Government And Taxation

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288972723' post='2185158']
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]

Then there should be an amendment to constitution to rectify this. Encouraging, or codifying the process of state annulment is also not a bad idea. Until then, the Constitution grants interpretive contracts to the judges.

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288972723' post='2185158']
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
[/quote]

You continue to reduce the issue to a gang of men robbing, as if all actions of money taking are robbery, or even all forced actions of money taking are robbery. I would like you to recognize that it is just to take what is rightfully yours. If a man comes up to you and takes your wallet, you may chase him down and retake possession of the wallet. If we, and our ancestors, have entered into contracts with our government and given them the power to enforce those contracts then what they do is not theft. They are not just a gang of robbers.

Our ancestors, and anyone who enters American soul thereafter, had a contract with their governments. These were the state governments. People moved to the states and built homes, fulfilling the various charters of the states. These states had laws, or constitutions. These states believed the king was unjust so they began an open revolt. Upon the end of that revolt, the states entered into a confederation. When the failure of such a system became evident, the states, as representatives of the people, agreed to the US Constitution.

Now, you and I agree on the form of government that best suits the human the condition, the most conducive to progress, the most efficient, the safest, etc. However, you and I do not simply get to call those who we enter into contract with "robbers" because they do not agree with us. No other contract works in this fashion.

You say it is an a priori agreement. Indeed it is. However, it is an agreement that you choose to enter when you enter into the age of majority.

Not a single claim of mine is about the justness of the current system. In fact, injustice is grounds for revolt or military action. Current Just War theory requires that there be state actors. Nonetheless, there is no moral precept for this clause. Just War may be engaged when all of these criteria are met, minus the state actors.

[quote]
Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality. [/quote]

This is the grounds for breaking contract with our oppressors. The only criteria left to fulfill is the probability of success.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1289494053' post='2186470']
If we, and our ancestors, have entered into contracts with our government and given them the power to enforce those contracts then what they do is not theft. They are not just a gang of robbers.

Now, you and I agree on the form of government that best suits the human the condition, the most conducive to progress, the most efficient, the safest, etc. However, you and I do not simply get to call those who we enter into contract with "robbers" because they do not agree with us. No other contract works in this fashion.

You say it is an a priori agreement. Indeed it is. However, it is an agreement that you choose to enter when you enter into the age of majority.
[/quote]

I did not enter into any contract with a State. Nor can one's ancestors bind their progeny to live according to the terms of a contract. If I found a company, I cannot bind my children to work in it. Lastly, a coerced "contract" is not a contract at all. It is null and void. You need to prove the existence of said aetherial, invisible contract before you can say anything about it.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 11, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote]
This is the grounds for breaking contract with our oppressors. The only criteria left to fulfill is the probability of success. [/quote]

You can't break a contract that never existed, and a real contract is broken when one party violates its terms. Not aetherial ones, though, because they don't exist.

~Sternhauser