Government And Taxation

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1252957089' post='1966378']
From time to time two members of Phatmass will want to conduct a one-on-one debate. If this should occur, one member of the debate should contact a moderator who will contact the second member (to verify that s/he is interested in a public debate). When both members have agreed upon the guidelines of their debate, they will contact the moderator who will open the thread for them with the stated rules. Other members are asked to refrain from posting in that thread and their posts will be deleted. Moderators may post to enforce the guidelines. If guidelines are repeatedly broken, the thread will be closed.
[/quote]


Please respect this thread as a one-on-one debate between MichaelFilo and Sternhauser. Thanks. If you wish to comment, post in the "Discussion of the Government and Taxation" thread.

[MichaelFilo]

You made a statement that a government can function without taxation, even taxation for public goods (that is, goods that everyone benefits from.) Education is not one, nor are public roads, nor are public hospitals (only those who attend benefit.) However, a military is one of those things. Clean air is another (clean lakes, waters, and the rest are resolvable by allowing those bodies to become privately owned.)

Please describe the system where this can realistically take place, that is, a system where these public goods can be provided without taxation. If there is some example in the real world, please point that out.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288623350' post='2183971']
You made a statement that a government can function without taxation, even taxation for public goods (that is, goods that everyone benefits from.) Education is not one, nor are public roads, nor are public hospitals (only those who attend benefit.) However, a military is one of those things.[/quote]

I do not agree that effective defense cannot be funded through private means. Nor do I agree that a coercively-funded State military is more beneficial than detrimental. We need to agree upon our axioms before we can proceed.

[quote]Clean air is another (clean lakes, waters, and the rest are resolvable by allowing those bodies to become privately owned.)[/quote]

If the majority of people want clean air, will they patronize polluting businesses?

During WWII, companies like B.F. Goodrich and dozens of others literally bragged in advertisements about how many tons of smoke their factories put into the air every day. Those companies were primarily supplying the State with goods.

[quote]Please describe the system where this can realistically take place, that is, a system where these public goods can be provided without taxation.
[/quote]

All goods are private goods. A collective cannot own anything. Two people can enter into an agreement on how goods may be distributed and utilized, but A) they must actually give their individual and explicit consent, and B) they still cannot both use the same exact good at the exact same time. If you actually own something, you may legitimately do what you will with it, including destroy it.

[quote]
If there is some example in the real world, please point that out.[/quote]

You are arguing from pragmatism. I am arguing from morality. You must first tell me how it is moral for a group of individuals to take money by threat of force or by force for a particular cause, while it is not moral for an individual to do so. If your system passes the ethics test, then we may move on to practicality.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 1, 2010 by Sternhauser

[MichaelFilo]

We have one problem from the outset, of a world based on ideal morality vs a world based on reality.

P1) It is true that some countries might and probably amass large arsenals and mighty forces regardless of the morality any other group espouses.

P2) It is true that those countries which use public funding will amass larger military capabilities than those who do not

P3) Any country which does not produce a military in such a fashion will fall to any country that does in case of war

C) A military is most effectively produced as a public because it affords the public in general a greater capacity of defense than free market solutions.


That is my line of reasoning, attack it from there. It is a weak argument, but I will hopefully develop it as we continue. If you can, please refrain from pointing out abuses because a private military power can accomplish the same abuses and we have not even discussed the inherent problems in privatized national defense.


Furthermore, if you can address how it comes about that any justice is possible in a society that does not have a government with the right to use force to arrest, bring before a court, and punish, I would appreciate it. Unless, of course, this is not your premise.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288656348' post='2184087']
We have one problem from the outset, of a world based on ideal morality vs a world based on reality.[/quote]
There is nothing more real than morality. One may not commit immoral actions (threatening people and taking their money) because "everyone else is."

[quote]P1) It is true that some countries might and probably amass large arsenals and mighty forces regardless of the morality any other group espouses.[/quote]

All right.

