Are forced taxes theft.

I disagree with your contention that it essential for some small group of people to rule over others in a specific geographic area.

 

Okay. Please be the first libertarian I've ever met who can explain how you can build a large-scale society when you don't believe there should be any laws or taxes that apply to everyone in a given area.

 

Through free trade and the market. If people want a service, they will purchase it.

 

Why would anyone build a service, if there are no enforceable laws protecting their investment? How will that service be delivered, if there is no large-scale infrastructure? If their product is shoddy and dangerous and kills you, who will hold them responsible? If they are poisoning the air and water to make their product, who will stop them?

Or let's get even more simple. If there is nobody controlling a given geographic area, who will stop someone from shooting you dead and just walking away? Who will investigate the crime? Who will punish the perpetrator?

 

As I said, I disagree with your contention that it essential for some small group of people to rule over others in a specific geographic area.

That doesn't mean that the people living in a given area can't decide that that won't allow murder. That's not ruling over. That's making sensible rules to allow people to live their lives in peace.

 

Stop dodging the questions.

Who creates these rules?

What if you don't get 100% buy-in on those rules?

Who enforces these rules?

How would you ever be able to create large-scale infrastructure?

Why would anyone create a service if there are no enforceable rules protecting their investment?

How will that service be delivered, if there is no large-scale infrastructure?

 

Correct answer. However there is a point to be understood that the same people who assessed the taxes on themselves have no control or even input on how it is spent. Taxpayers can't make laws. They can only vote for political candidates who want even more taxation.

 

Why are they forced to vote for candidates who want more taxation?

 

Because of our political system.

 

That's not really an answer. It sounds like knee-jerk cynicism.

 

No. Of course not.

 

I'm no central planner, so I can't give you a detailed blueprint. The people will invent the necessary institutions.

However, to answer your questions as best I can:

Disputes over property could be arbitrated by volunteer, elected judges.

The successful litigant would have the legal authority to enforce the judge's verdict.

Large scale infrastructure would be created by firms meeting the demands of consumers.

 

What if I do not consent to this form of dispute resolution?

What good is “legal authority” if there is no power to enforce it?

Again, why would I create a service or infrastructure if there are no enforceable laws to protect my investment?

Indeed, how would I amass the resources necessary to build the infrastructure at all?

Your inability to address these questions merely proves my point: that under libertarianism, government above the level of a small village is impossible.

 

The right likes to accuse liberals, Democrats, and the left of advocating unconstitutional stands. Yet here we have @Pycckia , @doombug , @not2serious , @Longshot , @Robert , @TedintheShed and others taking their stand against the Constitution. I suggest these posters would do well to run a search of the word "tax" on the Constitution.

 

I assume you are asking me how a free (i.e. libertarian) society would operate?

In such a society, the elected judges would have the legal authority to arbitrate disputes. Their verdict would be seen as legally binding. They successful litigant would have the legal authority to enforce the judgement.

Again, not being clairvoyant, I'm only guessing about how people might run things. But this system would be consistent with the non-aggression principle.

As I noted earlier in my post, your investment would be protected as your property. If someone violated your property you could sue them in a court of law.

Answered, I believe. Your property rights would be protected because you could take a violator to a court of law.

I disagree with your advocacy of violence against innocent people.

 

According to the theory? The laws of the land in which said home exists.

 

You're confusing 'unconstitutional' with 'unethical'. I oppose unethical.

 

Got it. So there are people who think they own the land my house is on. That doesn't sound legit.

 

You said taxation is theft. Theft is illegal.... a violation of a law. Taxation is Constitutional and therefore fully legal. You are wrong and you are ignoring the Constitution.

 

Yep. It's totally legal. Just like slavery was. That doesn't mean that it's ethical. Which is why I oppose it.

 

Yes. Specifically, I can see libertarianism operating in small groups, the size of a commune, for instance. I cannot see it working at scales any larger than that.

Which means it simply doesn't work as a way to organize human society. Not unless humans are morally perfect.

Who gave them that authority? What if I do not consent to that authority?

Libertarianism has no way of addressing this that isn't "violence", in libertarian terms.

You fail to answer the most basic question: Who will enforce this verdict? You keep using terms like "legally binding", but you oppose "forced" rules -- thus, you have no mechanism for enforcing your "legally binding" verdict.

So why would anyone pay attention to that verdict?

Yet another irrelevant non-response. Why do libertarians have such a hard time answering direct questions?

 

I disagree. Trade can be global.

The bulk of the people in said society.

Then that sucks for you.

Have you studied libertarianism to any extent? Libertarianism isn't pacifism. Libertarians see a role for a judge to remedy incidences of trespass.

I'm pretty sure I said in my previous post, but in case you missed it: The successful litigant will have the legal authority to enforce the verdict.

Why does anyone pay attention to a judges verdict now? Same reason.

Why do power-hungry statists think that asking a bunch of questions is an argument?

 

B-S!!! You are being dishonest! YOUR own post, post #2 - "Agreed. One person taking another's stuff. Theft." "THEFT" you said.

 

Uh, what?

 

Ah. So now you play dumb. Go read your first post.