How Would You Describe Your Political Views?

[jnkyrdoff6]

If you want a military to protect the borders, how would we pay for it without taxes? That's what I'm saying - whatever government-funded service you're interested in has to have funding from somewhere.

I understand that, and I did imply that if we were to have a federal government, we would still pay it taxes. I was just suggesting a change in the taxation policy so that the people did have a choice. I, also, am not, entirely, sure the border patrol is necessary, I just said I think the military, in general, is necessary.

[knapplc]

Understood. But that's why I'm saying taxes aren't "coerced" from us - we want services from the government, so we pay for those services through our taxes. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy, but I do like having a military that keeps bad guys from invading our prosperous country.

[jnkyrdoff6]

Understood. But that's why I'm saying taxes aren't "coerced" from us - we want services from the government, so we pay for those services through our taxes. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy, but I do like having a military that keeps bad guys from invading our prosperous country.

That's fair enough, but what about a person who doesn't want any of the services the government has to offer? He or she still has to pay for all of those services. Thoreau chose not to pay his income taxes, for a different reason I know, but it was still a protest against the federal government. He was put in jail wasn't he? That doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. Now I'll take it one step further and say that the only service I really care about is the military. I haven't been to the hospital in in 15 years, except for sports physicals. Why would I want universal healthcare? Truth be told I'm a selfish person, as I think everyone is at their core. I believe the only people we care about are the people we know, because of ultimately selfish feelings. If any poster wants to respond to this in some self-righteous way, that's fine, but I think you should analyze yourself pretty deeply before you do. I don't really care about someone I've never seen and will never meet, so why would I want to pay for all these myriad services for that person? I may, however, want to pay for services for people in my own community, that I have met.

 

You've implied that the government under-utilizes money, which I agree with. If you believe that and you still want to pay income taxes for government services anyhow because you want some of its services, that's fine, but I would prefer not to. I really don't have a choice though do I? It's like holding a gun to my head, giving me a cyanide tablet, and saying "choose."

 

On a side note, I really like this forum. It's rare that I get to talk politics with anyone who disagrees with me, and is informed.

[knapplc]

You can look at it as coercion, but the basis for all of our rules, laws and regulations comes from mandates from the people. The authority of this government derives from the power of the public, and if the public truly did not like this government it could vote in people who would change it. We make the government, and continue to make it, every election cycle. So to put the onus on the government is looking at it the wrong way. We are the ones at fault here, for setting up this government and then letting it run amok.

 

Government is simply a reflection of the people whom it governs. If we are lazy and will not oversee our elected officials, they will behave lazily and as if they have no oversight. That's on us, not them. They're simply behaving as humans have since recorded history began.

 

And you're still not out from under the burden of taxes, since you want a military. I know you know that, so I won't belabor the point, but I have to ask – do you have wings? Because if you don't, I'm guessing you use public streets to move around. I'm guessing you like having some form of traffic control, so you probably appreciate traffic lights. You probably like being able to see other cars and pedestrians and whatnot when you drive at night, so you probably like street lights. You probably want those lights to function properly, and I’m guessing you don't have a power plant (self-built, of course) on your property hooked up to all of those public electricity-using devices, so you probably like having public power out there. I'm guessing you like having a corps of engineers out there making sure your residence doesn't flood (presuming you live in a flood plain), and I'm guessing you appreciate having some form of law enforcement available so The Bad Guy doesn't knock down your door every day and steal your goods when you're at work. I'm guessing you aren’t a trained firefighter, so you probably appreciate having fire services available to you in case lightning strikes your home. I'm guessing you're not a physician so you'd probably like to have some kind of ambulance service to take you to the hospital when that uninsured motorist runs you down.

 

I can go on and on. There are a bazillion services we foist off on our government that are so pervasive that we ignore them every day. Yet how do these things get paid for if not with taxes?

 

Again, I'm not a government advocate. I'm with you guys on the need to lessen government's impact in our lives. But we created this form of society, and if we don't like it, it's not the government's fault – it's ours.

[jnkyrdoff6]

You can look at it as coercion, but the basis for all of our rules, laws and regulations comes from mandates from the people. The authority of this government derives from the power of the public, and if the public truly did not like this government it could vote in people who would change it. We make the government, and continue to make it, every election cycle. So to put the onus on the government is looking at it the wrong way. We are the ones at fault here, for setting up this government and then letting it run amok.