[quote]
P2) It is true that those countries which use public funding will amass larger military capabilities than those who do not[/quote]

I do not believe this is the case. But I'll grant you one example of that: the Soviet Union. And it crumbled as quickly as it did because that particular State was organized according to a particularly [i]egregious[/i] distortion of the idea of what human nature is. The United State achieved a much more sustainable military with higher quality and and technologically superior equipment because it was less inimical to the most basic principles of human nature, not because it [i]took more[/i] from "the people."

[quote]
P3) Any country which does not produce a military in such a fashion will fall to any country that does in case of war[/quote]

Afghanistan is in the process of expelling its third superpower in 120 years. Goatherds with bolt-action rifles and explosives they requisition from unjust occupiers.

[quote]C) A military is most effectively produced as a public because it affords the public in general a greater capacity of defense than free market solutions.[/quote]

A military has a greater capacity to destroy the population that sustains it. It is my contention that it is more dangerous than not having a military, both from a domestic standpoint, and from the fact that a standing army is a tool that will eventually get used because one keeps it around. They will "go in search of foreign monsters to destroy," and when they do not find any, they'll simply create some. There are plenty of windmills that look like giants. Like Iran.

You say that abuses are also possible in a voluntarily-funded military force. Are abuses more likely in a Church-run orphanage, or a State-run orphanage? And why?

[quote]Furthermore, if you can address how it comes about that any justice is possible in a society that does not have a government with the right to use force to arrest, bring before a court, and punish, I would appreciate it. Unless, of course, this is not your premise.
[/quote]

I am all in favor of a government, Michael. It must not, however, be funded by threatening non-aggressors with violence, or by taking their property.

~Sternhauser

[MichaelFilo]

[quote]I do not believe this is the case. But I'll grant you one example of that: the Soviet Union. And it crumbled as quickly as it did because that particular State was organized according to a particularly egregious distortion of the idea of what human nature is. The United State achieved a much more sustainable military with higher quality and and technologically superior equipment because it was less inimical to the most basic principles of human nature, not because it took more from "the people.[/quote]

Without arguing this point any further, I'd also like to point to the fact that all countries use the public funding model for their defense.


[quote]Afghanistan is in the process of expelling its third superpower in 120 years. Goatherds with bolt-action rifles and explosives they requisition from unjust occupiers. [/quote]

Afghanistan, while skirmishing with occupiers, is hardly any ideal of defense. Their life, liberty, and property is in the hands of the US's whims to some large degree (not to state that the US is evil, but simply that the power lies in the hands of the US.) Furthermore, their weaponry was offered by two gigantic, state-run militaries at different times.

[quote]
A military has a greater capacity to destroy the population that sustains it. It is my contention that it is more dangerous than not having a military, both from a domestic standpoint, and from the fact that a standing army is a tool that will eventually get used because one keeps it around. They will "go in search of foreign monsters to destroy," and when they do not find any, they'll simply create some. There are plenty of windmills that look like giants. Like Iran. [/quote]

While we can argue this, it doesn't address the third point, or if it does, I missed it. Do you mind clarifying?



[quote]You say that abuses are also possible in a voluntarily-funded military force. Are abuses more likely in a Church-run orphanage, or a State-run orphanage? And why?[/quote]

I concede, voluntarily funded force is much less willing to abuse power, but we've never had an instance where it is the dominant power, so it is hard to tell what happens when it becomes super-powerful. Beyond that, it is hard to compare the military to orphanages. Why? Because the State offers the best military, which can be rated by size and arsenal while the state cannot ever offer incentives to raise children that supercede a person's vows or love.




From what I gather, there is no rebuttal of any premise or conclusion except for your use of Afghanistan, which I again will point out is not a very strong one. Am I wrong on this?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288662865' post='2184137']
Without arguing this point any further, I'd also like to point to the fact that all countries use the public funding model for their defense.[/quote]

Many States have nuclear weapons they fully intend to use on innocent civilian populations in direct contravention of the most basic moral principles. What does your point prove?

[quote]Afghanistan, while skirmishing with occupiers, is hardly any ideal of defense. Their life, liberty, and property is in the hands of the US's whims to some large degree (not to state that the US is evil, but simply that the power lies in the hands of the US.) Furthermore, their weaponry was offered by two gigantic, state-run militaries at different times.[/quote]

A country of goatherds can afford AK-47s, Stinger missiles and Barrett M82's. Of course, in the absence of coercion/presence of voluntary societal cooperation, they could afford much more.

