The State is Morally wrong and that's the only reason you should need.

Hey folks, it has been quite a while since I've been on the forum. I've had personal matters to attend to over the past few months.

The topic matter was inspired by [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZP83HXjQhA"]this [/ame]video by Stefan Molyneux. I am using some his points he brings up in this video so I'd like to give him credit where it's due.

The initiation of force is wrong in all situations. Hurting people that haven't hurt anyone else can't be justified, it's something that any intelligent human being can acknowledge.

It is wrong to kill someone who has done nothing to hurt anyone else. It is wrong to steal people's resources, to injure them or threaten them.

When the common thief robs you at gun point, it is considered wrong by society.

When the mafia extorts the shopkeeper, it is considered wrong by society.

When government taxes you under the threat of violence it is suddenly okay? When the government kills innocent people in foreign countries and kidnaps innocent non-violent people, is it not wrong?

If you believe that the government is necessary, then I wonder, could look me or someone else in the eyes and tell them that they should be kidnapped or killed if they disagree with your point of view? That's what statism is.

If I choose to use marijuana, armed thugs may come and try to kidnap me. If I resist these violent men or try to defend myself, I could be killed. If these men were wearing the costumes of the mafia it would be wrong and resistance would be justified . If they were wearing the costumes of police it is suddenly okay for them to kidnap me.

You think money should be given to the poor? Great, give money, spread the word about helping the poor, do whatever you can to influence people's minds. What if I disagree? What if I don't want to pay for someone else's welfare? The statist believes that it's okay for me to be kidnapped or killed for disagreeing. That's the harsh reality.

So if the state is morally wrong, nothing else needs to be discussed. Statists ask: "Who will build the roads?" "What about the military?" "How will my children be educated?", I then ask you to look back in time.

When the abolitionists of colonial times said that keeping slaves was wrong, what do you think people said? "Who will pick the cotton?" So the abolitionist says: In the future, horseless carriages running on old dinosaur juice with big mechanical hands will go through the field and pick all the cotton. What do you think people would've said? Sounds like bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to me.. but is that not what we have today to pick the cotton?

What about when women wanted equal rights, to work and vote like men?

The men said "But who will keep the house in order? The house requires constant maintenance.. and who will do my laundry?" Well, the women said: In the future there will be big metal machines in which you pour a green goo and throw dirty clothes in, it then spits out clean clothes. Sounds like a made up answer to me, what a load of phooey, right?

What if a group of doctors in the 1920's got together and tried to design a long term health care system for the future.

"How will we deal with the crippling disease polio and how will we factor malaria into the system?" says a doctor. Another doctor says "Well, they will just be cured with a magic liquid that people can put into their bodies so we don't have to worry about it anymore." The doctors look at him flabbergasted because that isn't fair! You can't just say it will be magically fixed! But here we are and those diseases aren't the horrors that they were in those times, vaccines have been developed.

The point is, no one can really accurately anticipate how problems will be solved in the future, but one thing is for sure. History has shown that the future solves problems of the past.

For this reason, questions like: "Who will build the roads?" "Who will deliver the mail?" "Who will give poor people money?" are not the right questions to be asking. Hypothetical's about the future and how problems may be solved are just shots in the dark.

The state is morally wrong. It is morally wrong to initiate violence on other people, that is what matters.

The future solves the problems of the present in ways that cannot be fathomed by those in the present time. With this in mind, we must do what is morally right instead of sacrificing our values out of a fear of change.

 

Nice post!!!

 

If society (in majority) changed it's opinion and decided theft and extortion aren't wrong, would that make them morally acceptable?

There is no direct threat of violence regarding taxation in most places (including where you likely are). Taxation as a concept is OK for exactly the same reason you gave for the theft and extortion not being - majority opinion of society.

Nobody is (or should be) kidnapped or killed for disagreeing. You can be arrested and imprisoned (or executed, though I disagree with that) for doing things society has determined as damaging, to individuals or society as a whole.

Government is just the menas that is implemented. If you scrapped government, you'd still end up with groups of people doing the same thing, certainly no more fairly or effectively and potentially much worse.

Not killed. If you refuse to contribute to society as has been deterrmined by the majority, you should leave. If you try to remain, taking advatage of the benefits of that society without contributing to it, some form of punishment may be necessary, with imprisonment as a last resort.

 

Do you think extortion and theft are morally acceptable? Decent human beings can agree that theft and extortion are wrong. You can't agree to that?

Taxation IS theft. It's just a different word. It is wrong to steal from people. Any good person knows that stealing and threatening violence to get what you want is wrong. We shouldn't need to debate that.

