The State and Coercion

sniperelite7 said:

So this past government shutdown has me butting heads with libertarians. Basically I disagree with the premise that it is immoral to use government to address issues such as poverty or bolstering the middle class because government is coercive and it is immoral to take ones private property(taxes) with threat of violence if one does not comply.

It is this issue of government coercion that puzzles me. On the other hand you have Karl Marx's critique of capitalism. But that seems to be just shifting coercion away from the government and onto things like corporations, while leaving the issue untouched. By what right do governments have to tax people? Still deeper (since I am arguing with christian libertarians), how does one justify using the State-since it is violently coercive-to combat things like the decline of the middle class using money it has acquired unjustly?

Click to expand...

I honestly can't make much sense of your post. You say you're disagreeing with libertarians while making arguments that agree with libertarian philosophy.

I think you may want to make some edits to your post to make it clear what your position is and what it is that you're asking people to explain.

A good question:

What right do people have to not be taxed by governments?

All of this rights talk is entirely fabricated by the human mind -- and what do you need to do to argue against it? Merely deny that an individual has any inherent right to avoid taxation... Hell, you could contend that a human has no right to remain aloof from the group and that we all have an obligation to come together to work for the whole.

Many Americans think these libertarians are somehow on to some point but that is simply not the case.

They are in the same field that we are all in: fabricating stuff that we would like to happen in a largely arbitrary fashion and nothing becomes more arbitrary when this sort of drivel comes up.

You can't claim that the money you are paid is what you earned. Two people doing the same job, working just as hard, can be paid different amounts. Payment doesn't necessarily have much to do with what one deserves to be paid, and has therefore earned.

If you didn't earn it then it isn't theft to take it. We generally accept that taking non-taxed money is theft, because that is the economic system we have agreed on through voting. Theft is a violation of that social contract.

sniperlite said:

I can see some merit in your argument, but let me play the devils advocate here, and get deeper into this. But its my money, my private property. Therefore taking it by force of the state through taxation is immoral-coercion.

Click to expand...

Says who it's your private property? What makes it your private property? The law does, and the law is written by the state. What secures your private property, and ensures your access to it? The state, by the power of coercion. Whether it is wise for the state to do so is of course, another matter.

Aristotle made a good enough case for private property: that is practically more workable than communal property. What we observe, for a number of reasons, is that free market economies are generally more efficient than centrally planned ones. There's no need to appeal to Enlightenment superstitions about "natural rights", especially regarding property - as if private property were a natural institution.

Paradoxum said:

You can't claim that the money you are paid is what you earned. Two people doing the same job, working just as hard, can be paid different amounts. Payment doesn't necessarily have much to do with what one deserves to be paid, and has therefore earned.

Click to expand...

I can and do claim that every person that is paid for their labor, for their ideas or for what they produce earns exactly every bit of it. What they are not paid for is how hard they work. Getting credit for "trying hard" is something kindergarten children get but grown adults are paid for results not effort. The less hard someone needs to work to produce a quality product or service the more they ought to be paid.

If you didn't earn it then it isn't theft to take it. We generally accept that taking non-taxed money is theft, because that is the economic system we have agreed on through voting. Theft is a violation of that social contract.

Click to expand...

Since when must one earn one's property in order to own it? If the government gives a poor man a loaf of bread and a rich man hires a large mean individual to take it away would you say it was not theft because the poor man did not earn that bread? If a large corporation spends all the money in its employee pension fund on wild parties for its executives leaving the employees with nothing is that not theft? You have said no one earns what they were paid so certainly no one earns the pension money put away for them either.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Says who it's your private property? What makes it your private property? The law does, and the law is written by the state. What secures your private property, and ensures your access to it? The state, by the power of coercion. Whether it is wise for the state to do so is of course, another matter.

Aristotle made a good enough case for private property: that is practically more workable than communal property. What we observe, for a number of reasons, is that free market economies are generally more efficient than centrally planned ones. There's no need to appeal to Enlightenment superstitions about "natural rights", especially regarding property - as if private property were a natural institution.

