SOCAL's Razor

[knapplc]

Let's make it easier for SOCAL, since the "coercive" thing is such a hangup for him.

 

In SOCAL's society, you either produce goods or services or you barter/trade for them. Fair enough. It's pretty obvious that a person cannot be, at the same time, a farmer, a baker, a butcher, a policeman and a soldier. If we cannot take that premise as fact, we'll have to stop, but I think we can.

 

A farmer must farm, and therefore cannot be a baker. But he needs bread, or he will not eat. He is therefore coerced into buying or bartering for bread because he needs bread. Therefore, bakers are a coercive monopoly on bread.

 

A farmer must farm, and therefore cannot be a policeman. But he needs the police, otherwise ruffians would rob his home while he farms. He is therefore coerced into buying or bartering for police services because he cannot watch his goods while he farms. Therefore, the police are a coercive monopoly in policing services.

 

A farmer must farm, and therefore cannot be a soldier. But he needs the military, otherwise foreign powers would enslave him. He is, therefore, coerced into buying or bartering for military services because he cannot protect his home alone from foreign invasion. Therefore, the military is a coercive monopoly in guarding the borders.

 

We can make these statements all down the line, in whatever permutations we wish. Unless you advocate a nearly stone-age society, you cannot have the kind of specialization necessary to be even as modern as the Industrial Revolution-era nations were, and therefore are coerced into buying/bartering for goods and/or services you cannot produce or provide yourself.

 

This whole notion that government is "coercive" is false. It is voluntarily created by man as a way of organizing the resources of his nation, providing for the common defense, and providing justice through law, among a myriad other services. It is no more coercive than any other exchange of money for goods and services - if you're a fire fighter and you eat, you're going to pay for it. Don't pay, expect to go to jail for theft. A fire fighter isn't "coerced" into paying for food, he does it voluntarily.

 

There's a certain level of paranoia in presuming the government is "out to get you." I can't argue against the demons inside your head, but I can show you how certain things in life, like government, aren't the best things ever, but at the same time are necessary evils of a modern society.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The Iceland example is not analogous to today's society in the least. Iceland was a month in a frozen sea from the nearest European land mass. Being that far away, and being almost within the Arctic circle, there was zero incentive for any foreign invader to take over a leaderless society.

 

In order to have a viable, real-world example, you're going to have to provide a stable society that didn't exist in near complete isolation from other cultures, a society that had (like America) natural resources that other countries would desire. I spoke before that your society would only exist in a commune or an enclave - Iceland was an enclave in its isolation.

 

And you have given no facts to show that "man is on an evolutionary path from divine rulers and complete servitude to the end result of complete liberty." You've asserted this, but that does not prove anything. Judging by the relatively simplistic nature of most historic governments and comparing those to modern, complex governments, it's far easier to draw a path from basic government to more and more government than your example.

I wasn't trying to compare the two, you are. I'm well aware of the change in technology, the difference in resources and the continuing evolution of man. You're the one who keeps calling for examples in history of something that we both know has not existed. However, the fact that something has not yet existed does not mean that it will not exist, nor is it proof that it cannot exist. You claim that it cannot exist, because it hasn't already, but that's the logical equivalent of stating, before the space shuttle was created, that human flight in outerspace is impossible, or that without the slaves to perform labor that no work will get done in the fields and everyone will starve, or that before Magellan circumnavigated the globe that the earth was not round. Of course all these false viewpoints were once held by many people, some even claimed them as fact, and since there was no absolute proof to the contrary, these opinions, like the ones you propose, somehow become portrayed as objective. However, in the case we are debating, there is plenty of evidence that humans can and do act according to their own self interest, that humans do naturally enjoy each other's company, get along quite well and that voluntary exchange is both beneficial and moral. When one looks at these simple, yet overwhelming facts, one can see, as myself and many others have already concluded, that complete liberty is not only possible but inevitable.

