Hey friends. Today I'd like to talk a little about political authority and where it originates. Let's start with a few hypothetical scenarios.
Scenario 1: You are met on the street by a thug. He demands your money, with the implication that should you refuse, he will commit violence. You are coerced into paying the thug to leave you alone. This is commonly accepted as theft.
Scenario 2: You meet with four other acquaintances for a business lunch. After your meal, the four people say that they agree with each other that you should pay for their lunches as well as your own. When you protest, they threaten violence. Ultimately you are coerced into paying for their meal.
Scenario 3: A mafia takes over your neighborhood. Every month, the mafia sends people to your house to pay for "protection." The implication is that should you not pay, the mafia will commit violence against you, and / or threaten your property. The mafia enforces certain rules, such as a rule against disrespecting or speaking negatively of the mafia in the streets, a rule against other crime in the neighborhood without asking the mob boss first, and a rule against selling housing or rent to certain undesirable people - perhaps of a certain creed, religion, or perhaps of a rival mafia.
Scenario 4: A group of people, selected by the population via a convoluted voting system that is not (and cannot be) representational of the public view, sets in place an extensive rule system that is, generally, designed to protect against theft, damages, or other crimes. In this set of systems, however, are rules prohibiting private actions done in ones own home that harm no other. Furthermore, this group of selected people employ others to enforce their rules. The group sets standards for many products and prohibit the sale of products that don't meet their standards. The group also produces many of their own products, and requires many actions such as putting children into small societies where they are to be socialized properly. At the beginning of each year, the group sends people to your house to pay for "protection," and, much as the mafia in scenario 3, threatens you with violence. This is commonly accepted as "taxation."
Now, which of these situations is legitimate? I'm obviously drawing a parallel between the government and the thug holding you up. I don't think it's important to the question whether or not the government is actually doing good with the money it forcibly collects - just whether or not it's representing the people it taxes - that is, each individual it taxes. Is the action of taxation legitimate? My answer - no. The difference between taxation and theft is in presentation.
One concept I first heard from Michael Huemer is that libertarians (like myself) don't believe in any rights or ideals that most people don't. The difference between libertarians and statists is that libertarians apply the same rules they apply to private organizations to the government, where statists give the government special exceptions. When an individual (or a private group of individuals) forcibly seize property, it's a crime, but when the government does it, it's taxation. Where do these special rights come from?
(a) "Libertarian" and "statist" are not mutually exclusive. There is in America a Libertarian Party, as well as a libertarian wing of the Republican Party, both of which put up candidates for office and propose policies and vote on laws and, to give one specific example, are generally more in favor of a flat tax than the abolition of taxation. The word you're looking for is "anarchist".
(b) Your claim that the "voting system is not (and cannot be) representational" is unjustified. Which is surprising, since your whole argument rests on it.
(c) Much of the history of modern liberalism has been the history of decriminalizing "private actions done in ones own home", like gay sex. But I suspect you're actually referring to drug use (because, frankly, you're sticking disappointingly close to the standard anarcho-capitalist script). And that's a genuine public health issue. You're not just harming yourself when you light up or shoot up; you're contributing to an industry and culture that brings lots of people to ruin. And not just other drug users. The economic effect on everyone in the community is very real - it's probably most striking in the data during and after the crack epidemic of the '90s.
(d) It's clear from your tone that you think "employ[ing] others to enforce their rules" and "set[ting] standards for many products" are bad things, but it's not clear why, or what relevance they have to your point.
(e) Public education, even as underfunded and mismanaged as it is in the United States, is one of the best ideas in the history of human civilization. Objecting to it demonstrates and appalling lack of historical perspective. In the United States, you don't even have to send your kids to school (although frankly you should); you can home-school instead. So your claim about "small societies" with the paranoid implication of brainwashing is not simply historically off-base, but factually incorrect. The principle here is simply that you're not allowed to leave your child without an education, because that would be very harmful to the child. Kids are people, not property - you don't have the right to do whatever you want with them. And in the bigger picture, an informed citizenry is the only way real democracy is possible. If the government really wanted a brainwashed and compliant populace, it would do whatever it could to sabotage people's educations. It's what slave-owners did to their slaves, and it's what some civil rights activists allege is still happening with the abysmal state of inner-city schooling.
(f) Taxation is not theft because it's a debt you owe to everyone else in your community. Collecting a debt is not a crime. The only theft here is when you help yourself to the services of others and then say you don't have to pay for it. And you are helping yourself by choosing to live here. It's not being forced upon you; you're free to leave at any time.
Look, I can write scenarios too:
Scenario 1: You are running a hot dog stand on the street. A guy grabs one of your hot dogs and runs off without paying. This is commonly accepted as theft.
Scenario 2: You meet with four other acquaintances for a business lunch. After your meal, one of them says that he never agreed to pay for his lunch, and you other four have to cover it. When you protest, he simply refuses. Ultimately you must either coerce him more forcefully, or give in and pay for him.
