Guns, Guns Guns

[stevil]

You assume I think it's okay for a special subset of people to have a right to take property by force. I don't.

Does this mean you disagree with enforced taxes?
How do we pay for schools, hospitals, roads...?
Assuming of course you think education, healthcare, infrastructure are important to society.

[Winchester]

Does this mean you disagree with enforced taxes?
How do we pay for schools, hospitals, roads...?
Assuming of course you think education, healthcare, infrastructure are important to society.

 

Why do you think violence is necessary to pay for these things?

 

I noticed you skipped over the Rothbard quote. He's right.
 

Edited February 22, 2013 by Winchester

[stevil]

Why do you think violence is necessary to pay for these things?

I’m sure there are other ways. I am not sure if they would work in practice.
I once had a debate with a fellow atheist on an atheist forum, he was a supporter of Anarcho-capitalism, he would often say that he didn’t like a government “stealing” from him. He considered taxes to be stealing.

You don’t like government taking property and money is property so I am assuming you don’t support taxes either then.

I really don’t think a user pays system would work for certain things, especially schooling, hospitals and roads, what about fire service, police service etc.
Imagine that, you ring emergency services, tell them your apartment is burning down and can they please sent a fire engine, they then ask you for your credit card details…

If you have a tax system, then you must have a way to enforce it. Certainly there will be people whom won’t voluntarily pay taxes. You ask nicely, they say no, you ask angrily, they say no. What recourse are you left with? You ask them to accompany you to the police station so that you can put them in prison, they say no.
Without violence or the threat of violence we can’t get them to conform.

I noticed you skipped over the Rothbard quote. He's right.

I’m not sure what that quote means. Without a governing body, what is a society?
If you don’t think government is required then are you an advocate for anarchy?

[Winchester]

I’m sure there are other ways. I am not sure if they would work in practice.
I once had a debate with a fellow atheist on an atheist forum, he was a supporter of Anarcho-capitalism, he would often say that he didn’t like a government “stealing” from him. He considered taxes to be stealing.

You don’t like government taking property and money is property so I am assuming you don’t support taxes either then.

I really don’t think a user pays system would work for certain things, especially schooling, hospitals and roads, what about fire service, police service etc.
Imagine that, you ring emergency services, tell them your apartment is burning down and can they please sent a fire engine, they then ask you for your credit card details…

If you have a tax system, then you must have a way to enforce it. Certainly there will be people whom won’t voluntarily pay taxes. You ask nicely, they say no, you ask angrily, they say no. What recourse are you left with? You ask them to accompany you to the police station so that you can put them in prison, they say no.
Without violence or the threat of violence we can’t get them to conform.I’m not sure what that quote means. Without a governing body, what is a society?
If you don’t think government is required then are you an advocate for anarchy?

Are you making a utilitarian argument?

[stevil]

Hmm, lots of questions but no answers from yourself, you just answer questions with more questions.
A conversation would be worthwhile (possibly) but you would need to participate rather than simply asking question after question.

[Winchester]

Hmm, lots of questions but no answers from yourself, you just answer questions with more questions.
A conversation would be worthwhile (possibly) but you would need to participate rather than simply asking question after question.

 

Trying to clarify. If you don't like it, then don't respond. Easy enough, right?

[stevil]

Trying to clarify. If you don't like it, then don't respond. Easy enough, right?

You were asking "Why do you think violence is necessary to pay for these things?"
I stated that I didn't know of another way to get people to comply, this not only applies to guns but also to taxes.
I'm open to suggestions, and it seems you must know of another way to pay for essential services such as schools, hospitals and roads because you are anti government taking property by force, thus you are anti government enforcing taxes.

So I'm merely asking you what this alternative system is, where there is no force and yet people still have access to schools, hospitals and roads.

No I am not making a utilitarian argument and this is not relevant to the question put forth to you.

How do you advocate managing a society, supporting it with schools, hospitals and roads without enforcing taxes by violence or threat of violence?

[Winchester]

You were asking "Why do you think violence is necessary to pay for these things?"
I stated that I didn't know of another way to get people to comply, this not only applies to guns but also to taxes.
I'm open to suggestions, and it seems you must know of another way to pay for essential services such as schools, hospitals and roads because you are anti government taking property by force, thus you are anti government enforcing taxes.

So I'm merely asking you what this alternative system is, where there is no force and yet people still have access to schools, hospitals and roads.

No I am not making a utilitarian argument and this is not relevant to the question put forth to you.

How do you advocate managing a society, supporting it with schools, hospitals and roads without enforcing taxes by violence or threat of violence?

