Yesterday I was watching the Errol Flynn Version of Robin Hood, made in those grand old days of 1930's Socialist Hollywood. I was a bit surprised about the amount of "preaching" that went on around the action. Whether it was Maid Marian's speech to Guy Gisburn and Prince John, where she attacks the Norman/Saxon racism, or Robin's speech to Marian about the Government's responsibilities to the people, not to the wealthy.
This was the era that brought about Franklin liberalism, where stealing from the rich to give to the starving proved to be a cure for the common man.
Of course, my imagination did not stop there.
It struck me that "Steal from the rich and give to the poor" is the anti-thesis of the Libertarian way.
Yet a remake of Robin Hood as a Libertarian is not hard to imagine.
Robin Hood did not fight the wealthy as much as he fought--UNFAIR TAXES. He robbed the rich IN THE GOVERNMENT. He also robbed the churchmen, but only those who abused their position to support the crooked government.
The abuses mentioned in the movie, and in most of the books and series I've watched about Robin Hood, were the results of the agonies of tax collection.
The government controls everything in Robin's world, right down to the food that runs wild. The hard working people are "taxed to death" literally, and not allowed to feed themselves.
The "poor" who received the wealth that Robin had stolen were not the lazy poor or the needy poor. No. They had earned that money originally, but had it taken from them by the government.
Maid Marian is a "ward of the King". What is that than another way of saying Welfare Recipient.
So picture a modern telling of Robin Hood.
Wealthy industrialist Robin Locksley supports good King George's war. Yet when he turns around he discovers his employees are starving at home. He tries to open up new plants to put more people to work so they can earn their keep.
Such plans require EPA approval. The Kings' forest must not be tampered with, even to feed the starving. When one of his employees tries to develop a business without the appropriate permits, the government comes down hard and the Sheriff is called in to shut him down.
Locksley, a willing venture capitalist, defends the employee. This brings the wrath of the protective sherrif and the IRS down on him.
Locksley loses everything to the IRS. He flees into the same woods he wanted to develop, and begins his reign of championing the workers and stealing from the Government to give to the People.
He meets Made Marian, a lifetime Ward of the State--Welfare Queen who while captured by Robin discovers the errors of her lifestyle. She joins Robin, working from th inside of the welfare system to bring true justice and nobility to those they have been abusing for power.
Dr. Tuck, an educator, joins Robin when he realizes that the governmental education system is corrupt, selling the souls they should be educating.
The Norman tyrants are now called Democrats. The Saxon suffering workers are now called Republicans.
Eventually, after many adventures, King George returns home in disguise. Evil Prince Obama won't let him return to the thrown. In disguise he seeks out Robin, (played by Ron Paul). He even asks Robin if he blames Prince Obama for the evil times.
"No, I blame King George. He shouldn't be off fighting foreign wars when his duty is here at home." (That's almost an exact quote from the movie.).
Yes, this could be a good movie, but a powerful message.
Too bad I disagree completely with the message.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Funny, I was just thinking the other day how Robin Hood stole from the government and gave back to the workers, yet if you ask anyone what Robin Hood did, they'd say "stole from the rich and gave to the poor."
This perversion of morality gets drilled into people's head from a young age. The Hero steals from those awful RICH people. Stealing is ok if it's from RICH people. Is that really a message children should be learning?
Though I guess most of you would say "Yes" since you've bought the message hook, line and sinker.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I have to ask: why don't I ever get any of the cool fantasies?
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
It seems to me that Disney's Robin Hood kind of meets the Libertarian ticket. As I remember you only ever see him steal from the government (Prince John) and his real arch-nemesis being the Sherrif (the corrupt law-enforcement officer.)
Edit: That being said, I think your re-telling is very humorous. I'm going to have to send this thread to my friends.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Though I guess most of you would say "Yes" since you've bought the message hook, line and sinker.
You're assuming most of us even like or care about Robin Hood to begin with.
And even then, watching something in escapist fiction !=condoning it in real life. I enjoy watching the Dini/Timm Batman cartoons, but that doesn't mean I advocate masked vigilantes in reality.
I would think many of those who -do- care about and follow the stories of Robin Hood admire him mainly as an exciting fictional character, not as a role model for the ethics of stealing.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Interesting take. I just need to correct a wee bit of misconception on Marian.
She was not a "welfare queen."
In fact, if inheritance rights had been different, she would have been a wealthy landowner in her own right.
As it was, she was considered a part of the property and monies -- a package deal -- which, if she had been a man, she would have inherited upon her father's death.
Marian was a wealthy pawn.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Though I guess most of you would say "Yes" since you've bought the message hook, line and sinker.
You're assuming most of us even like or care about Robin Hood to begin with.
And even then, watching something in escapist fiction !=condoning it in real life. I enjoy watching the Dini/Timm Batman cartoons, but that doesn't mean I advocate masked vigilantes in reality.
I would think many of those who -do- care about and follow the stories of Robin Hood admire him mainly as an exciting fictional character, not as a role model for the ethics of stealing.
The Pixiest basically defines taxing as stealing.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
And slavery.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
In "Atlas Shrugged" Ayn Rand severely denounces Robin Hood as the essence of the "looter" mentality, but as I read one of her characters rail against this character/story I had the same thought as you--Robin Hood wasn't taking money from the productive rich but rather from unproductive nobility who made their living from unfair taxes--at least that's how I think the story goes.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Though I guess most of you would say "Yes" since you've bought the message hook, line and sinker.
Well, when they bait it with kool-aid how am I supposed to resist?
Oops, there's a herd forming outside. I better go see what's going on. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Robin Hood becomes what we want him to be. Wiki says the term was used to describe any typical outlaw back in the day. As in the 1200s. By 1450, he was getting his own folktales, generally similar to the ones told about other outlaws of the time. He doesn't want his men to hurt the poor, but he's not giving the cash away yet.
The oldest ballads have him as a yeoman, part of the gentry. In the 16th century, he got his promotion to the nobility. That's also when he was moved from a vague reference to the reign of King Edward to specifically during the time King Richard was away in the Crusades. He got domesticated.
In the 17th century he finally gets his rep stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. In the 18th century, he became a farcical character, outwitted by everyone but the sheriff. In the Victorian era, he became a children's story hero.
He became a Saxon fighting against Norman oppression in the 19th century. It wasn't until the film in '38 that he fought against Prince John to restore King Richard to the throne. He had been a local hero until then. In the 80s he got a Saracen in the band, and everyone's just had to have one since then. (Though the current series making her a woman with some medical training is a nice twist.)
Right now on the BBC, he's a light hearted pacifist who almost never kills. People are tired of war and violence; it's what they need him to be now. Somewhere down the line, someone will change things up in a way that speaks to the people of the time, and he'll become that for a few centuries.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In our version of the Robin Hood myth, the government isn't really a government the way we understand it. It's more akin to rule of property owners over the people they allow on their land. Robin Hood would very much be a villian from the libetarian point of view.
A feudalistic wave slave society is consistent with an extreme form of libetarianism and not an unlikely consequence of adopting it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeahhh, Robin Hood's wealth redistribution .. uh, 'system' is hardly Libertarian endorsed.