Scenario 3: You are an employee of a security company that installs, services, and monitors burglar alarms all around the neighborhood for a monthly subscription fee. One month, one of your clients says that he's not going to pay his subscription fee any more, but does not cancel his subscription, remove his burglar alarm, or take out the little sign in the window that says "Protected by Razzliox Security Systems".
Scenario 4: You live in a community with an extensive rule system that is designed to protect against theft, damages, and other crimes. You employ people to enforce these rules. You also build roads and other infrastructure, and generally create a safe, stable, and prosperous society. All these things cost money. Now, a child is born in your community. For eighteen years he grows up, not yet being asked to pay for the community benefits he's receiving but having plenty of time to get informed about his eventual responsibilities upon reaching majority should he choose to continue living here. When he does reach majority, he does choose to continue living here, getting protection from crimes and driving on the roads, all the while complaining that he's being stolen from when asked to pay the charges for these services that he's been informed about for eighteen years, and that he's not being represented when asked to vote on changing the services and charges.
There are no special rights here. It's just the regular right of debt collection. It's anarcho-capitalists who are treating the government like a special, alien entity that taxes us for no reason, rather than just a corporation in which everybody is an investor and shareholder. If I'm your neighbor, I helped build the road in front of your house. You don't just owe this distant thing called "government"; you owe me. If you don't want to owe me, don't use the stuff I paid for.
Define violence because I could see a possible false equivocation.
In scenario 1, it's clear to me because it is common knowledge what muggers will do in regards to not getting what they want. What I will point out is that this is only possible so long as the mugger is unintimidated by friends (scenario 2), community (scenario 3), or governing powers (scenario 4).
In scenario 2, I fail to see how the person could be effectively coerced into paying on the spot, if for no other reason, the people in scenario 3 and 4 gain trust for having their power by the presence of their possible interference, thereby putting the threateners in danger should they hold true to their threats. And if we're talking about today's society, there are places in our own that would prosecute on the threat alone.
In scenario 3, the mafia can only hold their power of violence by either infiltrating scenario four (see Gotham on FOX), working within the letter of scenario 4's laws, not the spirit of 4's laws, through demonstrating that they hold no fear of scenario 4 (like scenario 1), etc. I admit I don't want to go through thinking out all the possibilities because the point is that 3 can't happen without some fault on scenario 4.
In scenario 4, what you describe is too vague to honestly dissect and analyze in a meaningful way. Here's why:
A group of people, selected by the population via a convoluted voting system that is not (and cannot be) representational of the public view, sets in place an extensive rule system that is, generally, designed to protect against theft, damages, or other crimes.
How? Convoluted could be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. And finally is expressing public opinion better than expressing the public's best interest?
In this set of systems, however, are rules prohibiting private actions done in ones own home that harm no other.
Is harm* to the self good enough reason to make certain rules?
*abstract of harm makes this question difficult
Furthermore, this group of selected people employ others to enforce their rules.
I don't have a problem for this. Barack Obama's lack of military training would have made him a liability with Seal Team Six.
The group sets standards for many products and prohibit the sale of products that don't meet their standards. The group also produces many of their own products...
Is there something I should find unreasonable here? When I read this, I'm thankful that the lead was taken out of toothpaste.
...and requires many actions such as putting children into small societies where they are to be socialized properly. At the beginning of each year, the group sends people to your house to pay for "protection," and, much as the mafia in scenario 3, threatens you with violence. This is commonly accepted as "taxation."
Schools I think are an entirely different debate (I could be mistaken), but I think "protection" is an understatement or misconstruction because you get a lot more than just protection. I work in a public library and it's funded by taxation. There're other services available to the public that I think qualify as prosperity more than just protection.
More importantly, I'm pretty sure not participating in taxation does not (or at least should not) result in violence in the mafia sense unless the person not paying their taxes is violent first. At least in our society, the consequence is being removed (or more accurately imprisoned) from the society until the debt is paid. That's not violent at least in the scenario 1 & 3 sense.
The problem I see with the post is that trying to simplify a governing system to be analogous to an individual mugger is that the simplification turns a governing system into a caricature of itself (and not in the sense of political comedians like Jon Stewart) because so much of the system is now missing.
----
But let's talk about political authority, which as you stream from scenario 1-4. While the United States has large influences in John Locke, these scenarios seem to feed more off of the Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. If I remember his social contract theory correctly, the individual should trades off some of their freedoms in exchange for security (as Blinking Spirit notes: it's in their best interest). The most famous sound byte would be "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."(Source) The balance is supposed to be enough individuals just agree that they cannot do everything they want, but in exchange, if too much is taken away, then the social contract can be revoked and rewritten.
*As an aside, it's been years since I studied Hobbes. I fear I may not have represented him properly, so anyone may clarify or correct as needed*
The gist from my personal Existential slant: political authority stems from the individuals collectively deciding to exert their limited freedoms securely instead of freedom through uncertainty.
This thread is why I often hesitate to self-identify as a libertarian. People hear "libertarian" and they think of the sophomoric logical fallacies the OP is committing ITT.
