<p>afruff: Is it really your view that taxes amount to stealing? I’d like to hear you refute the valid opinion that I hold that taxation is part of the social contract that you sign when you make the choice to abide in a certain society - if you don’t like it, you’re welcome to go to another society more amenable to your needs. No?</p>
<p>@1of42</p>
<p>Please read this short article (I feel like I am spamming). It has all the common arguments (including yours):
[A</a> Handout for Statists](<a href=“http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4.html]A”>A Handout for Statists | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty)</p>
<p>If we somehow have to abide by a social contract (“love it or leave it”), it must first be determined that the social contract’s beneficiary is the owner of the property used by the person. The government does not own any property. For a clarification of property rights, I suggest this short article:
[States</a> cannot own property - Mises Economics Blog](<a href=“http://blog.mises.org/archives/002502.asp]States”>States cannot own property | Mises Wire)</p>
<p>The argument against social contract theory on that page could be considered stupid, at best. Making random analogies is not a sufficient argumentative tactic. The fact is that part of living in a society is hewing to an implicit contract of behavior for that society. Not committing crimes, and all kinds of other stuff. If you don’t like the social contract… leave! As you so eloquently said yourself, why should you have the right to live in any one place even when not following the rules? Just go somewhere else!</p>
<p>Yes, the libertarian critiques of social contract theories I have seen have been drivel, largely.</p>
<p><em>edit</em> And yes, I know he tries to tackle the countries question. But his neighborhood analogy - and his overall argument - are deeply flawed since government in a democracy implicitly includes everyone, even if indirectly.</p>
<p>Your second article is equally absurd, by the way. “A State cannot own property” -> “Because it cannot own property, its only legitimate way of getting property - homesteading - cannot be used” -> “Therefore the State cannot legitimately acquire property”… and so on. Even if the basic premise of the article weren’t totally wacked anyways, it is logically inconsistent.</p>
<p>“The argument against social contract theory on that page could be considered stupid, at best. Making random analogies is not a sufficient argumentative tactic.”</p>
<p>How come? This is called reductio ad absurdum and is a perfectly fine tool to disprove claims on the basis of logic. He is distilling concepts into their exact implications and applying them consistently to show how the original premise is invalid.</p>
<p>“The fact is that part of living in a society is hewing to an implicit contract of behavior for that society. Not committing crimes, and all kinds of other stuff.”</p>
<p>Can you please distill abstract concepts like “society” and explain what that has to do with government? Rather than say use words like “society”, use words like “people” or “Joe” or “Barbara”. It makes the whole situation come more into perspective rather than something abstracted beyond all recognition. Thanks.</p>
<p>What is your definition of a “crime”? Do you mean unethical behavior like murder, theft, and rape? Or do you mean opinions imposed with the threat of violence like using drugs, bypassing regulations, and “insert nonsensical crime here”?</p>
<p>If your definition is the first one, then that requires a discussion of ethics (which I will be happy to partake in) and you will see that murder, rape, and theft are unethical behaviors because they are not “universally preferable behavior” (look those 3 words up). If you want to sugarcoat it, they are wrong because violence is wrong except in self-defense.</p>
<p>“As you so eloquently said yourself, why should you have the right to live in any one place even when not following the rules? Just go somewhere else!”</p>
<p>Again, that assumes that the rules made were made by the proper owner of the property. I refer you to my second link to show how governments cannot own property.</p>
<p>“<em>edit</em> And yes, I know he tries to tackle the countries question. But his neighborhood analogy - and his overall argument - are deeply flawed since government in a democracy implicitly includes everyone, even if indirectly.”</p>
<p>Did you read this part?:
"Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.</p>
<p>Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays “protection” money to, can it be really argued that he is making a “free” choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands – but will be forced to marry one of them – can she said to be really “choosing” marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments."</p>
<p>You cannot make a choice for somebody else without their consent. A democracy is merely 9 wolves voting against the one sheep. Giving them a choice between getting eaten by a wolve (republican) or a lion (democrat) is not a choice at all.</p>
<p>“Your second article is equally absurd, by the way. “A State cannot own property” -> “Because it cannot own property, its only legitimate way of getting property - homesteading - cannot be used” -> “Therefore the State cannot legitimately acquire property”… and so on. Even if the basic premise of the article weren’t totally wacked anyways, it is logically inconsistent.”</p>
<p>Since there is a great deal of abstraction here, I will clarify this piece to show that there is no circular logic.</p>
<p>“Because government employees at their work venues do not use legitimately-owned property, its only legitimate way of getting property other than their bodies - homesteading - cannot be used”</p>
<p>When you are born you already own yourself, so the State (a group of individuals) does own some property (their own bodies), but that is it. You coming to the age of self-sufficiency (or rationality as some may call it) is when you come into full ownership of your body. You do not use any “legitimately-owned” property to come into ownership of yourself, thus this is the only way you can obtain property without previously owning legitimately-owned property. In this sense, the way you homestead your body is fundamentally different from other things yet it is still consistent and breaks the cycle of “you need property to own property”.</p>
<p>You know (and I know this will sound like a cop-out), there are so many directions I want to take with your response that I could fill pages. But this thread doesn’t have the space. 