 

As far as me providing no facts that show man is on an evolutionary path to freedom, do you really need a timeline or a history lesson? Quite simply history shows that man has gone from being ruled by those claiming a divine right, to feudalism, to democratically elected dictators, to the idea of voting for representatives in a Constitutional republic. Of course, as with all progress, there has and always will be drawbacks, but for the most part man is slowly, but surely, moving in the direction that leads to the fullest expression of his own rational self interest and prosperity, the way of individual and economic freedom.

[knapplc]

You're stating that the absence of such a society is the ONLY proof, whereas I'm saying it's just one proof of many. I've offered plenty of other examples of why such a society isn't viable.

 

And so what of Magellan, the space shuttle and the flat earth? Men also used to believe in unicorns and faeries. Men held these viewpoints to be true, but after time found they were not. This isn't a proof that your society is viable.

 

Your link doesn't work, so whatever "proof" you're providing that we're on your path to freedom, you may want to try again. But for every link you provide, I'll offer Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, etc. Modern day monarchs and oligarchs. All you're doing is providing examples of government types, not showing an evolutionary path.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Let's make it easier for SOCAL, since the "coercive" thing is such a hangup for him.

 

In SOCAL's society, you either produce goods or services or you barter/trade for them. Fair enough. It's pretty obvious that a person cannot be, at the same time, a farmer, a baker, a butcher, a policeman and a soldier. If we cannot take that premise as fact, we'll have to stop, but I think we can.

 

A farmer must farm, and therefore cannot be a baker. But he needs bread, or he will not eat. He is therefore coerced into buying or bartering for bread because he needs bread. Therefore, bakers are a coercive monopoly on bread.

 

A farmer must farm, and therefore cannot be a policeman. But he needs the police, otherwise ruffians would rob his home while he farms. He is therefore coerced into buying or bartering for police services because he cannot watch his goods while he farms. Therefore, the police are a coercive monopoly in policing services.

 

A farmer must farm, and therefore cannot be a soldier. But he needs the military, otherwise foreign powers would enslave him. He is, therefore, coerced into buying or bartering for military services because he cannot protect his home alone from foreign invasion. Therefore, the military is a coercive monopoly in guarding the borders.

 

We can make these statements all down the line, in whatever permutations we wish. Unless you advocate a nearly stone-age society, you cannot have the kind of specialization necessary to be even as modern as the Industrial Revolution-era nations were, and therefore are coerced into buying/bartering for goods and/or services you cannot produce or provide yourself.

 

This whole notion that government is "coercive" is false. It is voluntarily created by man as a way of organizing the resources of his nation, providing for the common defense, and providing justice through law, among a myriad other services. It is no more coercive than any other exchange of money for goods and services - if you're a fire fighter and you eat, you're going to pay for it. Don't pay, expect to go to jail for theft. A fire fighter isn't "coerced" into paying for food, he does it voluntarily.

 

There's a certain level of paranoia in presuming the government is "out to get you." I can't argue against the demons inside your head, but I can show you how certain things in life, like government, aren't the best things ever, but at the same time are necessary evils of a modern society.

This is absurd, but lets break this down so even my one year old daughter could figure it out. Do you know what voluntary means? If I am forced to buy something is that what you consider voluntary? If I have a choice of whether I buy something or not is that voluntary?

 

Sure, in "reality" a farmer cannot produce everything he needs and wants, unless he wants to live in povery, so we both agree that exchange and the division of labor are needed to increase our productivity and help us live a better and more prosperous lifestyle.

 

However, after this slight agreement your argument falls apart and since you have obviously skipped out on economics class, I can see how one, such as yourself, could easily arrive at such a misleading and false conclusion as you have. As an example, and every one is exactly the same only you insert a different product, you state, "A farmer must farm, and therefore cannot be a baker. But he needs bread, or he will not eat. He is therefore coerced into buying or bartering for bread because he needs bread. Therefore, bakers are a coercive monopoly on bread."