[quote]
While we can argue this, it doesn't address the third point, or if it does, I missed it. Do you mind clarifying?[/quote]

Certainly. Why does the country need to fall to any "outside" enemy, when the people in control of the domestic State military pose a far more grave threat than any outside force?

[quote]
I concede, voluntarily funded force is much less willing to abuse power, but we've never had an instance where it is the dominant power, so it is hard to tell what happens when it becomes super-powerful.[/quote]

The microcosm is a fair indication of the macrocosm.

[quote] Beyond that, it is hard to compare the military to orphanages. Why? Because the State offers the best military, which can be rated by size and arsenal while the state cannot ever offer incentives to raise children that supercede a person's vows or love.[/quote]

I do not rate "best" by standards of size and capacities, just as I do not rate the "best" car by how much cargo it can hold and how fast it can possibly go. "Not being stolen" and "accomplishing its intended goals" are a couple of important details, for me.

[quote]From what I gather, there is no rebuttal of any premise or conclusion except for your use of Afghanistan, which I again will point out is not a very strong one. Am I wrong on this?
[/quote]

Michael, I don't care how effective a tool may be, because if you stole it, you may not morally retain possession of it. As I said, I am not at all concerned with the capacities and merits of a particular entity until you can show that providing it at the barrel of a gun is moral.

Do you have the right to take money from your non-aggressor neighbor at gunpoint? Yes or no?

~Sternhauser

[MichaelFilo]

The state may enforce contracts. The problem is, by living on US soil, you are accepting the defense of your property by the US government. It is not theft to make you pay for that service.

Beyond that, the state has certain duties and powers which we agree to in the US, as enshrined in our constitution. A person agrees, by living here, to abide by those rules. One of those rules is that congress has the right to levy (and collect) taxes. So does our state government. We concede those rights to the government. We entrust the federal government with providing for our defense. That is the moral basis, that by living here, we concede the right to be taxed for certain goods. It is only theft when we are taxed for goods by the federal government not allowed by the constitution, namely, welfare. State governments have the right to tax for these goods if their constitutions allow.


Short answer: By living in the US, you agree to the Constitution and the powers of government it delegates. Of those powers include the ability to levy and collect taxes and provide for the common defense.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288835861' post='2184583']
The problem is, by living on US soil, you are accepting the defense of your property by the US government.[/quote]

Bull. I would have liked to have said more than that one word. That's as logical as saying, "By staying in D.C. instead of moving to a safer place, you are accepting being raped."


[quote]Beyond that, the state has certain duties and powers which we agree to in the US, as enshrined in our constitution. A person agrees, by living here, to abide by those rules.[/quote]

Ibid.

[quote]One of those rules is that congress has the right to levy (and collect) taxes. So does our state government. We concede those rights to the government. We entrust the federal government with providing for our defense. That is the moral basis, that by living here, we concede the right to be taxed for certain goods. It is only theft when we are taxed for goods by the federal government not allowed by the constitution, namely, welfare. State governments have the right to tax for these goods if their constitutions allow.[/quote]

Congress has no rights. The Founding Fathers were very careful not to use the word "right" in reference to Federal capacities. Collectives have no rights. Only individuals have rights.


[quote]Short answer: By living in the US, you agree to the Constitution and the powers of government it delegates. Of those powers include the ability to levy and collect taxes and provide for the common defense.
[/quote]

For the third time, [i]bull[/i]. The United State is an idea. A set of ideas, as it were. The idea that some men have some meta-moral right to take money from non-aggressors at gunpoint. I do not live in an idea. I live on a piece of land among my neighbors. My being born on a particular plot of land and being a productive human being in no way binds me to surrender my property to them. If I created an invention that benefited everyone on the face of the earth, similarly, I would have no right to take money from everyone because they had "benefitted" from the service I had provided them with. God's law binds me to be just and charitable to others. Period. Anything more, and I must choose it. Peaceably remaining in one place does not a contract make, and there is no such thing as a "social contract." If an individual does not have the right to kill/take money, then a [i]group[/i] of individuals does not have the right to do the same.