PM me if you want to continue the discussion.</p>
<p>bz, (post 138):
Your ‘debating’ partner is an anarchist, and not an educated one, either. (Troublemaker, ■■■■■, what-have-you). Reasoning is futile.</p>
<p>Yes, epiphany. I know. Thanks.</p>
<p>“Sovereignty is the exclusive right to have complete control over an area of governance, people, or oneself…In constitutional and international law, the concept also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision.” (pardon me for using wikipedia, i feel lazy today)</p>
<p>Sovereignty is the impetus for civilization and government as a whole. A complex society can neither thrive nor survive if it is disjointed and prevented from asserting reasonable authority over the area in which it resides. To create order and increase the overall efficiency and prosperity of a region, a government of some sort is required. </p>
<p>Civilizations formed under one simple golden rule: 2 people combined can typically do things more efficiently than 1 person alone can, 3 can do even more than 1, etc. Government, which formed as a result of this rule, is utilized to increase output and streamline decision making. Without government, civilizations drift towards disorder, decreasing the efficiency of their actions (ex: maintenance of armed forces, dispersion of crops, etc.) and reactions to various things (ex: invasion, famine, etc). Without a central system of laws and a system of enforcement, 2 people combined will lack any sense of order and will lose efficiency as a result. “United we stand, divided we fall.”</p>
<p>Government (that is, sovereign control over an area) is about as necessary for regional prosperity as Vitamin C is for the body. It isn’t absolutely necessary to survive per se, but having it significantly increases the response time and strength of the body to fight infection, repair damaged areas, and maintain order. Different types of government have different effects and varying degrees of effectiveness. </p>
<p>There’s my poorly worded sovereignty argument. Shazam.</p>
<p>Sovereignty of the individual is much more complicated, unfortunately. That’s for later.</p>
<p>@epiphany</p>
<p>Thanks for the ad hominem attacks. As for me being an anarchist, that depends on how you define an anarchist. I see anarchy as the removal of “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” and the cooperation of mankind rather than the enslavement of them.</p>
<p>Anarchy is spontaneous order. Just as people seek order in their lives without a gun threatening them, people will form their own voluntary governments. That sounds like an oxymoron, but a voluntary government does not have a “monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory”.</p>
<p>anarchy is the absence of government. if you are creating spontaneous new governments, you no longer have anarchy.</p>
<p>spontaneous order is analogous to spontaneous chaos (partly cloudy vs. partly sunny). </p>
<p>and when you have two or more ‘voluntary governments’ in one area, you have a conflict-that is, war.</p>
<p>“Sovereignty is the impetus for civilization and government as a whole. A complex society can neither thrive nor survive if it is disjointed and prevented from asserting reasonable authority over the area in which it resides. To create order and increase the overall efficiency and prosperity of a region, a government of some sort is required.”</p>
<p>That is a non-sequitir to jump from “order is needed” to “force by way of governments is needed”. Governments never increase efficiency of anything by their very nature. When they pass laws, they have no way of knowing if that is the best solution. Without governments, people can value things according to their preferences and use resources to solve problems according to their priorities rather than the priorities of a few people in Washington DC who have much less collective knowledge than all the people in a market. This is called spontaneous order. Just as spontaneous order has brought many innovations in the market, it can bring just as many to the realm of justice and protection. If you truly believe a government is needed since people are disjointed, then you would need a government of Gods to overcome this weakness since the government is made up of humans.</p>
<p>“Civilizations formed under one simple golden rule: 2 people combined can typically do things more efficiently than 1 person alone can, 3 can do even more than 1, etc. Government, which formed as a result of this rule, is utilized to increase output and streamline decision making. Without government, civilizations drift towards disorder, decreasing the efficiency of their actions (ex: maintenance of armed forces, dispersion of crops, etc.) and reactions to various things (ex: invasion, famine, etc). Without a central system of laws and a system of enforcement, 2 people combined will lack any sense of order and will lose efficiency as a result. “United we stand, divided we fall.””</p>
<p>As I mentioned before, it is fundamentally impossible for a government to choose the best solution to a problem. Governments are the ones who lead to invasions due to nationalism (also it’s much easier to take over a centralized government than to take over decentralized businesses by going door-to-door to assert control). Governments arguably lead to famines by preventing people from using lands for other uses. Instead, the government requires a arbitrary amount of land to be used for farming which makes famines much harsher or perhaps even possible.</p>