Click to expand...

This.

In many ways I likes the safety valve of an frontier. And in one way I still like pseudo frontiers. I find restrictions on emigration to be a good indicator of if a government really is coercive.

Someone saying taxes are coercive and who still wants a police force to force others to not take his property is a deluded fool.

That is quite different from an individual who thinks that the balance point is a bit to a lot off when it comes to what government is trying to regulate.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Says who it's your private property? What makes it your private property? The law does, and the law is written by the state. What secures your private property, and ensures your access to it? The state, by the power of coercion. Whether it is wise for the state to do so is of course, another matter.

Aristotle made a good enough case for private property: that is practically more workable than communal property. What we observe, for a number of reasons, is that free market economies are generally more efficient than centrally planned ones. There's no need to appeal to Enlightenment superstitions about "natural rights", especially regarding property - as if private property were a natural institution.

Click to expand...

Private property is a natural institution. Government was instituted by busybodies and control freaks to force others to bend to their will.

grasping the after wind said:

Private property is a natural institution. Government was instituted by busybodies and control freaks to force others to bend to their will.

Click to expand...

The very idea of property is a societal invention and thus not separable from government.

Private Property is the concept of something one has and is entitled to. That is different from mere possession which is simply having something until someone or something stronger comes and takes it away.

keith99 said:

The very idea of property is a societal invention and thus not separable from government.

Private Property is the concept of something one has and is entitled to. That is different from mere possession which is simply having something until someone or something stronger comes and takes it away.

Click to expand...

Because obviously society is null without a coercive monopoly on force and law.

grasping the after wind said:

I can and do claim that every person that is paid for their labor, for their ideas or for what they produce earns exactly every bit of it.

Click to expand...

How can they earn it? People who do the same job can earn different amounts.

What they are not paid for is how hard they work. Getting credit for "trying hard" is something kindergarten children get but grown adults are paid for results not effort.

Click to expand...

Kindergarden children also drink water. Saying that children do something isn't an argument against the thing. The difference between working hard and producing alot or a little is luck, and can't be attributed to the individual. If you work more intelligently, or creatively, it's because of your genetics and upbringing.

The less hard someone needs to work to produce a quality product or service the more they ought to be paid.

Click to expand...

You argue the opposite, since it proves they are merely riding on whatever luck gave them such an ability. There is less they can take credit for.

Since when must one earn one's property in order to own it? If the government gives a poor man a loaf of bread and a rich man hires a large mean individual to take it away would you say it was not theft because the poor man did not earn that bread? If a large corporation spends all the money in its employee pension fund on wild parties for its executives leaving the employees with nothing is that not theft? You have said no one earns what they were paid so certainly no one earns the pension money put away for them either.

Click to expand...

I explained this in the quote of me you are replying to.

What we call property or theft is a product of society. They are theft because they violate the social contract.

Paradoxum said:

What we call property or theft is a product of society. They are theft because they violate the social contract.

Click to expand...

Society does not get to decide what is right and wrong. There is no social contract.

Paradoxum said:

You can't claim that the money you are paid is what you earned. Two people doing the same job, working just as hard, can be paid different amounts. Payment doesn't necessarily have much to do with what one deserves to be paid, and has therefore earned.

Click to expand...

What if one does a better job than the other?

keith99 said:

The very idea of property is a societal invention and thus not separable from government.

Click to expand...

The word "mine" predates any societal institutions. The concept of ownership is an innate trait and a basic instinct of all people that does not rely upon outside agencies in the least and is hardly a uniquely human concept.

Private Property is the concept of something one has and is entitled to. That is different from mere possession which is simply having something until someone or something stronger comes and takes it away.

Click to expand...