What robin hood is about is, well, rebellion against a tyrannical state of affairs. Swap gentry and aristocracy with "landowners" or sommat in the robin hood mythos and what robin hood is doing is explicitly condemned by libertarian economic and social concepts.
quote:Though I guess most of you would say "Yes" since you've bought the message hook, line and sinker.
You tell us gullible unwashed statists what for!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Avid, while I like your history of Robin Hood, you left out Sir Walter Scott, who had him aiding Ivanhoe to help restore Richard.
There was also a wave of 1970's era Spiritual Robin Hood where his spiritual connections to "the Forest" and "Puck" (often called "robin Goodfellow) are key to his powers.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rand makes a big deal of Robin Hood in Atlas Shrugged, where she takes him as the conventional picture of "rob from the rich and give to the poor", and has one of her characters basically go to war against that concept.
But I agree. He was fighting the government and its high taxes, and returning those taxes to the people they were stolen from. At least as I read it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Was he "returning taxes" according to what people had paid in taxes or was he distributing the wealth according to need?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:He was fighting the government and its high taxes,
Maybe it's the word taxes. As I understand it, the main sources of income we're talking about here is rent and other considerations for using the property owner's land, fees for using the owner's services and buildings (the main one being the mill), and tolls on roads. (edit: I think there was also taxes on commerce, which occured at fairs the property owners owned.)
What were the property owners doing that was stealing?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:He became a Saxon fighting against Norman oppression in the 19th century. It wasn't until the film in '38 that he fought against Prince John to restore King Richard to the throne.
Actually, it was in 1819 with the publishing of Ivanhoe that the modern cheery outlaw. And I'm pretty sure he aided Ivanhoe (and Richard in the form of the Black Knight) against Prince John (or at least, his minions). I can't remember what he was doing in the book before he ran into Ivanhoe and decided to help him.
Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
Or a libertarien Godfather: The governement making you an offer that you can't resist. We will take care of you but it will cost you protection money.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: And slavery.
Looks like Walter Williams agrees with me. At least I know I'm not completely alone, right?
I'd love to quote this, but I'd have to quote the whole article.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure, and Walter Williams is wrong for the same reason you were: slaves don't get to leave, Pix.
Therefore his definition of slavery is invalid.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:You might argue that my analogy is irrelevant because unlike American slaves and Nazi concentration camp inmates, we can come and go as we please, live where we want, buy a car, clothes and other things with the money left over after the government gets four months' worth of our earnings. But, does that make much of a difference?
During slavery, visitors to the South often observed "a great many loose negroes about." Officials in Savannah, Mobile and Charleston and other cities complained about "nominal slaves," "virtually free negroes," and "quasi free negroes" who were seemingly oblivious to any law or regulation. Frederick Douglass, a slave, explained this phenomenon when he was employed as a Baltimore ship's caulker: "I was to be allowed all my time; to make bargains for work; to find my own employment, and to collect my own wages; and in return for this liberty, I was … to pay him (Douglass' master) three dollars at the end of each week, and to board and clothe myself, and buy my own caulking tools."
Here Walters redefines slavery to suit his purposes. He completely ignores the fact that a slave owner still has full control over his slaves. While some owners may have let their slaves enjoy a few liberties, that doesn't change the fact that they still could have exerted their full will over their slaves if they wanted to.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Just as the government can draft us into the military or make us go to Jury Doody. They can do anything they want to us, including make us die, if if they wanted to. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:They can do anything they want to us, including make us die, if if they wanted to.
I not sure if we use words the same way. In my language slavery != "having to pay taxes if I choose to live in a country". I also don't that think some = any. That the government can make us do some things is not equivilent to them being able to make us do anything, to me.
Some would say you are trying to pass off silly hyperbole as accurate description. I'm not sure. Maybe the difference is just linguistic.
[ June 17, 2008, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The thing is, that in using that analogy only those who agree with the libertarian ideas will take it seriously. Since I disagree with the libertarian ideals, I am all for Pixiest and anyone else framing their arguments in those terms.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My problem is that I'm very sympathetic to many of the ideals and goals of limited libetarianism and believe that a serious libetarian influence would be a good thing in our political culture, but the people who generally push it do more damage to this than they help.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Just as the government can draft us into the military or make us go to Jury Doody. They can do anything they want to us, including make us die, if if they wanted to.
Well first of all, they can't do any of those things without our consent as the citizenry.
Slaves don't get that option.
Furthermore, by framing the argument like this you're basically saying that anyone who has power over me is a slave master and I their slave.
Well, the drug dealers a few miles away could bust into this house and kill me any time they wanted to!
The police could frame me for a crime I didn't commit, seeing me sent to prison for the rest of my life any time they wanted to!
I could go across the street and rob the neighbor's house blind any time I wanted to!
No one in any of these situations is a slave. Victims, obviously, but not slaves.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Squick: I'd LOVE to hear your intellectually honest, no nonsense, charismatic defense of libertarian principles.
This is NOT sarcasm.
How do you get around the "You owe the state whatever they demand" mindset?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How do you get around the "You owe the state whatever they demand" mindset?
I'm not aware of anyone I've ever met who has this mindset, so it really hasn't been a problem for me.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well first of all, they can't do any of those things without our consent as the citizenry.
So slavery is ok if there are many masters?
quote: Well, the drug dealers a few miles away could bust into this house and kill me any time they wanted to!
Not legally. They can't do it by force of law.
quote: The police could frame me for a crime I didn't commit, seeing me sent to prison for the rest of my life any time they wanted to!
There are laws against such abuse of power.
quote: I could go across the street and rob the neighbor's house blind any time I wanted to!
The difference between all of these and what the government does is Legality. With all three of these cases you can appeal to the government for help. That's what they're FOR. To protect you from force and fraud. When the government turns to force and fraud, it becomes the abomination we have today.
And we have no recourse.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Squick: I'd LOVE to hear your intellectually honest, no nonsense, charismatic defense of libertarian principles.
Basically everything you say when someone asks you what you mean by "slavery" except, you know, the part where you actually call it slavery.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pix,
quote:So slavery is ok if there are many masters?
Of course not. Unless you remember that those 'other masters' have the same rights as you do. Then they're not masters, they're peers.
It's almost self-evident, but you keep dancing around it: slaves don't get to try and convince their masters through voting to change things. Slaves live by the rules their masters set for them, period. Input from the slaves is not a necessity in a slavery-based system.
That's not what we have in our little democratic republic. The 'slaves' routinely throw out the 'masters' and get to pick the ones who will replace them, and if they don't like the job the new 'master' does, he gets thrown out on his ass too.
That's. Not. Slavery. The only way slaves get rid of their masters is by overthrowing him violently or running away.
quote:The difference between all of these and what the government does is Legality. With all three of these cases you can appeal to the government for help. That's what they're FOR. To protect you from force and fraud. When the government turns to force and fraud, it becomes the abomination we have today.
And we have no recourse.
OK, so it's that they have the legal right to use force that you object to.
Even though we gave them that right, and still give them that right. And yet you say we 'have no recourse'.
