07 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Bad wolfa criminal is someone who breaks the law.
A band of robbers ride into town with guns drawn and demand all the gold in the bank. They are called criminals. They return the next year on the same day and repeat their demand. Again they are called criminals. They put on uniforms and return each year on the same day.
Eventually they are called tax collectors. Finally, the smallest and least offensive ...[text shortened]...
The state has arrived.
Or so it can be argued.
Is the state really a glorified criminal?
Without a state, there would be no laws.
Without any laws, everything would be legal - so there could be no criminals.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by FleabittenYes - if the state breaks its own laws, the court system can make rulings to stop the state from behaving illegally. If the state overtly refuses to obey the courts and goes rogue, then things get interesting.
But the state, through its acting agents, can break the law and therefore be criminal.
But I was assuming the OP was referring to whether the government has any right to require anyone to pay taxes.
My argument is that unless you want to live in a society with no laws at all, you need to have laws and a state that enforces them. Which means there needs to be a way to determine what those laws are and a way to pay for the enforcement of those laws.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
The post that was quoted here has been removedMen cannot be free so long as they are subject to the will of others, whether one man (monarch) or several (aristocrachs).
It does not matter if the state is made of those that redistribute the resources around and pay for services such as removing rubbish, they have still infringed upon the right of the individual, his autonomy, to decide for himself, to consent to do what he wishes with his resources.
There is no difference in principle, with regards to the infringement of this freedom, with respect to government that redistributes resources and pays for services, than that of harmless looking thieves. The result is the same, freedom is infringed; the state and its powers are illigitimate, they are without authority.
07 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bad wolfThere's only one way to settle this.
Men cannot be free so long as they are subject to the will of others, whether one man (monarch) or several (aristocrachs).
It does not matter if the state is made of those that redistribute the resources around and pay for services such as removing rubbish, they have still infringed upon the right of the individual, his autonomy, to decide for himself, to ...[text shortened]... me, freedom is infringed; the state and its powers are illigitimate, they are without authority.
Someone needs to start a large libertarian colony in some remote jungle or some other part of the world that is far from any kind of actual government.
Everyone who believes that it is possible to have a society that has no government or laws can then move to this colony and enjoy the benefits. And we can send a bunch of observers to report on how this experiment works out.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI am not saying having no government would ever be possible, I am not saying it would be either; the need for government is not the basis of its legitimacy.
There's only one way to settle this.
Someone needs to start a large libertarian colony in some remote jungle or some other part of the world that is far from any kind of actual government.
Everyone who believes that it is possible to have a society that has no government or laws can then move to this colony and enjoy the benefits. And we can send a bunch of observers to report on how this experiment works out.
All governments, in whatever their form, be it democracies, dictatorships, monarchies, they are all merely types of de facto government, with different inherent virtues; equally illigitimate - so long as the autonomy of the individual, the freedom, to decide every decision that affects them in one way or another, isn't allowed for.
I invite you to justify the legitimacy of the state, reconciling autonomy with whatever you believe to be the most workable system.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou're getting confused Mel, crossing anarchy with Libertarianism, common mistake,
Someone needs to start a large libertarian colony in some remote jungle or some other part of the world that is far from any kind of actual government.
"If you don't mean this then you must mean that"
There is a role for the state in a Libertarian society, i.e. police, justice and defence.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat would never work - even the depths of the jungle are owned by the crpto-fascist nation states of which they are a part. No, what the loonies really need is a part of the world where they can establish a pseudo-country from scratch and without being beholden to any existing territory, a utopia where they would not be taxed, coerced, drafted or told how to live their lives - where silly things like laws simply would not exist.
There's only one way to settle this.
Someone needs to start a large libertarian colony in some remote jungle or some other part of the world that is far from any kind of actual government.
Everyone who believes that it is possible to have a society that has no government or laws can then move to this colony and enjoy the benefits. And we can send a bunch of observers to report on how this experiment works out.
Short of blasting them all in to space (an idea with merit, I'll grant you), though, how on earth could this be achieved?
http://seasteading.org/
Watch this space! Tomorrow is already here!
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by Bad wolfSuppose you are correct in saying that all forms of government are illegitimate
I am not saying having no government would ever be possible, I am not saying it would be either; the need for government is not the basis of its legitimacy.