You just contradicted yourself. First you say no one is being kidnapped or killed, then you say that people arrested and imprisoned for things that are illegal. Let me say it again. If I smoke a marijuana cigarette, armed costumed men may come and point guns at me and kidnap me. If I resist this violent attempt on my life, I may be shot like a rabid dog.

So leave government in power even though you agree it is a menace so that government doesn't come to power? What?

[

Stop talking in words that mask the true meaning of what you're saying. Say it for what it is. If I refuse to pay the extortion fee or if I choose to use a substance that your master deems inappropriate, I will be kidnapped or killed.

 

I don't think most decent human beings would be able to look me in the eye and say "I think you should be murdered if you disagree with me." If you can't do that then you can't support the state.

 

Personally I don't agree with theft but the point is that your support for it being wrong is the overall opinion of society. That opinion could change - not all human beings are decent.

You're basically shifting between absolute or relative morality.

That's a matter of opinion. Your position depends on the assumption that everything is owned individually. Anyway, the point remains that society as a whole considers taxation as being acceptable (as a principal).

No, I differentiated between being "kidnapped or killed" for disagreeing compared to actually doing something potentially damaging.

I've not agreed government is a menace - please don't put words in my mouth.

Some form of group or individual is going to be in a position of power over the rest of us one way or another. Some form of societal structure is a good thing. Having a planned and structured government is better than blind luck determine who's in charge.

My words are perfectly clear. It isn't my fault if you can't understand the intricacies of the issues you're raising.

 

What does this matter? We both know it's wrong to steal, can you not agree that it's wrong to steal? Do you think that sensible human beings know that murder is wrong? Whether morality is opinion is another topic, if we can agree on what is right and wrong then that is what is important.

It isn't opinion, it's fact. Unless your definition of stealing is different than mine, it's quite clear that taxation is theft. I own what I sow. Do you not agree? If I work a job or sell an item, I own the money that comes as a result. When the government takes that money under threat of violence should I resist, that's stealing.

You can't differentiate. I disagree with you, I think marijuana is okay to use. You think that because I disagree with you, armed thugs should come to my house and try to arrest me. If I resist this violent attempt on my freedom, I will be shot like a rabid dog. Same will happen to me if I don't want to put money towards the things you think I should put money towards.

You said the government is a "menas", I guess you meant something.

This is a silly assumption. What does this have to do with anything? The topic is about the morality of the state...

You can't acknowledge the reality of the state. You think it's okay that I am killed if I disagree with you on how my money should be spent. If you support the state, that is a fact.

 

How can you "sow" anything without civilizations contributions?

 

I think you are a delusional Anarchist. There is no doubt that society has to have a certain amount of organization and control in order to survive and thrive.

Our Founders knew this so they attempted to establish a government that would only do the things necessary concerning things of national nature. Unfortunately, they could not have known how evil would bastardize the Constitution.

The question is: What is the least amount of state necessary and how do we keep it from growing. Without some government we would all be speaking some other language and be slaves to some other system. How do you defeat the Japanese? Germany? Russians? Even the French?

How do you keep drugs out of the hands of children? How do we go to work without police and courts protecting our property?

It is juvenile to think that society can flourish without some amount of government. I would prefer it be as little as possible, but I certainly could not condone anarchy.

 

Why do you make so many assumptions in your post? Where did I say I don't want police or court systems?

Do you honestly think that anarchism is about no laws and no police?

I just don't want a monopoly on police and a monopoly court system which breeds brutality and unaccountability.

Law and Order is a service that should be provided on a free market just like every other good and service should be.

A bunch of guys with the most guns shouldn't be making the laws.

Also, it is juvenile and naive to think that a constitution can prevent a government from growing or abusing its people.

 

"In common usage, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent.[1][2]"

In what way are taxes illegal?


On another note. You argue that security should be governed by the free market. This means that security will be governed by those with most money. The only difference between the state and random people with lots of money is that you have the chance to vote on one of them. That being said, the voting system of many nations today, and America in particular, is completely busted, but that's not the taxes' fault.

The very concept of nations and states grew out of the opinion that certain matters need a last word. You can't have two people disagreeing on a legal matter and then have both parties paying for the prosecution of the other by different standards.

I don't know what laws are in effect wherever you are, but where I live and have lived, failure to pay taxes doesn't escalate to violence unless I myself introduce it.