Are you being deliberately obtuse here, Pix? This is baffling me. We have recourse often! Depending on where you live it's a big thing every couple of years, or even more often than that! It's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that 'we have no recourse'.
Everyone has recourse!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:How do you get around the "You owe the state whatever they demand" mindset?
I'm not aware of anyone I've ever met who has this mindset, so it really hasn't been a problem for me.
Time and time again I've been told in these threads that whatever the government asks is ok because the citizens vote for it. In fact, in this very thread, Rak told me that taxation isn't slavery because it's voted on.
How would you phrase it? How would you frame your arguments? Do you have anything that works? I really want to know.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Time and time again I've been told in these threads that whatever the government asks is ok because the citizens vote for it. In fact, in this very thread, Rak told me that taxation isn't slavery because it's voted on.
I might not keep bringing it up if you would just address a couple of points. Namely, slaves don't pick their masters like we do, and slaves don't get to leave if they want to, like we do.
Those two little facts damn your argument that we're slaves to the government, yet argument in reply is basically a non-response of, "So we've got lots of masters."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're willing to countenance taxes for fire departments and probably a few other limited things, but you can't possibly figure out how someone could countenance taxes for anything else without being okay with any level of taxes?
There isn't some hard and fast rule. Most people are okay with the levels of taxation we see in the world because it seems to work decently well. Would they be okay with any level of taxation? Probably not, but that they have a different comfort level and set of particular things they find sufficiently justifiable for the gov't to spend money on things doesn't mean their reasoning is particularly different.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh: especially as, as I pointed out in a previous thread or two, a system almost exactly like ours could arise without violating any libertarian ideals: Contracts to obey sets of law^H^H^H^H^H club rules or face the proscribed penalties and include a requirement to put a group membership (including for trespassing) rider on all land sales.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: It's almost self-evident, but you keep dancing around it: slaves don't get to try and convince their masters through voting to change things. Slaves live by the rules their masters set for them, period. Input from the slaves is not a necessity in a slavery-based system.
Wow.. So if the Massas in the old south had just put up a suggestion box we could have avoided a bloody war?
Compulsion by 1 person or a billion, it doesn't matter. You're compelling unwilling victims to OBEY. One person doesn't have the rights to steal the fruits of my labour. 300,000,000 people don't have the right to compel me to work till april for the government before I can start working for myself.
One vote is a spit in the ocean of people who don't care about politics (but still vote) and/or treat the constitution like toilet paper. Politics these days is all about stealing from the few to buy the votes of the many.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pix,
quote:Compulsion by 1 person or a billion, it doesn't matter. You're compelling unwilling victims to OBEY. One person doesn't have the rights to steal the fruits of my labour. 300,000,000 people don't have the right to compel me to work till april for the government before I can start working for myself.
Tell you what: grow your fruit somewhere else, then. But at least you're not continuing-in this paragraph-with your nonsensical complaints about slavery.
Here's a 'doesn't have the right to...' for you: one person doesn't have the right to enjoy the rights granted by living in a democratic republic, and refuse to live up to the responsibilities of that democratic republic just because the law disagrees with their individual whims.
Every day you continue to remain in the system. You say that that system doesn't have the right to do such and such to you, well here's another spin on it: the United States of America was here first. Why should it be the one that has to leave? Why don't you leave instead?
quote: One vote is a spit in the ocean of people who don't care about politics (but still vote) and/or treat the constitution like toilet paper. Politics these days is all about stealing from the few to buy the votes of the many.
So the system is bad because you can't get enough people to agree with you?
quote:Wow.. So if the Massas in the old south had just put up a suggestion box we could have avoided a bloody war?
*rolleyes*
Yeah, that's what I meant. And it's an accurate comparison you're making, too. That's what voting is. A suggestion box. Wait a second, that's a bunch of crap. Voting isn't a suggestion, it's an order. If sufficient voters vote one way, well then it's not a suggestion anymore. The politician is out. Period.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I knew "love it or leave it" would pop up again.
But, once again, there's no where else to go. Every speck of inhabitable land on this globe is already claimed by someone who's either a statist and/or a more obvious murdering tyrant.
It'd be nice, though, to find an island I could move to.. I can see it now... a little garden, some fruit trees.. a satellite Internet link... Unfortunately islands cost a lot of money and I can't seem to save enough because 40% of my income goes to people other than me. (Probably closer to 60% if you include the nickle and dime taxes all along the way... Not just Federal/California/SS/Medicare.)
And the system is broken because they don't follow the Constitution. It lays out what the Government is allowed to do. Unfortunately, our elected officials ignore it and do whatever they want to do. Heck, one of our presidential candidates pushed for (and had his name attached to) a bill that severely limits free speech in the time of an election. And it didn't just pass, the supreme court said it was just fine and dandy. That's why the system is broken.
Pure democracy or even a democratic republic as we have is useless without a constitution to keep our laws in line with our principles. And these United States that have been around for longer than I have drifted from the principles of Liberty long ago.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I knew "love it or leave it" would pop up again.
No one is saying love it or leave it. They are saying that the fact that you are permitted to leave disqualifies the situation you are in as slavery. Most people here would probably suggest that you attempt to get things changed politically where you live rather than leave. Most people here also agree that there should be fewer tax-supported programs than currently exist. We all want to head in the same direction that you do, we just don't want to go as far.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Matt: I'm allowed to go from one plantation to another. I'm not allowed to leave except by pill, razorblade or gunshot.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Matt: I'm allowed to go from one plantation to another.
Correct. However, in true slavery, slaves are not free to choose their owners any more than your coffee table gets to choose whose house it lives in.
The fact that other governments happen to be as bad or worse doesn't make your being subject to taxes in this one an instance of slavery.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So if a slave owner said "If you want me to sell you to Bob, I'll do it." it would stop being slavery?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So if a slave owner said "If you want me to sell you to Bob, I'll do it." it would stop being slavery?
No, but you continue to torture your analogy. Whether you choose to go to another nation is entirely up to *you*, not the US government, and the US government receives no compensation when this occurs, despite losing the benefit of your taxes.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The US government must issue travel papers in the form of a Passport.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Pretty much everyone who's not under investigation in a criminal proceeding can get a passport, so that doesn't seem like much of a barrier.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Never the less, you have to ask permission. And they might not grant it. It's not "entirely" up to you.
And even if it were, Slavery here or Slavery there isn't much of a choice. And it IS still slavery.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
If your typical historical slave could walk up to his master, ask for a note, have a 99% chance of getting said note, then take that note with them to work at another plantation, then your analogy would be sort of apt, at least in regard to freedom of travel. But that's not close to how it works at all. A slave doesn't change masters without an exchange of similar value being made to compensate for the loss of that slave and the slave doesn't get to choose to leave or where he goes.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Matt: Is the inability to change masters the most fundamental aspect of being a slave? Because I'm pretty sure that even if historical slaves could have fairly easily changed masters, they still wouldn't have been very happy with their situation.
And I think it would still have qualified as slavery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Does the US require a passport to leave or just to get back in?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You don't need a passport to leave the country, you only need a passport because most other countries have decided to require one to enter.
