Rick Santorum

[Erth]

Yes, and it meets definitions provided by dictionaries and encyclopedias. Why would I want to protect rapists and murderers from violence used to forcefully subdue them?

The argument that taxation is done under threat of violence - that being how you put it - was brought up by you to make what point exactly? I thought you invoked that argument against taxation, but I may be wrong about that. If you did bring it up against taxation and against the enforcement of taxation, why couldn't the same argument be brought up against any law enforcement? If all law enforcement is undertaken under threat of violence, and if that threat or that violence is the reason for your objection to it, then how can you justify any law enforcement at all?

 

[variant]

You make a good point. We put the government in the position of aggressor instead of ourselves personally to avoid bedlam.

We also let governments take the reigns on other issues that individuals have no right or no ability to involve themselves in like foreign policy, law contracts and the enforcement there of, building needful buildings, roads, plumbing, police work and infrastructure.

It would be highly inappropriate for me to say, get a group of my friends together and invade another country, or to start digging up sewers and replacing them around my town, or start forcefully adjudicating legal differences of people I meet on the street.

 

[zoink]

Me and zoink might be on somewhat opposite sides of this argument, but it is most certainly violence, or the threat thereof. Try resisting arrest or attempt to break out of jail and see how it works out.

Even though we probably are on opposite sides of the argument, I greatly appreciate this.

The unfortunate reality of humanity is that we often need the threat of violence to make us do what is in the interest of the greater good because we are at base, selfish beings, as are all living things. Being selfish is a reflex that is generally rewarded. In societies, however, being selfish is less beneficial in the long run, and these habits have to be broken by at least a vague threat of force.

I'm not submitting these as proof of anything, just pieces of information to mull over. I think it's interesting especially in the context of the link dump I am going to do later in the post.

Emergence of Good Conduct, Scaling and Zipf Laws in Human Behavioral Sequences in an Online World

We interpret these findings as empirical evidence for self organization towards reciprocal, good conduct within a human society. Note that the game allows bad behavior in the same way as good behavior but the extent of punishment of bad behavior is freely decided by the players.

The Human Spark | So Human, So Chimp | Chimps vs. Kids | PBS

Also the question I always ask: how do politicians selected from and by an inherently selfish society rise above? Doesn't centralizing power just motivate the most selfish people to acquire that power?

*******************
​

Interesting, except the point where we live in a society where our rights to live mainly violence and coercion free lives is protected by that same government and that same majority of voters.

I think that the "no initiation of violence" folks need to think about how societies look without a representative government that is the primary initiator of violence.

Many of us do spend a lot of time thinking about that.

I apologies for the link dump, but just in case you're curious here is some information on the subject:

Monopolies:
Protectionist Origins of Antitrust - Thomas J. DiLorenzo (Video)
The Myth of Natural Monopoly - Thomas J. DiLorenzo (PDF)(Video Lecture)
Monopoly and Competition - Murray N. Rothbard

Polycentric law, justice, and defense:
The Market for Security - Robert P. Murphy (Video)
Chaos Theory - Robert P. Murphy (PDF) (MP3)
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? - Robert P. Murphy
From: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray Rothbard

1. What about corrupt or criminal voluntary courts? (Video)
2. Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection (Video)

The Machinery of Freedom. [Chapter 29] – David Friedman
Lex mercatoria – Historical example.
Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case - David Friedman
Practical Anarchy - Stefan Molyneux
Everyday Anarchy - Stefan Molyneux

I guess it is the sort of odd conclusion you get when you only look at one side of the problem. The video is an appeal to peoples sense of morality and civility against the government and taxation, when a society with a government and taxation probably nurtured that morality and civility in the first place.

It may have, but isn't this a chicken and egg scenario? Are societies better because of government or are governments a reflection of their society? Just as society progressed from monarchy to representative government, I advocate for society to move towards taking the next step. I don't expect society to reach that point any time soon, but I will continue to advocate for society moving towards voluntaryism.

*******************​

"Taking ... under threat of violence" is different to you somehow than "stealing"? That seems like a semantic game on your part. Just because you don't use the actual word doesn't mean the concept isn't loud and clear.

Stealing and/or theft is the illegal, unlawful, or wrongful taking of another persons property. Taking the fruit of another persons labor under threat of violence is not always illegal, unlawful, nor do I always think it is wrong.