<p>“Government (that is, sovereign control over an area) is about as necessary for regional prosperity as Vitamin C is for the body. It isn’t absolutely necessary to survive per se, but having it significantly increases the response time and strength of the body to fight infection, repair damaged areas, and maintain order. Different types of government have different effects and varying degrees of effectiveness.”</p>
<p>That is a baseless assertion. All governments at their core are based on using force upon non-violent people which is what makes them all just as inefficient and as immoral as the other. If you wish to argue about the argument from effect to prove sovereignty, then please come up with better examples. We are now arguing about the ethics of sovereignty.</p>
<p>@enderkin</p>
<p>“anarchy is the absence of government. if you are creating spontaneous new governments, you no longer have anarchy.”</p>
<p>As I said before, volutnary government is kind of an oxymoron. A better term would be a dispute resolution organization (DRO). A DRO is simply a collection of individuals being paid by other people for dispute resolution and possibly defense services. Nobody is forced to submit to these laws (except those who agree to them) and thus it is not a government in the sense of today’s governments.</p>
<p>"spontaneous order is analogous to spontaneous chaos (partly cloudy vs. partly sunny). "</p>
<p>Then I guess all innovations of mankind were the result of a top-down hierarchy…please…</p>
<p>“and when you have two or more ‘voluntary governments’ in one area, you have a conflict-that is, war.”</p>
<p>Yes, I’m sure Geico and Allstate fight all the time. A DRO is like an insurance company except there are no barriers to entry for the market and it provides dispute resolution and possibly defense services. You could form your own DRO with you and your family. If you create laws permitting murder, then no other DRO would want to do business with you and thus the “good” DROs are selected in the long run over bad ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And where did you dig up that little gem of an assertion?</p>
<p>Our government exists because we let it exist - not the other way around. It works for us, the citizens.</p>
<p>I doubt very much that you are an American citizen. If you are, you don’t seem to value your citizenship very much.</p>
<p>I am a US citizen.</p>
<p>"And where did you dig up that little gem of an assertion?</p>
<p>Our government exists because we let it exist - not the other way around. It works for us, the citizens."</p>
<p>If you want the government to exist, that is fine. But do not force it upon people who do not want it. Don’t throw people into jail for doing non-violent acts. It is a non-sequitir to go from “some people accept government” to “you accept government”.</p>
<p>“I doubt very much that you are an American citizen. If you are, you don’t seem to value your citizenship very much.”</p>
<p>Why are you obscuring right and wrong so much? If a person forces another to submit to their will it is unethical, but if they are a citizen all is fine? You need to be consistent. If forcing others to submit to their will is fine, then you should have no problem if I were to make you work for me with a gun to your head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s true. But it’s not the problem with his “argument”. His problem is that he makes an implicit comparison between society/the state and an individual. This is the classic issue with these debates - your political philosophy of pure libertarianism/anarchism is incompatible with modern society. It is logically consistent with itself, but it fails to provide a substantive critique against the viewpoint that a society is a subservient creation of its people, and that therefore all people living in that society implicitly accept the social contract that binds it together. A libertarian’s response would be “but somebody can’t make somebody else sign a contract!”, but the reality is that there is no “other person” forcing anyone to “sign” the social contract, but rather the society as a whole (which, again, is made up of every person who chooses to abide in it) requires that everyone sign the “social contract”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Deontological ethics… fun. I was indeed using crime in the first sense. However, while I am against drug laws for a number of reasons, it’s not a cut-and-dried “drug laws are illegitimate” issue, and the net of the deontological maxim is cast very, very wide - lots more things than murder, theft and rape are unethical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are correct in your assertion that gaining ownership over oneself is a fundamental process. However, you are incorrect that a state cannot own property, and neither you nor your websites have provided a sufficient argument of that idea. Since society is composed of all those people who it serves, and they are all capable of owning property, they are capable of transferring their property to society (the state) voluntarily (through social contract the transactions you view as coercive are indeed voluntary) - as they must be capable, through libertarian theories like Nozick’s.</p>
<p>See, here’s the other question I find very interesting. You seem to assert your right to live in any place you want (once you have reached the age of self-sufficiency/whatever), regardless of any government or anything else, which you view as illegitimate. This assumption underlies your objections to social contract theory, and the website you posted - the neighborhood analogy is a perfect example. Why is it that you think you have the unfettered right to be wherever you want? I would assert that you have the right to be anywhere so long as you a abide by the law of the land - the social contract, or whatever else, as the case may be. And if you do not abide by those, you have the right to leave - once you have paid whatever debts you have, etc.</p>