And even if it is walking from one place to another that have similar rules (when it isn't; there are places you could go and not be bothered by much of anybody, gov't or not, they're just inconvenient for other reasons), it isn't your right to have a country that agrees with you. You might not like it, but the lack of circumstances you like does not mean that it isn't true people can leave one place and go to another. If there were a place on earth with rules similar to what you like, you could go there from the US (presumably this place would not require a passport to enter).
And yes, I consider governments that prevent their citizens from physically departing immoral.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wow let's just stop calling stuff which is not slavery 'slavery'
It's really not that hard unless one's too caught up on reframing stuff with ridiculous hyperbole
~~
PRIMER:
taxation = not slavery!
~~
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Dan and Alcon, thanks. I've never read Ivanhoe. I'll have to put that on the to do list.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Here's Webster's definition of slave:
1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another.
thou our slave, Our captive, at the public mill our drudge? --Milton.
2. One who has lost the power of resistance; one who surrenders himself to any power whatever; as, a slave to passion, to lust, to strong drink, to ambition.
3. A drudge; one who labors like a slave.
4. An abject person; a wretch. --Shak.
I don't think that anyone can argue that their actions are wholly under the control of the government. When using a term like slave, degrees do matter.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Is the inability to change masters the most fundamental aspect of being a slave?
The inability to select one's master is implied by the conventional definition of slavery.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I knew "love it or leave it" would pop up again.
But, once again, there's no where else to go. Every speck of inhabitable land on this globe is already claimed by someone who's either a statist and/or a more obvious murdering tyrant.
And why is that the United States' problem?
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Pure democracy or even a democratic republic as we have is useless without a constitution to keep our laws in line with our principles. And these United States that have been around for longer than I have drifted from the principles of Liberty long ago.
I agree with this sentiment. For this discussion to be productive you need to drop your assumptions that the only reason we support taxation is because we are ignorant and that we have the "You owe the state whatever they demand" mindset. Both of those are false.
This debate over whether taxation is slavery is ultimately meaningless. Suppose that I grant that it is slavery. So what? Nothing has changed. You've succeeded in attributing a negative term to it but that's not much of an argument.
Clearly part of this issue is that we have different assumptions about the role of an individual in a society. You believe that an individual should have little to no legal obligation to anyone else in society. Most of us here believe differently. It's not a matter of ignorance or, as you put it, buying "the message hook, line and sinker". Ultimately, you aren't forced to live here and its not our problem if no other country satisfies your demands. If you could establish taxation as being absolutely immoral then you might have a case but I already know that you can't do that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Is the inability to change masters the most fundamental aspect of being a slave?
The inability to select one's master is implied by the conventional definition of slavery.
Don't get me wrong. I agree. But I still think that if we were shown a clear-cut example of the same sort of slavery we practiced 150 years ago, with the one difference being that slaves could petition to change masters and such petitions were always granted... we would still be repelled. And I think, chances are good, we would still call such a situation slavery.
Personally, though I am a fairly hardcore libertarian, I don't think our government is nearly as bad as all that. And I don't think we're slaves. I think that the federal government is definitely out of control, and could do with a hefty dose of libertarian principles or similar, but ultimately it's still pretty much the best thing there is currently, and there are still lots of great ways we can try to change it for the better.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Pixiest: If Libertarian system is so great, get a bunch of Libertarians together, buy an island, and make it work. I'm not saying love it or leave it, I'm saying put your money where your mouth is.
As fun as it may be to complain about taxes, I think it's clear that a true Libertarian government is a fantasy - it would be awesome to live in a wonderful world of peace and love where everything is always good, but we don't live in that world, so everybody has to chip in to pay for the stuff we all need.
In a Libertarian world, who pays for the fire trucks? Who pays for the bridges - not the toll, but actually building the bridge?
I think in reality, you'd have a bunch of robber barons, or fiefdoms, where the wealthy would be the only ones who could actually afford things like military (I mean "police"), roads, fire trucks, a court system, and so forth, and all the normal people would have to pay them protection (I call it tax, you call it a "use fee").
How is that any better?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: But I still think that if we were shown a clear-cut example of the same sort of slavery we practiced 150 years ago, with the one difference being that slaves could petition to change masters and such petitions were always granted... we would still be repelled. And I think, chances are good, we would still call such a situation slavery.
Well sure, but that's only one way in which Pixiest compares our current situation with slavery. It's not my only point of disagreement, but I like to take on one argument at a time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I knew "love it or leave it" would pop up again.
Your foreknowledge was mistaken. It didn't pop up again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But I still think that if we were shown a clear-cut example of the same sort of slavery we practiced 150 years ago, with the one difference being that slaves could petition to change masters and such petitions were always granted... we would still be repelled.
That's far from the only objection, Dan_Frank.
It's not just, "Marse Smith, could I change massas please?" and then you go to a new plantation with a new though presumably equally bad master.
It's, "Marse Smith, me and my other slave friends aren't satisfied with the way you're doing your job. If you don't do it to our satisfaction very soon, you'll be replaced by someone we pick."
That's not slavery. By definition it's not slavery. Slaves don't get to pick their masters, and especially slaves don't get to kick their masters out if they don't like `em.
The 'only escape by suicide or violence' rhetoric is just a big pile of horses@#t.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
By the way, it's certainly possible to live "off the grid" and not pay taxes, if you hate them so much.
Yes, you may be arrested if you're caught, and yes, you lose a lot of the rights, protections, and privileges that law-abiding citizens get, but then again, you're not paying for them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sure, and Walter Williams is wrong for the same reason you were: slaves don't get to leave, Pix.
Therefore his definition of slavery is invalid.
Fine. Serfs. Is that better? I disagree. I think that saying, "If you stay here, you have to work for me whether you want to or not" slavery. You're adding that there has to be an inability to leave, and I think you're simply inventing that because it suits your argument.
But let that be. You'll keep repeating your unsupported and unsupportable claim that the ability to leave makes it non-slavery, and use that quibble as though it changes the moral issue in any way, and I don't feel like wasting my time with it. So let's say serfs. You think it's okay for the government, which is supposed to be our servant, to make serfs of us?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And of course, the US government has granted itself the right to have a military draft, which fails even your definition of slavery, because it includes the same inability to leave as the least black slave in the south.
The fact that the government hasn't drafted you doesn't mean that it can't. It just chooses not to.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rakeesh: especially as, as I pointed out in a previous thread or two, a system almost exactly like ours could arise without violating any libertarian ideals: Contracts to obey sets of law^H^H^H^H^H club rules or face the proscribed penalties and include a requirement to put a group membership (including for trespassing) rider on all land sales.
And you were wrong then, and are still wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The fact that I haven't murdered anybody doesn't mean that I can't. I just choose not to.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I knew "love it or leave it" would pop up again.
No one is saying love it or leave it. They are saying that the fact that you are permitted to leave disqualifies the situation you are in as slavery.
But it doesn't. That was Rakeesh's invented reason for claiming it's not slavery. And when someone posted, as a point of fact, that black slaves in the south weren't pinned to one place all the time, the objection was made that this was only because the owners allowed it. They didn't have to.
