The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument

[AyeYo]

And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

So... Little old lady decides not to pay 'Her share'. You gonna hold a gun to her head and force her?

And what happens if she still says no?

Then we throw her old ass in prison for tax evasion.  It happens on the daily, yet you seem like you've never heard of it before.

And if she resists being thrown into prison or attempts to escape from prison, you shoot her.  You are ultimately claiming the right to kill someone if their definition of "fair share" is different than yours.

Welcome to the real world.  It's called an organized society.

So I guess we'll never lock up anyone, ever, for anything, because then we'd be claiming a right to kill someone because their morals are different than ours.  Murderers, rapists... you're free to gol!  Who am I to judge what is and isn't ok?

You can judge for yourself, but not for me or her. You can't use my resources to enforce your notions of responsible social behavior and expect me not to resist you- especially when My notions are so very different than yours. It's not unreasonable to conclude that people who kill stingy old ladies because they are stingy are worse than stingy old ladies.

Cool.  So then you can't force your ideals on me, therefore I can go and rape whoever I want and you can't punish me because I think rape is teh awesomesauce.

[Reikoku]

Why not?  Who are you to tell me what's moral and what's not moral? 

If I can't tell you that in my society you need to your fair share or else... then you can't tell me that in your society I can't kill people or else.  It's called being consistent.  If I can't impose my moral views on other people then neither can you.

This viewpoint justifies any law. This justifies laws under Kim jong-Il, etc. If you simply accept that any law is morally justified because it is law, then you completely disregard the right of the public to liberty and justice.

It is true that if you had a society in which the consensus was that murder was fine, you'd probably be able to keep a society going in which murder was legal. There just isn't as much of a case against murder laws as there is against oppressive taxation.

[myrkul]

Cool.  So then you can't force your ideals on me, therefore I can go and rape whoever I want and you can't punish me because I think rape is teh awesomesauce.

Sure, you can try. You'd then be acting against the organizing principles of the society, and therefore not protected by them. The lady, for instance, would have the ability to blow your brains out the back of your skull for trying.

[billyjoeallen]

And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

So... Little old lady decides not to pay 'Her share'. You gonna hold a gun to her head and force her?

And what happens if she still says no?

Then we throw her old ass in prison for tax evasion.  It happens on the daily, yet you seem like you've never heard of it before.

And if she resists being thrown into prison or attempts to escape from prison, you shoot her.  You are ultimately claiming the right to kill someone if their definition of "fair share" is different than yours.

Welcome to the real world.  It's called an organized society.

So I guess we'll never lock up anyone, ever, for anything, because then we'd be claiming a right to kill someone because their morals are different than ours.  Murderers, rapists... you're free to gol!  Who am I to judge what is and isn't ok?

You can judge for yourself, but not for me or her. You can't use my resources to enforce your notions of responsible social behavior and expect me not to resist you- especially when My notions are so very different than yours. It's not unreasonable to conclude that people who kill stingy old ladies because they are stingy are worse than stingy old ladies.

Cool.  So then you can't force your ideals on me, therefore I can go and rape whoever I want and you can't punish me because I think rape is teh awesomesauce.

So what you're really saying is that you don't trust YOURSELF with so much freedom. I understand now. You need external discipline to keep yourself in line. I got news for you, Homeslice: you try raping me or mine and you'll find some external discipline regardless of the legal structure.  You can trust your loved-ones to the care of some flat-footed donut muncher. I put my faith in Smith and Wesson.

[kylesaisgone]

I think he's just trolling you guys.

[myrkul]

I think he's just trolling you guys.

Difference between a Troll and an actual Government supporter?

Government supporter is probably paying for his internet.

[AyeYo]

Cool.  So then you can't force your ideals on me, therefore I can go and rape whoever I want and you can't punish me because I think rape is teh awesomesauce.

Sure, you can try. You'd then be acting against the organizing principles of the society, and therefore not protected by them. The lady, for instance, would have the ability to blow your brains out the back of your skull for trying.

Awesome!   

And when the little old lady fails to pay her taxes she'll be acting against the organized principles of this society (her social constract), so we'll throw her in jail - failing that, we'll blow her brains out.

I think you're getting it now!

[myrkul]

And when the little old lady fails to pay her taxes she'll be acting against the organized principles of this society (her social constract [sic]), so we'll throw her in jail - failing that, we'll blow her brains out.

She signed a contract? Oh, well, that's entirely different. What are the stipulations in her contract, and Uh... could you show me that signature?

[Anonymous]

Justify your social contract. Why does it have any meaning or value?

[AyeYo]

Why not?  Who are you to tell me what's moral and what's not moral? 