<p>My problem with your argument is that it is based upon a number of implicit assumptions, none of which you state or even attempt to prove. Assuming those things are true your arguments are largely irrefutable; but that is a huge assumption, and one that I think would be certainly incorrect.</p>
<p>"Quote:
All governments at their core are based on using force upon non-violent people.</p>
<p>And where did you dig up that little gem of an assertion?"</p>
<p>Wasn’t there this guy named Hobbes? (he died a long time ago. ;))</p>
<p>“Yes, that’s true. But it’s not the problem with his “argument”. His problem is that he makes an implicit comparison between society/the state and an individual. This is the classic issue with these debates - your political philosophy of pure libertarianism/anarchism is incompatible with modern society. It is logically consistent with itself, but it fails to provide a substantive critique against the viewpoint that a society is a subservient creation of its people, and that therefore all people living in that society implicitly accept the social contract that binds it together. A libertarian’s response would be “but somebody can’t make somebody else sign a contract!”, but the reality is that there is no “other person” forcing anyone to “sign” the social contract, but rather the society as a whole (which, again, is made up of every person who chooses to abide in it) requires that everyone sign the “social contract”.”</p>
<p>Is not society made up of individuals? If you cannot properly defien the terms of this “social contract”, why should I follow it? For the same reason the man extracting a few from his neighbors by force is wrong, so is the social contract.</p>
<p>“Deontological ethics… fun. I was indeed using crime in the first sense. However, while I am against drug laws for a number of reasons, it’s not a cut-and-dried “drug laws are illegitimate” issue, and the net of the deontological maxim is cast very, very wide - lots more things than murder, theft and rape are unethical.”</p>
<p>Care to give some examples? All unethical acts are rooted in violence of some sort.</p>
<p>“You are correct in your assertion that gaining ownership over oneself is a fundamental process. However, you are incorrect that a state cannot own property, and neither you nor your websites have provided a sufficient argument of that idea. Since society is composed of all those people who it serves, and they are all capable of owning property, they are capable of transferring their property to society (the state) voluntarily (through social contract the transactions you view as coercive are indeed voluntary) - as they must be capable, through libertarian theories like Nozick’s.”</p>
<p>So if a people did indeed donate their legitimately-owned property to the state then that is fine. But then what about those who do not? You can’t create arbitrary contracts based on geographical location and force those who do not comply to give their property to the State. That is completely unethical.</p>
<p>“See, here’s the other question I find very interesting. You seem to assert your right to live in any place you want (once you have reached the age of self-sufficiency/whatever), regardless of any government or anything else, which you view as illegitimate. This assumption underlies your objections to social contract theory, and the website you posted - the neighborhood analogy is a perfect example. Why is it that you think you have the unfettered right to be wherever you want? I would assert that you have the right to be anywhere so long as you a abide by the law of the land - the social contract, or whatever else, as the case may be. And if you do not abide by those, you have the right to leave - once you have paid whatever debts you have, etc.”</p>
<p>I agree with you regarding that you have to abide the rules of the owner of that land when you choose to live there. However, once again you have failed to demonstrate that the State or somebody else owns that land (see: that second article). “Love it or leave it” only works if the place you are leaving is legitimately owned by another.</p>
<p>“My problem with your argument is that it is based upon a number of implicit assumptions, none of which you state or even attempt to prove. Assuming those things are true your arguments are largely irrefutable; but that is a huge assumption, and one that I think would be certainly incorrect.”</p>
<p>Then please tell me these assumptions. You make a large number of assumptions which will be forthright in telling you:
-people choose their governments (some do; others are forced to submit their will)
-governments legitimately own the land (if somebody were given the option to not have certain laws apply to their property, they would do it. This is not the case since the government would use violence upon those who do so. Imagine if the government agreed not to use violence against those who made their own laws on their land.)
-all land the government owns was obtained through donations (this is obviously false as it is obvious that much of the land in the US is not homesteaded yet still has the state’s dictums applied to it.)1</p>
<p>“Wasn’t there this guy named Hobbes? (he died a long time ago)”</p>
<p>Hobbes was largely correct. Humans instinctively want to be good, but certain things (e.g. parents, schools, politicians) corrupt our sense of good and we change definitions to make bad things seem good (e.g. “the social contract is voluntary”). I’m not sure if Hobbes went to the extent I did in addressing specific corrupters rather than gave vague generalizations (e.g. “society corrupts”).</p>