[Anarcho Jesse]

I notice that many people (as is typically in a political discussion forum) here have there pet causes they like to advocate: The War in Iraq, Socialized Health Care, Social Security Reform, etc. Often times, such advocating comes with the caveat that government must do it, which would entail compulsory participation and funding of these projects. In short, this would entail some sort of implied violence against my person, as if I refused to participate, I would most surely be taken away from my home, family, and friends against my will with the threat of violence if I do not cooperate even to that extent.

So here is a question I have of those who support these programs-- let me begin by saying that I respect and acknowledge your right to support your preferred program. I encourage you to support it economically (you like the Border Patrol? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to the DHS). Now, will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you?

If your answer is no, I have no desire to debate with you. Anyone who advocates using holding a gun to my temple to fund their project isn't someone I care to associate with. If your answer is yes, am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right (for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything). Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me?

If your answer is no, again, I have no desire to have a discussion with you. Force and violence aren't intelligent discussions, they're threats. If again you have answered yes, I would presume you agree that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t like the Border Patrol, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the surge?

Broken down, would you yourself initiate violence against me to fund your preferences?

[Jakevy Jacob XXVI]

Not violence, but certain things are a necessary evil that should be funded by everyone within a country and people who refuse to pay should be made to, although not with violence.

For example, the police force is almost universally held to be a good thing useful to all of society. That's why everyone within society gets the pleasure of paying for it.

[deSouza]

Yes, I would myself initiate violence against you to fund the prefferences of the collective if I absolutely had to, because on the grand scheme of things you matter little. Preventing that millions die of hunger because they weren't educated enough to read - or to ever find a job / understand the basic about politics - is more important than getting you rid of your daddy issues.


And for the sake of comprehension, the OP probably considers any sort of cohercion violence (taxes, hierarchy, police, etc).

This post has been edited by deSouza: 23 April 2009 - 11:11 AM

[Anarcho Jesse]

Jakevy Jacob XXVI, on Apr 23 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

Not violence, but certain things are a necessary evil that should be funded by everyone within a country and people who refuse to pay should be made to, although not with violence.

How on earth would accomplish that? If I'm made to pay without my consent, it is against my will, and thus a violation of my person. In short, this can only lead to violence.

Quote

For example, the police force is almost universally held to be a good thing useful to all of society. That's why everyone within society gets the pleasure of paying for it.

If a police force is so good, why must I be forced to pay for it? Wouldn't I just pay for it out of my own pocket if I wanted it that much?

I'm going to be blunt and say that if you do respond with advocating violence in some manner, I will be finished in my discussion with you. I can't argue against a gun, because a gun simply isn't an argument.

This post has been edited by Anarcho Jesse: 23 April 2009 - 11:14 AM

[Anarcho Jesse]

deSouza, on Apr 23 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

And for the sake of comprehension, the OP probably considers any sort of cohercion violence (taxes, hierarchy, police, etc).

Cohesion or coercion? If it's cohesion, I would say that cohesion is made through voluntary, mutual interaction, not violence. If it's coercion, then yes... it is violence by plain definition.

But once you clarify this (if you will at all), I'm not interested in having a debate with someone who openly advocates violence.

[deSouza]

Anarcho Jesse, on Apr 23 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

How on earth would accomplish that? If I'm made to pay without my consent, it is against my will, and thus a violation of my person. In short, this can only lead to violence.

Your will.
Lol.

Anarcho Jesse, on Apr 23 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

If a police force is so good, why must I be forced to pay for it? Wouldn't I just pay for it out of my own pocket if I wanted it that much?

Go to somalia.

Anarcho Jesse, on Apr 23 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

I'm going to be blunt and say that if you do respond with advocating violence in some manner, I will be finished in my discussion with you. I can't argue against a gun, because a gun simply isn't an argument.

Anarcho Jesse, on Apr 23 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

But once you clarify this (if you will at all), I'm not interested in having a debate with someone who openly advocates violence.

Coercion is necessary up to a point. I agree that it is bad and shouldn't take part on our lives, but I also don't think we can make the world a better place by just wishing it.
Also, polycentrism is not good when it doesn't fits your agenda, right? Hypocracy...
Thats ok. I don't want to have that debate with you either.
It would be like beating my head to a wall.

