eMansipater and anarchism

[error]

What exactly should be done to me for not paying taxes?

You should have a party thrown for you and a medal awarded. Ticker tape parades, too, if someone wants to put one together and fund it.

[1714908678]

1714908678

[1714908678]

1714908678

[1714908678]

1714908678

[BitterTea]

What exactly should be done to me for not paying taxes?

You should have a party thrown for you and a medal awarded. Ticker tape parades, too, if someone wants to put one together and fund it.

Alternatively, we could fund the party by using the threat of violence to coerce money from people!

[eMansipater]

There's no "ought".  There's only the "if living under the tyrannical force of a democratic state is unlivable, well, there is actually an alternative.  So by your own measure it can't be so overly terrible can it?"  Under our current set of circumstances I think this is the primary reason that anarchy comes off as so much whining.  Almost anyone posting on the internet is enjoying a higher material standard of living than 5 nines of human beings in history.  It's kind of unimpressive that some of them would be sitting there thinking "It's horrible that I have to give a percentage of this away.  Now if only I had my own private army, I could probably avoid that!"  Hardly inspirational, is it?

Looking at it like that I can understand why you'd think that way. It's not how I look at it. I think it can be easily demonstrated that taxation is not a voluntary contribution.

Voluntary is a complicated notion.  Is eating voluntary?  I certainly feel that for myself I choose to eat food of my own free will without coercion and happily.  But on the other hand if I don't eat I will die.  So do I truly eat under duress of death?  A lot of voluntary has to do with a person's attitude rather than the particular circumstances.  Nonetheless the availability of an alternative is generally considered to make something voluntary.

Even if the government went on to spend it efficiently on solving problems, it doesn't change the fact that the means are inconsistent with the ends. How can you teach children that stealing is wrong when their education is funded through theft?

Are you telling me that if you had the option for your taxes not to support your children's education you would take it?  And more importantly, that you feel wronged when your taxes go to educate the child of someone who could not otherwise afford it for them?  You're not exactly currying my sympathy here--education has a pretty clear return on investment.  There do exist jurisdictions, not even just anarchist ones, where there is no government support for education--you are quite welcome to move to one of them.

Do you suggest that because I happen to live in relative comfort, I should ignore the atrocities that are carried out using resources extracted from me through force? I can't ignore it. I am not interested in a private army. All I need to avoid it is crypto, an anonamous decentralised currency and other like minded individuals.

On the contrary--if any community you participate in is doing unconscionable things, then you have the responsibility to speak out against it and use whatever methods are available to you within that community to prevent it.  If your community continues to act unconscionably you would do well to leave it.  How else can any community willing to act more conscionably gain traction?

Yes, but in your anarchist model someone who does things you don't like (tries to take your property) will be subject to violence against their consent, and quite frankly I don't see the difference.  Every society has some sort of rules which if broken lead to negative consequences.  However if we produce many of them the ones people want to be in will evidently be more desirable.  And right now you must accept that more people want to be in democracies than in anarchies.

I won't harm anyone who takes my property. I will take steps to prevent people from taking it. If someone does take something of mine, I will try to take it back. If my attempts to retake what's mine are met with violence, I will defend myself. I will report incidents of theft to the community, so people are aware of individuals who have no regard for property. I will offer the theif an opportunity to explain himself to me before reporting him, in the hope of finding a peaceful way to help him get what he needs. This is a huge topic, and basically I don't think there's any hypothetical scenario you can throw at me that would lead me to conclude that we ought to resort to giving one group of individuals a monopoly on law creation, enforcement and dispute resolution.

At whichever step you do any action impacting the thief which the thief themself did not consent to, you have acted against their consent.  I agree with you that it makes a great deal of difference how such actions are performed, but this is also the case within a state.  Giving someone a fair trial with the opportunity to explain their actions, not using undue force against them unless it is necessary, etc. etc. etc. are all essentially your own standard above applied at a community level.  But at this point in history there's no such thing as a jurisdiction which obtains complete consent from all of its members all the time.