The absence of a government does not maximize liberty. One's liberty is severely restricted when one is required to privately manage the logistics of things that can be more efficiently provided by a central authority (e.g. police, roads, the judicial system). On the other hand, I would agree that the current US government goes too far and oversteps its efficient role by attempting to regulate virtually everything. But at the end of the day, it's an optimization problem. It's not a simple matter of less government = better.
Hobbes' core argument is that it is in your rational self-interest to accept the social contract. That's not quite the same thing as what we're talking about here: you are, or ought to be, free to take actions even if they're against your self-interest. I could go take a sledgehammer to my car's engine block right now, for example. Establishing that you have an obligation to pay your taxes requires further argument - generally, that you have already accepted the social contract, because rejecting it would mean leaving society.
This thread is why I often hesitate to self-identify as a libertarian. People hear "libertarian" and they think of the sophomoric logical fallacies the OP is committing ITT.
(a) "Libertarian" and "statist" are not mutually exclusive. There is in America a Libertarian Party, as well as a libertarian wing of the Republican Party, both of which put up candidates for office and propose policies and vote on laws and, to give one specific example, are generally more in favor of a flat tax than the abolition of taxation. The word you're looking for is "anarchist".
That's fair, but anarchist is also misleaing. Anarchism is a socialist / communist movement, which isn't what I'm suggesting. I can combine the two for Libertarian Anarchist or Anarcho-Capitalism. The word "Libertarian" (as well as any other word that is or has been used to refer to my creed) has a whole host of historical and contextual nuances. Outside of the United States, a libertarian is considered an anarchist, typically the traditional socialist sort.
(b) Your claim that the "voting system is not (and cannot be) representational" is unjustified. Which is surprising, since your whole argument rests on it.
Two false statements. While I didn't justify it in my post, voting cannot be representative - see Arrow's Impossibility Theorum. For real-world examples, look at the Unites States - third parties have virtually no chance due to FPTP voting. Furthermore, whether or not voting is representative of the majority population view, that doesn't legitimize the use of force or violence.
(c) Much of the history of modern liberalism has been the history of decriminalizing "private actions done in ones own home", like gay sex. But I suspect you're actually referring to drug use (because, frankly, you're sticking disappointingly close to the standard anarcho-capitalist script). And that's a genuine public health issue. You're not just harming yourself when you light up or shoot up; you're contributing to an industry and culture that brings lots of people to ruin. And not just other drug users. The economic effect on everyone in the community is very real - it's probably most striking in the data during and after the crack epidemic of the '90s.
I'm actually referring to all sorts of victimless crimes. Gay sex / relationships in some countries, drug use, some sorts of private trade outside of drugs, et cetera. Of course, countries don't have to have victimless crimes, so that's not necessarily ancap rhetoric, just pro-liberty rhetoric.
I know I'm sticking to the classic AnCap rhetoric - but my point here is still relevant, I believe. I'm not trying to introduce any new ideas, merely discuss this idea on these forums.
(d) It's clear from your tone that you think "employ[ing] others to enforce their rules" and "set[ting] standards for many products" are bad things, but it's not clear why, or what relevance they have to your point.
If they have no political legitimacy - that is, don't derive their power from some sort of legitimate source - they have no right force their will on others and therefore these actions are illegitimate (except from a utilitarian PoV, which is internally consistent). Similar to any other thing.
(e) Public education, even as underfunded and mismanaged as it is in the United States, is one of the best ideas in the history of human civilization. Objecting to it demonstrates and appalling lack of historical perspective. In the United States, you don't even have to send your kids to school (although frankly you should); you can home-school instead. So your claim about "small societies" with the paranoid implication of brainwashing is not simply historically off-base, but factually incorrect. The principle here is simply that you're not allowed to leave your child without an education, because that would be very harmful to the child. Kids are people, not property - you don't have the right to do whatever you want with them. And in the bigger picture, an informed citizenry is the only way real democracy is possible. If the government really wanted a brainwashed and compliant populace, it would do whatever it could to sabotage people's educations. It's what slave-owners did to their slaves, and it's what some civil rights activists allege is still happening with the abysmal state of inner-city schooling.
While I agree with you that every child has some set of intrinsic rights that the parents ought to bestow, I'm not seeing the justification for the government to run and regulate these institutions. The government does actively sabotage education, even here in the US of A, where Democracy(tm) makes everything fair - we have many examples but for a more modern one - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/colorado-school-board-history_n_5924898.html
(f) Taxation is not theft because it's a debt you owe to everyone else in your community. Collecting a debt is not a crime. The only theft here is when you help yourself to the services of others and then say you don't have to pay for it. And you are helping yourself by choosing to live here. It's not being forced upon you; you're free to leave at any time.
Why do I owe my community? Is it because I "accept" government services? Because I walk on the roads that the government pays for (note that I have no alternative because the government has a forcible monopoly on city / suburban roads) and "allow" the government to protect me with their police force? Or is it the social contract - I sure don't remember signing that or agreeing to it. Your argument that I'm "choosing" to stay in the country is fallicious - why should I have to vacate my property because of governmetal laws? The child in your fourth scenario doesn't agree to stay in the government's territory - he agrees to stay in his own, and the government has power over that land via force. Your fourth scenario isn't analogous to your third because the security agency doesn't force me to use their security and it doesn't stop me from using alternatives.
