Recently I got involved an interesting philosophical discussion on Facebook (where else!) concerning taxation and the proposition that if you don’t pay your taxes men with guns will come and take you to jail or kill you (all true). One participant brought some focus to the conversation by distilling down the core argument to one of a) should we have government (b) how shall we pay for it (c) constitutions are like contracts. All good points, however embedded in each one is either a false choice or a fallacious assumption. So below I will reproduce his post and then my follow up as I address some of the main fallacies.
here is the quoted content from the post I will be responding to:
This conversation, and every conversation about the scope of govt comes back to the same place. The first division is you are either an anarchist or you want some kind of law. The moment you say you want some kind of law, you are agreeing that at some point in the process of enforcing the law, a dude from the govt with a gun will come take you away. And I am okay with that – no point in pretending we have laws if they are not going to be enforced.I am willing to listen to discussion, but anarchy is probably not for me, or most of us. So then it’s like the old joke about the prostitute – we’ve already established what you are (pro-govt of some kind), now we’re just haggling over price. Where is the line in the sand as far as your philosophy of the proper scope of the law?I would suggest that the only useful argument by a libertarian about government is that it ought only exist to prevent one adult from using force or fraud to gain from another adult – whether that gain is via money or to forward an agenda. Situations involving children and the mentally impaired are naturally given to tighter governance.So to me, the idea that we’re arguing over whether or not you must / ought pay federal taxes so the govt can fund its activities is a little pointless. The only real argument for strict Constitutionalists or libertarians ought to be about the USE of the money, not the government’s right to take it. The law of tooth and claw was used to appropriate the land upon which I sit and afterward to create the govt that exists here – the RIGHT is almost irrelevant. Were I to be successful in dissolving this (formerly) useful govt, it is most likely a worse govt would take its place. There is no perfect freedom on this side of heaven, so the notion that no entity can curb my inclinations or bind my freedom is almost childish.We can get into a lot of philosophical discussions about man being created free and whatnot, but the fact is that there will be some govt, and we enter into “contracts” (the Constitution, say) with other free people to create these govts that will enforce our individual rights to property and to secure freedom from invasion, etc. With our ancestors having agreed to some form of these contracts, and most of us agreeing that they ought to exist in one form or another, we should be focused on the quality of the contracts, not the terms of enforcement.
Here is my response:
Your points I think have helped to focus the discussion, however the underlying assumptions simply reinforce the false dichotomous choice that is beaten into us from day one (by our educators, our literature and the state media) – namely that one has a choice of either being ruled by others (in the form of this thing we call government) OR absolute and total chaos with no laws or order whatsoever. Obviously with a choice like that who would pick the latter? And to an extent I think part of the failure for the proper alternative being made understood falls at the feat of us libertarians – we (or some of us) throw the word “anarchy” around and do not explain at all what is intended by the use of that phrase. I personally prefer “voluntaryism” – it’s enough of a neologism that it carries none of the associated emotional baggage of “anarchy”. We want the freedom of choice. Not the freedom to state our choice and have it vetoed by a “majority”, but to actually be allowed to execute our choice.
When we libertarians speak of “freedom from government” we do not intend a lawless, chaotic, anything goes sort of wild west world. Far from it. We want government. We want order. It’s just that we want to pick our own government to associate with. And we do not believe that simply because I happen to live next door to you and you want to associate with a government that establishes rules that promote Ideology A and I want to associate with one that promotes Ideology B, your choice should have any bearing on my choice.
Think about it for a minute. I’m proposing something no more controversial than what we currently practice today – freedom of religion. If I’m Catholic and I live in a town full of Baptists it would seem ludicrous to anyone to suggest that “well since a majority of people who live here are Baptist, well, you have to be Baptist too, or at the least you have to do all the things the Baptists require” – and that if I didn’t comply I would be throw in jail. That’s insane – and rightly so, and everyone would agree that that would be insane. And so it is no different with government. This type of governance is not unknown. It is sometimes referred to as a “clan” system. In more “primitive” stateless societies families had a self-interest in protecting each other. They came to each other’s defense and helped each other in times of need. In time it became customary for non-family members to join a family or clan for such protection purposes (voluntarily paying or contributing something in return – i.e. truly voluntary “taxation”). However all members of the clan were responsible for the behavior of its members. If one member injured someone in another clan then all members must make restitution. They then obviously had a self-interest in preventing such behavior from those they knew to be the most troublesome. Eventually if a member behaved badly enough consistently enough they were thrown out of the clan and thus had no protection of any kind from any group. They were an “outlaw” – which meant that anyone could kill them, rob them whatever without any consequence whatsoever. That’s a pretty big incentive to not become an outlaw and behave as directed by the customs and laws of your clan. (For a brief discussion of this system in Ireland please see this interview with Gerard Casey by Tom Woods ). In order for all clans to get along they tended to adopt the same basic “common laws” against violence, theft, rape, etc. So in this way we can see how “law” can exist without an over arching state. Everybody is against rape and murder. But not everyone might be for space exploration, or green energy, etc. Essentially each clan is a government, the only difference being they did not have specific geographical boundaries. Members of multiple clans could all live in the same city and get along just fine. There is no reason such a system could not operate today on a larger scale, one where entities very similar to insurance carriers took the place of the role of government in dispute resolution, restitution, crime mitigation (less crime, less to pay out in losses). If such an entity does not provide what people want, they will go elsewhere. Without a barrier to entry imposed by outside regulations no one could ever “take over” such an industry, the market would always be providing those that could do it better, faster, cheaper, etc.