*******************​

The argument that taxation is done under threat of violence - that being how you put it - was brought up by you to make what point exactly?

Originally I was trying to spur you to give some examples of how Santorum demonstrated more respect and concern for the poor. I phrase it that way because I believe it is an accurate way of describing taxation.

I thought you invoked that argument against taxation, but I may be wrong about that. If you did bring it up against taxation and against the enforcement of taxation, why couldn't the same argument be brought up against any law enforcement? If all law enforcement is undertaken under threat of violence, and if that threat or that violence is the reason for your objection to it, then how can you justify any law enforcement at all?

I'm not a pacifist, I do not believe violence is wrong in and of itself. Under the non-aggression principle (NAP) violence can be an appropriate response to an initiation of violence. There is debate on whether taxation is an initiation of aggression or if it is enforcement of the social contract. Normally that's where people take this discussion. As I said, I've never seen this discussion focus on the definition of the word "violence" before.

 

[variant]

Many of us do spend a lot of time thinking about that.

I apologies for the link dump, but just in case you're curious here is some information on the subject:

I know I am one of them. I abandoned the idea of anarcho-capitolism a little under five years ago (I called myself a minarchist then anyway). Most of the arguments ring hollow to me, especially in the light of them having been somewhat tried out on the “lets not regulate the banking industry and let them manage their own risk” level.

It's been a while since I read the Machinery of Freedom (I own a copy) however and some of your other links might be interesting. Thanks.

For instance the liberitarian ideal of a monopoly being transient completely ignores the problem of how difficult it is to start up (initial costs) and oppose an entrenched oligarchy or monopoly.

It may have, but isn't this a chicken and egg scenario? Are societies better because of government or are governments a reflection of their society? Just as society progressed from monarchy to representative government, I advocate for society to move towards taking the next step. I don't expect society to reach that point any time soon, but I will continue to advocate for society moving towards voluntarism.

A look at the history helps I think. I think the progression works rather well in fact.

Governments generally provide an organizing force for society.

The organization tends to work towards a more civil society where force is generally frowned upon.

There are a couple examples of extremely organized societies without a force by government ideal, like Iceland, but they are generally isolated, insular, and far removed from competition by other societies, which is really where governments show their teeth.

Iceland the classic libertarian example was conquered without blood by the king of Norway who simply bought some of the people who served as seats on the all thing and made them his vassals.

Find some people and make it happen though if you think it will work, the governments today may be a bit cruder than your ideal but they tend to get the job done and have thousands of years of history to back them up their legitimacy.

 

[Vylo]

Oooo, a paper dealing with generalized exchange. Gonna have to read that later, that was one of my favorite topics in sociology. I did an experiment in what I called "Generalized disexchange" at college, where I would purposefully set up inconviences for people and follow them to see how they acted compared to others. Needless to say, it made them quite less inclined to help their fellow man in minor ways .

 

[Dale]

Soviet Russia, Communist China, the Mexican government, the French Government, the Khmer Rouge

...I don't even need to Gowdin the thread, and I can name off many governments, any one of which has probably killed more people than street gangs.

This thread is on the American politics forum. It is understood that we are talking about American government unless otherwise specificed.


*

*

 

[Dale]

So one can't protest any tax that is imposed on people?

It seems you don't support abortion. If there was a tax that funded abortion would you not speak out against it and advocate that others vote against it?

Do you apply this logic to everything governments do?

The issue generally isn't whether or not Christians should pay taxes. Usually the issue is whether people should advocate that politicians have the fruit of another persons labor taken under threat of violence. Some of us believe it's wrong to take the fruit of another person's labor under threat of violence so we vote and advocate that this practice be lessened and/or ceased.

**********
​

Notice I didn't say "through violence," I said "under threat of violence." A subtle yet important difference, as I don't think many people want physical violence used to collect taxes. They hope everyone pays them without resisting.

Are you saying that if someone doesn't pay their taxes people with badges and guns won't come and take their property and/or put them in a cage? Or do you not consider those to be violent acts?

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. 13 Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel,[c] according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the LORD. 14 All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the LORD. 15 The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the LORD to atone for your lives.


--Exodus 30: 11-15 NIV


Is this half-shekel tax "violence" or the "threat of violence" to you?


*

*