RE: Fear of Voluntaryism due to Statist Thinking
Thanks for the reply! The first video is indeed very clear to me. In the second video:
governments should be afraid of their people
I love it! I agree 100%!
I get it: life, liberty, and property. I suppose I agree with everything in theory. In practice, I'm not so sure. Life, obvious. Property, mostly obvious (How do you know what's truly yours or just given to you temporarily for your use? Is money truly yours?). Liberty, this is where I have a problem. I don't think we have the same definition of liberty. Or, I just don't fully understand yet the voluntaryist definition of it.
It's not ok to be an aggressor (the one initiating or starting violence.) but it's ok to defend yourself against aggressors.
So this is where it gets problematic for me. This whole thing started in this post that includes some talk about taxes. I simply don't see how having to pay taxes is "initiating or starting violence" against people.
Yes, the argument is that it's taking away from your liberty. How so? Because you want to do whatever you want with your money? Is that even your money to begin with? How did you get that money? Did you print that money yourself? Did you create the economic system that allows you to earn money?
The thing is, I see all this as a game. A game has rules. You don't like the rules, don't play the game. Go somewhere else where you agree with the rules. Or, make up your own game. Or, play the game but try to change the rules. Of course, you can also try to eliminate all the rules altogether.
For me, I don't like playing games without rules being agreed beforehand. I want games to be fair and if there are no rules I don't trust all the players to play fairly. Everyone has their own idea of "fair". It will always be impossible to get a consensus. So rules are in place as a compromise. It's something that most, if not all, are willing to accept in order to play the game.
Also, I'm not a generalist. I won't look at a bunch of laws I don't agree with and decide that we're better off without any laws at all. I'll simply agree that those specific laws a stupid and should be done away with. It doesn't mean all the other laws are bad too.
Again, take taxes. I like taxes. I live in a country where taxes work. I like free quality schooling for all children. I like roads and highways. I like public transportation. I like all the things that the taxes help pay for. Is it perfect? No. But how would it work if there were no taxes at all? Ethical people will simply contribute enough money? Good luck with that. I have a lot less faith in humans than you do, if that's the case.
Thank you for the reply.
Governments should be afraid of their people is put in by the maker of the video. Not the writer of the rest of the text. And I believe I can say, knowing the writers philosophy that that is not something he would have put there.
If someone can tell you what you may, and may not do, have to hand over 80% of your labor to them, and are seen to have the right to use and escalate violence, to make you obey. Do you think, that thing and the people who work for it, will ever be afraid of THEIR people? ( the people that they own, the people they can force to do labor and that must hand it over, or be punished?)
If I have agreed with someone to do something for him and he has agreed to give me money (a store of value/ medium of exchange) in return for it. And we agreed upon that in a contract or otherwise, in other words, it's consensual, or playing the game with rules being agreed on beforehand. Can you proof that the money (fruits of my labor) has been gotten unfairly/or is not mine?
Let's say I was living in your "country" and I was your neighbor or friend and I asked you:
What would you personally advocate happen to me personally if I don't pay the demanded tribute to the ruling class to pay for the things you want or deem necessary? Please as be literal and specific as you can.
Do I have the right to come to your house with a gun and say give me your money to pay for the things I like, or deem good?
If there is a law (incl. tax law) that a person is morally opposed to, must that person do what he deems wrong, just for the sake of obeying that law?
I'd like to add;
My reply was not to go in debate or discussion with you (for which I don't have the time) but more a reply on this;
The questions you don't have to answer they are more rethorical (I believe it's called) to show where volutaryism is based upon, which you can do research on....... if you like of course.
I hope you don't mind that I don't want to do long discussions that take a lot of my time and energy.
P.S. I scanned the post you linked and the replies, will read it furrow later.
Peace :)
I'm beginning to wonder if my struggle with understanding voluntaryism is cultural or based on a fundamental difference in way of thinking. I don't view taxation as a tribute to the ruling class. I see it as a means to pay for public services and infrastructure.
I also don't understand why everything ends up with guns and violence. Most of the arguments I've heard so far end with this. Like jaywalking can end in shootouts with the cops. I have trouble comprehending this kind of reasoning. All I can think of is, "What kind of country do you currently live in that every single infraction of the law ends in extreme violence?"
As for laws that you deem wrong, that's an interesting one. If most people deem it wrong then I wonder how it became law in the first place. If only a handful of people find it wrong then tough luck. Either comply, don't comply and face the consequences, leave the jurisdiction of that particular law, or stay and fight to scrap it.
In any case, I'll try to do more research.
Let me walk you trough. ( edit If you want...of course)
What do you personally advocate the cop you hired, should do to me personally if I jaywalk (I did not cause harm in any way)?
Edit (by way of answering these questions I like to explore what you personally think)
Some questions might feel like guilt tripping (I believe it's called that, I'm not a native english speaker or writer)
But that is not the purpose of the questions. They are not personal attacks.
If you don't want to answer that is fine also, no problem at all. Just say so. :)
Well, jaywalking is usually a minor offense and a fine. If you're crossing the street away from the cop, it's unlikely he can be bothered to chase after you. Maybe he remembers your face, maybe he takes a photo and if you'e identified, you receive a bill in the mail.