 

And besides the silly and simply ludicrous logic, my first question is why must the farmer only eat bread? Why not eggs, beef, vegetables, fruit, soup, grains, chicken or any of the other millions of CHOICES and millions more left to the human imagination that exist on earth? Next, I'd ask that if bread is what he voluntarily chose to eat, why can't he choose from the baker who gives him what he deems is the best value for his exchange? In your personal lala land, protected by government, you falsely assume that the farmer only has the choice of bread to eat, which is completely false, and you assume that he only has the option of one baker, which is also false.

 

First of all, what you try to pass off as coercive is simply free will. Coercive means forcing people to do something that they do not want to do and if the farmer voluntarily chooses to eat bread when other choices are available, that is not coercion at all. Secondly, you deem that a monopoly on bakers exist, but how? What's to stop the farmer, who supposedly needs bread to live, to stop farming and becoming a baker, what's stopping him from finding a wife who bakes, what prevents another person from entering the baking business and competing? Any time demand and the ability to produce profits arises, which in this case would be for a baker, a butcher, a policeman or a soldier; individuals looking out for their own self interest will take risks and compete in order to benefit themselves. Since reality always involves choices and alternatives and no one, except for government, prevents others from entering a market and competing, a monopoly, and definitely a coercive one like you claim, do not and cannot exist in a free market absent a government.

 

Besides the choices I have proposed, you also falsely assume that the only solution to the farmer eating or getting protection is for him to force all his neighbors, at gun point nonetheless, to fund his dinner and his security. As if his need and subjective expediency somehow makes it ok to rob and murder innocent people. And I'm sure that you mean well and are speaking with the best of intentions when you say that government is not coercive, but the facts and it's very existence prove that you are 100% wrong. Call it what you want, make excuses for its actions or simply try to suppress and ignore the truth, but in the end theft is theft, violence is still violence and government is neither necessary nor voluntary.

[knapplc]

What facts show that government is "100% coercive?"

 

What facts show that the farmer will, without question, "rob and murder innocent people?"

 

You exist under a government. Who have you robbed and murdered, SOCAL?

[SOCALHUSKER]

Your link doesn't work, so whatever "proof" you're providing that we're on your path to freedom, you may want to try again. But for every link you provide, I'll offer Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, etc. Modern day monarchs and oligarchs. All you're doing is providing examples of government types, not showing an evolutionary path.

Link is fixed, and did you not read that I mentioned drawbacks occur. Sure, there are still slave states, oligarchs and the like but humanity as a whole has greatly increased it's awareness and desire for personal and economic freedom. That's the path I was referring to.

[knapplc]

Your link doesn't work, so whatever "proof" you're providing that we're on your path to freedom, you may want to try again. But for every link you provide, I'll offer Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, etc. Modern day monarchs and oligarchs. All you're doing is providing examples of government types, not showing an evolutionary path.

Link is fixed, and did you not read that I mentioned drawbacks occur. Sure, there are still slave states, oligarchs and the like but humanity as a whole has greatly increased it's awareness and desire for personal and economic freedom. That's the path I was referring to.

If mankind is doing that, they're doing it through better and more efficient forms of government, not "no" government.

[SOCALHUSKER]

What facts show that government is "100% coercive?"

Is it voluntary? No. Is it funded by theft? Yes. If you choose not to participate and try to protect yourself and your property, will you die or end up in jail? Either or, but if you choose not to go to jail or choose not to comply they will most definitely kill you. Is that coercive enough?

 

What facts show that the farmer will, without question, "rob and murder innocent people?"

When did I say "without question"? I said that other options exists, however you claim that those options are unfeasible and therefore you advocate and support the option of theft and murder, also known as government. Seeing as how that is the case, what other way can someone aquire things if he cannot make it himself or if he does not exchange them voluntarily. The answer is theft!!

 

What happens if someone tries to protect their property from being stolen? They are either forced to kill or be killed. If they are killed that is murder.

 

You exist under a government. Who have you robbed and murdered, SOCAL?

