive to human well-being[/FONT].

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If we imagine a community with no one to enforce the Rule of Law, no one to safe-guard vulnerable people against exploitation, no one to set norms (i.e weights, currency, language, etc), and so on, we can safely say that such a society would be less conducive to the happiness of its people; and more conducive to the suffering of its people (Indeed we do not even need imagine, but simply look to history or other parts of the world where civility does not reign, and instead tribalism and anarchy prevail); a civil, co-operative society relies on government and at least some of our happiness is derived from a, and grown upon, a coherent, civil society in which people are able to collaborate. And hence it would be truism to say that a civil society (facilitated by government) is morally justified. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of course Government must be limited and has only a role to play in maintaining a society conducive to the happiness of its sentient members (indeed it is this restriction of government that ensures its viability and justification), but to say that no government at all would be a greater moral solution would be to deny the reality of our situation.[/FONT]

/thread

 

[murphyad]

This post appears to me, the casual observer, to be based on a variety of rash assumptions:

Food and water is pretty clear, although I still disagree that it should be "guaranteed." As you said, it would be very easy for most people to find work without minimum wage laws.

Are you sure about that? Minimum wage laws apparently do not have a great effect on the level of employment compared to other factors according to this OECD document:

http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/browseit/8106071E.PDF (see page 216)

Minimum wage laws only affect a small proportion of the population (ie. teenage workers and the unskilled); if they were abolished, the consequences would most likely be that those already working on the minimum wage would be put on an even lower one, with little impact on anybody else. This seems to me to be contrary to the utilitarian philosophy currently being bandied about on this thread.

Furthermore without all the money being stolen from us through taxation, private charity could easily provide for those who are genuinely unable to work.Even based on current contributions to charity in Australia, there would be enough to ensure people have basic food and water.

Tax is not a money sink, first of all. Tax provides funding for public programs devised in the public interest that are ultimately free (or cheap) to make use of. This is the difference between government and private enterprise imo: private enterprise has a profit motive and government does not. The only difference between private charity and tax in the manner that you suggest is that private charity is either obligatory or voluntary. If it were the former, then there would be little direct difference between paying tax and private donation; charity would become a form of tax. If it were the latter, then it is very likely that the overall level of donations would decrease as a result of less people deciding to pay. So there is either very little difference or a negative humanitarian impact.
For the sake of empirical discussion, I'd ask you to provide a source for that point on current contributions to charity. Are you sure that it does not take into account government spending? If so, surely more would be required of private charity if said spending ceases, thus leading to the problems I described above.

The same issues you raise with providing standards of shelter and healthcare apply to 'basic food and water'. Under a system of private donations, I see the definition of 'basic food and water' as being predicated not by what should be provided but what can be provided. From a humanitarian point of view this is less than ideal. The same is perhaps true under public funding, but to a lesser extent. I honestly have no idea whether or not this actually happens, but I presume that a public system increases the ability of a standard to be set and then adequate funds provided to fulfil this standard as opposed to the inverse: funding provided and then a standard set. Governments can be placed under social pressure to increase funding, whereas individuals or private enterprise do not necessarily have to adhere to social pressure.

Just my two cents.

 

[Freedom_]

Only the government, in society, is empowered to aggress against the property rights of its subjects, whether to extract revenue, to impose its moral code, or to kill those with whom it disagrees. Furthermore, any and all governments, even the least despotic, have always obtained the bulk of their income from the coercive taxing power. And historically, by far the overwhelming portion of all enslavement and murder in the history of the world have come from the hands of government. It is vital to those who seek liberty to oppose all aggression against the rights of person and property, it is necessary to oppose the institution of the State as it is overwhelmingly the most important enemy to a free society. period.

 

[murphyad]

Only the government, in society, is empowered........to kill those with whom it disagrees.

This is terribly oversimplified, at least in our own society (where capital punishment does not actually exist). There is no definitive 'society' that you can use as a blanket term. In fact, the removal of capital punishment in Australia was due to govt legislation. Even if restrictions on the right to kill were removed (ie anyone could murder another person), would this not lead to increased violence? Bear in mind I'm proceeding from the premise that you regard capital punishment as a negative thing.