 

Law and order provided by the free market that's an absolutely insane idea.
Who makes laws than the people with the most money who also buys the most guns to enforce it?
Law should be scrapped in an anarchist community. Rules should be developed by the local community and there should be a consensus to follow them. That or people should make mutual agreements on what they should and shouldn't do. Then the community can appoint local security, or if they wish to govern themselves through individual acts. They could go as far as to have consensus based courts for sentencing if they felt it was necessary. Those are a much better alternative then a market based on enforcing violence.

 

Very interesting and well thought out post, but I have a few critiques (some of them based on classical and enlightenment era arguments). While it is very alluring to consider the government a menace, there are some flaws that must be addressed.

1. The Government is inherently immoral -- The government is a representation of the body that is the electorate, whether you like it or not. If the government is excessively immoral or undemocratic, it is because the body of people are immoral or undemocratic. If the government engages in war, it is because the majority of the people justify it or are apathetic towards it. And don't forget, the entire military is composed of (paid) volunteers.

2. The Government is inherently violent -- In many ways, this is unfortunately true. Laws are created through a mix of decisions between the electorate and their representatives. The vast majority of citizens support the idea of police because they are what you could term "a necessary evil".

3. Force isn't legitimateYour illustration of the police is a bit dishonest and purposefully skews the purpose of law for the following reasons: First, because the electorate agrees with most laws.

They allow police the use of force to subdue deviant aspects of society. They consider the force of police justified in prevention of greater dangers. The use of force is meant to correlate with the severity of the crime. Your argument about marijuana is fallacious because the crime you are being punished with in the scenario is illegitimate use of force. You have no power granted to you through society to issue force against others, especially the police. Resisting arrest is the law you will be punished with, not marijuana alone.

Secondly, the basis of law is one of the most democratic parts of our governance. Law is changeable through initiative and referendum. You have the power to fight to legalize marijuana by attempting to sway public opinion and collecting signatures to creating a vote for legislation (which will definitely be coming in the future as the masses are finally leaning toward legalization)

The argument that you are an individual and therefore above the rule of law is alluring, but unfortunately, you have no basis for such a claim. Like it or not, you are born (or naturalized) as a citizen of your nation, and your use of government services (as well as your parents signature on your birth certificate) is an inherent, unspoken contract that binds you to the laws of your society. Simply existing in society implies agreement.

4. Taxation is "Theft" I already made a post about this so I will make my basic points against this line of reasoning. Taxation is not theft, it is revenue collected for the use of centrally provided services. Once more, your use of roads, sewers, police, fireman, etc etc, is an inherent agreement of such service's legitimacy. Since your actions of using the services elicits agreement with the means thereof, the question is not whether taxation is legitimate, but whether you agree with the use of revenue. Since everyone disagrees on what "should" be spent, we must rely on the best means of consensus, which our society has declared to be representative democracy. Your personal disagreement of a service or fee doesn't discredit the whole of society, as every individual will be in favor of one thing or another.

It should also be mentioned that you have the natural right to refuse your citizenry by moving to another country, moving outside of society, or choosing to revolt. But there is no guarantee you will be accepted anywhere else, can survive, or will not be in turn revolted against and killed.

As for my personal belief -- I agree with you on society for the most part. I think that the military-police state should be ended and all drugs and prostitution should be made legal (even though I don't engage in either). I believe we should have the freest society possible, within reason. A fundamental paradigm shift could foster such changes.

However, I don't agree that a free market society with no services provided outside the private market would improve any of your grievances. I think it is naive to think that without a government there would be any less extortion, theft and coercion, there would be potentially more...

 

What am i supposed to see when I look back in time? Good or bad things?

 

Wow, what a cop out. So you are going to say it isn't stealing because it isn't illegal according to this government? Tell me the difference between a mafia extorting money from shopkeepers and the government extorting money from a citizen. If the only difference is legality then I think you know that you're fooling yourself.


On another note. You argue that security should be governed by the free market. This means that security will be governed by those with most money. The only difference between the state and random people with lots of money is that you have the chance to vote on one of them. That being said, the voting system of many nations today, and America in particular, is completely busted, but that's not the taxes' fault.

The very concept of nations and states grew out of the opinion that certain matters need a last word. You can't have two people disagreeing on a legal matter and then have both parties paying for the prosecution of the other by different standards.

I don't know what laws are in effect wherever you are, but where I live and have lived, failure to pay taxes doesn't escalate to violence unless I myself introduce it.[/QUOTE]

How would it be controlled by the people with the most money? You're saying millions of people would just be okay with a court system that takes bribes and punishes people unjustly? It would never last. If a judge is bribed in a government court or the court system does things unjustly, you can't do anything about it.