This land is free hold. Love it or leave it.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 4, 2010 by Sternhauser

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288903824' post='2184896']
Bull. I would have liked to have said more than that one word. That's as logical as saying, "By staying in D.C. instead of moving to a safer place, you are accepting being raped."
[/quote]
Being raped isn't part of being in DC.

Let me give you an example. At any point in your childhood you have very few rights whereas your parents have many, especially in regulating your decisions. During this period you form an idea of your government, your person, etc. At some point you become laden with responsibilities, we call this adulthood. At this point you make a decision to stay or go. In staying you know that the law of the land is the Constitution.



[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288903824' post='2184896']
Congress has no rights. The Founding Fathers were very careful not to use the word "right" in reference to Federal capacities. Collectives have no rights. Only individuals have rights.
[/quote]

Congress has powers, powers which we concede to congress. I misspoke. Nonetheless, congress has powers which are specifically enumerated. Now that I've clarified, address the argument:

[quote]One of those rules is that congress has the right to levy (and collect) taxes. So does our state government. We concede those rights to the government. We entrust the federal government with providing for our defense. That is the moral basis, that by living here, we concede the right to be taxed for certain goods. It is only theft when we are taxed for goods by the federal government not allowed by the constitution, namely, welfare. State governments have the right to tax for these goods if their constitutions allow.[/quote]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288903824' post='2184896']
For the third time, [i]bull[/i]. The United State is an idea. A set of ideas, as it were. The idea that some men have some meta-moral right to take money from non-aggressors at gunpoint. I do not live in an idea. I live on a piece of land among my neighbors. My being born on a particular plot of land and being a productive human being in no way binds me to surrender my property to them. If I created an invention that benefited everyone on the face of the earth, similarly, I would have no right to take money from everyone because they had "benefitted" from the service I had provided them with. God's law binds me to be just and charitable to others. Period. Anything more, and I must choose it. Peaceably remaining in one place does not a contract make, and there is no such thing as a "social contract." If an individual does not have the right to kill/take money, then a [i]group[/i] of individuals does not have the right to do the same.

This land is free hold. Love it or leave it.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I again point out that you gain certain rights not at birth, but at some age of majority. That is to say, your parents may forcibly take from you up to a certain point when you become independent of them. They may use physical force to restrain and punish you without a trial. With that noted, when you become independent then you make a choice. Since any land you get is inherited from your parents, so the rules agreed to apply, and it goes back all the way to the colonial era, when there was an agreement, based on individual liberty, to grant the federal and state governments certain powers.

The government has the power to collect taxes because you live under it's jurisdiction. Since you consent, by remaining at the point of majority, under US jurisdiction, you likewise consent to the government's protection and to your financing of it.


I agree, it is theft when they take your money and engage in unconstitutional wars. But, like I said before, our military is mostly a reserve military.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288908783' post='2184924']
Being raped isn't part of being in DC.[/quote]

Correct. No more than having your money robbed from you is a part of being in the place where you were born. Glad we agree on that logical point.

[quote]Let me give you an example. At any point in your childhood you have very few rights whereas your parents have many, especially in regulating your decisions. During this period you form an idea of your government, your person, etc. At some point you become laden with responsibilities, we call this adulthood. At this point you make a decision to stay or go. In staying you know that the law of the land is the Constitution.[/quote]

The State ain't my daddy. I was born into a family. I was not born into a State. Parents had rights over me, by nature. States have power over me, by violence.

The Constitution is not the law of the land: who are you trying to kid? You know better than that. The [i]Constitution? [/i]90% of statutes passed are [i]completely [/i]unconstitutional. What politicians [i]can get away with[/i] is the law of the land.

[quote]Congress has powers, powers which we concede to congress. I misspoke. Nonetheless, congress has powers which are specifically enumerated. Now that I've clarified, address the argument:[/quote]

Speak for yourself. "We" do not concede powers to Congress.