Ultimately, my question in the OP is simply "where does political authority originate?" Certainly not from the consent of the governed - I'm not consenting.
Hobbes' core argument is that it is in your rational self-interest to accept the social contract. That's not quite the same thing as what we're talking about here: you are, or ought to be, free to take actions even if they're against your self-interest. I could go take a sledgehammer to my car's engine block right now, for example. Establishing that you have an obligation to pay your taxes requires further argument - generally, that you have already accepted the social contract, because rejecting it would mean leaving society.
Well, acting against self-interests, oftentimes even if the intent is to only harm the self, has repercussions that go beyond just the self. For example, if I took a sledgehammer to my car, then I'd be at the least be inconveniencing my friends, family, and coworkers because my lack of transportation would have consequences on the people around me. Does this mean that there should be a law against me totally my own car? Not really. Social consequences will snag a rational person in a rational moment from making that decision long before legal ramifications would even enter the picture, I would at least hope.
(a) "Libertarian" and "statist" are not mutually exclusive. There is in America a Libertarian Party, as well as a libertarian wing of the Republican Party, both of which put up candidates for office and propose policies and vote on laws and, to give one specific example, are generally more in favor of a flat tax than the abolition of taxation. The word you're looking for is "anarchist".
That's fair, but anarchist is also misleading. Anarchism is a socialist / communist movement, which isn't what I'm suggesting. I can combine the two for Libertarian Anarchist or Anarcho-Capitalism. The word "Libertarian" (as well as any other word that is or has been used to refer to my creed) has a whole host of historical and contextual nuances. Outside of the United States, a libertarian is considered an anarchist, typically the traditional socialist sort.
There is a clear and distinct difference between the end results now between a socialist movement and an anarchist movement. And to the best of my knowledge the difference rests on the balance between rights and freedom.
(b) Your claim that the "voting system is not (and cannot be) representational" is unjustified. Which is surprising, since your whole argument rests on it.
Two false statements. While I didn't justify it in my post, voting cannot be representative - see Arrow's Impossibility Theorum. For real-world examples, look at the Unites States - third parties have virtually no chance due to FPTP voting. Furthermore, whether or not voting is representative of the majority population view, that doesn't legitimize the use of force or violence.
I don't have a particular response to this on way or the other: I'd just like to say that when in doubt, check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy before Wikipedia. It adds credibility (at least for me) to have your subject (like Arrow's Theorem) because it's less likely to fall to random edits. Wikipedia was one of my pet peeves my first go around on the debate forums.
(d) It's clear from your tone that you think "employ[ing] others to enforce their rules" and "set[ting] standards for many products" are bad things, but it's not clear why, or what relevance they have to your point.
If they have no political legitimacy - that is, don't derive their power from some sort of legitimate source - they have no right force their will on others and therefore these actions are illegitimate (except from a utilitarian PoV, which is internally consistent). Similar to any other thing.
What qualifies as a legitimate source in your purview?
(e) Public education, even as underfunded and mismanaged as it is in the United States, is one of the best ideas in the history of human civilization. Objecting to it demonstrates and appalling lack of historical perspective. In the United States, you don't even have to send your kids to school (although frankly you should); you can home-school instead. So your claim about "small societies" with the paranoid implication of brainwashing is not simply historically off-base, but factually incorrect. The principle here is simply that you're not allowed to leave your child without an education, because that would be very harmful to the child. Kids are people, not property - you don't have the right to do whatever you want with them. And in the bigger picture, an informed citizenry is the only way real democracy is possible. If the government really wanted a brainwashed and compliant populace, it would do whatever it could to sabotage people's educations. It's what slave-owners did to their slaves, and it's what some civil rights activists allege is still happening with the abysmal state of inner-city schooling.
While I agree with you that every child has some set of intrinsic rights that the parents ought to bestow, I'm not seeing the justification for the government to run and regulate these institutions. The government does actively sabotage education, even here in the US of A, where Democracy(tm) makes everything fair - we have many examples but for a more modern one - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/colorado-school-board-history_n_5924898.html
Yeah, I still think this is a separate thread. The authority where the government derives its power is a separate and distinct from the faults and abuses of the government. In the case your are trying to make, that's a discussion on what qualifies as "indoctrination".
Ultimately, my question in the OP is simply "where does political authority originate?" Certainly not from the consent of the governed - I'm not consenting.
First, this means that I was right: the long tradition of Political Philosophy is officially on the table. And there is a lot to choose from.
Second, (I mean this in the most polite way I can) don't flatter yourself. The "consent of the governed" is not just you, which seems to me what you wish to imply with this remark. Every individual cannot get everything he/she wants with or without a consenting political system, and I think you should already know this because your awareness of Arrow's Theorem.