This post has been edited by deSouza: 23 April 2009 - 11:23 AM

[Jakevy Jacob XXVI]

Anarcho Jesse, on Apr 23 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

How on earth would accomplish that? If I'm made to pay without my consent, it is against my will, and thus a violation of my person. In short, this can only lead to violence.



If a police force is so good, why must I be forced to pay for it? Wouldn't I just pay for it out of my own pocket if I wanted it that much?

I'm going to be blunt and say that if you do respond with advocating violence in some manner, I will be finished in my discussion with you. I can't argue against a gun, because a gun simply isn't an argument.

And I am going to be equally blunt and say that I find you a funny and awkward little man. If I may quote from the OED (I know, I know, dictionary definitions are really annoying)

OED said:

Violence:
noun 1 behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill. 2 strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.

You see, while I personally would be hard pressed to take your possessions from you without using physical violence, the government has all sorts of tricks that they can use to make you pay including taking you to court or imprisoning you. None of these require violence, even if they do make you do things against your will.

And the reason is that the police needs a certain amount of money to function and is expected to protect everyone. But when given the choice of whether to pay for something or not most people will choose not and this would result in many important services being cut.

However, since you seem to be saying that you dislike having laws, after all, if you want to kill a man the state can't use violence against you after the fact so they can't arrest you and you should face no consequences, I'm going to refrain from posting here in future.

[SilverHawk]

I did one better then write a check, I joined the Military.

[Germanic Republic]

Jakevy Jacob XXVI, on Apr 23 2009, 12:35 PM, said:

And I am going to be equally blunt and say that I find you a funny and awkward little man. If I may quote from the OED (I know, I know, dictionary definitions are really annoying)



You see, while I personally would be hard pressed to take your possessions from you without using physical violence, the government has all sorts of tricks that they can use to make you pay including taking you to court or imprisoning you. None of these require violence, even if they do make you do things against your will.

And the reason is that the police needs a certain amount of money to function and is expected to protect everyone. But when given the choice of whether to pay for something or not most people will choose not and this would result in many important services being cut.

However, since you seem to be saying that you dislike having laws, after all, if you want to kill a man the state can't use violence against you after the fact so they can't arrest you and you should face no consequences, I'm going to refrain from posting here in future.

What happens if he refuses to pay?

What happens if he refuses to go to jail?

I think you can figure out the next step.

[Anarcho Jesse]

Jakevy Jacob XXVI, on Apr 23 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

And I am going to be equally blunt and say that I find you a funny and awkward little man. If I may quote from the OED (I know, I know, dictionary definitions are really annoying)

I honestly thought you would have been interested in forwarding discussion, not hampering it with childish name calling. Hurts to be wrong. :\

Quote

You see, while I personally would be hard pressed to take your possessions from you without using physical violence, the government has all sorts of tricks that they can use to make you pay including taking you to court or imprisoning you. None of these require violence, even if they do make you do things against your will.

The very act of imprisonment is violence-- I am kidnapped, at gun point, and thrown in a cell. I wouldn't simply walk into a courtroom or jail cell because they asked me too; they'd have to initiate violence against me.

Quote

And the reason is that the police needs a certain amount of money to function and is expected to protect everyone. But when given the choice of whether to pay for something or not most people will choose not and this would result in many important services being cut.

So I'm not free to disagree with you? If you respond with an affirmative, I'm afraid this discussion is over. I can't have a discussion of merit if I'm be threatened with harm against my person for disagreeing and being unable to act on that disagreement.

Quote

However, since you seem to be saying that you dislike having laws, after all, if you want to kill a man the state can't use violence against you after the fact so they can't arrest you and you should face no consequences, I'm going to refrain from posting here in future.

This is a strawman-- Never did I say I didn't like having laws (that said, I believe in natural law and contractual law, not legislative), and never did I say it would be permissible to kill a man. That, after all, is the entire point of my argument, that it is no more legitimate for a man claiming to be working for a "greater good" to initiate violence as there is a man claiming to be working for his "private good" to initiate violence.

But I suppose this is the end of our conversation. Good luck with using violence to get your way.

SilverHawk, on Apr 23 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

I did one better then write a check, I joined the Military.

Did you fund your military forays out of your own pocket, or were the costs externalized? I have no problem if you want to be in the military and pay for it on your own steam, so I would hope you recognize my right to disagree with it and not pay for it.

[Ethan Smith]

Hey, you want to die because you don't want to pay for free higher education?