But the fact is that this government has arrogated to itself the right to force each and every citizen to go where it chooses. The only thing keeping you from being forceably inducted into the military is that the government chooses to let you be. The emergency powers this government has granted itself permit it to literally put you into a train and move you elsewhere against your will, if the government perceives it to be necessary for "national security". Comfort yourself with the fact that they haven't done it yet. That's called the ostrich method.
Your freedom exists at the whim of the government. Your property exists at the whim of the government. You are a slave.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa,
quote:Fine. Serfs. Is that better? I disagree. I think that saying, "If you stay here, you have to work for me whether you want to or not" slavery. You're adding that there has to be an inability to leave, and I think you're simply inventing that because it suits your argument.
Ha! Right, I'm 'inventing' the notion that slavery must include the inability of the slave to leave if they want to.
Where do I come up with this stuff? Man, I so crazy!
Let's not let that be, shall we? First of all, it is a supported and supportable claim. I've done so more than once, and so have others. Please for my sanity's sake if nothing else, stop this method of arguing this issue you have, wherein you state opinions as though they were facts and demand that they be treated as such. It's very, very frustrating.
So no, it's not just a quibble. And it does have support, despite whatever fiat Lisa issues.
Anyway. That's not the only reason we're not living as slaves, so don't suggest that's what I'm saying, please?
Here's the definition of 'serf' You'll note that it has a few special requirements. A member of the lowest class. Well, since we all pay taxes that's hardly true. Attached to the land. That's somewhat true given a definition of the entire country as 'the lord's land'.
But it falls apart undeniably on just one very crucial thing: serfs are compelled to work in exchange for legal rights. We citizens are not compelled to work for those legal rights. If you want to live on the streets begging for money, the only taxes you'll ever pay are sales taxes (the kind you support), and you'll still have your rights protected and respected by the government*.
So no, we ain't serfs either. Unless you go by a different definition wherein we're 'in bondage or servitude' which is a lot more vague. I suspect that's probably what you'll go with.
And at least you won't be wrong to call us serfs, the way you are about slaves.
*Of course this doesn't always happen. It's a human system.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: By the way, it's certainly possible to live "off the grid" and not pay taxes, if you hate them so much.
Yes, you may be arrested if you're caught, and yes, you lose a lot of the rights, protections, and privileges that law-abiding citizens get, but then again, you're not paying for them.
You don't have to pay for rights. Government's only justification is to defend already existent rights.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And of course, the US government has granted itself the right to have a military draft, which fails even your definition of slavery, because it includes the same inability to leave as the least black slave in the south.
The fact that the government hasn't drafted you doesn't mean that it can't. It just chooses not to.
My understanding is that you do not support taxes even for military funding, but most libertarians I've spoken to do support such a tax. I realize this argument doesn't work against your position, but it seems that if this is the one case that seals the deal for slavery, that this most clear case of slavery is one that is actually justified according to the logic of most libertarians if a tax on one's income is equivalent to a tax on one's body.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa,
quote:And of course, the US government has granted itself the right to have a military draft, which fails even your definition of slavery, because it includes the same inability to leave as the least black slave in the south.
The fact that the government hasn't drafted you doesn't mean that it can't. It just chooses not to.
*bzzzzz*! Wrong! The US government gained that right from us, where incidentally the notion still enjoys some popular support. If the people (excuse me, 'slaves') decided they didn't want the government to have that right, we could take it away.
Also, it's not 'my' definition of slavery. The definition that gets scare-quoted is yours, because it's so far removed from the real one.
quote:But it doesn't. That was Rakeesh's invented reason for claiming it's not slavery. And when someone posted, as a point of fact, that black slaves in the south weren't pinned to one place all the time, the objection was made that this was only because the owners allowed it. They didn't have to.
That's not how that particular discussion went.
You don't have to be pinned to one place to be a slave all the time. You have to be unable to leave the system, among other things, to be a slave. Slaves were not permitted to just flee north.
quote:Your freedom exists at the whim of the government. Your property exists at the whim of the government. You are a slave.
No, we're not. Slaves don't get a say in how they are mastered, beyond the violent force of rebellion.
I'm going to pull a Lisa now: what I said just now? That's a fact. It's unsupported and unsupportable for you to claim otherwise.
The only difference is when I said it just now I'm not, you know, just making it up.
Words have meanings. Slavery is one of those words. You don't get to just say, "It means this," when you can clearly look at the definition and say, "No, it doesn't."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Slaves come and go as they please, doesn't everyone know that?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: My understanding is that you do not support taxes even for military funding, but most libertarians I've spoken to do support such a tax. I realize this argument doesn't work against your position, but it seems that if this is the one case that seals the deal for slavery, that this most clear case of slavery is one that is actually justified according to the logic of most libertarians if a tax on one's income is equivalent to a tax on one's body.
Absolutely not. Having a military and having a draft are far from the same things.
And I do, at this moment, support taxes for military funding. Not because they're moral, but because you don't get from the mess we're in now to a proper state of affairs overnight. The government is obligated to protect its citizens, and that can require a military.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And I do, at this moment, support taxes for military funding. Not because they're moral, but because you don't get from the mess we're in now to a proper state of affairs overnight. The government is obligated to protect its citizens, and that can require a military.
But if the right to property flows from a right to life, and if taxes on income are a tax on one's body, then isn't a military draft merely different in quantity, not quality, from a military tax?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Slavery is alive and well in some parts of the world, so this ridiculous hyperbole is pretty hilariously offensive.
Can the board's prominent megalibertarians free themselves from the shackles of the prejudicial language fallacy, or are they too dependent on abusing terminology that they feel forced to reinvent terminology just to condem systems they dislike? will they dig themselves in deeper, sensibility be damned?
Tune in next week to find out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Words have meanings. Slavery is one of those words. You don't get to just say, "It means this," when you can clearly look at the definition and say, "No, it doesn't."
I wonder how common this tactic is in certain circles. One of thing this that struck me most when I recently read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand was that she "proved" her point by changing the definition of commonly understood, emotionally laden words. In the case of The Fountainhead, she made up new definitions for "selfishness" (which, according to her, is good) and "altruism" (which is bad).
Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
its just semantics
But then, I get the feeling that "just semantics" is a contradiction in terms on this forum. So saying this is by some of you probably regarded as having sex in a confession booth.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What was the purpose of that post?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lisa: did you once post an argument why I was wrong? I made some fairly detailed posts about the process by which such a thing might arise, so could you show me the fallacious step or steps?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't recall. I remember thinking that you skipped steps and made assumptions, and since everyone else in the thread was actually addressing reality (as opposed to hypothetical things that have never happened), I didn't want to spend time on it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And I do, at this moment, support taxes for military funding. Not because they're moral, but because you don't get from the mess we're in now to a proper state of affairs overnight. The government is obligated to protect its citizens, and that can require a military.
But if the right to property flows from a right to life, and if taxes on income are a tax on one's body, then isn't a military draft merely different in quantity, not quality, from a military tax?