...making my statement that your claim is unjustified a true one. When you make an argument, it is your responsibility to justify your claims. It's not my job to fill in the blanks for you. Now that you've started to do your own work, we can talk.
First of all, Arrow's Theorem does not prove what you think it does. It examines ranked voting systems specifically, but many countries - among which is the United States of America - use other methods. Second, even if you cite one of the other mathematical quirks that our single-vote method does display, like the third-party thing (it's called Duverger's Law, by the way), that would not completely invalidate voting as a functional means for collective decision-making. All Arrow's Theorem and others like it say is that there exist some unusual consequences when everybody's vote lines up a certain way. It's still the case that candidates the people like more tend to get elected, and those the people like less tend not to. That's representative. To say it's not is to pit the perfect as the enemy of the good. It's like saying cars are unsafe and untrustworthy because they don't handle impacts with freight trains as well as we might prefer.
Now, you say that even a representative system would not justify the use of force against the noncompliant. But this is a much larger claim than you seem to realize. You're basically saying that all contract enforcement is illegitimate. If you and I sign a contract, what is that but the representation of our two wills? And while I don't want to make presumptions about your position, it would certainly be unusual for you to believe that I can welch on our contract without your having any legitimate recourse. Most anarcho-capitalists here say something to the effect that the violator is committing an act of aggression, and therefore contract enforcement is a form of self-defense. I don't like that conceptualization, but it gets them to the same place as me: the enforcement of an agreed-upon decision against one of the parties to that decision is allowable.
And yes, you are party to the decisions of the community in which you live, whether you literally sign a contract or not. It's simply inevitable: community actions affect everybody living there. The only way to avoid this is to leave. If the community decides to plant really ugly trees everywhere, you're gonna be dealing with really ugly trees everywhere until you go somewhere else. That's not a law forcing you out of your property; it's just the basic fact of life that you have to live in a universe with other people in it.
It's not like your property just magically appears, either. You normally have to buy it, presumably with some knowledge of the community you're buying it in. You can't fully separate the two, physically or conceptually. When you buy one, you are by necessity - again, not law, but brute necessity - buying into the other. It's frankly asinine to complain that you want the one but not the other. It's like buying a dog and complaining that now you have to feed it. (Unless you have some means of physically moving your property to some remote location beyondnthe community, in which case you are free to do so.) Alternately, you might have inherited your property. Doesn't matter. You're still making the same decision when you take possession - you could always have sold it off.) Nobody is forcing you to be in this community. Nobody is preventing you from using an alternative community. But using an alternative community happens to require picking up and moving there, just by the nature of the thing.
Your fourth scenario isn't analogous to your third because the security agency doesn't force me to use their security and it doesn't stop me from using alternatives.
If you don't find my four tenuously-connected scenarios persuasive, do you really expect me to find yours persuasive?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ultimately, my question in the OP is simply "where does political authority originate?" Certainly not from the consent of the governed - I'm not consenting.
In the survival of the species, collectivism tends to obliterate individualities. Each example of an anarchist state was eviscerated as a society by a stronger external force. Your tangential argument is about selfishness as the most efficient way to preserve freedom.
Evolution Will Punish You If You're Selfish and Mean
Essentially, that a selfish organism using a method called zero determinant could outpace a group of collective organisms. Whenever you play non cooperators against other non cooperators, bad things tend to happen is that the selfish organism needs someone to compare towards in order to out compete. If everyone follows that strategy then things descends rather quickly. In order to have a system, there has to be collaboration and cooperation which then allows for the selfish strategist to survive to have a system to compare to and take advantage of.
Now, what has happened with the sort of current collectivism is that you have western liberal democracies that have low disease rates, high technology, low violence per capita, and higher wealth. What are you offering that's so great?
For the most part, I agree with the person who stated that the logistical effects to maintain everything brings about a lower level economy. We also have a tragedy of the commons scenario that you can see with issues such as large cities at the turn of the last century in the US or China today with it's mega cities. The place where authority comes down to; evolution and reproduction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Scenario 1: You are met on the street by a thug. He demands your money, with the implication that should you refuse, he will commit violence. You are coerced into paying the thug to leave you alone. This is commonly accepted as theft.
Scenario 2: You meet with four other acquaintances for a business lunch. After your meal, the four people say that they agree with each other that you should pay for their lunches as well as your own. When you protest, they threaten violence. Ultimately you are coerced into paying for their meal.
Scenario 3: A mafia takes over your neighborhood. Every month, the mafia sends people to your house to pay for "protection." The implication is that should you not pay, the mafia will commit violence against you, and / or threaten your property. The mafia enforces certain rules, such as a rule against disrespecting or speaking negatively of the mafia in the streets, a rule against other crime in the neighborhood without asking the mob boss first, and a rule against selling housing or rent to certain undesirable people - perhaps of a certain creed, religion, or perhaps of a rival mafia.