And historically, by far the overwhelming portion of all enslavement and murder in the history of the world have come from the hands of government.

Most of the impetus for and enforcement of freedom from slavery also originated in the power of the state. Furthermore, the concept of slavery existed before the modern (Westphalian) state was conceived and thus it was only natural that such entities perpetuated the phenomenon for quite some time; the institution of the state did not create slavery nor was it ultimately adverse to the idea of ending the practise.

 

[Freedom_]

This is terribly oversimplified, at least in our own society (where capital punishment does not actually exist). There is no definitive 'society' that you can use as a blanket term. In fact, the removal of capital punishment in Australia was due to govt legislation. Even if restrictions on the right to kill were removed (ie anyone could murder another person), would this not lead to increased violence? Bear in mind I'm proceeding from the premise that you regard capital punishment as a negative thing.

war.

Most of the impetus for and enforcement of freedom from slavery also originated in the power of the state. Furthermore, the concept of slavery existed before the modern (Westphalian) state was conceived and thus it was only natural that such entities perpetuated the phenomenon for quite some time; the institution of the state did not create slavery nor was it ultimately adverse to the idea of ending the practise.

We are still slaves of the establishment.

 

[murphyad]

war.

Ah yes. Seems I forgot that one. But don't forget about the growing popularity of paramilitary private-security contractors in theatres like Iraq. To all intents and purposes these firms are far worse than regular military troops.

We are still slaves of the establishment.

Only if you regard human beings as property.

Your interpretation of this topic is one that I find overly absolutist. Slavery involves something for nothing in layman's terms. You work and do not get paid because you are owned by your master, or whatever. However, this is patently untrue in the case of the state. There are certain benefits that the state returns to the common citizenry and these should not be ignored.
While I agree that a limitation on the power of the state to 'enslave' (as you put it) the people that it governs is necessary, this 'slavery' is not dichotomous but is on more of a sliding scale. Conscription = greater slavery. No conscription = less slavery for example. As this level decreases, the dichotomy of either being enslaved or free becomes less and less relevant as the freedoms provided by the state multiply.
Furthermore, there are always going to be 'establishments' that influence our lives. Under anarcho-syndicalism, for example, we would still be as 'enslaved' by the need (or desire) to work as we are now. You remove one establishment and another occupies it's place. To deny this is to deny the influence of the desire for power in human interaction and perhaps that is taking things a step too far.

 

[kokodamonkey]

imo main reason for the state is to protect people from one another and to punish people who commit crimes.

Obviously what constitutes a crime needs to be greatly reduced, but you get the picture.

exactly.... It helps us provide civilised life.

 

[copkiller]

Ah yes. Seems I forgot that one. But don't forget about the growing popularity of paramilitary private-security contractors in theatres like Iraq. To all intents and purposes these firms are far worse than regular military troops.

Oh, you mean the private security contractors that were paid for 100% by the government which used tax revenue to pay for them?

Your interpretation of this topic is one that I find overly absolutist. Slavery involves something for nothing in layman's terms.

Not true. Slave masters will always give their slaves something. At the bare minimum food and water, and usually at least shelter and clothing. But many may give their slaves more. Afterall, happier, healthier slaves are better workers, and if you reward slaves who work hard, you may be able to get even more out of them.

Most laymen would agree that a slave who's master treats them well but will not allow them to leave is still a slave. Do you dispute this?

You work and do not get paid because you are owned by your master, or whatever. However, this is patently untrue in the case of the state. There are certain benefits that the state returns to the common citizenry and these should not be ignored.
While I agree that a limitation on the power of the state to 'enslave' (as you put it) the people that it governs is necessary, this 'slavery' is not dichotomous but is on more of a sliding scale. Conscription = greater slavery. No conscription = less slavery for example. As this level decreases, the dichotomy of either being enslaved or free becomes less and less relevant as the freedoms provided by the state multiply.

It may not be relevant to you, but some people do think it is very relevant. Using your sliding scale it is very easy to justify slavery as long as you treat your slaves well.

There is a very simple dichotomy; if you are free to leave you are a slave. If you have a master who's control you cannot avoid (no matter how kind the master may be) then you are a slave.

However, it doesn't really matter much whether you want to call it slavery or not. The point is that governments are coercive and rely on the threat of violence to force people to do things against their will.