The alternative system is not using violence. It's that simple. I don't see what's so unique about roads or schools (I went to private school. On financial aid--single parent family), or hospitals that means you need to stick a gun in my ribs to get them funded.

And it's immaterial. It's not okay to commit aggression. Period. No matter what. That's a principle. Not violating it.

[stevil]

The alternative system is not using violence. It's that simple.

But it is not that simple.
Surely you have thought this thing through.
Without the threat of violence, without the police force being able to use force when necessary, how do you get anybody to comply with anything, simple things such as paying taxes?

Most countries will force you into jail if you refuse to pay your taxes. If you take away the governing power’s ability to enforce laws and taxes then you can’t pay for stuff.
Well, maybe the rich can pay for private schools, private hospitals, private security, private fire department.
But what about the poor, whom can’t afford such things. If the government (as societies representative) can’t provide, then who will?

And it's immaterial. It's not okay to commit aggression. Period. No matter what. That's a principle. Not violating it.

It’s not immaterial. A government without the ability to enforce will be an ineffective government, society will fail, there will be no law enforcement, no provision of essential services or infrastructure.
The poor will starve, crime and lawlessness will increase, it will be anarchy and this will be a pretty horrible (and dangerous) society to live within.

[Winchester]

But it is not that simple.
Surely you have thought this thing through.
Without the threat of violence, without the police force being able to use force when necessary, how do you get anybody to comply with anything, simple things such as paying taxes?

Most countries will force you into jail if you refuse to pay your taxes. If you take away the governing power’s ability to enforce laws and taxes then you can’t pay for stuff.
Well, maybe the rich can pay for private schools, private hospitals, private security, private fire department.
But what about the poor, whom can’t afford such things. If the government (as societies representative) can’t provide, then who will?It’s not immaterial. A government without the ability to enforce will be an ineffective government, society will fail, there will be no law enforcement, no provision of essential services or infrastructure.
The poor will starve, crime and lawlessness will increase, it will be anarchy and this will be a pretty horrible (and dangerous) society to live within.

You're confusing defense with aggression.

You're assuming law must be imposed from above, and cannot arise via cooperation.

You're assuming that no one will feed the poor unless a gun is stuck in their ribs.

Anarchy is not chaos--it's the absence of rulers. Perhaps the only thing keeping you from committing aggression is the threat of force. This is not so with me.

[stevil]

You're assuming law must be imposed from above, and cannot arise via cooperation.

I’d be interested to learn more with regards to this approach.
Cooperation between whom?
Who makes the law? Who enforces it?
Surely the unruly perpetrator needs to be forced to accept a punishment.

You're assuming that no one will feed the poor unless a gun is stuck in their ribs.

If the government doesn’t provide a safety net (with tax money), providing basic food and health needs for people that can’t afford it, then I seriously doubt there are enough charities or wealthy humanists to sustain the needy. Who is going to give these people life skills, who is going to encourage them to learn marketable skills or to get out and hunting for jobs?

Anarchy is not chaos--it's the absence of rulers.

Without rulers how do we create rules, how do we enforce rules? How do we organise ourselves to build and maintain required infrastructure? Edited February 22, 2013 by stevil

[Winchester]

I’d be interested to learn more with regards to this approach.

 

I'm drinking. Will return, later. Will try to not be a reactionary prick, but no promises.

[KnightofChrist]

*drink*

[PhuturePriest]

I’d be interested to learn more with regards to this approach.
Cooperation between whom?
Who makes the law? Who enforces it?
Surely the unruly perpetrator needs to be forced to accept a punishment.If the government doesn’t provide a safety net (with tax money), providing basic food and health needs for people that can’t afford it, then I seriously doubt there are enough charities or wealthy humanists to sustain the needy. Who is going to give these people life skills, who is going to encourage them to learn marketable skills or to get out and hunting for jobs?Without rulers how do we create rules, how do we enforce rules? How do we organise ourselves to build and maintain required infrastructure?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that without the government the poor wouldn't be fed? Catholic charities feed, clothe, educate, house, and give medical attention to more people in the entire world in one day than the American government has done in the past twenty days. All on their own accord, Catholic charities help people. Sisters, Friars, Priests, all acting as missionaries, help people. They have never needed the government to put them at gunpoint to do it. In fact, they have done these things despite governments putting them at gunpoint telling them NOT to do it.

[God the Father]

People that can't afford basic food and health needs must be taken care of by their families, the faithful, or left to die. Maybe in a few generations the post-Great Society American entitlement gene could be bred out of the gene pool.