Scenario 4: A group of people, selected by the population via a convoluted voting system that is not (and cannot be) representational of the public view, sets in place an extensive rule system that is, generally, designed to protect against theft, damages, or other crimes. In this set of systems, however, are rules prohibiting private actions done in ones own home that harm no other. Furthermore, this group of selected people employ others to enforce their rules. The group sets standards for many products and prohibit the sale of products that don't meet their standards. The group also produces many of their own products, and requires many actions such as putting children into small societies where they are to be socialized properly. At the beginning of each year, the group sends people to your house to pay for "protection," and, much as the mafia in scenario 3, threatens you with violence. This is commonly accepted as "taxation."
Now, which of these situations is legitimate? I'm obviously drawing a parallel between the government and the thug holding you up. I don't think it's important to the question whether or not the government is actually doing good with the money it forcibly collects - just whether or not it's representing the people it taxes - that is, each individual it taxes. Is the action of taxation legitimate? My answer - no. The difference between taxation and theft is in presentation.
One concept I first heard from Michael Huemer is that libertarians (like myself) don't believe in any rights or ideals that most people don't. The difference between libertarians and statists is that libertarians apply the same rules they apply to private organizations to the government, where statists give the government special exceptions. When an individual (or a private group of individuals) forcibly seize property, it's a crime, but when the government does it, it's taxation. Where do these special rights come from?
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
(b) Your claim that the "voting system is not (and cannot be) representational" is unjustified. Which is surprising, since your whole argument rests on it.
(c) Much of the history of modern liberalism has been the history of decriminalizing "private actions done in ones own home", like gay sex. But I suspect you're actually referring to drug use (because, frankly, you're sticking disappointingly close to the standard anarcho-capitalist script). And that's a genuine public health issue. You're not just harming yourself when you light up or shoot up; you're contributing to an industry and culture that brings lots of people to ruin. And not just other drug users. The economic effect on everyone in the community is very real - it's probably most striking in the data during and after the crack epidemic of the '90s.
(d) It's clear from your tone that you think "employ[ing] others to enforce their rules" and "set[ting] standards for many products" are bad things, but it's not clear why, or what relevance they have to your point.
(e) Public education, even as underfunded and mismanaged as it is in the United States, is one of the best ideas in the history of human civilization. Objecting to it demonstrates and appalling lack of historical perspective. In the United States, you don't even have to send your kids to school (although frankly you should); you can home-school instead. So your claim about "small societies" with the paranoid implication of brainwashing is not simply historically off-base, but factually incorrect. The principle here is simply that you're not allowed to leave your child without an education, because that would be very harmful to the child. Kids are people, not property - you don't have the right to do whatever you want with them. And in the bigger picture, an informed citizenry is the only way real democracy is possible. If the government really wanted a brainwashed and compliant populace, it would do whatever it could to sabotage people's educations. It's what slave-owners did to their slaves, and it's what some civil rights activists allege is still happening with the abysmal state of inner-city schooling.
(f) Taxation is not theft because it's a debt you owe to everyone else in your community. Collecting a debt is not a crime. The only theft here is when you help yourself to the services of others and then say you don't have to pay for it. And you are helping yourself by choosing to live here. It's not being forced upon you; you're free to leave at any time.
Look, I can write scenarios too:
Scenario 1: You are running a hot dog stand on the street. A guy grabs one of your hot dogs and runs off without paying. This is commonly accepted as theft.
Scenario 2: You meet with four other acquaintances for a business lunch. After your meal, one of them says that he never agreed to pay for his lunch, and you other four have to cover it. When you protest, he simply refuses. Ultimately you must either coerce him more forcefully, or give in and pay for him.
Scenario 3: You are an employee of a security company that installs, services, and monitors burglar alarms all around the neighborhood for a monthly subscription fee. One month, one of your clients says that he's not going to pay his subscription fee any more, but does not cancel his subscription, remove his burglar alarm, or take out the little sign in the window that says "Protected by Razzliox Security Systems".
Scenario 4: You live in a community with an extensive rule system that is designed to protect against theft, damages, and other crimes. You employ people to enforce these rules. You also build roads and other infrastructure, and generally create a safe, stable, and prosperous society. All these things cost money. Now, a child is born in your community. For eighteen years he grows up, not yet being asked to pay for the community benefits he's receiving but having plenty of time to get informed about his eventual responsibilities upon reaching majority should he choose to continue living here. When he does reach majority, he does choose to continue living here, getting protection from crimes and driving on the roads, all the while complaining that he's being stolen from when asked to pay the charges for these services that he's been informed about for eighteen years, and that he's not being represented when asked to vote on changing the services and charges.
There are no special rights here. It's just the regular right of debt collection. It's anarcho-capitalists who are treating the government like a special, alien entity that taxes us for no reason, rather than just a corporation in which everybody is an investor and shareholder. If I'm your neighbor, I helped build the road in front of your house. You don't just owe this distant thing called "government"; you owe me. If you don't want to owe me, don't use the stuff I paid for.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In scenario 1, it's clear to me because it is common knowledge what muggers will do in regards to not getting what they want. What I will point out is that this is only possible so long as the mugger is unintimidated by friends (scenario 2), community (scenario 3), or governing powers (scenario 4).