More power to you, man.

[Anarcho Jesse]

Ethan Smith, on Apr 23 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

Hey, you want to die because you don't want to pay for free higher education?

I actually don't want to die over it, and that's just my point-- why should I have to die for refusing to pay for some other individuals project? If an individual cannot see the problems with this, I fear for them.

Aside from that, how can you "pay" for something that is supposed to be "free"?

Quote

More power to you, man.

I noticed you didn't answer my question though-- would you initiate violence? Am I free to disagree with you?

[Maggoty]

So look, here's how it is.

This entity called the Government of the United States of America, is generally held to own all of this land. In return it provides a measure (not complete) of freedom, and a measure of security to the people who reside on it.

The vast majority of these people like this arrangement.

If you do not like this arrangement, you are free to do one of the following things, (remember the measure of freedom?). You can move to a region without a well established government. You can vote to change things.

There are even some ancillary actions you can take such as protests, and even debate here in the forums, but these ultimately are just tools to get more people to vote with you.

Now I don't personally hold any ill will against you, and unless you go off and join the taliban or something, I'll most likely never have reason or will to do violence to you. However the government will, and why would they do that?

Lets look at some history, two points, very early in our history.

Originally we didn't have a Constitution, we had the the Articles of Confederation. One of the problems with this system was that states could give as much or as little money to the federal government as they wanted. Thats right you guessed it, the Federal Government ran into problems paying for little things, like the Army.

Now, becuase we collectively tried the approach of funding something everyone wanted, (proven when we wrote the Constitution to replace the Articles instead of dissolving the Federal Government altogether), and it failed, we tell people that to not pay for this measure that fits the following criteria will have penalties.

The measure must be passed by a majority of representatives.
The measure must be Constitutional.

So to make a long explanation short, no one is holding a gun to your head to keep you here, If you don't like the conditions placed upon you during your stay, your more then welcome to move somewhere without those restrictions. I think however you'll find in your travels that the U.S., Britain, Canada, and other western countries are about as reasonable as it gets.

A popular suggestion these days is Somalia, but even without a government appearant to the outside world there are power structures in place there, such as the ICU, the Transitional gov't, and Somaliland. All of which would be more then happy to have you, as long as you obeyed under threat of violence.


Note- I don't consider getting arrested to be getting kidnapped, some important differences apply here. Kidnappers are generally doing it just for the money, and will kill or $%&@ or cut things off, or torture or do something else thats pretty horrible to you. The police are just going to throw you in jail, where you get three hots and a cot, cable TV, a library, and as long as you avoid making a guy named Bruno mad your only problem is your confinement which will end sooner rather then later.

Also the Definition of violence being strength of emotion or physical harm, doesn't much apply to the sheriffs who show up to serve a warrant on a noted pacifist. If however you've made statements to the effect of "my cold dead hands", they will bring SWAT, and these guys are the epitome of restricted violence. As long as you comply with their orders they won't hurt you, just threaten to do so. If don't comply but don't try to hurt them they will hurt you minimally. If you try to hurt them they will kill you.

IMO- to use the resources provided by the government, (power, infrastructure, police, fire) and not pay into them is a good reason to come beating on your door for backpayments. If you live off the grid and use little to none of these government provided resources, then no one is going to care.

But your using the Internet, so you should be paying your taxes.



TL;DR- I wouldn't harm you for not paying your taxes but the government certainly will (under your arbitrarily assigned definition), atleast in the states we have due process, and you don't have to worry about death squads coming in the middle of the night.

This post has been edited by Maggoty: 23 April 2009 - 12:47 PM

[HHAYD]

Anarcho Jesse, on Apr 23 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

The very act of imprisonment is violence-- I am kidnapped, at gun point, and thrown in a cell. I wouldn't simply walk into a courtroom or jail cell because they asked me too; they'd have to initiate violence against me.

Fine with me if you want criminals roaming the streets. Police forces has the right to arrest people (with evidences), and hold them in jail for court when the preview court (I can't remember the exact name) says there is enough evidences to put the accused in court.

Anyways, you are not exactly kidnapped when you are going to be convicted for crimes that the police believe you did. They would only show their guns when they know you are dangerous.

If you still want to argue, why not go to Somalia or somewhere that an efficient government does not exist and then come back and tell us how good it is?