In the final assessment I can agree that there probably exists a Nash Equilibrium at total nonviolence and therefore no further possible value to the external imposition of structure.  I'm happy to call it anarchism.  It's a long way away, but probably achievable if we don't destroy ourselves first.  I also believe there's likely to be a possible path from here to there both mentally and socially, with many intermediary steps.  I see present-day democracies as a mediocre but best-so-far environment within which the next step can emerge.

Exactly  I see democracy as a stepping stone. I don't personally think that we could have had anarchy this whole time. Although I do think we're ready to start spreading our wings right now.

And you have a plan to do this in a non-disruptive way?  Then more power to you!  But if I were to sum up my response to everything above, I would say that you are trying to compare our present circumstances to nearly perfect ones.  This is the wrong comparison--rather a society deserves the support of any rational person if it is simply better than anything else available, including something they themselves are able to bring about without unconscionable action.  We are always bound by our material circumstances--that is the nature of living in a universe that is real.  But we have many tools available to improve those material circumstances--a meaningful life consists of a meaningful use of those tools.

To whom, and when?  It's rather a long list.

Yes, perhaps this should be discussed later in another thread?

Yes, if at all.  It's not an overly interesting topic to me unless you are looking for a particular insight on it that I actually possess, or have one of broad import yourself to offer.  Suggestions for the former include a more international perspective.  Suggestions for the latter would be any general insights into the functioning of societies which would be widely applicable.

These discussions always get to incredibly specific and pointless points.

In the real world it all comes to the point where if you don't have a very well educated, informed and politicaly active population sonner or later the people will get screwed by the power of the government, the corporations or both.

Which is why helping to educate, inform, and involve people with steering them both in a better direction is a very worthwhile pursuit.  And it's more possible to be much more effective at it than it ever has been in history--isn't that great?

[MoonShadow]

I was a capitalist once, too, you know...

You still are, you just don't really understand what the term means.

[MoonShadow]

Every bitcoiners here know how bitcoin and how the economy works, roughly.

I would seriously doubt that.

[MoonShadow]

Also, what do you think of the valuable data from 200 years of experimental minarchy? Namely the US constitution.

I can't speak for him, but I think that it's proof enough that it doesn't really work long term.

"Either the Constitution explicitly authorized the government that we have now, or was powerless to prevent it..."

[eMansipater]

...in interest of the larger discussion I ought to add that no matter who collects "points" from this particular issue it doesn't really contribute to a meeting and interaction of our respective ideas.  Me "getting to be right" in this paragraph is actually just a waste of both of our time--it says nothing about the validity or invalidity of our approaches.

Discourse is not a waste of time.  It is very important to nail some things out. For instance, was your non-support of the war a voluntary decision on your part or was it because you happend to be too young in the first war and happened by chance, for various complex political reasons, that the country you next lived in choose not to support the second war?  I am getting the impression that you think taxes are voluntary somehow, however your taxes not going to support the war was apparently entirely by chance from external circumstances outside of your control.

Discourse is not a waste of time, but pursuing a point simply because you hope I will have missed a key element of a situation is.  If you want to make a case for taxes being involuntary, make it directly.  Hoping to catch someone on a misstep is an emotional tactic to gain momentum for your argument--it lends no rational significance.  I could be the most bumbling debater in the history of humanity and still accidentally right.

What exactly should be done to me for not paying taxes?

If you live in and benefit from a community which has agreed to use taxation to fund certain activities of shared pertinence such as law enforcement, infrastructure, emergency services, education, etc. yet you do not pay your taxes, you become a leech on everyone else.  To prevent leeching most such communities will have a known and defined process for ascertaining your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and taking the actions the community has deemed appropriate.  If you can find a "should" in there somewhere you're welcome to try.

[error]

What exactly should be done to me for not paying taxes?

If you live in and benefit from a community which has agreed to use taxation to fund certain activities of shared pertinence such as law enforcement, infrastructure, emergency services, education, etc. yet you do not pay your taxes, you become a leech on everyone else.  To prevent leeching most such communities will have a known and defined process for ascertaining your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and taking the actions the community has deemed appropriate.  If you can find a "should" in there somewhere you're welcome to try.