If I can't tell you that in my society you need to your fair share or else... then you can't tell me that in your society I can't kill people or else.  It's called being consistent.  If I can't impose my moral views on other people then neither can you.

This viewpoint justifies any law. This justifies laws under Kim jong-Il, etc. If you simply accept that any law is morally justified because it is law, then you completely disregard the right of the public to liberty and justice.

It is true that if you had a society in which the consensus was that murder was fine, you'd probably be able to keep a society going in which murder was legal. There just isn't as much of a case against murder laws as there is against oppressive taxation.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  That's only your opinion that there isn't as much of a case against murder laws as their is against taxation laws, and you can't impose your opinion on me.  Do you see how we can play this game for all of eternity?


And you're damn right it justifies whatever law the society sees fit, which is why its called a social contract.  If you don't like it, change it.  If you can't change it peacefully, change it violently - such is history and human nature.

In this society, you're forced to pay your taxes because someone along the way was smart enough to make payment for social programs manditory.  Deal with it, or else.  And, yes, that or else is perfectly acceptable because violence is the only way ANYTHING is enforced, so cut the shit with this shooting old ladies rhetoric.

[billyjoeallen]

Cool.  So then you can't force your ideals on me, therefore I can go and rape whoever I want and you can't punish me because I think rape is teh awesomesauce.

Sure, you can try. You'd then be acting against the organizing principles of the society, and therefore not protected by them. The lady, for instance, would have the ability to blow your brains out the back of your skull for trying.

Awesome!   

And when the little old lady fails to pay her taxes she'll be acting against the organized principles of this society (her social constract), so we'll throw her in jail - failing that, we'll blow her brains out.

I think you're getting it now!

A contract has to have explicit (not implied) consent. You have to opt-in,not opt out. Moreover a contract is not valid if there is coercion.  all parties have to have the legal ability to enter into contracts, both (or all) parties have to be bound. Both parties have to have obligations. Without such conditions, no contract is binding.
I suggest you brush up on your Lysander Spooner.

[AyeYo]

Justify your social contract. Why does it have any meaning or value?

Justify your property rights.  Why do they have any meaning or value?

[AyeYo]

Cool.  So then you can't force your ideals on me, therefore I can go and rape whoever I want and you can't punish me because I think rape is teh awesomesauce.

Sure, you can try. You'd then be acting against the organizing principles of the society, and therefore not protected by them. The lady, for instance, would have the ability to blow your brains out the back of your skull for trying.

Awesome!    

And when the little old lady fails to pay her taxes she'll be acting against the organized principles of this society (her social constract), so we'll throw her in jail - failing that, we'll blow her brains out.

I think you're getting it now!

A contract has to have explicit (not implied) consent. You have to opt-in,not opt out. Moreover a contract is not valid if there is coercion.  all parties have to have the legal ability to enter into contracts, both (or all) parties have to be bound. Both parties have to have obligations. Without such conditions, no contract is binding.
I suggest you brush up on your Lysander Spooner.

The consent is explicit - the little old lady was either born a citizen, in which case her legal guardians sealed the deal or she's an import and sealed the deal herself with her oath.

You can opt in and opt out - if you want to opt out, GTFO out of the country.

Where's the coercion?  Last time I checked, you're free to GTFO out of the country.

LOL at legal ability.  Talk about chicken and egg.  So who defines the legal ability to define legal ability?

Both parties are bound; it's called the law, it applies to everyone, government included.

Both parties do have obligations - the little old ladies pays her taxes and the government renders services.


Well, looks like we've got ourselves a binding contract!

[billyjoeallen]

And you're damn right it justifies whatever law the society sees fit, which is why its called a social contract.  If you don't like it, change it.  If you can't change it peacefully, change it violently - such is history and human nature.

In this society, you're forced to pay your taxes because someone along the way was smart enough to make payment for social programs manditory.  Deal with it, or else.  And, yes, that or else is perfectly acceptable because violence is the only way ANYTHING is enforced, so cut the shit with this shooting old ladies rhetoric.

Even if we assumed that we did agree to a social contract (we didn't), if one party (the State) violates the terms of the contract, then the other parties (we) are no longer bound by it.

MANY things are enforced without violence. If I don't pay my credit card bill, Mr. Mastercard doesn't send goons to my house to turn me upside down and shake the change out of my pockets. He just trashes my credit score. It's called OPPORTUNITY COSTS and it's not violent. Works great. so you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Justify your social contract. Why does it have any meaning or value?

Justify your property rights.  Why do they have any meaning or value?