This has gotten a lot longer than I intended, but let me just touch on another point you made. The one of contracts is germane, however you again accept the “party line” that the fact that our ancestors freely entered into a contract (the Constitution) somehow morally binds us to that same contractual obligation in perpetuity. How can it? Are we bound by the contracts our parents sign? If your parents had a huge amount of debt and then died would you want to suddenly be saddled with that? What if I could vote myself out of the contract, but my siblings wanted to remain party to it, and thus I was then bound by their vote – why should I be bound by their choice? There really is no difference between that and the idea that we are all still adhering (or pretending to adhere) to a contractual document signed by people that have all been dead for nearly 200 years. I talk about this idea of contractual slavery more here
You state that you are a Libertarian and that your concepts of for lack of better description, “Self Organizing” with the “government of your choice, whether co-located or virtual will solve all of the problems facing the human race today. Is that at least a somewhat accurate summation of your principal tenet?
With the world population at or near 8 billion people with a natural but uneven distribution of resources, how will the world interact in a meaningful manner, with a semblance of justice and sanity but without coercion?
As you are probably aware, the human species does not seem to manifest the internal constructs to not only allow, but generate that type of sense of “virtual community”. Wishing something were to transpire that would enable (without coercion again) that type of “Universal” dedication to brotherhood is an impossibility at this point in the history of mankind. It is a noble but utterly unrealistic concept with which to hang one’s hat on. That is unfortunately a simple Truth!
Being a Libertarian myself (albeit with certain understanding of the nature of human beings) with a strong aversion to over-reaching and over-bearing government, the reality is that unless we all take the concept of “your freedom ends at the tip of my nose” and we are all willing to defend ourselves from whomever wishes to take our Freedoms, our lives or even our “God given” rights, chaos will ensue as sure as night follows day or vice versa.
It is great having “Uptopian” goals however unless couched in reality, they end up being a “fools” errand! also, being that Utopianism has been manifested over the years in many literary works however, each one (remember Communism was a Utopian dream as well) has fallen by the wayside (with the exception of the die-hards who still believe in those erroneous views) by folks believing that these failed plans and ideas failed only because the “right people” weren’t in charge, but the wrong one’s were. Another false assumption by those who have too much invested in their ideas.
No, unfortunately with the concepts that you seem to be putting forth, the only way to ensure the outcome (and it will not happen in my lifetime) would be to impose a dictatorship that has been enabled with complete “Dictatorial” powers granted by the state (1984 – Fabianism is a great example). So! We have the choice between what we have now, a (still) Constitutional democratic republic (yes, there is an oligarchy involved here as well), an encroaching UN ruled by a worldwide Oligarchy or, the imposition of 1984 and Atlas Shrugged under a despotic government and dictatorship (perhaps creating 3 super nation states). None of these realistic choices perfect or even necessarily palatable however they all represent something that works about as good as one can get at this point in time.
These are still about as far from a Utopian society as one can get and, none probably approach what a “True” LIbertarian could ever hang his or her hat on in good faith because being a Libertarian does not mean eschewing reality and making decisions that are doomed to fail but rather being a little introspective and pushing forward those ideals that fit in this place and in this time. For what its worth!
On Nov 7, 2015, at 11:04, Joe wrote:
Almost – I do not claim that a voluntaryist type society will solve all problems of the human race, merely that both on utilitarian grounds as well as ethical grounds the outcome will be an improvement over the current state of affairs. Removing artificial state imposed constraints on the actions of individuals allows for more exploration, experimentation, and alternative approaches – this increases, but does not guarantee, the likelihood that better solutions are found that are a net gain for all. If we allow government/the state to only permit one choice it is about as likely that the “best” approach was selected to solving some problem as there is that any one of us will win the lottery.