In scenario 2, I fail to see how the person could be effectively coerced into paying on the spot, if for no other reason, the people in scenario 3 and 4 gain trust for having their power by the presence of their possible interference, thereby putting the threateners in danger should they hold true to their threats. And if we're talking about today's society, there are places in our own that would prosecute on the threat alone.
In scenario 3, the mafia can only hold their power of violence by either infiltrating scenario four (see Gotham on FOX), working within the letter of scenario 4's laws, not the spirit of 4's laws, through demonstrating that they hold no fear of scenario 4 (like scenario 1), etc. I admit I don't want to go through thinking out all the possibilities because the point is that 3 can't happen without some fault on scenario 4.
In scenario 4, what you describe is too vague to honestly dissect and analyze in a meaningful way. Here's why:
How? Convoluted could be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. And finally is expressing public opinion better than expressing the public's best interest?
Is harm* to the self good enough reason to make certain rules?
*abstract of harm makes this question difficult
I don't have a problem for this. Barack Obama's lack of military training would have made him a liability with Seal Team Six.
Is there something I should find unreasonable here? When I read this, I'm thankful that the lead was taken out of toothpaste.
Schools I think are an entirely different debate (I could be mistaken), but I think "protection" is an understatement or misconstruction because you get a lot more than just protection. I work in a public library and it's funded by taxation. There're other services available to the public that I think qualify as prosperity more than just protection.
More importantly, I'm pretty sure not participating in taxation does not (or at least should not) result in violence in the mafia sense unless the person not paying their taxes is violent first. At least in our society, the consequence is being removed (or more accurately imprisoned) from the society until the debt is paid. That's not violent at least in the scenario 1 & 3 sense.
The problem I see with the post is that trying to simplify a governing system to be analogous to an individual mugger is that the simplification turns a governing system into a caricature of itself (and not in the sense of political comedians like Jon Stewart) because so much of the system is now missing.
----
But let's talk about political authority, which as you stream from scenario 1-4. While the United States has large influences in John Locke, these scenarios seem to feed more off of the Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. If I remember his social contract theory correctly, the individual should trades off some of their freedoms in exchange for security (as Blinking Spirit notes: it's in their best interest). The most famous sound byte would be "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."(Source) The balance is supposed to be enough individuals just agree that they cannot do everything they want, but in exchange, if too much is taken away, then the social contract can be revoked and rewritten.
*As an aside, it's been years since I studied Hobbes. I fear I may not have represented him properly, so anyone may clarify or correct as needed*
The gist from my personal Existential slant: political authority stems from the individuals collectively deciding to exert their limited freedoms securely instead of freedom through uncertainty.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
The absence of a government does not maximize liberty. One's liberty is severely restricted when one is required to privately manage the logistics of things that can be more efficiently provided by a central authority (e.g. police, roads, the judicial system). On the other hand, I would agree that the current US government goes too far and oversteps its efficient role by attempting to regulate virtually everything. But at the end of the day, it's an optimization problem. It's not a simple matter of less government = better.
"Classical liberalism" is where it's at, dude.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's fair, but anarchist is also misleaing. Anarchism is a socialist / communist movement, which isn't what I'm suggesting. I can combine the two for Libertarian Anarchist or Anarcho-Capitalism. The word "Libertarian" (as well as any other word that is or has been used to refer to my creed) has a whole host of historical and contextual nuances. Outside of the United States, a libertarian is considered an anarchist, typically the traditional socialist sort.
Two false statements. While I didn't justify it in my post, voting cannot be representative - see Arrow's Impossibility Theorum. For real-world examples, look at the Unites States - third parties have virtually no chance due to FPTP voting. Furthermore, whether or not voting is representative of the majority population view, that doesn't legitimize the use of force or violence.
I'm actually referring to all sorts of victimless crimes. Gay sex / relationships in some countries, drug use, some sorts of private trade outside of drugs, et cetera. Of course, countries don't have to have victimless crimes, so that's not necessarily ancap rhetoric, just pro-liberty rhetoric.
I know I'm sticking to the classic AnCap rhetoric - but my point here is still relevant, I believe. I'm not trying to introduce any new ideas, merely discuss this idea on these forums.
If they have no political legitimacy - that is, don't derive their power from some sort of legitimate source - they have no right force their will on others and therefore these actions are illegitimate (except from a utilitarian PoV, which is internally consistent). Similar to any other thing.
While I agree with you that every child has some set of intrinsic rights that the parents ought to bestow, I'm not seeing the justification for the government to run and regulate these institutions. The government does actively sabotage education, even here in the US of A, where Democracy(tm) makes everything fair - we have many examples but for a more modern one - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/colorado-school-board-history_n_5924898.html
Why do I owe my community? Is it because I "accept" government services? Because I walk on the roads that the government pays for (note that I have no alternative because the government has a forcible monopoly on city / suburban roads) and "allow" the government to protect me with their police force? Or is it the social contract - I sure don't remember signing that or agreeing to it. Your argument that I'm "choosing" to stay in the country is fallicious - why should I have to vacate my property because of governmetal laws? The child in your fourth scenario doesn't agree to stay in the government's territory - he agrees to stay in his own, and the government has power over that land via force. Your fourth scenario isn't analogous to your third because the security agency doesn't force me to use their security and it doesn't stop me from using alternatives.