[quote]I again point out that you gain certain rights not at birth, but at some age of majority. That is to say, your parents may forcibly take from you up to a certain point when you become independent of them. They may use physical force to restrain and punish you without a trial. With that noted, when you become independent then you make a choice. Since any land you get is inherited from your parents, so the rules agreed to apply, and it goes back all the way to the colonial era, when there was an agreement, based on individual liberty, to grant the federal and state governments certain powers.[/quote]

Are you talking about the fraudulent coup that was the Constitutional Congress? There was no agreement on the part of every person. There was a majority of powerful people who were not "authorized" by their legislatures to make the decision they made.

[quote]
The government has the power to collect taxes because you live under it's jurisdiction. Since you consent, by remaining at the point of majority, under US jurisdiction, you likewise consent to the government's protection and to your financing of it. [/quote]

I live under the "jurisdiction" of several other gangs. They have no right to take money from me, either. My living as a free man cannot be considered "consent" by any rational standard.

[quote]I agree, it is theft when they take your money and engage in unconstitutional wars. But, like I said before, our military is mostly a reserve military.
[/quote]

Again, "we" do not have a military. I do not have a military, nor do I have a tornado, a hurricane, a tsunami, or any other destructive force which exerts its power upon me, but over which I have no control.

I ask once more: do you have the right to take money from your neighbor at gunpoint? If not, how [i]dare[/i] you think that you can bestow that right on a third party?

~Sternhauser

Edited November 5, 2010 by Sternhauser

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288919072' post='2184961']
Correct. No more than having your money robbed from you is a part of being in the place where you were born. Glad we agree on that logical point.
[/quote]

It is not theft if you consent to the form of government where you are taxed for your protection. There are certain things a person consents too. You can never consent to rape.

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288919072' post='2184961']
The State ain't my daddy. I was born into a family. I was not born into a State. Parents had rights over me, by nature. States have power over me, by violence. [/quote]

States do not have power over you, except by violence or consent. The American people have consented to constitutional government. You, upon reaching majority and residing here, have consented.

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288919072' post='2184961']
The Constitution is not the law of the land: who are you trying to kid? You know better than that. The [i]Constitution? [/i]90% of statutes passed are [i]completely [/i]unconstitutional. What politicians [i]can get away with[/i] is the law of the land. [/quote]

The Constitution IS the law of the land. The power for interpretation has been put into the hands of judges and the people, by constitutional means, have destroyed the senate as a representative of the State legislatures. Nonetheless, we live under it. The safeguards were not good enough, but the rightful authorities to interpret the Constitution have interpreted it in a way that both you and I agree, is distant from how it's founders intended. Nonetheless, they have the power to interpret.


[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288919072' post='2184961']
Speak for yourself. "We" do not concede powers to Congress. [/quote]

You have, by residing where you are when you hit majority, as did your parents, and their parents before them.


[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288919072' post='2184961']
Are you talking about the fraudulent coup that was the Constitutional Congress? There was no agreement on the part of every person. There was a majority of powerful people who were not "authorized" by their legislatures to make the decision they made.
[/quote]
Coup or not, all they presented was a Constitution. The states voluntarily assented (the last two coerced with embargos, but that is well within the powers granted to Congress).

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288919072' post='2184961']
I live under the "jurisdiction" of several other gangs. They have no right to take money from me, either. My living as a free man cannot be considered "consent" by any rational standard. [/quote]
Your state has many powers reserved to it, and it's constitution outlines those powers. It also outlines the powers your county will have. They may be thugs, but thugs you have consented to live under when you reached the age of majority.



[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288919072' post='2184961']
Again, "we" do not have a military. I do not have a military, nor do I have a tornado, a hurricane, a tsunami, or any other destructive force which exerts its power upon me, but over which I have no control.

I ask once more: do you have the right to take money from your neighbor at gunpoint? If not, how [i]dare[/i] you think that you can bestow that right on a third party?

~Sternhauser[/quote]
Your country has a military which you finance.

If he consents and you consent, there is no need to use the gun. If you fail to meet your duties as per your prior consent, then a gun may be used by the rightful authorities.