I didn't see a "should," just an implied threat of violence for not paying for "services" which not only were not requested but were forced on an individual, who had no choice in what service to use or not use. This is utterly morally disgusting.

[­­­Atlas_]

Define "Benefit". Is somebody giving you an unsolicited drink freely and then sending you a tab for it at the end of the night really considered a "benefit"?

[BitterTea]

What exactly should be done to me for not paying taxes?

If you live in and benefit from a community which has agreed to use taxation to fund certain activities of shared pertinence such as law enforcement, infrastructure, emergency services, education, etc. yet you do not pay your taxes, you become a leech on everyone else.  To prevent leeching most such communities will have a known and defined process for ascertaining your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and taking the actions the community has deemed appropriate.  If you can find a "should" in there somewhere you're welcome to try.

I, and I think others, often have a hard time separating statements of fact from statements of opinion. Here, you are stating the fact that if you don't pay income tax, you will have your property seized or perhaps go to jail. I agree with this fact, however it gives me the impression that you believe this to be desirable behavior. Do you have no opinion, you prefer not to state it, or find it irrelevant?

It's difficult if not impossible to have a discussion on what should be when all you are willing to say is what is.

[FatherMcGruder]

You still are, you just don't really understand what the term means.

Well, if I do not have authority over anyone else, and I no longer aspire for such status, how am I still a capitalist?

[Anonymous]

The Queen owns Australia and Canada .

In some ways is it better to have someone who owns the country because they have a vested interest in its welfare ?

The US president is well on his way to being a king . Why dont you just crown him already and get it over and done with? To me he looks like he is because you live at his discretion now that he can just sign an executive order that you are a threat to the country. Someone with the ability to do that is obviously the supreme ruler and you should all bow down and kiss his ring.

[MoonShadow]

You still are, you just don't really understand what the term means.

Well, if I do not have authority over anyone else, and I no longer aspire for such status, how am I still a capitalist?

Case in point.

Capitalism has nothing to do with authority or influence over other people.  It is entirely about authority and influence over resources.  It's the 'anarcho' part that deals with human relationships.

[deadlizard]

The Queen owns Australia and Canada .

Guess when Australia declared sovereignty ....... when we joined the League of Nations as a founding member state, not as a colony or dominion
And nobody knows because we didn't fight a war for it. 
The Queen owns nothing outside of the U.K anymore and never had the legal right to do so

[Anonymous]

The Queen owns Australia and Canada .

Guess when Australia declared sovereignty ....... when we joined the League of Nations as a founding member state, not as a colony or dominion
And nobody knows because we didn't fight a war for it. 
The Queen owns nothing outside of the U.K anymore and never had the legal right to do so

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:
And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.


You mean people ignore a piece of paper called the constitution ? I am shocked..

Put your hand up if you think you are party to a contract drawn before you are born just because you happen to come out of someones vagina on a geographical location ?

[em3rgentOrdr]

What exactly should be done to me for not paying taxes?

If you live in and benefit from a community which has agreed to use taxation to fund certain activities of shared pertinence such as law enforcement, infrastructure, emergency services, education, etc. yet you do not pay your taxes, you become a leech on everyone else.  To prevent leeching most such communities will have a known and defined process for ascertaining your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and taking the actions the community has deemed appropriate.  If you can find a "should" in there somewhere you're welcome to try.

Wow.  Amazing.  Didn't answer my question, "What exactly should be done to me for not paying taxes?".  Danced around it a lot, though.

I, and I think others, often have a hard time separating statements of fact from statements of opinion. Here, you are stating the fact that if you don't pay income tax, you will have your property seized or perhaps go to jail. I agree with this fact, however it gives me the impression that you believe this to be desirable behavior. Do you have no opinion, you prefer not to state it, or find it irrelevant?

It's difficult if not impossible to have a discussion on what should be when all you are willing to say is what is.