Trade. Of course I mean actual free market trade and not managed crony-capitalist-mercantilist state backed trade. Look at Hong Kong – it is arguably the most resource poor bit of rock in the world and yet it is one of the wealthiest. Areas poor in natural resources can build an advantage in terms of human resources, likewise natural resource rich areas may be poor in human resources if they are not areas where people would want to live., but they have something that people want. If the ideal is that violent force can not be used to govern human interactions, then the only alternative is voluntary interactions and trade is the best example of that (although it doesn’t have to be economic trade… friends can talk and “trade” ideas and derive satisfaction and enjoyment from that such that both are better off just as people are better off after engaging in economic trades)
This is a common trap to fall into, where it is believed the only way people can peacefully interact with each other is if everyone, 100% of the population is peaceful… that apparently if there are a few “bad” people it means we throw our hands up in the air and say “well, guess we need an overpowering monopolistic state to handle all security concerns – there is simply not other alternative under the sun!”
What I am describing does not require or assume a world populated with perfect humans. It assumes exactly the same distribution of good and bad types. People still naturally want to be protected from those that would use violence to take what is theirs. The crazy part is if we all fear this, why do we all (nearly) support a system that institutionalizes that very violence in order to protect us? Absent state run courts or police service there would be a multitude of companies offering such services. Those that do a good job at it will stay in business, those that don’t (i.e. those that come to your house and shoot your dog or your child while responding to a call) will go out of business. Right now we have no choice.
All I’m saying is the world would not fall apart if there were a choice. Competing protection forces would not fight each other for dominance. Why? Warfare is expensive, both in money and human lives. It’s just not worth it. The only reason gangs and black market dealers turn to violence to settle disputes is they _can’t_ avail themselves of the court system…. But in a non-state world nothing is illegal except murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, etc – so there is no reason to instantly become violent… lot less costly to go to voluntary arbitration/private court to settle disputes. That’s all courts are – a way to settle disputes. Private judges with a good reputation for fairness would build a strong business. Those that are underhanded or take bribes would get a bad rep pretty quick and nobody would use them anymore. Competition takes care of the imperfections in humanity. Profit and competition are the “regulators” of society. Profit tells someone they are doing something people want more of, so do more of it. Competition weeds out the poor providers from the best providers. Is it perfect? No. Is it fast? No. But neither is a state dominated world, so that is hardly an indictment one can use to discount such an approach without simultaneously discounting the state run approach as well.
Well I think approaches can be sought at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Work to improve things now as they are (e.g.taxes are theft but I’d prefer 20% tax vs 40% or all drugs should be “legal” but hey if its just marijuana for now and that means X fewer people go to jail for a victimless crime, that is an improvement) but never lose site or stop talking about what the ideal is. In a slavery world the “utopian” idea was one of a world without slavery. The only reason we had slavery was because people supported it (through government). The only reason we have the state is because people support the idea. Ultimately the goal of a free society can never be achieved until all choose to remove their support and the state crumbles from within for lack of support. That can only happen by changing minds… and the hearts will follow. Education is the key, although that is difficult when the state controlled schools teach all that the state is necessary for their survival. But we don’t have to education 100%, just the youth, who as society ages and the old die off, will come to dominate more and more with their ideas of freedom. I think it has been said that only like 20-25% of the people have to come to believe something and soon it will dominate… that there is a large segment of society that will just go along with anything… so if you can get to 25% or so soon you have over 50% and then it snowballs. 20 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable. Now it’s the “law” of the land. There is hope and it originates from our progeny.
True, but neither I nor any libertarian I’ve ever heard has espoused as a pathway to our goals a dictatorial model of “forcing” freedom on everyone or just getting the right person elected. Sure if Ron Paul had been elected President that would have gone a long way toward improving things, but it still would not have brought about the voluntaryist society I see humanity someday embracing… or that it must embrace if we as a species ever hope to make the argument we are a moral and ethical species.
Sorry, I don’t follow, how would my ideal of a stateless world be made possibly through the powers of a state to enforce a stateless world? That sounds more like anarcho-communists that want to force (e.g. rule) on everyone the idea that no one should use force. That is the definition of cognitive dissonance.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts and feedback. If you want to read some more in depth (while still light reading) take a look at Robert Murphy’s “Chaos Theory” (free copy here -> https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory I got a lot of ideas from Bob although I think I may have expanded or answered some other questions in my writing (not sure, I haven’t read Chaos Theory in a while to see how much I ‘stole” from him 😉
Regards
Greg