Furthermore, there are always going to be 'establishments' that influence our lives. Under anarcho-syndicalism, for example, we would still be as 'enslaved' by the need (or desire) to work as we are now.

Well its not slavery in the same sense. We will always be "slaves" to certain needs and desires if you insist on defining it in this way, but we do not have to be under the control of other people.

You remove one establishment and another occupies it's place. To deny this is to deny the influence of the desire for power in human interaction and perhaps that is taking things a step too far.

This is true to some extent, but the fact that some people are power hungry and want to control and exploit others doesn't mean we should give in to them.

The majority of people who want to live peacefully should defend themselves and their property from anyone who tries to use aggression against them, whether it be other individuals, mafia gangs, or very large mafia gangs like the state.

 

[murphyad]

Oh, you mean the private security contractors that were paid for 100% by the government which used tax revenue to pay for them?

Unimportant, really. It makes little difference where the funds come from. Yes, it is true that the government delegated responsibility to these private contractors (and paid for their operations) but that is exactly the sort of action that you appear to advocate. You want power taken out of the hands of the state and into the hands of private interest. That is exactly what has happened in this case, and even if the government is funding private involvement this still represents a step away from total governmental control of the military. Unless you advocate violent revolution, the only way that the institution of the state is ever going to change or diminish is if it chooses to change or diminish itself. The fact that the state endorsed this procedure is therefore obvious and quite frankly irrelevant; no-one else had the power to do it.

Not true. Slave masters will always give their slaves something. At the bare minimum food and water, and usually at least shelter and clothing. But many may give their slaves more. Afterall, happier, healthier slaves are better workers, and if you reward slaves who work hard, you may be able to get even more out of them.

Most laymen would agree that a slave who's master treats them well but will not allow them to leave is still a slave. Do you dispute this?

Rather than directly replying to your question, I would like to say that this simply affirms my last post, that the slave/free dichotomy is false. There are degrees of slavery or freedom; states can either give more or less to their 'slaves'. Given this, your insistence that one is either an oppressed slave or totally free becomes further and further removed from reality as the state grants more to it's slaves, or 'citizens' as I believe they should more logically be called. This is because in the majority of developed nations (Lib-Democracy if you will), the day-to-day circumstances of living are far removed from the reality of slavery past and present.

Another fact that you ignore is the question of who or what we are apparently enslaved to. This is a very important point because slavery always has (and always will) involve servitude to another person(s). This does not apply to the institution of the state. John Adams, for instance, sought to establish a government of "laws, not men". In Australia and other countries with a well-developed rule of law, this is precisely what the state is: laws, not men. You should realise that there is a difference between being enslaved to a master and abiding by rules, because the very people you suppose 'enslave' us must also abide by these rules. If the PM murders another person, they will be tried in exactly the same way as Joe Citizen. Of course, if we went to Burma the situation might be a little different, but therein lies the 'sliding scale' I talked about earlier; while you claim that the citizens of both countries are 'enslaved' by the state, the fact is that they experience vastly different circumstances, so different that they render your dichotomy practically irrelevant as I have previously stated.

There is a very simple dichotomy; if you are (not?) free to leave you are a slave. If you have a master who's control you cannot avoid (no matter how kind the master may be) then you are a slave.

However, it doesn't really matter much whether you want to call it slavery or not. The point is that governments are coercive and rely on the threat of violence to force people to do things against their will.

That is a silly way to undermine your own argument. You suppose that the policies of the state amount to enslavement, but then you claim that this definition doesn't matter. From what premise, then, do you morally oppose the existence of the state, given that you suddenly hold your previous allusion to be irrelevant? Your point that governments are coercive and rely on the threat of violence is a blatant sweeping statement that ignores the reality of the legal system in this country at least (which does not rely on violence) and marks you as somewhat ill-informed.
On another note, I fully support the use of force (not violence) in order to make people who commit serious crimes such as murder (which is morally wrong in almost every modern society) do things against their own will, such as their being incarcerated, which is an important protective role that the state occupies.

Well its not slavery in the same sense. We will always be "slaves" to certain needs and desires if you insist on defining it in this way, but we do not have to be under the control of other people.