Ultimately, my question in the OP is simply "where does political authority originate?" Certainly not from the consent of the governed - I'm not consenting.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
There is a clear and distinct difference between the end results now between a socialist movement and an anarchist movement. And to the best of my knowledge the difference rests on the balance between rights and freedom.
I don't have a particular response to this on way or the other: I'd just like to say that when in doubt, check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy before Wikipedia. It adds credibility (at least for me) to have your subject (like Arrow's Theorem) because it's less likely to fall to random edits. Wikipedia was one of my pet peeves my first go around on the debate forums.
What qualifies as a legitimate source in your purview?
Yeah, I still think this is a separate thread. The authority where the government derives its power is a separate and distinct from the faults and abuses of the government. In the case your are trying to make, that's a discussion on what qualifies as "indoctrination".
First, this means that I was right: the long tradition of Political Philosophy is officially on the table. And there is a lot to choose from.
Second, (I mean this in the most polite way I can) don't flatter yourself. The "consent of the governed" is not just you, which seems to me what you wish to imply with this remark. Every individual cannot get everything he/she wants with or without a consenting political system, and I think you should already know this because your awareness of Arrow's Theorem.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
First of all, Arrow's Theorem does not prove what you think it does. It examines ranked voting systems specifically, but many countries - among which is the United States of America - use other methods. Second, even if you cite one of the other mathematical quirks that our single-vote method does display, like the third-party thing (it's called Duverger's Law, by the way), that would not completely invalidate voting as a functional means for collective decision-making. All Arrow's Theorem and others like it say is that there exist some unusual consequences when everybody's vote lines up a certain way. It's still the case that candidates the people like more tend to get elected, and those the people like less tend not to. That's representative. To say it's not is to pit the perfect as the enemy of the good. It's like saying cars are unsafe and untrustworthy because they don't handle impacts with freight trains as well as we might prefer.
Now, you say that even a representative system would not justify the use of force against the noncompliant. But this is a much larger claim than you seem to realize. You're basically saying that all contract enforcement is illegitimate. If you and I sign a contract, what is that but the representation of our two wills? And while I don't want to make presumptions about your position, it would certainly be unusual for you to believe that I can welch on our contract without your having any legitimate recourse. Most anarcho-capitalists here say something to the effect that the violator is committing an act of aggression, and therefore contract enforcement is a form of self-defense. I don't like that conceptualization, but it gets them to the same place as me: the enforcement of an agreed-upon decision against one of the parties to that decision is allowable.
And yes, you are party to the decisions of the community in which you live, whether you literally sign a contract or not. It's simply inevitable: community actions affect everybody living there. The only way to avoid this is to leave. If the community decides to plant really ugly trees everywhere, you're gonna be dealing with really ugly trees everywhere until you go somewhere else. That's not a law forcing you out of your property; it's just the basic fact of life that you have to live in a universe with other people in it.
It's not like your property just magically appears, either. You normally have to buy it, presumably with some knowledge of the community you're buying it in. You can't fully separate the two, physically or conceptually. When you buy one, you are by necessity - again, not law, but brute necessity - buying into the other. It's frankly asinine to complain that you want the one but not the other. It's like buying a dog and complaining that now you have to feed it. (Unless you have some means of physically moving your property to some remote location beyondnthe community, in which case you are free to do so.) Alternately, you might have inherited your property. Doesn't matter. You're still making the same decision when you take possession - you could always have sold it off.) Nobody is forcing you to be in this community. Nobody is preventing you from using an alternative community. But using an alternative community happens to require picking up and moving there, just by the nature of the thing.
If you don't find my four tenuously-connected scenarios persuasive, do you really expect me to find yours persuasive?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In the survival of the species, collectivism tends to obliterate individualities. Each example of an anarchist state was eviscerated as a society by a stronger external force. Your tangential argument is about selfishness as the most efficient way to preserve freedom.
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/evolution-will-punish-you-if-youre-selfish-and-mean/
Evolution Will Punish You If You're Selfish and Mean
Essentially, that a selfish organism using a method called zero determinant could outpace a group of collective organisms. Whenever you play non cooperators against other non cooperators, bad things tend to happen is that the selfish organism needs someone to compare towards in order to out compete. If everyone follows that strategy then things descends rather quickly. In order to have a system, there has to be collaboration and cooperation which then allows for the selfish strategist to survive to have a system to compare to and take advantage of.
Now, what has happened with the sort of current collectivism is that you have western liberal democracies that have low disease rates, high technology, low violence per capita, and higher wealth. What are you offering that's so great?
For the most part, I agree with the person who stated that the logistical effects to maintain everything brings about a lower level economy. We also have a tragedy of the commons scenario that you can see with issues such as large cities at the turn of the last century in the US or China today with it's mega cities. The place where authority comes down to; evolution and reproduction.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>