No. As I said, forcing people to pay taxes is inherently immoral. It is theft. When I talk about the things that can legitimately be the last to go, when we're transitioning to a free society, and I say that involuntary taxation for the three legitimate functions of government can legitimately be the last thing to go, I'm not saying that it's okay.
Furthermore, don't get me wrong. Murder is worse than enslavement. Enslavement is worse than theft. The fact that all three things devolve from the fundamental right of a person to his own life doesn't mean that they're identical.
My right to free action and my ownership of the book sitting on the table next to me stem from the same source. But there is no question whatsoever that there is a difference between robbing me of one and robbing me of the other. And that the difference is not merely one of degree, but is qualitative.
What bugs me the most here is how people like Rakeesh simply assume that a group of individuals is entitled to take from an individual or other group of individuals. And that this can be a moral thing. They posit government as a primary, without any basis other than "might makes right". People make governments. They do not have the right to imbue a government with perogatives that they themselves do not have. They can't create legitimacy out of thin air simply by claiming it.
I don't have the right to take from you. Nor do I and a friend, even though we are majority of the three of us (me, the friend and you). There is no point at which some magic phase transition takes place and a majority becomes entitled to take from anyone against their will.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If you signed a contract that said, "I agree that the following group of people have the right to take my property from me provided a certain set of procedures are followed, and in exchange that group of people must provide the following list of things and I must be able to vote for the members of it" (only in more specific and nuanced language), would they have the right to take from you?
Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What was the purpose of that post?
I was reading the stuf about the defenition of slavery. And thought they are taking it far. It realy is just semantics. What's in a name? Can we get to the actual point here?
At the same tome I realised that for the people discussing this it wás the point. Also I like to read the arguments and contra arguments, where the discussions become razorsharp. So it wasn't nice to just dismiss those discussions. That was what I ment by the contradiction in terms. Discussing semantics sometimes isn't "just" a discussion. The reason I like this forum is that everything can be debated. It's fun and keeps me sharp.
I read this thread with interest without taking sides. I think libertariens have good points. I also think they go too far sometimes. So I was trying to point out the relativity of what was said without dismissing it at the same time.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thanks for answering my question, Boot.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I legally don't pay taxes (too poor). So, does this mean I am not a slave? Which also means that you too could not be a slave.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: You believe that an individual should have little to no legal obligation to anyone else in society.
I don't think that's true, at least for many libertarians. I personally think there should be very strict legal obligations not to directly harm any other member of a shared society. Beyond that, people should be able to help the less fortunate, in whichever way they think best, of their own free will.
Most libertarians I know do not take pleasure in the thought of poor people starving and dying in the street. They just believe that the government has no moral right to take money from the minority, keep some, and distribute the rest in whatever incredibly inefficient way makes them look most attractive to their constituents, lobbyists and special interest groups.
Also, I don't personally believe that taxation is exactly the same as slavery. But they are/were both legislated, enforced, and morally justified in equivalent ways. And although they may differ in specifics and degrees of evil, they are on the same spectrum.
In other words, just because most citizens are okay with it doesn't make it legal or morally justifiable in either case.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Furthermore, don't get me wrong. Murder is worse than enslavement. Enslavement is worse than theft. The fact that all three things devolve from the fundamental right of a person to his own life doesn't mean that they're identical.
This is a good summation of the primary argument against the use of the term "slavery" - that there are differences in quality between a tax of a portion of one's income and the complete ownership, in every sense, of everything that a person is, does, and creates which is how slavery is typically understood.
It seems to me that the goal of framing taxation as slavery is to force people to reconcile their acceptance of tax with their distaste for slavery. Because slavery is nearly universally viewed as morally abhorrent, the hope is that, given the meme "tax=slavery" that tax will be become demonized rather than slavery becoming accepted.
The problem with this approach is that it comes across as dishonest. It's attempting to demean an idea by associating it with another idea which has a strong emotional component. If taxation is an evil equivalent to slavery, then that argument should be made and stand on its own merits. You need to bring people to a place where they say "hey, tax is just like slavery", not just tell them that tax is slavery. That conclusion requires agreement on some premises that many people may disagree with. Convincing them of the merit of those premises should be the first step if you actually want to change minds.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa,
quote:What bugs me the most here is how people like Rakeesh simply assume that a group of individuals is entitled to take from an individual or other group of individuals. And that this can be a moral thing. They posit government as a primary, without any basis other than "might makes right". People make governments. They do not have the right to imbue a government with perogatives that they themselves do not have. They can't create legitimacy out of thin air simply by claiming it.
I shouldn't be surprised that you're misrepresenting my statements so blatantly after your nonsense about slavery.
I don't believe taxation is moral simply because of a majority support for it. What I believe is that we are a part of a society, and as human beings we have obligations that extend past ourselves should we choose to live amongst other people.
The biggest difference between us is not our disagreement on this particular issue, it's that you completely refuse to regard your own beliefs on this subject as anything other than irrefutable fact. You talk like your reasoning is mathematics or something, with scientific proofs every step of the way.
That's a dangerous way to think. Not that I expect you to entertain that notion for even a moment.
You're not just an individual. You're also a part of a group, if you choose to be. And you're choosing to be, unless you've plugged your computer into a rock or something. If you're a part of a group, you have obligations that extend past your own individual needs.
You don't recognize those obligations? Well, that's really just too bad, isn't it? Calling taxation theft doesn't make it true (though there is a case for that), no more than your rants about taxation equaling slavery. You don't have to recognize those obligations, though. It's easy: just stop profiting by the benefits those obligations provide.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Also, I don't personally believe that taxation is exactly the same as slavery. But they are/were both legislated, enforced, and morally justified in equivalent ways. And although they may differ in specifics and degrees of evil, they are on the same spectrum.
Could you be more specific?
Because in America, slavery was legislated, enforced, and morally justified basically because a) Africans were sub-human and b) slavery was better for them.
You've got a case - it's a major stretch but it's there - for connecting taxation to 'b', but definitely not 'a'.
And of course it doesn't address the real reason for slavery, simple inhumanity coupled with profitability.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
While I'm on the subject, there's another problem with the current system of tax-and-spend government. It's frequently said that if I don't like something I'm always free to vote the government officials out of office.
Aside from the "this isn't a democracy" dead horse, there's another problem with that argument. I've got 1 vote to use against these people, and they have half my income to bribe people to vote against me. Not much of a contest, really.
One of the things that infuriates me most is when, every campaign season, the candidates always come out with ads describing how they fought for health care for children or tuition assistance for veterans. They talk like they went out and got a second job at Taco Bell to pay these kids' doctor bills.
Politicians didn't do a damn thing to help the underprivelaged. All they did was take the fruits of my hard labor, representing time that I could have spent with my family and money I could have given to worthy causes, and threw it around to buy votes.
Again, I'm not against these people getting this money. I love kids and veterans. I just don't think this is the way it should be done.
And I'm supposed to be able to change the system with my one vote. I don't see it happening.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because in America, slavery was legislated, enforced, and morally justified basically because a) Africans were sub-human and b) slavery was better for them.
It's not because Africans are sub-human and slavery was better for them. It's because there were more white people than black people, and white people thought Africans are sub-human and slavery was better for them.