Sure, the idea of government exists in reality, but when did I infer that anyone who exists under government must rob or kill? Yes, it is the choice and method of those that benefit from. advocate and support government, but I'd hardly blame those who do not participate and call for an end to the madness. How can someone be blamed for a choice they do not make, one they would not make and one they advocate and practice completely opposite of.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Your link doesn't work, so whatever "proof" you're providing that we're on your path to freedom, you may want to try again. But for every link you provide, I'll offer Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, etc. Modern day monarchs and oligarchs. All you're doing is providing examples of government types, not showing an evolutionary path.

Link is fixed, and did you not read that I mentioned drawbacks occur. Sure, there are still slave states, oligarchs and the like but humanity as a whole has greatly increased it's awareness and desire for personal and economic freedom. That's the path I was referring to.

If mankind is doing that, they're doing it through better and more efficient forms of government, not "no" government.

"Better and more efficient forms of government?" That's an oxymoron if I've heard one. Sounds like something a utilitarian would say, someone like Milton Friedman.

 

And I didn't say "no government," I said less government and more personal and economic freedom. However, the trend, when taken to it's logical conclusion, will end with no government.

[knapplc]

Is it voluntary? No. Is it funded by theft? Yes. If you choose not to participate and try to protect yourself and your property, will you die or end up in jail? Either or, but if you choose not to go to jail or choose not to comply they will most definitely kill you. Is that coercive enough?

Nope. Because you can always emigrate to another country, one without taxes, where you can choose to participate or not participate, and protect yourself and your property on your own. Or buy an island. Maybe there's one near Iceland for sale?

[SOCALHUSKER]

Is it voluntary? No. Is it funded by theft? Yes. If you choose not to participate and try to protect yourself and your property, will you die or end up in jail? Either or, but if you choose not to go to jail or choose not to comply they will most definitely kill you. Is that coercive enough?

Nope. Because you can always emigrate to another country, one without taxes, where you can choose to participate or not participate, and protect yourself and your property on your own. Or buy an island. Maybe there's one near Iceland for sale?

Oh yeah, where? Name a country, island, territory, spacestation or any livable land mass that hasn't been infiltrated by government, doesn't have taxes, or won't come get taxes from you. And is that really a free choice if I didn't want to move? Forcing me to move somewhere else is still coercion. Hell, a few brave individuals attempted to start a free civilization aboard an ocean liner and it didn't take long for the feds to crack up that party. For even if one left the country and gave up citizenship, the government will still attempt to hunt you down and tax you for something. I guess you could always give up hope, not eat, and die. But once again is that really a choice? Now come again that government is not coercive!!

[knapplc]

Is it voluntary? No. Is it funded by theft? Yes. If you choose not to participate and try to protect yourself and your property, will you die or end up in jail? Either or, but if you choose not to go to jail or choose not to comply they will most definitely kill you. Is that coercive enough?

Nope. Because you can always emigrate to another country, one without taxes, where you can choose to participate or not participate, and protect yourself and your property on your own. Or buy an island. Maybe there's one near Iceland for sale?

Oh yeah, where? Name a country, island, territory, spacestation or any livable land mass that hasn't been infiltrated by government, doesn't have taxes, or won't come get taxes from you. And is that really a free choice if I didn't want to move? Forcing me to move somewhere else is still coercion. Hell, a few brave individuals attempted to start a free civilization aboard an ocean liner and it didn't take long for the feds to crack up that party. For even if one left the country and gave up citizenship, the government will still attempt to hunt you down and tax you for something. I guess you could always give up hope, not eat, and die. But once again is that really a choice? Now come again that government is not coercive!!

Oh, that's right - the fantasy land doesn't exist anywhere. But it's still viable, and inevitable, right? And everyone who doesn't pay taxes is murdered by the government? I'm just trying to nail down all the concepts. And people who emigrate to other countries and become citizens of other countries are taxed by their former country, is that correct?

