http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I like the idea of a smaller government myself, Raj. I sometimes imagine what it would be like to start over on a deserted island with some people I really like and trust. A cul de sac of my best friends and some family, helping each other.
But no, I wouldn’t get rid of things like unemployment benefits. And I’d always want some aid for people who get hurt, or who are elderly and infirm. I agree with you about some things to a degree, but I can’t imagine pulling back all of it. We’ll always have people who legitimately need our help. I think you can argue that this kind of thing gives us stability.
Often families and local churches and charities can do things that the government cannot because they see individual needs in a way a government agency just can’t. You see these kinds of supports be more effective in small groups, like Jewbacca’s orthodox community, where people really know each other. If someone gets breast cancer, they are going to watch kids, and bring in casseroles, and help with finances. We’ll never replace that sort of thing.
Too much dispersion of responsibility to rely on a strictly voluntary social safety net.
So Raj, what organizations do you feel strongly enough about to folunteer for now, and furthermore, how much more would you do or donate if you were not being taxed?
I can’t wait to see where this thread goes. Who doesn’t like a good fantasy novel?
1 Like
I have my doubts about this example.
At any rate even if we accept this, there are many examples the other way.
Start with an easy one: slavery in America was a government institution and it actually slowed down industrialization because it prevented the investment by firms into labor saving devices.
Modern parallel : illegal immigrants as plantation workers
I’d like to hear your answer to this. I know you said that this is a philosophical discussion, but this is one of those cases where philosophy can be directly exemplified.
Lets hear it.
2 Likes
https://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts
Slavery is a part of U.S. history, but it was never a government institution. There are numerous examples of colonial America’s trying to end slavery in America even before the Declaration of Independence was written:
http://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm
1789:
Thomas Jefferson attempted to end slavery before he was even a member of the Continental Congress and eventually as the President.
There are many many more examples.
These two things aren’t even remotely the same.
1 Like
When I say voluntary I mean everything is up to the individual they want to pay for. Not coerced
Example : all roads would be privately run and you’d pay for the roads you used. Or you’d pay for firefighters if you wanted coverage for your area etc.
As for donation I think once my personal needs are more than met and my family’s needs are more than met I wouldn’t hesitate to donate a good amount of money. I couldn’t give you a figure
Lol
1 Like
To be against coercion is to be an anarchist. So to be anything but an anarchist is to be in favor of coercion? Interesting. I basically agree.
Well, here’s your starting point
It seems as though this would give rise to a feudal state, people/companies/groups would control small (or large) sections of area and would do upkeep on roads, provide basic working necessities (water, sewage, etc.) as long as you worked for them at a depressed wage (“Well see, we really are paying you more because you can drive the roads in your area, have water, have protection.”) It seems like it would turn into a system where rather than money being taken out of your pocket with taxes, it simply would never make it there. But then even with this system it would rely on the good graces of the folks in charge to not continue depressing wages to make more of a profit.
1 Like
Ya… This is one of the logical conclusion of an anarchical society. Another is simply a dictatorship. Another is a temporarily free society absorbed by a foreign power.
The necessity of government and by extension taxation is a necessity predicated on the fact that coercion is human nature.
*Even TheRaj admits as much:
Taxation didn’t suddenly become not theft using his logic because even he understands government, which requires funding, is necessary to secure the people of the nation.
1 Like
You get paid what you’re worth. If you can’t find a better paying job guess what? You’re only worth that depressed wage
It seems… like just about every one of Raj’s theories, that this wouldn’t work at all.
I’m all for small government, but in this anarchist fantasy I’m assuming everything is self-regulated. If we are really in Raj’s fantasy world how is he keeping all the illegals out? And if somebody uses illegal labor, slaves, or child labor, who prevents that? IIRC, Raj, you’re also against globalism. How do you control imports/exports?
Agreed. This is a fantasy, and a poor one at that. Most fantasy at least has some realistic components that make it relatable. I certainly wouldn’t want to be waiting for Raj’s donations to help his fellow man.
That is correct, yes. Note that I am specifically not using the term anarchist in its common, pejorative sense of meaning (off the cuff) ‘in favor of chaos for chaos’ sake.’
Not speaking for theraj, but it seems important to mention that one can be against something like violence while not having a viable plan to rid the world of it and even supporting it’s use within limits. I’m against killing people, but I don’t have a plan to get rid of it, and I support self defense.
That’s easy, every square inch of the land formerly known as “The United States of America” will be privately owned/claimed by individuals and it will be the individual’s responsibility to keep illegals off their land. Heaven help you if you live in a landlocked area.
That’s true, I’ve got no problem when someone is simply against something without having an alternative plan. Some problems aren’t easily solvable
However, a couple of things from my perspective.
First, as it relates to TheRaj, he has indeed specified what he believes the alternative should be. A society based on voluntarism. If we follow this to its logical conclusion we can see the likely outcomes are not so great.
Secondly, the example you use (violence) and TheRaj’s (Taxation is theft) are, IMO, very different.
Let’s walk through your example: Being against violence, but understanding and supportive of defensive violence.
The way I see it is, you are against the unnecessary use of force, ie, as a means of coercion, cruelty, etc… However, you support the natural right of self-defense. To me, these are two entirely different things. Two separate forms of “violence” if you will. I don’t know of a single person that would argue self-defense is wrong or unethical (There are probably some whack jobs…).
The difference, again IMO, is that TheRaj has stated unequivocally that taxation is theft, but he supports the use of theft (using his logic) in order to pay for the common defense. Well, again IMO, I don’t know of a single person that believe theft is ever morally acceptable. Further, it’s a direct violation of the very society TheRaj is pushing for. A 100% voluntary one.
In other words, TheRaj is saying that theft is coercion and coercion is wrong except in this specific case it’s okay for the group to premeditatively coerce you. You, on the other hand, are saying violence is generally wrong, but if someone else wrongs you through violence then and only then is it moral to defend yourself in kind. One is preemptive and by its nature coercive (following his logic) while the other is reactionary and a defense against coercion itself.
I didn’t explicitly state it before, but I’m not defending theraj, and do not agree with him.
I personally am against coercion in all it’s forms, including governmental. Taxation is evil and morally if not legally equivalent to theft, though of an incredibly polite type. However, it might be the best we can do. Anarchism is NOT volunteerism. To exchange democratic government violence for anarchism is to exchange group democratic coercion for individual non-democratic coercion. I believe neither in the axiom that the individual is evil and society restrains him, nor that the individual is good and society corrupts. Neither is wholly good nor wholly evil. Without knowing how to perfect the earthly human condition (something any good Christian should believe impossible) we are left to do the best we can with what we do know. If you can chain together the 2 demons (tyranny of individuals and tyranny of the collective) and get them to pull against one another, sometimes you can achieve something resembling balance. You just have to make sure you feed them equally so one doesn’t get stronger than the other.
1 Like
I undestand.