Interesting that an absolutist such as yourself could suddenly advocate that there are different nuances of slavery, which is what I have been arguing all along. Furthermore, we are not under the control of other people, we are governed by laws, but again I have already discussed this.

This is true to some extent, but the fact that some people are power hungry and want to control and exploit others doesn't mean we should give in to them.

I never said we should. But human nature dictates that more will probably be there to occupy their place in a society founded upon the principles you endorse (ie faith in the market).


Finally, you claim it is impossible to free yourself from the clutches of the state. Of course, one can move between states if they are permitted to (and I think they should be permitted to). All states have different rules and regulations. Again, this proves my 'sliding scale' idea of state involvement in the individual's life. Furthermore, it is possible to relocate to an area so remote that the state has no practical control over your life, which is something you denied in a very absolute sense.

Ever heard of Chriss McCandless? Read about him here:

Christopher McCandless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Call it a straw man if you like, but this is a real-world example of a person who attempted to live beyond the strictures of modern society founded upon the state, and paid the price for it.

 

[copkiller]

Yes, it is true that the government delegated responsibility to these private contractors (and paid for their operations) but that is exactly the sort of action that you appear to advocate.

No you moron, its the opposite of what I'm advocating. I'm advocating no government at all, which makes this sort of thing impossible.

Rather than directly replying to your question,

Hahaha, there's a surprise.

Another fact that you ignore is the question of who or what we are apparently enslaved to. This is a very important point because slavery always has (and always will) involve servitude to another person(s). This does not apply to the institution of the state.

We are enslaved to the state, which is a group of persons, which fits your own definition. The fact that in a democracy we have a tiny fraction of a vote in how the state is run does not make us any less enslaved. Being free means the ability to opt out of being controlled all together, not having a minuscule, insignificant say in how you are controlled.

That is a silly way to undermine your own argument. You suppose that the policies of the state amount to enslavement, but then you claim that this definition doesn't matter.

It's not silly at all. It really doesn't matter. Slavery is just a word and whether statism fits this word depends entirely upon the definition of this word. It is a pointless game of semantics which is why I have ignored most of your stuff about whether it is slavery.

The point it that it is coercive and the state uses violence and threats of violence to compel obedience and does not give us a choice to opt out of statism. Whatever you want to call this, I regard it as destructive and immoral. Nearly everyone accepts that theft and violence are wrong and so far no one has provided a moral justification for why the state should be exempted from this moral standard.

Every argument for the state so far has been based on the assumption that civilization is impossible without the state. It is a pragmatic argument that does not address the underlying moral problem. Also, there is much work done by anarcho-capitalists that shows how a stateless society could work very well, and there are historical examples of nearly stateless societies working. So if there is a moral problem with the state, people should at least consider whether anarcho-capitalism could work, rather than immediately rejecting it because they have been brought up and indoctrinated to assume that the state is necessary.

Your point that governments are coercive and rely on the threat of violence is a blatant sweeping statement that ignores the reality of the legal system in this country at least (which does not rely on violence) and marks you as somewhat ill-informed.

The state generally relies on threats of violence. Because the state is so big and powerful, the threats alone are usually enough to compel obedience, and actual violence is rarely used.

For instance, a petty thug will often need to brandish a knife or gun about in order to rob you. Whereas the leader of a mafia gang may compel your obedience completely unarmed simply by politely asking you to pay him, because you know that he has the force to make life very difficult for you if you don't do as he says. This does not make the mafia boss any less violent or threatening, if anything he is more of a threat because he is more powerful.

Similarly the police use violence and threats of violence like the mafia gang to compel obedience. Most people obey because like the mafia gang, they are so powerful and far reaching that failure to co-operate will be detrimental. The police are empowered to shoot people if they do not stop when police tell them to, or if they are escaping from prison. They are empowered to grab people are forcibly drag them off to jail and they are empowered to lock people up for years and control every aspect of their lives, often for committing non violent offenses. This is all extremely violent, coercive behavior.

You seem to think that violence only means injuring people, like bashing them or whipping them. I'd argue that Kidnapping people and locking them up is extremely violent. If you don't want to call it violence, fine. I don't care to have another debate about the definition of words with you. The point is kidnapping is a morally deplorable action which we generally regard as an extremely harmful crime, so we still have the problem of why the government is allowed to kidnap people for committing non-violent crimes like tax evasion.