It is not enough to say you do not desire to consent. You cannot walk into a stripper joint and say you don't consent to seeing women strip. If you will something, you must act upon it. By reaching the age of majority you were given an opportunity to leave or continue to live under the Constitution. You chose to live under it. If you and I will a different order, more liberty, then we may have to move. The US, as it is, is not my ideal of freedom either.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288928614' post='2185020']
It is not theft if you consent to the form of government where you are taxed for your protection. There are certain things a person consents too. You can never consent to rape.[/quote]

That is right. And I do not consent to the State that imposes its force upon me by staying where I was born any more than I consent to rape by living in a place where rape happens.

[quote]States do not have power over you, except by violence or consent. The American people have consented to constitutional government. You, upon reaching majority and residing here, have consented.[/quote]

Again, that is an irrational claim. The State does not own property, as I said, because only individuals own property. Owning property means you can dispose of it as you wish, whenever you wish. Try taking a jackhammer to "your" 1/200,000,000th of the roads (taxpayers, not general population), and see what happens.

There was a nice piece by Sheldon Richman a year back. Sums up the illogic rather well:

[font="Arial"]"[/font][font="Arial"]Apologists for government undertake bizarre mental contortions to show that we have consented to be taxed. Balderdash. I was never asked to consent, and I'm sure you weren't either. I refuse to accept the nonsensical argument that by not vacating the parcel of land I purchased, I have signaled my "tacit consent" to be plundered and bullied. That implies the government owns the territory it rules and therefore can set the conditions under which it is used.[b] That sounds like feudalism. Are we merely tenants of the governmental landlord? [/b][/font] [font="Arial"]Built on the power to tax (legally steal) are myriad other powers that entail the threat of violence against peaceful individuals. If you wish to buy things from people outside the jurisdiction claimed by the U.S. government, you may do so only on the terms it permits under its trade laws. If you wish to invite to your home or business someone who lives outside that jurisdiction, again, you can do so only under terms laid down by the government's immigration rules. You are not free to make your own decisions in the matter. [/font]

[font="Arial"]If you don't want your money given to others — say, Wall Street banks, auto companies, welfare recipients, stem-cell researchers, military contractors, the Israeli air force, the Iraqi and Afghan rulers — too bad. You have no say. Correction: you have one impotent vote every four years. That's virtually the same as no say. [/font]

[font="Arial"]If you don't want the armed forces killing people in your name, again, too bad. No one asked you. [/font]

[font="Arial"]If you don't want the Treasury and the Federal Reserve stealing your hard-earned money through deficits and inflation, you may as well shut up. It's going to happen anyway."
[/font]

[font="Arial"][url="http://fff.org/comment/com0901h.asp"]http://fff.org/comment/com0901h.asp[/url]
[/font]

[font="Arial"]To paraphrase Michael Rozeff, staying where you were born and suffering the consequences is not "consent," or an acknowledgment of anyone's right to inflict those violent consequences: it is still the unjust imposition of two alternatives by a third party with a violent monopoly: an imposition which that third party has no right to make in the first place.
[/font]


[quote]The Constitution IS the law of the land. The power for interpretation has been put into the hands of judges and the people, by constitutional means, have destroyed the senate as a representative of the State legislatures. Nonetheless, we live under it. The safeguards were not good enough, but the rightful authorities to interpret the Constitution have interpreted it in a way that both you and I agree, is distant from how it's founders intended. Nonetheless, they have the power to interpret.[/quote]

An unenforced law is no law at all. Do you think the Constitution is being enforced?




[quote]Coup or not, all they presented was a Constitution. The states voluntarily assented (the last two coerced with embargos, but that is well within the powers granted to Congress).[/quote]
The representatives were not authorized to create a new State. They were "authorized" to make changes to the Articles of Confederation. Do you remember the expression, "I smell a rat?"