 

Government is simply a reflection of the people whom it governs. If we are lazy and will not oversee our elected officials, they will behave lazily and as if they have no oversight. That's on us, not them. They're simply behaving as humans have since recorded history began.

 

And you're still not out from under the burden of taxes, since you want a military. I know you know that, so I won't belabor the point, but I have to ask – do you have wings? Because if you don't, I'm guessing you use public streets to move around. I'm guessing you like having some form of traffic control, so you probably appreciate traffic lights. You probably like being able to see other cars and pedestrians and whatnot when you drive at night, so you probably like street lights. You probably want those lights to function properly, and I’m guessing you don't have a power plant (self-built, of course) on your property hooked up to all of those public electricity-using devices, so you probably like having public power out there. I'm guessing you like having a corps of engineers out there making sure your residence doesn't flood (presuming you live in a flood plain), and I'm guessing you appreciate having some form of law enforcement available so The Bad Guy doesn't knock down your door every day and steal your goods when you're at work. I'm guessing you aren’t a trained firefighter, so you probably appreciate having fire services available to you in case lightning strikes your home. I'm guessing you're not a physician so you'd probably like to have some kind of ambulance service to take you to the hospital when that uninsured motorist runs you down.

 

I can go on and on. There are a bazillion services we foist off on our government that are so pervasive that we ignore them every day. Yet how do these things get paid for if not with taxes?

 

Again, I'm not a government advocate. I'm with you guys on the need to lessen government's impact in our lives. But we created this form of society, and if we don't like it, it's not the government's fault – it's ours.

I will not disagree with you on this. We did create it, not me personally, but my ancestors. I didn't create it though, and I'm guessing when a lot of people voted for FDR, they didn't vote for the income tax. They voted for an elected official who represented them. In that sense they created it, but by that same logic, we've created everything in history through our actions, even though many of these things were never intended to happen. We created Hitler and every atrocity man has ever known. When revolutions have happened throughout history, it has then been the creators of government scraping their creations? Did the founders of the Roman republic create the Roman empire? That's kind of a twisted way of looking at it. I'm not going to argue about it, because in a way it's true. You could say the Jews created Hitler because they chose to flourish in a time of German poverty, and inspired his hatred. I don't know. I guess this is kind of a rant, but what I'm really trying to say is that I don't believe what has been created was ever intended. I think politicians like FDR have played on peoples' gullibility during hard times, and tricked them to attain what has been created. I will agree with carlfense when he wrote on a seperate thread that the government hasn't changed much lately, but there is no comparison to the government we (America) had 100 or 200 years ago. Nothing that large is going to change drastically overnight. It's like water wearing away at a rock.

 

-Now on to the second thought (third paragraph)-

 

I must have done a poor job clarifying my feelings on this. You've said you think the government is too big (paraphrase). That's something we agree on. I think it's too big, and would like to reduce it's size. I think if it only collected a small amount of taxes, it wouldn't be able to provide a ton of programs and the problem would be solved, to a degree. Other things would need to be changed too. We'd need to deal with the federal reserve problem so it couldn't print money, in some way. Perhaps we'd go back to the gold standard; I don't know. I do like more than one of the government's services, though, even though I think they're unnecessary and inefficient. Where would those services come from if the government can't afford them? They'd still come from the people. I'm just saying states or cities should provide them. This would create a marketplace for those services. It's not like a state or city, which I've also referred to as a local community, can't function with just as much efficiency as the federal government. My dad worked for the corps. There is no reason states can't hire engineers. There is no reason roads can't be built by states or cities. It's not like the government built the railroad or the canals. There is no reason any of the services you listed above, can't be funded by communities and localized.

 

This system just promotes efficiency. That's all I'm saying. If a community is having trouble with one of it's services it can look at the community that's having the most success. Not only does it promote efficiency, but it allows way more freedom for citizens. If someone doesn't like the policies of his or her community, that person can move.

 

To reiterate, the national government would be funded by a sales tax, and maybe a flat income tax only. Local communities would be funded how they saw fit, and if one of the citizens didn't like the local policy, they'd have the choice to move.

[knapplc]

Ah. I didn't get that you were speaking mostly about the federal government. A lot of what you've been saying makes more sense now.