Furthermore, it is possible to relocate to an area so remote that the state has no practical control over your life, which is something you denied in a very absolute sense.

I still categorically deny this claim. The only way you can supposedly live beyond the control of the state is by hiding from the state. Its like saying you are free to take drugs, as long as you don't get caught.

It may be hard to catch someone living in a very remote area, but if you do get caught you will be charged with not paying taxes, hunting without a permit, logging without a permit, unauthorised contruction in a state forrest ect ect, as well as violation of any other laws you may have left the state to avoid being subjected to.

Living in hiding in remote wilderness areas is hardly a realistic alternative to accepting the rule of the state, especially since as I pointed out it is still illegal, and there is still a chance you will be caught.

 

[murphyad]

No you moron, its the opposite of what I'm advocating. I'm advocating no government at all, which makes this sort of thing impossible.

Sigh. Read the rest of that paragraph. As I said, only the state is going to be able to reduce the power of the state. This is an example of that happening. The fact is that either a state will dismantle itself or it will be overthrown, most likely in a violent fashion. Do you advocate the violent overthrow of the state? Because if you're advocating no government at all, then those are your two choices as far as I'm concerned.

We are enslaved to the state, which is a group of persons, which fits your own definition. The fact that in a democracy we have a tiny fraction of a vote in how the state is run does not make us any less enslaved. Being free means the ability to opt out of being controlled all together, not having a minuscule, insignificant say in how you are controlled.

Aside from that first sentence being a great example of begging the question, I was arguing that the function of a state is determined primarily by laws, at least in this country, iirc. I explicitly said this. And your ugly dichotomy rears its head yet again. There are degrees of state control, degrees which you have exemplified time and time again.

You assume here that it is in the state's interest to suppress democracy. However, individuals in society have the capacity to gain access to the machinery of the state and change those regulations if they so chose to.

The point it that it is coercive and the state uses violence and threats of violence to compel obedience and does not give us a choice to opt out of statism. Whatever you want to call this, I regard it as destructive and immoral. Nearly everyone accepts that theft and violence are wrong and so far no one has provided a moral justification for why the state should be exempted from this moral standard.

Again, you think in overly dichotomous terms. To you, state = bad. By virtue of it's very existence, the state is immoral. Why do you believe this? Because there is a suppressed premise in your argument: that the state will always act destructively and immorally. However, I would argue that the state acts to preserve its own existence, whatever that may entail. Does this have to be violent and destructive? No. Yes, I accept that theft and violence are wrong. No, I don't think that states should be subjected to moral exemption in regards to these ideas. And you know, I happen to believe that perhaps here and in other countries, the state should have less control over people's lives in the long term. I think that at some time in the far future the entity of the state will become entirely redundant. However, if I bring my eyes back to the present........there are certain ideas that would suggest that the state remains a positive institution to have around. What if the state provides everyone with free healthcare: I don't wish to argue amounts, but say that it provided some arbitrary level of healthcare cover for every person under its jurisdiction. Is this an activity that is beneficial to society at large? I would argue that it is. At present, would such an activity continue in the absence of a state? I would think not. As such, the state provides certain benefits to it's citizens that other institutions may be less capable of providing.

The state generally relies on threats of violence. Because the state is so big and powerful, the threats alone are usually enough to compel obedience, and actual violence is rarely used....... the police use violence and threats of violence like the mafia gang to compel obedience. Most people obey because like the mafia gang, they are so powerful and far reaching that failure to co-operate will be detrimental. The police are empowered to shoot people if they do not stop when police tell them to, or if they are escaping from prison. They are empowered to grab people are forcibly drag them off to jail and they are empowered to lock people up for years and control every aspect of their lives, often for committing non violent offenses. This is all extremely violent, coercive behavior.

You seem to think that violence only means injuring people, like bashing them or whipping them. I'd argue that Kidnapping people and locking them up is extremely violent. If you don't want to call it violence, fine. I don't care to have another debate about the definition of words with you. The point is kidnapping is a morally deplorable action which we generally regard as an extremely harmful crime, so we still have the problem of why the government is allowed to kidnap people for committing non-violent crimes like tax evasion.