It's impossible. It's entirely based on emotion. However, would you not prefer a man to own himself? It all comes down to self-ownership; the labors and virtues that come from self.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

[billyjoeallen]

Cool.  So then you can't force your ideals on me, therefore I can go and rape whoever I want and you can't punish me because I think rape is teh awesomesauce.

Sure, you can try. You'd then be acting against the organizing principles of the society, and therefore not protected by them. The lady, for instance, would have the ability to blow your brains out the back of your skull for trying.

The consent is explicit - the little old lady was either born a citizen, in which case her legal guardians sealed the deal or she's an import and sealed the deal herself with her oath.

You can opt in and opt out - if you want to opt out, GTFO out of the country.

Where's the coercion?  Last time I checked, you're free to GTFO out of the country.

LOL at legal ability.  Talk about chicken and egg.  So who defines the legal ability to define legal ability?

Both parties are bound; it's called the law, it applies to everyone, government included.

Both parties do have obligations - the little old ladies pays her taxes and the government renders services.


Well, looks like we've got ourselves a binding contract!

We got bupkis. The State cannot impartially arbitrate a dispute to which it is a party. The State has a less valid claim to the territory than I do. The State derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed.  No consent, no legitimate powers. I am a citizen whether the state choses to recognize it or not. being a citizen does not bind me to any contract. it's merely a property of where I was born and who my parents are.  

[myrkul]

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  That's only your opinion that there isn't as much of a case against murder laws as their is against taxation laws, and you can't impose your opinion on me.  Do you see how we can play this game for all of eternity?

Ahh, but that's where you're wrong. Here's a man who proves you wrong, in more than enough pedantic detail to satisfy even you: Stefan Molyneux - Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics

In essence: Nobody wants to get killed, therefore murder is wrong.

[AyeYo]

And you're damn right it justifies whatever law the society sees fit, which is why its called a social contract.  If you don't like it, change it.  If you can't change it peacefully, change it violently - such is history and human nature.

In this society, you're forced to pay your taxes because someone along the way was smart enough to make payment for social programs manditory.  Deal with it, or else.  And, yes, that or else is perfectly acceptable because violence is the only way ANYTHING is enforced, so cut the shit with this shooting old ladies rhetoric.

Even if we assumed that we did agree to a social contract (we didn't), if one party (the State) violates the terms of the contract, then the other parties (we) are no longer bound by it.

MANY things are enforced without violence. If I don't pay my credit card bill, Mr. Mastercard doesn't send goons to my house to turn me upside down and shake the change out of my pockets. He just trashes my credit score. It's called OPPORTUNITY COSTS and it's not violent. Works great. so you're wrong.

Cool story bro.  You broke your social contract when you went 56mph in a 55mph zone, the state is now free to kill you and your family with impunity because it is no longer bound by the contract.

That's a fun game to play, huh?


You're right, no goons to the house, they just harass you every second of your life, then put leans on your property, then they take your property... and if you resist, the police arrest you, and if you resist arrest, the police kill you.

Got any other examples of stuff not enforced with violence?  Anything worth enforcing is enforced with violence, because there simply is no other way to make people do something they really don't want to do.

[Anonymous]

That's the thing: People shouldn't have to do things they don't want to do.

[kylesaisgone]

Cool.  So then you can't force your ideals on me, therefore I can go and rape whoever I want and you can't punish me because I think rape is teh awesomesauce.

Sure, you can try. You'd then be acting against the organizing principles of the society, and therefore not protected by them. The lady, for instance, would have the ability to blow your brains out the back of your skull for trying.

Awesome!    

And when the little old lady fails to pay her taxes she'll be acting against the organized principles of this society (her social constract), so we'll throw her in jail - failing that, we'll blow her brains out.

I think you're getting it now!

A contract has to have explicit (not implied) consent. You have to opt-in,not opt out. Moreover a contract is not valid if there is coercion.  all parties have to have the legal ability to enter into contracts, both (or all) parties have to be bound. Both parties have to have obligations. Without such conditions, no contract is binding.
I suggest you brush up on your Lysander Spooner.

The consent is explicit - the little old lady was either born a citizen, in which case her legal guardians sealed the deal or she's an import and sealed the deal herself with her oath.

You can opt in and opt out - if you want to opt out, GTFO out of the country.

Where's the coercion?  Last time I checked, you're free to GTFO out of the country.

LOL at legal ability.  Talk about chicken and egg.  So who defines the legal ability to define legal ability?

Both parties are bound; it's called the law, it applies to everyone, government included.

Both parties do have obligations - the little old ladies pays her taxes and the government renders services.


Well, looks like we've got ourselves a binding contract!

If you don't like it... you can... GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

/SouthPark