 

I largely don't disagree with you.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I'm almost where Socal is. I can't picture a nation completely without government, at least not right now. My main hangup is where the military is concerned. I don't know that I believe we could farm out something that would be comparable to a military force. I can see privatizing everything else with more success than what the federal government has had. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong, but ideally we wouldn't need to fight wars except to defend ourselves. Even still, if we were to be attacked or bombed, and not just simply invaded, I don't see any way we could privatize anything that could stand up to that.

 

The principle ideas, though, that he has are similar to mine, I think. I certainly don't think a governing body comprised of men, no better than myself, has any right to tell me what to do. I do believe the only laws that should govern man are the rights of man.

Just swallow the red pill and remember that nothing good can ever come from that which is purely evil. A system based on irresponsibility, violence and theft will do nothing more than breed more of the same.

 

And in regards to your concerns about protection, first of all a free society wouldn't have any gun laws, weapon restrictions or any other silly regulations, which somehow are only arbitrarily applied to the sheep to begin with, whether they have violated anyone or not . This will ensure that any person who desired to be protected could arm themselves to the teeth, if need be, assuming they could afford it and were not ostracized by their neighbors for being paranoid or had the possibility to be a violent gun slinger.

 

In this regard, individuals could protect themselves and their communities quite well from any invasion. Could you imagine an army, say of 1 million soldiers or even larger, going door to door and conquering and killing 300 million people? Though it's a remote possibility, the chances are likely that it wouldnt happen, but if it did, one not only has to wonder what their motivation is/was but it begs the question of whether or not a government military could have stopped such an attack? You bring up bombs and other attacks but if it was so devastating that individuals of a free society could not prevent it, how could members of government or its military, who are comprised of the same people, stop it from happening?

 

Hans-Hermann Hoppe says it best in his essay The Idea of A Private Law Society.

 

As widespread as the classical liberal view is regarding the necessity of the institution of a state as the provider of law and order, several rather elementary economic and moral arguments show this view to be entirely misguided.

 

Among political economists and political philosophers it is one of the most widely accepted proposition that every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Here, monopoly is understood as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. For example, only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than under competitive conditions. Accordingly, it should be expected that state-provided law and order will be excessively expensive and of particularly low quality.

 

However, this is only the mildest of errors. Government is not just like any other monopoly such as a milk or a car monopoly that produces low quality products at high prices. Government is unique among all other agencies in that it produces not only goods but also bads. Indeed, it must produce bads in order to produce anything that might be considered a good.

 

As noted, the government is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to government for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of government, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. Indeed, these are government constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on government action they may find is invariably decided by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be altered continually and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government's advantage. The idea of eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation as flexible state-made law.

 

Even worse, the state is a monopolist of taxation, and while those who receive the taxes the government employees regard taxes as something good, those who must pay the taxes regard the payment as something bad, as an act of expropriation. As a tax-funded life-and-property protection agency, then, the very institution of government is nothing less than a contradiction in terms. It is an expropriating property protector, "producing" ever more taxes and ever less protection. Even if a government limited its activities exclusively to the protection of the property of its citizens, as classical liberals have proposed, the further question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated, as everyone is, by self-interest and the disutility of labor but equipped with the unique power to tax, a government agent's goal will invariably be to maximize expenditures on protection, and almost all of a nation's wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection, and at the same time to minimize the production of protection. The more money one can spend and the less one must work to produce, the better off one will be.

 

In sum, the incentive structure inherent in the institution of government is not a recipe for the protection of life and property, but instead a recipe for maltreatment, oppression, and exploitation. This is what the history of states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of ruined human lives.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Also, I forgot to add that in a free society individuals could also voluntarily pay to be protected by an army. In fact if enough people demanded that type of protection one can only imagine the kind of competition that would ensue to take advantage of that demand and the profits that follow. And remember that in a free market, one free of coercion, there will only exist goods and services that people are willing to pay for, or to a degree which they are needed, so if nobody feels the need for an army they simply don't pay for it.

[knapplc]

Also, I forgot to add that in a free society individuals could also voluntarily pay to be protected by an army. In fact if enough people demanded that type of protection one can only imagine the kind of competition that would ensue to take advantage of that demand and the profits that follow. And remember that in a free market, one free of coercion, there will only exist goods and services that people are willing to pay for, or to a degree which they are needed, so if nobody feels the need for an army they simply don't pay for it.