The state is sometimes violent and coercive, just like individuals or other organisations are sometimes violent and coercive as you mention. I don't believe that the state is intrinsically justified in acting in this way, in fact, in some cases I deplore it. But what you have ignored is why the state may operate in this way and what it operates in reference to, namely, the legal system. In Australia at least, all cases in which the state acts in a violent manner are prompted by some violation of the law, and if they are not then that is frankly unacceptable. So we must ask ourselves: what is the function of law in modern society? Not a hard question really; laws have a couple of main purposes. One is to restrict the actions of the individual citizen. In some cases this may be bad, in other cases it may be good. The law is there in part to protect us, not just to oppress us. As well as making us pay tax, the state is also responsible for dealing with individuals dangerous to society and so on. This to me is a vital function of the state. Apologies if this is insultingly simple or anything but I feel that it needs to be established as part of this debate. I do feel that the state is justified in it's acting to uphold the law, as long as I personally believe that those laws are justified, but that is another topic altogether.

Now you hold the imprisonment of an individual for a non-violent crime such as tax evasion to be morally unjustifiable. In some ways I can understand why. However might I remind you that taxes are not uniform in every state: you could go to somewhere like Monaco and pay very little tax (although the cost of living is exorbitant). Furthermore, paying tax is not just a money hole; tax money is used to deliver socially beneficial programs in many cases. If an individual chooses not to pay their tax, are they not therefore obstructing the funding of such programs, that benefit society at large? Is this in itself an immoral act? Now of course I realise that not all taxation money is used to pay for social programs (some is used to buy $500K office chairs), but perhaps I am sympathetic to the state in this way: the fact that the state does such things at all mostly justifies why I think I should contribute to it in monetary terms at the least.

With these points in mind, I feel that dealing with the state is a case of minimising the bad and maximising the good. We should minimise the violence and coercion of the state, applying reasonable moral standards at first and then acting in more specific cases thereafter. We should maximise the social benefits of the state, whether this means locking up crims or giving everyone free healthcare. We must ensure that the state's power is controlled adequately by the courts i.e. ensure the separation of powers. If we can do all these things, would it be necessary to opt out of statism? Would we be any better off? I personally do not think we would. There are certain things that a human society at this point would find it very difficult to achieve without some organised, centralised influence without reverting to what is basically mob rule; this influence does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. That is my inherent justification for the existence of the state: that it represents a valuable opportunity for peace and stability in modern human society.

 

[copkiller]

Sigh. Read the rest of that paragraph. As I said, only the state is going to be able to reduce the power of the state. This is an example of that happening. The fact is that either a state will dismantle itself or it will be overthrown, most likely in a violent fashion. Do you advocate the violent overthrow of the state? Because if you're advocating no government at all, then those are your two choices as far as I'm concerned.

Okay I agree and I am against violent overthrow unless the state becomes much more oppressive. But hiring private contractors to kill foreigners in overseas wars is hardly a step towards dismantling the state. If the state actually made efforts to cut military spending and stop fighting these wars then I might show some optimism.

You assume here that it is in the state's interest to suppress democracy. However, individuals in society have the capacity to gain access to the machinery of the state and change those regulations if they so chose to.

No I think you misunderstood me. I am saying that even if democracy is functioning well and the government's decisions actually reflect the wishes of the majority, the state is still oppressive and analogous to slavery. In this case, the minority is still enslaved by the majority.

The fact that you are free to campaign to change the laws does the people that are oppressed by the laws little good. For instance, marijuana has been illegal for nearly a century now despite being a totally victimless crime. Sure you can protest, and run for office, and try to change people's mind, but it won't stop you being arrested for choosing what you put in your own body.

Yes, I accept that theft and violence are wrong.

No, I don't think that states should be subjected to moral exemption in regards to these ideas.

Right, well we agree on something. So even if you don't accept my violence argument, how can you say that taxation is not theft.

Unlike the whole slavery thing, you can't argue that it is not theft because the state gives us something in return for what it takes. If I take $100 from you but buy you $100 worth of stuff and give it back to you, have I not still committed theft?

Then in this next quoted section you admit that:

The state is sometimes violent and coercive, just like individuals or other organisations are sometimes violent and coercive as you mention.