[quote]It is not enough to say you do not desire to consent. You cannot walk into a stripper joint and say you don't consent to seeing women strip. If you will something, you must act upon it. By reaching the age of majority you were given an opportunity to leave or continue to live under the Constitution. You chose to live under it. If you and I will a different order, more liberty, then we may have to move. The US, as it is, is not my ideal of freedom either.
[/quote]

Not a logical comparison. Here's a better one. You were [i]born[/i] in a strip club. You are given the opportunity to leave the strip club when you are 18, but you may only go to another strip club. If you don't leave, you'll be forced to support the strip club you were born in. If you do leave, you'll be forced to support the other strip club. And no one can explain why the people who control the strip club have the right to make you support the strip club. Now, any rational person can see that no one may be forced to support a strip club, but that an individual is perfectly within his rights to live peacefully without being accosted by those who have power over the strip club. Not all the services provided by the strip club are immoral. They serve alcohol, food, etc. These are legitimate services people need. And unlike other services, such as food and clothing and housing, you're forced to pay for them at gunpoint. The people are not given any alternatives: you will either live under this strip club, or another strip club. You may not provide alcohol, food, or other services by voluntary means. Why? Because [i]the people controlling strip club have a violent monopoly on providing those goods, and they [b]said[/b] so[/i].

~Sternhauser

Edited November 5, 2010 by Sternhauser

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288954578' post='2185089']
That is right. And I do not consent to the State that imposes its force upon me by staying where I was born any more than I consent to rape by living in a place where rape happens.[/quote]

Again, it has nothing to do with your birth. At the age of majority you may come or go as you please. You have had the entirety of your pre-majority years to sum up the situation.


[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288954578' post='2185089']
Again, that is an irrational claim. The State does not own property, as I said, because only individuals own property. Owning property means you can dispose of it as you wish, whenever you wish. Try taking a jackhammer to "your" 1/200,000,000th of the roads (taxpayers, not general population), and see what happens. [/quote]

Having jurisdiction and owning property are not the same. If you and a few neighbors decided to hire security guards to keep the houses safe for your neighborhood, then you have consented for them to have some powers over your property. They do not need to own it.

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288954578' post='2185089']
[font="Arial"]To paraphrase Michael Rozeff, staying where you were born and suffering the consequences is not "consent," or an acknowledgment of anyone's right to inflict those violent consequences: it is still the unjust imposition of two alternatives by a third party with a violent monopoly: an imposition which that third party has no right to make in the first place.
[/font][/quote]

No one is born with a right to the property of their parents. That right to own it must be given by the parents. The parents understood the laws that governed the land. They, as well as the previous owners, had conceded part of their rights because they desired the form of governance. If you want the property they have then you too must consent to the laws that govern the land. Please note, the fact that government has been given the power to govern the land does not mean they own it.

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288954578' post='2185089']
An unenforced law is no law at all. Do you think the Constitution is being enforced? [/quote]

Evidently the Supreme Court believes it is. They are dead wrong. However, who has the authority to interpret the Constitution? I can no more disagree with their power to interpret it than I can the Church's to interpret Scripture and Tradition. The only problem is, they don't have the charism of infallibility. Nonetheless, they have the power.




[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288954578' post='2185089']
The representatives were not authorized to create a new State. They were "authorized" to make changes to the Articles of Confederation. Do you remember the expression, "I smell a rat?" [/quote]

They indeed were. But if today, you and I were to engage in writing some new Constitution, and then presented it to the states and the people for ratification, could not the States accept or reject it? I realize it was done in the poorest of fashion, but the states were given an opportunity to decide, that is, it was voluntary. Sure, the delegates overstepped their bounds, but they did nothing worse than use State money to create a new Constitution, that had to get the approval of the states.

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288954578' post='2185089']
Not a logical comparison. Here's a better one. You were [i]born[/i] in a strip club. You are given the opportunity to leave the strip club when you are 18, but you may only go to another strip club. If you don't leave, you'll be forced to support the strip club you were born in. If you do leave, you'll be forced to support the other strip club. And no one can explain why the people who control the strip club have the right to make you support the strip club. Now, any rational person can see that no one may be forced to support a strip club, but that an individual is perfectly within his rights to live peacefully without being accosted by those who have power over the strip club. Not all the services provided by the strip club are immoral. They serve alcohol, food, etc. These are legitimate services people need. And unlike other services, such as food and clothing and housing, you're forced to pay for them at gunpoint. The people are not given any alternatives: you will either live under this strip club, or another strip club. You may not provide alcohol, food, or other services by voluntary means. Why? Because [i]the people controlling strip club have a violent monopoly on providing those goods, and they [b]said[/b] so[/i].