The majority ruled, and the human rights of the minority suffered. That's the parallel.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If you signed a contract that said, "I agree that the following group of people have the right to take my property from me provided a certain set of procedures are followed, and in exchange that group of people must provide the following list of things and I must be able to vote for the members of it" (only in more specific and nuanced language), would they have the right to take from you?
That's what I mean by skipping steps. I didn't sign any such contract. Nor would I.
If I enter into a contract in which I agree to pay for services rendered, forcing me to pay isn't taking anything from me that's mine; it's taking something that I've already surrendered. Which is not the case when we talk about taxation.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: By the way, it's certainly possible to live "off the grid" and not pay taxes, if you hate them so much.
Yes, you may be arrested if you're caught, and yes, you lose a lot of the rights, protections, and privileges that law-abiding citizens get, but then again, you're not paying for them.
You don't have to pay for rights. Government's only justification is to defend already existent rights.
You don't pay for rights, but you certainly have to pay for the upkeep of the system if you want to enjoy the benefits which lead to and protect those rights. The right to a fair trial is meaningless if there's no court system or police force.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Aside from the "this isn't a democracy" dead horse, there's another problem with that argument. I've got 1 vote to use against these people, and they have half my income to bribe people to vote against me. Not much of a contest, really.
Or much of an accurate statement, for that matter. First off, unless you're doing very well indeed, your taxes won't amount to close to half your income.
Second, in any given election, the official hardly has access to all of your taxes anyway.
quote:And I'm supposed to be able to change the system with my one vote. I don't see it happening.
This happens when you're not an autocrat: your say is not paramount.
As for slavery and a majority overruling a minority...again (outside things like slavery), that's part of being in a group.
A football team entirely of quarterbacks would suck pretty badly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lisa,
quote:What bugs me the most here is how people like Rakeesh simply assume that a group of individuals is entitled to take from an individual or other group of individuals. And that this can be a moral thing. They posit government as a primary, without any basis other than "might makes right". People make governments. They do not have the right to imbue a government with perogatives that they themselves do not have. They can't create legitimacy out of thin air simply by claiming it.
I shouldn't be surprised that you're misrepresenting my statements so blatantly after your nonsense about slavery.
I don't believe taxation is moral simply because of a majority support for it. What I believe is that we are a part of a society, and as human beings we have obligations that extend past ourselves should we choose to live amongst other people.
And I'm saying that no one has the right to impose such "obligations" on others. You may feel that such obligations exist. Fine. Then you're entitled to make that argument and try to persuade others to pay for your pet projects. You are not entitled to get a big mob together and say, "Since very many of us agree on this, we're going to take the moral shortcut of forcing the rest of you to pay for it as well."
No one, and no group has the right to determine for another what their obligations are to others short of the simple maxim that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The biggest difference between us is not our disagreement on this particular issue, it's that you completely refuse to regard your own beliefs on this subject as anything other than irrefutable fact.
No, I'm simply saying that positing some sort of obligation that can be imposed on others requires that a burden of proof be made. You want to say, "No, I can merely assert it, and my opinion is just as good as yours." I say that's lame. Your opinion is not as good as mine if you fail to support that burden of proof.
You know that you aren't entitled to take what's mine. You know that I'm not entitled to take what's yours. You just think that if you have enough people siding with you that you do have the right to take what's mine, and you use the fake idea of an imaginary obligation (that you can't support except by "might makes right") as an excuse for it.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You talk like your reasoning is mathematics or something, with scientific proofs every step of the way.
And you talk like everything is opinion. Like there's no such thing as logic. Like there's no such thing as anything being objectively true. Like whoever can get the bigger mob together can redefine reality.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's a dangerous way to think. Not that I expect you to entertain that notion for even a moment.
You're not just an individual. You're also a part of a group, if you choose to be.
Yes, I am free to associate as I see fit. So long as I don't hurt anyone in the process.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you're choosing to be, unless you've plugged your computer into a rock or something. If you're a part of a group, you have obligations that extend past your own individual needs.
Unproven and unprovable. Enforceable, yes, but that's about it. It's an assertion. It's something you want to be true. But it isn't. You're engaging in a kind of magical thinking that introduces some sort of obligation at some undefined point where a group of individuals becomes a power in and of itself, which can serve the desires of some at the expense of others.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You don't recognize those obligations? Well, that's really just too bad, isn't it?
It's not that I don't recognize them. It's that you can't create them by simply asserting them. And that's what you're doing. "Agree or disagree, but if you disagree and act on it, I'll imprison you or rob you." That's the act of a bully. Your entire position is one of moral bullying. I'm entirely uninterested in forcing you to do anything but leave me alone. You want to impose obligations on me. That's moral thuggery.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Calling taxation theft doesn't make it true (though there is a case for that), no more than your rants about taxation equaling slavery. You don't have to recognize those obligations, though. It's easy: just stop profiting by the benefits those obligations provide.
Being protected from violence is not a benefit. It's the only justification for government in the first place. Without government, I'm entitled to protect myself however I see fit. You wouldn't like that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:As for slavery and a majority overruling a minority...again (outside things like slavery), that's part of being in a group.
I think that "outside things like slavery" qualifier is important to recognize, though. If one believes there are principles that trump majority rules, how does one determine when the majority should decide and when those principles should override?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This happens when you're not an autocrat: your say is not paramount.
My say shouldn't be paramount when it comes to other people. It should absolutely be paramount when it comes to my life, my property and my freedom. Up to the fist swinging and nose thing.
My bopping you in the nose takes something away from you that's yours. My not paying for public education does not. That's the fundamental difference. You haven't the right to require me to help out with the "obligations" you think exist. You only have the right to require me not to wallop you with a stick.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: By the way, it's certainly possible to live "off the grid" and not pay taxes, if you hate them so much.
Yes, you may be arrested if you're caught, and yes, you lose a lot of the rights, protections, and privileges that law-abiding citizens get, but then again, you're not paying for them.
You don't have to pay for rights. Government's only justification is to defend already existent rights.
You don't pay for rights, but you certainly have to pay for the upkeep of the system if you want to enjoy the benefits which lead to and protect those rights. The right to a fair trial is meaningless if there's no court system or police force.
Again (and again and again and again) having the government do those things does not in any way suggest that it can fund programs. That it can fund arts and education and any of the other billion dollar boondoggles that the US government uses its ill-gotten gains for.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That question was predicated on the assumption that you had signed such a contract. It was not intended as part of the previous scenarios. Also, I wasn't talking about any specific payment for services rendered, but about a general permissions for future taking.
The previous scenarios envisioned people ending up in such contracts (beyond the initial group) because they were riders on land sale contracts and a law had been passed (entirely imaginably) by the group making the penalty for trespassing on group owned land jailing . . . unless the person jailed signed such a contract. The contract would of course be much more complicated, but you get the gist. As for why anyone would sign such a contract in the first place, starting the cycle, you should have no problem imagining that: most people find such a situation perfectly tenable; that's why people tend to be okay with the way governments work now.
When all the desirable land is bound up like that, it isn't hard to imagine even diehard randian libertarians acquiescing to such a contract.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Without government, I'm entitled to protect myself however I see fit. You wouldn't like that.