If a private court were to take bribes and unfairly prosecute, they would go out of business.

 

Did you read the next part of the post?

 

Say you are living on a private gravel road that serves 4 other households. Because the roads get really bad in the winter time, you and your neighbors have agreed to each pitch in $50 a year to hire someone to grade your road.

That is a form of taxation. Taxes are not theft. It is a means for the Country/State/City to afford things that improve society. The problem arises when those funds are used/abused or mismanaged to the point where society does not get as much benefit from their money as they should.

 

Definitions are the "necessary and sufficient conditions". If illegality is required for theft, then an action has to be illegal to be theft. You may still call it immoral or whatnot, but that doesn't make it theft. It is quite clear that you use a word with bad associations to it to slander when you won't just use words that you think actually applies and instead use words whose only purpose is it's emotional impact.

The Mafia used violence, that's one difference, another is the illegality, a third is the lack of the theoretical ability to not vote for them. Many people preferred the Mafia over the state, at least on some occasions, when violence wasn't needed.

I'm saying it would be controlled by those who have the most money. Then people will be upset about that and they would remove the system. That's how people invented states.

No, the ones choosing what business to use, where to put the money, will be those with much money to spend, ie, those who benefit from having an easily bribed court.

 

I think most people are uninformed about the things the government does and have been brainwashed with so much propaganda that to say that they are immoral is not fair. The electoral system is a joke. Candidates are bought out by the highest bidder and only give the illusion of choice.

The idea of police I support. What I don't support is monopoly police.

Who allows? A majority? I certainly don't condone or allow it. Violence is only necessary in retaliation. Never when it is initiated.

That's what the state does in any situation like that. If I disagree with a statist's view on drugs and I accept the risks or benefits that they could cause to my body, they think I should be kidnapped or shot for doing so. It is not fallacious because if the thugs who break into my house were wearing any other costume, you would say that self defense is justified.

So let's say I was sitting at home and smoking a joint, the following things could happen:

If mafia men came to kidnap me at gunpoint then self defense is okay.

If Mcdonalds workers come to kidnap me at gunpoint then self defense is okay.

If a SWAT team came to kidnap me at gunpoint then self defense is suddenly wrong.

They're the same people doing the same things, just different costumes.

This doesn't make any difference, it's still violence being intiated against me. If I came up to you with a gun and told you that every month you would get to choose what kind of juice you wanted from a list that I determined. You have the power to choose a different kind of juice each month but you can't switch the kind of juice in the middle of a month. Is that not an initiation of violence against you? Would you be okay with that?

There is no such thing as an "inherent, unspoken contract".. Where did you get that from? Can you point to any real, legally binding contract that is "inherent and unspoken"?

You're talking about things that are after the fact. This is where most statists make their mistake when talking about taxation. All those services the government "provides" are provided with stolen money. It doesn't matter what they spend the money on, it's still stolen. Do you see how that works? I'll give you an example: I steal your money at gunpoint and then install a plasma screen telivision in your house with the money. If you use the television, it doesn't change the fact that I stole your money at gunpoint. See?

 

No. That is called a contractual agreement. Taxes are not contractual. They are demands for your money under the threat of violence. What is done with the tax money after the act of theft is a different matter.

 

Really? So you could refuse to pay another dime ever again in taxes and the government would simply leave you in peace?

 

So let me get this straight. If the government made taking someones money at gunpoint legal, you would no longer consider it stealing? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Actually, they both use violence and the threat of violence to extort money. Political power is already controlled by those with the most money. If you take away political power, they won't have anything to control.

How would these people get all this money to buy out court systems? You think they would have more influence than 300 million people even though political power no longer would exist?

 

OP,

Who is responsible for defending the nation?

If it were privately provided, who makes sure everyone pays their fair share for the protection?

It seems to me we had this problem back during the Articles of Confederation. Which led to our current Consitution. If left to just the people, we would have never become independent. We would not be the nation we are today, and the world would not be the world we have today. We had, at one time in the past, just enough of proper government to change the world.

 

As I said in the original post, I can't give you accurate predictions of the future and how every single thing would work without the state, nobody can do that. I can try to give you hypotheticals but that doesn't have anything to do with the issue and the point I'm trying to make.

What were the abolitionists supposed to say when they were asked "Who will pick the cotton?" If that question couldn't be answered, should slavery have stayed in place? Was that what the issue was really about?

No. Slavery was and still is wrong and immoral. Period.

The initiation of violence is wrong and immoral. Period.