 

Not only is this pure speculation, it's downright fantasy. Humans don't behave this way except in the minds of philosophers. Humans accrete power. The phrase "Might makes right" exists for a reason. Without some kind of unified protection plan we're just going to get overrun by our enemies. And if you agree with the concept of unified protection, you're simply exchanging one form of government for another. Either way, you have government.

[SOCALHUSKER]

You can look at it as coercion, but the basis for all of our rules, laws and regulations comes from mandates from the people. The authority of this government derives from the power of the public, and if the public truly did not like this government it could vote in people who would change it. We make the government, and continue to make it, every election cycle. So to put the onus on the government is looking at it the wrong way. We are the ones at fault here, for setting up this government and then letting it run amok.

 

Government is simply a reflection of the people whom it governs. If we are lazy and will not oversee our elected officials, they will behave lazily and as if they have no oversight. That's on us, not them. They're simply behaving as humans have since recorded history began.

 

And you're still not out from under the burden of taxes, since you want a military. I know you know that, so I won't belabor the point, but I have to ask do you have wings? Because if you don't, I'm guessing you use public streets to move around. I'm guessing you like having some form of traffic control, so you probably appreciate traffic lights. You probably like being able to see other cars and pedestrians and whatnot when you drive at night, so you probably like street lights. You probably want those lights to function properly, and Im guessing you don't have a power plant (self-built, of course) on your property hooked up to all of those public electricity-using devices, so you probably like having public power out there. I'm guessing you like having a corps of engineers out there making sure your residence doesn't flood (presuming you live in a flood plain), and I'm guessing you appreciate having some form of law enforcement available so The Bad Guy doesn't knock down your door every day and steal your goods when you're at work. I'm guessing you arent a trained firefighter, so you probably appreciate having fire services available to you in case lightning strikes your home. I'm guessing you're not a physician so you'd probably like to have some kind of ambulance service to take you to the hospital when that uninsured motorist runs you down.

 

I can go on and on. There are a bazillion services we foist off on our government that are so pervasive that we ignore them every day. Yet how do these things get paid for if not with taxes?

 

Again, I'm not a government advocate. I'm with you guys on the need to lessen government's impact in our lives. But we created this form of society, and if we don't like it, it's not the government's fault it's ours.

It is flat out coercion. For how can government be a reflection of someone, or that person responsible for its problems, if that individual doesn't participate, have a choice or even wish to have government? Are they still subject to government's whims and wishes whether they agree or disagree? Do they have a choice? You're assuming, falsely I might add, that all individuals in society somehow consented to be governed, where do you get that? I know for certain that I never consented nor will I ever consent, yet somehow I'm at fault and enslaved just the same? How is that not coercion? You also keep saying "we," as if you speak for every person in the US, do you believe that to be true? Or, rather is it that you only speak for yourself and what you seek is to have your subjective opinions forced upon everyone?

 

Also, you keep bringing up the idea that since government provides services that individual's are somehow obligated to pay the extortion fees in order for them to exist. Would you also support me if I went to all my neighbors and demanded, at gunpoint, that they pay me for cutting their lawn, washing their car, or fixing their irrigation; whether they wanted me to or not? Why can it not be that if an individual wishes to have a good or service that he pay for it, but that he makes the voluntarily makes the choice? Do you not see the difference between me voluntarily paying to have roads, schools and healthcare because I want them and me being forced at gunpoint to pay for roads, schools, healthcare and a plethora of other goods or services whether I want, need, agree or use them at all? Are you insinuating that without government the demand and value people place on goods and services will also not exist? Are you stating that all the goods and services you describe would not be possible without shoving a gun in someone's face and forcing them to pay for it? Or once again are you you trying to pass off your subjective opinion as an objective reality, and force other individuals to bear the costs?

[knapplc]

SOCAL, this is basic stuff. I shouldn't have to tell you that the reason we ALL pay for services that we may or may not want is that there are people out there who will refuse to pay but who will use those services. Are you saying it's fair for me to pay for those services when others won't?

 

And no, I am making no assertion about general goods and services. As I've said in plain English, I'm talking about basic services like roads and Fire and Police and Military.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Also, I forgot to add that in a free society individuals could also voluntarily pay to be protected by an army. In fact if enough people demanded that type of protection one can only imagine the kind of competition that would ensue to take advantage of that demand and the profits that follow. And remember that in a free market, one free of coercion, there will only exist goods and services that people are willing to pay for, or to a degree which they are needed, so if nobody feels the need for an army they simply don't pay for it.