Oh?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Without government, I'm entitled to protect myself however I see fit. You wouldn't like that.
Oh?
No one would like that. Without a final arbitor of disputes, life would be nasty, brutish and short.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I know that, Pix. Ironically that 'final arbiter' executes the kind of power you and Lisa criticize: neither you nor I have the power to intervene in a robbery committed by one person on another and decide who is right, wrong, and who to use force on.
But the government-even in the libertarian ideal-does.
Anyway, I didn't say 'oh' because I disagreed that I wouldn't like it. I said 'oh' because I interpreted that statement to be saying at least two things, one of which was pretty silly in my opinion.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rak: If you think we don't support a government that would intervene on a robbery then you don't understand our arguments.
I'll admit I often have problems making myself understood, but Lisa is a much better speaker (typer) than me. You should at least understand her.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pix,
Of course I understand you support a government that would intervene in a robbery.
But perhaps I made a mistaken assumption: let's say I hear about someone robbing you. I'm unhappy about that because I dig you, so I decide to look into the matter. After an investigation (let's assume it's thorough and accurate) I come to the conclusion that I know who the robber was and where to find him.
I bust down his door and take him captive, throwing him into a prison I built in my backyard and give back what he stole.
Setting aside the fact that I've just done something good for you, did I have the right to do so? The right to use force and intervene after the fact, that is.
If I didn't...why does the government have that right?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That question was predicated on the assumption that you had signed such a contract. It was not intended as part of the previous scenarios. Also, I wasn't talking about any specific payment for services rendered, but about a general permissions for future taking.
Anyone shortsighted enough can enter into a foolish contract that binds them in a way they may later regret. They cannot, however, bind their descendents in that way. So you'd have to restart it at each new generation.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The previous scenarios envisioned people ending up in such contracts (beyond the initial group) because they were riders on land sale contracts and a law had been passed (entirely imaginably) by the group making the penalty for trespassing on group owned land jailing . . .
Actually, I don't think I agree. There is a concept in common law which I think is quite defensible. If you own a piece of land, and I own all the land surrounding it, you're entitled to fair passage.
And again, as far as such riders are concerned, someone who enters into a foolish agreement can do so. Someone could enter into an agreement making themselves effectively a slave. In our modern society, that contract would probably be nullified by the court, to the cost and detriment of the other party. But that doesn't mean it'd be right. Contractual obligations are contractual obligations.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, I know that, Pix. Ironically that 'final arbiter' executes the kind of power you and Lisa criticize: neither you nor I have the power to intervene in a robbery committed by one person on another and decide who is right, wrong, and who to use force on.
Nope. If someone steals from me, I have the right to go and get it back, whatever that may entail. If they hit me, I have a right to hit them back. But if everyone is doing this themselves, then Pix is right about life being nasty, brutish and short. The fact is, we all have less than perfect knowledge, and the essential difference between barbarism and civilization is that in civilization, we delegate our right of retributory violence to an objective third party.
When the police intervene between two parties, they aren't doing so as a third party; they're doing so as delegates of those two parties. Someone who refuses to delegate their right of retributory violence to the government is a danger to others, because at any time, they may incorrectly think that you did something to them and take action against you.
This is the sole justification for a government at all. To be that objective holder of our delegated right of retributory violence, and to be an objective arbitrator of disputes.
Other than that, we can govern ourselves quite well, thanks very much.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, I didn't say 'oh' because I disagreed that I wouldn't like it. I said 'oh' because I interpreted that statement to be saying at least two things, one of which was pretty silly in my opinion.
You misread it. I wouldn't like it either.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But perhaps I made a mistaken assumption: let's say I hear about someone robbing you. I'm unhappy about that because I dig you, so I decide to look into the matter. After an investigation (let's assume it's thorough and accurate) I come to the conclusion that I know who the robber was and where to find him.
I bust down his door and take him captive, throwing him into a prison I built in my backyard and give back what he stole.
Setting aside the fact that I've just done something good for you, did I have the right to do so? The right to use force and intervene after the fact, that is.
If I didn't...why does the government have that right?
You do, by nature. But if I know that everyone else out there maintains their inborn right to retaliatory violence, I will kill anyone I perceive as being willing to act on that right as a point of simple pre-emptive self-defense.
So will a lot of people.
Hence: government.
When the cops use force in such a situation, it is not because they have a perogative that I don't. It's because I've agreed to delegate that right to the government, mutually, with everyone else.
Note that I'm delegating only my right to retaliatory violence. I never had a right to initiate violence against anyone, and I can't delegate that right to any government, because I don't have it in the first place. No matter how important some people may deem it to be able to initiate violence (theft, murder, slavery) against others, it will never be acceptable, because no person or persons has ever had, or will ever have, the right to do that.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, where are these rights coming from? You talk about natural rights, but it seems to me that your natural right to not have stuff taken from you has no actual backing. If I am bigger then you, I take whatever I want. Right to life- again, if I am bigger then you, I can take that too.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Again (and again and again and again) having the government do those things does not in any way suggest that it can fund programs. That it can fund arts and education and any of the other billion dollar boondoggles that the US government uses its ill-gotten gains for.
So all taxes aren't slavery, just the ones you don't want to pay? The other taxes are ok?
What I don't get is if you think the other problems are just going to go away if we aren't taxed for government programs.
If we don't have taxes set up for medicare, what happens to all the people who can't afford health care? Do we just live with epidemics until a sufficient portion of the population dies out?
If we don't have public education, do we revert to an industrial revolution society, with subsistence farming and unregulated factory work?
Helping the less-fortunate (call it slavery-taxing to force rich people to pay for things they don't personally use if you like) isn't all about altruism. Society as a whole doesn't function well if huge numbers aren't able to maintain an adequate standard of living due to poor health or no education.
What it sounds like to me is that you're happy with a slave-state, as long as it's somebody else who is slaving away - out of sight, out of mind.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What it sounds like to me is that you're happy with a slave-state, as long as it's somebody else who is slaving away - out of sight, out of mind.
So now Lisa's enslaving people if she doesn't give them all of her money?
I thought Pixiest's definition of slavery was a stretch, but you've really raised the bar. Well done. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Thanks. If we're going to use hyperbole, I like to take it up a billion notches.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nope. If someone steals from me, I have the right to go and get it back, whatever that may entail.
Why? Property is a purely abstract concept. Unless you can derive the right to defend stolen property from the commonly agreed upon definition of property then your claim is unsupported. I see nothing in the definition of property that logically leads to the right to protect property (unless you make certain assumptions).
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If they hit me, I have a right to hit them back.
Why? Can you establish this right as an absolute without merely defining it into existence?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Other than that, we can govern ourselves quite well, thanks very much.
Of course this is just your theory. There is little evidence that a pure libertarian society would work in practice (and lots of evidence of the human abuse that results from unregulated business). At some level you must acknowledge this or else you wouldn't spend so much time trying to prove libertarianism in theory (as opposed to demonstrating how it works well in practice). As has already been explained, many people do not share the same fundamental assumptions you do so they will not draw the same conclusions you do.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)