Good point.  The better question for eMansipater is: "What specifically do you, eMansipater, advocate be done to me for not paying taxes?  What actions does your community deem appropriate towards an individual who does not pay taxes?  Would you condone the use of violence against me should I not pay taxes?"

I didn't see a "should," just an implied threat of violence for not paying for "services" which not only were not requested but were forced on an individual, who had no choice in what service to use or not use. This is utterly morally disgusting.

Exactly.  I did not request such services.  I did not have a choice in what services to use or not use.  And I don't even think the *quality* of the services supposedly provided are even acceptable.  Yes, it is morally disgusting.  And frustrating to debate.  If they would be forthright and simply state, "Yes, I advocate initiating threats of violence against you for not paying taxes", then you can at least know to dissociate from them.

[sortedmush]

Voluntary is a complicated notion.  Is eating voluntary?  I certainly feel that for myself I choose to eat food of my own free will without coercion and happily.  But on the other hand if I don't eat I will die.  So do I truly eat under duress of death?  A lot of voluntary has to do with a person's attitude rather than the particular circumstances.  Nonetheless the availability of an alternative is generally considered to make something voluntary.

The absense of coercion is required to make something voluntary. Since we're talking about how people interact with eachother, eating has nothing to do with it.

Are you telling me that if you had the option for your taxes not to support your children's education you would take it?  And more importantly, that you feel wronged when your taxes go to educate the child of someone who could not otherwise afford it for them?  You're not exactly currying my sympathy here--education has a pretty clear return on investment.  There do exist jurisdictions, not even just anarchist ones, where there is no government support for education--you are quite welcome to move to one of them.

I repeat. How can you teach children that stealing is wrong when their education is funded through theft? I understand perfectly that some people can't afford education for their children. I understand perfectly that at any moment I could be struck by some misfortune that would put me in the same situation. I am more than happy to help people fund the education of their children. I am not happy having my resources squandered on what passes for public education. Good education has a clear return on investment. And forget it .. I'm not moving.

On the contrary--if any community you participate in is doing unconscionable things, then you have the responsibility to speak out against it and use whatever methods are available to you within that community to prevent it.

And here I am. Speaking out and using the methods available to me (crypto currency) to prevent my own forced participation.

And you have a plan to do this in a non-disruptive way?  Then more power to you!  But if I were to sum up my response to everything above, I would say that you are trying to compare our present circumstances to nearly perfect ones.  This is the wrong comparison--rather a society deserves the support of any rational person if it is simply better than anything else available, including something they themselves are able to bring about without unconscionable action.  We are always bound by our material circumstances--that is the nature of living in a universe that is real.  But we have many tools available to improve those material circumstances--a meaningful life consists of a meaningful use of those tools.

I have a non violent plan. No such thing as a non-disruptive suggestion for change. If by unconscionable you mean non violent, then you shouldn't have any objections to our actions. If by unconscionable you mean illegal, your argument is circular. If by "meaningful use" you're talking about a rational application of logic, consistent principles and empirical evidence then I agree.

[FatherMcGruder]

Case in point.

Capitalism has nothing to do with authority or influence over other people.  It is entirely about authority and influence over resources.  It's the 'anarcho' part that deals with human relationships.

Like any capitalist, monarchs have authority and influence over the resources in their kingdom. How can a monarch become an anarchist, yet remain a monarch?

[sortedmush]

Case in point.

Capitalism has nothing to do with authority or influence over other people.  It is entirely about authority and influence over resources.  It's the 'anarcho' part that deals with human relationships.

Like any capitalist, monarchs have authority and influence over the resources in their kingdom. How can a monarch become an anarchist, yet remain a monarch?

I've yet to see this guy utter a word of sense.

[­­­Atlas_]

Case in point.

Capitalism has nothing to do with authority or influence over other people.  It is entirely about authority and influence over resources.  It's the 'anarcho' part that deals with human relationships.

Like any capitalist, monarchs have authority and influence over the resources in their kingdom. How can a monarch become an anarchist, yet remain a monarch?

It's arbitrary morality. There's no real basis for why man cannot own property.