 

Not only is this pure speculation, it's downright fantasy. Humans don't behave this way except in the minds of philosophers. Humans accrete power. The phrase "Might makes right" exists for a reason. Without some kind of unified protection plan we're just going to get overrun by our enemies. And if you agree with the concept of unified protection, you're simply exchanging one form of government for another. Either way, you have government.

So once again, because you have a subjective opinion that you and everyone else will get overrun by big, bad enemies, the same enemies that will gain power in government nonetheless, you are advocating and willing to force everyone, at gunpoint, to support and fund a coercive monopoly that does the very same thing? Do you have any historical evidence to back up that claim? Any proof that man, not one backed by the power of government, but one greedy, disturbing yet filthy rich and knowledable man, or even a small group for that matter, has ever subjected and conquered the amount of individuals you suggest?

[SOCALHUSKER]

SOCAL, this is basic stuff. I shouldn't have to tell you that the reason we ALL pay for services that we may or may not want is that there are people out there who will refuse to pay but who will use those services. Are you saying it's fair for me to pay for those services when others won't?

 

And no, I am making no assertion about general goods and services. As I've said in plain English, I'm talking about basic services like roads and Fire and Police and Military.

You're right this is basic stuff. Are you asserting that everyone pays now and there are no free riders? Since there are, and the welfare doles continue to grow as we speak, do you believe it to be fair, just or moral to steal from productive individuals so that those same free riders, and the many more who will soon join them, can use the services free of charge?

 

In all honesty, the problem of freerider's will probably never be solved. For as long as individuals have the ability to think and act irrationally, which they always will, you will always have those who think it is in their best interest to take advantage of and violate others. However, a philosophy/system based on property rights, non-aggression and self-ownership provides a much more logical, just and non-contradictory ways of solving these types of problems rather than a system of theft and violence that only serves to perpetuate and worsen them.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Understood. But that's why I'm saying taxes aren't "coerced" from us - we want services from the government, so we pay for those services through our taxes. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy, but I do like having a military that keeps bad guys from invading our prosperous country.

YOU may "want" the service, which you are more than willing to pay for, but what about the individuals who don't?

 

The very idea of government providing protection and dispelling right's violators is nothing more than a well-disguised contradiction. For when one looks, one realizes that in order to provide any type of protection or service, the "protector" must first violate and aggress against those it claims to protect.

[knapplc]

So once again, because you have a subjective opinion that you and everyone else will get overrun by big, bad enemies, the same enemies that will gain power in government nonetheless, you are advocating and willing to force everyone, at gunpoint, to support and fund a coercive monopoly that does the very same thing? Do you have any historical evidence to back up that claim? Any proof that man, not one backed by the power of government, but one greedy, disturbing yet filthy rich and knowledable man, or even a small group for that matter, has ever subjected and conquered the amount of individuals you suggest?

You're confused. I'm not saying one man can overthrow a nation of 300 million. One man, or a small group, can loot you, and do so without fear of recrimination in the absence of a police force.

 

One nation, even a small one, with a small force, can overthrow another nation, even if it's larger, if that other nation is comprised of disparate entities or has not mutually provided for a common defense. You ask for examples.... how many do you want? History is chock full of them. I'll start with two and you tell me if you need more. But for every example I give you, you have to show me an example where disparate, un-unified people have defended themselves against a unified enemy. That's fair, and I'm going to hold you to this.

 

1) The Gauls, circa 60-50 BC. Julius Caesar, with 15 legions (that's 75,000 fighting men, plus another 10,000 called up in reserve) subjugated and destroyed the Gallic Nations. The Gauls were largely living in a society which you describe, but over 2 million of them were defeated by Caesar.

 

2) Native Americans (North America), circa 1500-1900 AD. Population of 50 million to 100 million in approximately 1500 AD, subjugated by various governments but ultimately subjugated by the US.

 

One old, one new. And that's just off the top of my head. This is basic, basic stuff.

 

Now show me two examples of a defense against a foreign nation where the defenders weren't unified by a common government. We can keep going until I bury you in examples you can't match, or you can concede the point that a common military is a necessity of a nation.