[SOCALHUSKER]

Is it voluntary? No. Is it funded by theft? Yes. If you choose not to participate and try to protect yourself and your property, will you die or end up in jail? Either or, but if you choose not to go to jail or choose not to comply they will most definitely kill you. Is that coercive enough?

Nope. Because you can always emigrate to another country, one without taxes, where you can choose to participate or not participate, and protect yourself and your property on your own. Or buy an island. Maybe there's one near Iceland for sale?

Oh yeah, where? Name a country, island, territory, spacestation or any livable land mass that hasn't been infiltrated by government, doesn't have taxes, or won't come get taxes from you. And is that really a free choice if I didn't want to move? Forcing me to move somewhere else is still coercion. Hell, a few brave individuals attempted to start a free civilization aboard an ocean liner and it didn't take long for the feds to crack up that party. For even if one left the country and gave up citizenship, the government will still attempt to hunt you down and tax you for something. I guess you could always give up hope, not eat, and die. But once again is that really a choice? Now come again that government is not coercive!!

Oh, that's right - the fantasy land doesn't exist anywhere. But it's still viable, and inevitable, right? And everyone who doesn't pay taxes is murdered by the government? I'm just trying to nail down all the concepts. And people who emigrate to other countries and become citizens of other countries are taxed by their former country, is that correct?

It's not quite that simple. You may get a few letters, maybe a visit from some goons, it may even take a few years, but eventually they'll want what they claim is "theirs" and they'll attempt to take it whether you like it or not. One can give in, try to fight it in one of "their" courtrooms, or defend yourself and die, because you will die if you try to defend it. However, just because they can and do murder and rob people doesn't make it right.

 

And who said that if someone emigrated and became a citizen of another country that they will still get taxed? Though I'm sure the former country would try, I'd say that your pretty safe just paying the taxes of the new coercive monopoly that you so joyfully transferred to. Yippeeeeee, now that's what I call freedom!!

[knapplc]

It's not quite that simple. You may get a few letters, maybe a visit from some goons, it may even take a few years, but eventually they'll want what they claim is "theirs" and they'll attempt to take it whether you like it or not. One can give in, try to fight it in one of "their" courtrooms, or defend yourself and die, because you will die if you try to defend it. However, just because they can and do murder and rob people doesn't make it right.

 

And who said that if someone emigrated and became a citizen of another country that they will still get taxed? Though I'm sure the former country would try, I'd say that your pretty safe just paying the taxes of the new coercive monopoly that you so joyfully transferred to. Yippeeeeee, now that's what I call freedom!!

When and where does this happen? Can you give examples? Not references, but specific, real-world examples. Because I know a few people here in Lincoln who emigrated here from other countries, and they don't pay taxes from those other countries any more, and there are no goons coming after them to kill them, even years later. And my brother-in-law is an emigre - same story. No goons.

 

Where are the goons?

[SOCALHUSKER]

It's not quite that simple. You may get a few letters, maybe a visit from some goons, it may even take a few years, but eventually they'll want what they claim is "theirs" and they'll attempt to take it whether you like it or not. One can give in, try to fight it in one of "their" courtrooms, or defend yourself and die, because you will die if you try to defend it. However, just because they can and do murder and rob people doesn't make it right.

 

And who said that if someone emigrated and became a citizen of another country that they will still get taxed? Though I'm sure the former country would try, I'd say that your pretty safe just paying the taxes of the new coercive monopoly that you so joyfully transferred to. Yippeeeeee, now that's what I call freedom!!

When and where does this happen? Can you give examples? Not references, but specific, real-world examples. Because I know a few people here in Lincoln who emigrated here from other countries, and they don't pay taxes from those other countries any more, and there are no goons coming after them to kill them, even years later. And my brother-in-law is an emigre - same story. No goons.

 

Where are the goons?

Obviously they pay their extortion fees on time. Just as our benevolent and all-knowing masters kindly request.

 

Examples

 

WHO- Ed and Elaine Brown, Larkin Rose, Wesley Snipes, Irwin Shiff and a few others.

 

The Goons.