So if you admit that the state is sometime violent and coercive, and that violence and coercion is wrong, and that the state is not exempt from this moral principal, surely you must admit that the state is acting in a way that is morally wrong...

In Australia at least, all cases in which the state acts in a violent manner are prompted by some violation of the law, and if they are not then that is frankly unacceptable. So we must ask ourselves: what is the function of law in modern society? Not a hard question really; laws have a couple of main purposes. One is to restrict the actions of the individual citizen. In some cases this may be bad, in other cases it may be good.

Well now we're making progress. So you admit the law may sometimes be bad. Yet it is violently forced upon us whether it is good or bad. Is that not a huge problem?

Now you hold the imprisonment of an individual for a non-violent crime such as tax evasion to be morally unjustifiable. In some ways I can understand why. However might I remind you that taxes are not uniform in every state: you could go to somewhere like Monaco and pay very little tax (although the cost of living is exorbitant).

Most tax havens have limited visas for foreigners, or will not let you in to work at all if you don't have certain skills, and they charge you a fortune to enter the country. Read about places like the Caymen Islands. Their equivalent of tax revenue is the money that they charge foreigners to come there. They may be great for wealthy bankers and people who want to hide large sums of money. However, it is really not an option for the average worker who just wants to make an honest living without having to pay tax.

Furthermore, paying tax is not just a money hole; tax money is used to deliver socially beneficial programs in many cases.

We've been through this. Theft is still theft, even if the stolen money is used for a "good" cause. The problem is you are forced to pay. What people think is a good use of money will also vary greatly, so some people will be left feeling they get virtually nothing of value for their tax money. Surely this is an immoral act against those people.

If an individual chooses not to pay their tax, are they not therefore obstructing the funding of such programs, that benefit society at large? Is this in itself an immoral act? Now of course I realise that not all taxation money is used to pay for social programs (some is used to buy $500K office chairs), but perhaps I am sympathetic to the state in this way: the fact that the state does such things at all mostly justifies why I think I should contribute to it in monetary terms at the least.

Well we're moving beyond the moral question of whether the state is justified, into whether its programs work. I would argue that they don't and that social welfare and national healthcare programs actually perpetuate poverty.

There is certainly an argument to be made each way. You can't simply take it as a given that these programs do more good than harm, and provide more benefit than the cost of funding them and the moral cost of obtaining the funding by force, and then conclude that the state is therefore justified. You seem to be leaning back towards the utilitarian justification, which once again is very tricky, because how do we calculate aggregate utility?

With these points in mind, I feel that dealing with the state is a case of minimising the bad and maximising the good. We should minimise the violence and coercion of the state, applying reasonable moral standards at first and then acting in more specific cases thereafter. We should maximise the social benefits of the state, whether this means locking up crims or giving everyone free healthcare. We must ensure that the state's power is controlled adequately by the courts i.e. ensure the separation of powers. If we can do all these things, would it be necessary to opt out of statism? Would we be any better off? I personally do not think we would.

Well so far every state in history has failed to limit the states powers in this wonderful way which you have suggested.

The saddest example is the United States, which started of with a very limited government and has grown into an monstrous, war mongering, international empire.

The reality is every state locks people up for victimless crimes and has corrupt leaders which enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of their citizens.

There are certain things that a human society at this point would find it very difficult to achieve without some organised, centralised influence without reverting to what is basically mob rule; this influence does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. That is my inherent justification for the existence of the state: that it represents a valuable opportunity for peace and stability in modern human society.

I totally disagree. I think society can be protected by private security firms that individuals voluntarily fund.

Here's a short article outlining the case for private security organisations:

The 'Night Watchman' Must Be a Private Security Guard by J. L. Bryan

There is much more you can read about this if you're interested, you might also want to look at medieval Ireland and Iceland as examples.

I'd urge you to at least consider the possibility that civilization and security is possible without nation states. Remember we will always have anarchy in some sense anyway. There is no one world government controlling the actions of nation states. We are in a perpetual state of international anarchy. At least if organisations that have weapons and use force were smaller and voluntarily funded, perhaps the conflicts and violence (which are always to some degree inevitable) would at least occur on a smaller scale.