All governments, in whatever their form, be it democracies, dictatorships, monarchies, they are all merely types of de facto government, with different inherent virtues; equally illigitimate - so long ...[text shortened]... cy of the state, reconciling autonomy with whatever you believe to be the most workable system.
All human societies in recorded history have had some form of laws and some way to enforce them. (Unless you can provide me with a counterexample?)
So if all states are illegitimate, then all human societies that have ever existed are also illegitimate. Which means that all humans (except for a few hermits living in caves) are involved in illegitimate activity.
Reductio ad absurdum.
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by DrKFI don't see any libertarian claiming there should be no laws i.e. anarchy, or that a libertarian society would be a utopia, those things are made up by the critics because they're easy to shoot down especially when you set up your own target, six inches from the end of your nose.
That would never work - even the depths of the jungle are owned by the crpto-fascist nation states of which they are a part. No, what the loonies really need is a part of the world where they can establish a pseudo-country from scratch and without being beholden to any existing territory, a utopia where they would not be taxed, coerced, drafted or told h ...[text shortened]... uld this be achieved?
http://seasteading.org/
Watch this space! Tomorrow is already here!
07 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Wajomaso how should a society go about determining the specific laws and procedures that these police, justice, and defense would follow?
You're getting confused Mel, crossing anarchy with Libertarianism, common mistake,
"If you don't mean this then you must mean that"
There is a role for the state in a Libertarian society, i.e. police, justice and defence.
And how should that society raise the money to pay for the people who enforce those laws?
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Oct 09
3 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesI hasten to point out, that to use the term 'recorded history', quickly referencing wikipedia, recorded history apparently began around the 4th millennium BC (4000), humans have been around much longer than that.
Suppose you are correct in saying that all forms of government are illegitimate
All human societies in recorded history have had some form of laws and some way to enforce them. (Unless you can provide me with a counterexample?)
So if all states are illegitimate, then all human societies that have ever existed are also illegitimate. Which means that ...[text shortened]... r a few hermits living in caves) are involved in illegitimate activity.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Humans lives in tribes before developing into societies, these were not run by laws, certainly written down as writing did not exist, even the societies were like this before the development of scripture, and as such, lost to history.
The only alternate to defined laws, would be customs and even these are not always clear.
It has been argued that before any culture developed, when we were in the state of nature, no laws existed, no one's judgement was any more valid than any others, anything went.
Now, even if were to admit that all human societies have had laws and means to enforce them (I disagree and it is also irrelevent) I fail to see why you come to your conclusion of reductio ad absurdum.
To explain, my argument does indeed go that all human societies, certainly the ones I continue to say infringe upon the autonomy of the individual, are illigitimate. However, I fail to see why you think all human activity then is also illigitimate. The illigitimacy that I have referred to from the beginning is the state making decisions without the consent of the individual, individuals can influence each other though, take into account each others opinions, trade freely, but so long as they do not force their opinions on others through slavery, conscription or other comparable examples, which in themselves would be illigitimate actions, then the autonomy of the individual remains.
All human activity is not illigitmate, to say that it is, is to misrepresent my argument.
07 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Bad wolfI refer to recorded history - because we have no way of really knowing how people organized themselves before people recorded it. Your guess is as good as anyone elses.
I hasten to point out, that to use the term 'recorded history', quickly referencing wikipedia, recorded history apparently began around the 4th millennium BC (4000), humans have been around much longer than that.
Humans lives in tribes before developing into societies, these were not run by laws, certainly written down as writing did not exist, even the s.
All human activity is not illigitmate, to say that it is, is to misrepresent my argument.
So were we ever in a "state of nature" before "culture" existed? Is there any way for anyone to prove or disprove this? And if this "state of nature" did exist, how far back would we have to go? Perhaps so far back that the beings wouldn't be recognizable as humans?
My main point is this:
If every human society that we know of has had to have some sort of a state to establish and enforce laws - then you are arguing that every society that has ever existed is illegitimate. So your quest for the Legitimate Society is highly likely to be a futile search for some holy grail. But if you want to go somewhere and attempt to form such a society, you have my support. I'd be very curious about how it worked out.
If you disagree with my assertion that the stateless society has never existed, then produce for me a society that exists or has existed without any laws or some kind of a state.