What difference is there between the concept you call Private Property and the concept you call mere possession if within your concept of Private Property there is something stronger called government that comes and takes it away? Seems to be a distinction with no difference. Unless the owner of the property has a right to the property above and beyond anything stronger than that owner, there is no such thing as private property and temporary possession is all that exists. I find it curious that anyone having this sort of worldview would complain whenever a more powerful entity uses that power to oppress a less powerful one as as far as I can determine, the whole crux of the "government gives rights" argument is that might makes right. Such a person ought to praise and respect the 1% for using their power to structure the financial playing field in the way that pleases them just as they praise and respect those with power in government that attempt to structure society in a way pleasing to themselves.

Paradoxum said:

How can they earn it? People who do the same job can earn different amounts.

Click to expand...

How does that preclude them from having earned the different amounts that they have earned. I see no cause and effect relationship between how much one is paid and whether one has earned what one has been paid or not. How do you make the leap from my being paid less than someone else to saying I did not earn the money , less though it may be, that I was paid? I worked for my employer and my employer paid me for so doing. I earned what my employer paid me. How does the fact that someone else was paid more than I was make the money no longer my earned wage but some sort of charitable giving from my employer to me that I did not earn?

Kindergarden children also drink water. Saying that children do something isn't an argument against the thing. The difference between working hard and producing alot or a little is luck, and can't be attributed to the individual. If you work more intelligently, or creatively, it's because of your genetics and upbringing.

Click to expand...

Saying that children are taught to believe in fairy tales is more what I was getting at. Effort is worthless without result. Humans actually have the ability to increase their productivity, wisdom, skill level and experience to make their work more valuable to the potential employer or customer or they can remain stagnant and pretend there is something called luck that others possess but not them. Fatalism is not my favorite attitude and upbringing and genetics cannot be blamed for every failure in life. Those with more ability, the result of genetics ,good decision making , determined solely by a person that takes those decisions and smart habits, again determined solely by the one that decides to acquire those habits , have an advantage and will earn more because of those advantages. The advantages of genetics are often squandered because of a lack of the last two qualities. Additionally, Genetics hardly plays a role in holding back the vast majority of people in the vast majority of jobs.

You argue the opposite, since it proves they are merely riding on whatever luck gave them such an ability. There is less they can take credit for.

Click to expand...

Where is this proof you speak of? I do not see it anywhere.

I explained this in the quote of me you are replying to.

Click to expand...

Asserting something is quite different than explaining it.

What we call property or theft is a product of society. They are theft because they violate the social contract.

Click to expand...

What I, and I believe the vast majority of humanity, call theft is taking something from someone else that does not belong to you. It has nothing to do with a social contract. It has to do with wanting someone else's stuff so much that you decide you somehow deserve to possess it and that they do not. All one needs to do once that decision is made is come up with a reasonable sounding rationalization as to why that is so. It only needs to sound reasonable it doesn't actually have to be reasonable because the desire, and the emotion behind the desire, are powerful enough to allow one to ignore any holes in the logic behind the rationalization. For instance, like a social contract that only one party needs to agree to or even realize exists.

Firecycle said:

Society does not get to decide what is right and wrong. There is no social contract.

Click to expand...

Of course it does, society determines every law that we pass to govern ourselves.

Dave Ellis said:

Of course it does, society determines every law that we pass to govern ourselves.

Click to expand...

Hitler made it illegal to be a jew. That didn't making being a jew immoral.

Stalin made it illegal to oppose communism. That didn't make opposing communism immoral. I would argue that opposing communism in the USSR was incredibly moral.

Ten years after the constitution was passed, we made it illegal to criticize the government.. That didn't make criticizing the government immoral.

God determines what is right and wrong. Not man.

sniperelite7 said:

I can see some merit in your argument, but let me play the devils advocate here, and get deeper into this. But its my money, my private property. Therefore taking it by force of the state through taxation is immoral-coercion.

Thanks for replying, but yes, it does indeed seem a bit arbitrary.

Click to expand...

Do you use government services or benefit from belonging to the society you live in? Well that's the justification for taxes. If you lived completely off the grid, maybe you'd have a point, but even if you lived in the woods completely cut off from civilisation, you'd STILL be benefiting from government services, such as the military and land management services ensuring you actually had somewhere to be a hermit in.