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

The strip club example fails because the US cannot be responsible for the system of governments in the rest of the world. If no people have created our utopia than it is no fault of one particular group. Nonetheless, when you reach the age of majority you are free to embark on a trip to any other place of government. When I turned 18 I moved to North Carolina. Among other things, the government is more palatable there.


The reality is there is no need to butcher this argument line by line (which is what you like to do, but I honestly prefer an address of the points in paragraph form.) Here is my argument:

P1 You are born into some family and your rights are limited while your parents have far reaching powers over you.

P2 You are given some period of time to reach the age of majority, in which time you are educated, among other things, about the society and world you live in (if you so choose to learn or to study)

P3 At the age of majority you are faced with new rights, while your parents are faced with a loss of powers over you. You must make your first decision, where it is you will reside

P4 Wherever you reside you must follow the laws of the land until such a time as you or someone else changes them.

C As long as one lives in the US they must accept that their government has certain functions and certain powers, which include the ability to raise a military and collect taxes. These are not inherent to government and these powers can be limited or altered as per the Constitution.

Edited November 5, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288961092' post='2185107']
Evidently the Supreme Court believes it is. They are dead wrong. However, who has the authority to interpret the Constitution? I can no more disagree with their power to interpret it than I can the Church's to interpret Scripture and Tradition. The only problem is, they don't have the charism of infallibility. Nonetheless, they have the power.[/quote]

The judges on the Supreme Court believe a lot of stupid things, as I'm sure you realize. I have the power to rob, murder, and lie. That doesn't mean I have any [i]right[/i] to do those things, even if 51% of a population gives me their consent to do those things to other people.


[quote]The reality is there is no need to butcher this argument line by line (which is what you like to do, but I honestly prefer an address of the points in paragraph form.) Here is my argument:

P2 You are given some period of time to reach the age of majority, in which time you are educated, among other things, about the society and world you live in (if you so choose to learn or to study)

P4 Wherever you reside you must follow the laws of the land until such a time as you or someone else changes them.

C As long as one lives in the US they must accept that their government has certain functions and certain powers, which include the ability to raise a military and collect taxes. These are not inherent to government and these powers can be limited or altered as per the Constitution.
[/quote]

These three are the crux of the matter: your flawed first premiss of a duty to a gang of robbers. I cannot address those points until we have addressed the fundamental falsehood upon which you base them: Where do you get the idea that anyone is bound to do anything, except be just to his neighbors in his voluntary interactions with them, once he is emancipated from the natural relationship with his family?

You have an [i]a priori[/i] idea, an axiom, that somehow when people are emancipated, they are suddenly bound to pay money to a gang of men who offer services, and refuse to let anyone else provide the same (and better) services through voluntary means. If you believe that, then you have to believe that because you stop at a street corner near an area where I live, and I come out with a bucket of dirty water and scrape a grit-encrusted squeegee across your windshield, that I have the right to force you to pay me for my "service," because, well, you consented to stop there, and that is what I do when people stop there. "That's what happens here," as you said. You didn't have to stop there. But you did. That means I have the right to force you to pay me for the "service" I offered, whether you wanted it or not. Obviously, you did want it, because if you didn't want it, you wouldn't have stopped, right? Do you see the circular logic based on the flawed first premiss?

I am beholden to no coercive State with a violent monopoly on certain violent behaviors. States are not places, they are ideas. Governments are not "places," as you called them. You cannot "move into a place of government." Governments are systems of relationships by which people are directed, either violently or voluntarily. States are coercive governments. Governments are ideas as acted out by those who believe the idea.

If I go to another place which is ruled by an outright mafia which claims a monopoly on all sorts of needful services, (one that honestly admits it is a gang of robbers) I am not bound to suffer their depredations. If I travel through a land where a ruler says "all travelers must be beaten: because they know this before they make the decision to enter this land, their being beaten is just," is it [i]really[/i] just?

Once again, do you have the right to take money at gunpoint from your non-aggressor neighbor? If not, how can you possibly claim the right to bestow that right on a third party?

~Sternhauser

Edited November 5, 2010 by Sternhauser