If you're crossing the street towards the cop, then he may signal to you to stop and turn around. If you insist on crossing the street anyway or he didn't see you initially or you didn't see him, then he stops you after you've crossed over to his side. He then gives you a ticket which you need to pay, not on the spot but at some point.
In my experience (as in, observing other people jaywalk with traffic cops around), cops would never physically stop you from crossing the street. I don't even know how that would work. He runs after you into the street? I suppose he could but I've never seen it. Mostly, I've just seen angry cops. In any case, I don't see how it escalates to shooting. I'm not even sure if traffic cops have guns. But, I guess it's different in your experience or in your country.
Edit:
No problem at all. I'm not a sensitive person so I never take things personally. I also have no emotional or sentimental attachments to any of my beliefs. I'm always happy to challenge my beliefs or explore beliefs that are different from my own. I argue in favor of my beliefs in order to prove them right or prove them wrong. If proven wrong, then I have no problem changing my beliefs at that instant.
So regarding voluntaryism, this is something new to me and I find it interesting. I'm still trying to understand it but so far I agree with some aspects while I disagree with others.
I edited the reply before this one you might want to read it.
But I see you have given me an answer already.
You describe what might happen and what your experiences are. But what I wanted to know is what you advocate being done to me.
Can I make up out of you're answer you would advocate for them to fine me, sending a ticket to my house?
Sorry, you're right. I didn't actually answer the question. Yes, I would advocate for a fine. Like a ticket/bill sent to your house, for example.
If you don't pay, you get another bill later with interest. If you simply refuse to pay, other action will be taken against you. Maybe something you own will be repossessed. Or, the amount will be automatically deducted from your salary. If you're self employed, maybe other sanctions like loss of credentials or license to operate your business.
There are any number of actions that can be taken but at this point it is no longer an issue of jaywalking. It's a matter of owing money to the government, or state, or city, or town. Whatever the case may be, you will no longer be welcome in that community or society. There are other ways to make your life miserable without resorting to armed violence.
Thanks for the answer.
I read your edit b.t.w. :)
I back up a little.
If I saw you walking somewhere (maybe i.m.o. dangerous)...you have not harmed anyone and not brought someone in danger, would it be ok for me ( a normal human being) to take your money? Giving you a paper with a sum of money on it directly, or send it to you by mail threatening you to send higher bills, if you don't pay. Would I have the right to do that?
I edited to clarify
No, unless it's your job to do so. And by job, I mean you try to enforce the law (maybe blow a whistle, give me an angry look, or yell at me) or help carry out the "punishment" by writing a ticket. It would not be your job to try and take my money or threaten me. That's someone else's job.
By the way, your opinions or feelings on my actions are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. That said, you could choose to turn a blind eye and let me get away with it. Or let me go with a warning.
In general, laws allow for leeway in the amount of punishment but there is a hard limit on the maximum. So for jaywalking it could be anything from simply letting you go up until the maximum of writing you a ticket. It can't be more than that.
My labor is time, and time is life. If you steal part of my life against my will, am I free?
I see what you're getting at but I don't agree with the logic.
Taxes do not steal part of your life because they do not steal any time away from you. They don't even steal any of your labor. If it does "steal" something then I'd say that it steals part of your perceived value of your labor.
Let's say your labor is worth 100$ per hour. Less taxes, you're left with 70$ in your hand. The value of your labor is still 100$ but from your perspective it's only 70$. So you feel that 30$ has been stolen from you.
On the other hand, you could think of it in a different way. What if the value of your labor is really only 70$ but the government "steals" 30$ from the buyer? It's just that you're collecting the 30$ on behalf of the government which you remit to them later.
My point is, some things are facts and some things are merely opinions based on perspective. Having to pay taxes, that's a fact. That taxes are the equivalent of stealing, that's an opinion. We can easily agree on facts but it's much more difficult to agree on opinion because different people have different perspectives.
By the way, let's pretend I agree with the first part of your statement. Are you free? Yes. Free people get things stolen from them all the time. You are free to try and stop me from stealing. Or, you are free to can go and live somewhere else where I can't steal from you. You are free because I have no control over your actions and you have complete freedom of movement. You just need to be aware that your actions have consequences and I'm also free to react to your actions accordingly.
My effective tax rate is at least a third of my income. That's me working for a third of the year to pay those taxes. That's a LOT of time and a third of my life.
When I am forced to pay something against my will like a "property tax" on a vehicle I was already taxed on when I bought it, that is absolutely without question THEFT. That's not an opinion. The government comes up with ways to extract money from people for the costs it has. If the government was as small as it should be, none of the ridiculously long list of taxes I have to pay would exist. They wouldn't be needed.
You can write what you did in the last paragraph, but ask Peter Schiff's father about it. Oh, wait. You can't. He died in prison because the IRS put him there for failure to pay their taxes. I am not free without paying part of my life, the time I spend laboring, to stay out of prison--or worse avoid being shot.
We'll never agree on this issue. Thanks for the conversation!