[Anarcho Jesse]

Maggoty, on Apr 23 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

So look, here's how it is.

This entity called the Government of the United States of America, is generally held to own all of this land. In return it provides a measure (not complete) of freedom, and a measure of security to the people who reside on it.

Can you prove ownership? What are the parameters for such ownership, and how was it achieved? Did the United States government go out and homestead all of the land, or did private individuals do it? If the United States government did homestead all of the land, did it acquire the means to pay for it with violence or did every person in that time willingly surrender their property in the form of payment to fund such a project?

Quote

The vast majority of these people like this arrangement.

This is of little consequence to the discussion itself.

Quote

If you do not like this arrangement, you are free to do one of the following things, (remember the measure of freedom?). You can move to a region without a well established government. You can vote to change things.

But I am NOT free to disagree with you, am I? I cannot simply disagree and act on that disagreement? Moreover, you're again falling back on a presumption that the government is legitimate in the first place, in order to prove it is legitimate. This is a tautology, a logical fallacy.

Quote

There are even some ancillary actions you can take such as protests, and even debate here in the forums, but these ultimately are just tools to get more people to vote with you.

What is a vote? Is a vote violent or non-violent?

Quote

Now I don't personally hold any ill will against you, and unless you go off and join the taliban or something, I'll most likely never have reason or will to do violence to you. However the government will, and why would they do that?

Before we continue, let me just say that I appreciate that you wouldn't do violence towards me, and I'm always going to extend the same mutual attitude towards you (unless of course one of us is acting in self-defense, in which case violence can absolutely be justified).

However, my feelings towards you would be tainted if you instead advocated another person use violence against me if you personally choose not to be the actual perpetrator.

Quote

Lets look at some history, two points, very early in our history.

Originally we didn't have a Constitution, we the the Articles of Confederation. One of the problems with this system was that states could give as much or as little money to the federal government as they wanted. Thats right you guessed it, the Federal Government ran into problems paying for little things, like the Army.

Now, becuase we collectively tried the approach of funding something everyone wanted, (proven when we wrote the Constitution to replace the Articles instead of dissolving the Federal Government altogether), and it failed, we tell people that to not pay for this measure that fits the following criteria will have penalties.

The measure must be passed by a majority of representatives.
The measure must be Constitutional.

I'm not interested in giving you a history lesson, but I would point out that the Articles worked fine, for what they were. It was because the Federal Government couldn't levy taxes with impunity did several powerful, rich men come together and throw together a piece of legislation that would essentially place unchecked power into the hands of a central government. Armies and other projects can be funded privately, and if the demand was so high, everyone would be clamoring to pay for them.

So again, we return to both your tautological reasoning (all of this simply assumes legitimacy) and a proxy action of violence. Am I or am I not free to disagree with you?

Quote

So to make a long explanation short, no one is holding a gun to your head to keep you here, If you don't like the conditions placed upon you during your stay, your more then welcome to move somewhere without those restrictions. I think however you'll find in your travels that the U.S., Britain, Canada, and other western countries are about as reasonable as it gets.

A popular suggestion these days is Somalia, but even without a government appearant to the outside world there are power structures in place there, such as the ICU, the Transitional gov't, and Somaliland. All of which would be more then happy to have you, as long as you obeyed under threat of violence.

TL;DR- I wouldn't harm you for not paying your taxes but the government certainly will (under your arbitrarily assigned definition), atleast in the states we have due process, and you don't have to worry about death squads coming in the middle of the night.

All of this is simply an appeal to social contract and is apologia for violence. I can't think of anything more to say that I haven't already said.

[Anarcho Jesse]

HHAYD, on Apr 23 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

Fine with me if you want criminals roaming the streets.

An appeal to fear. You're actually refusing to answer my question, which is what this thread is all about-- are you willing to initiate violence against me and others who disagree with you?

Quote

Police forces has the right to arrest people (with evidences), and hold them in jail for court when the preview court (I can't remember the exact name) says there is enough evidences to put the accused in court.

They have the right to hold another person against their will?

Quote

Anyways, you are not exactly kidnapped when you are going to be convicted for crimes that the police believe you did. They would only show their guns when they know you are dangerous.

Am I dangerous if I refuse to pay taxes? Am I dangerous for inhaling a plant? Am I dangerous for refusing to pay for wars I don't want anything to do with? Am I dangerous to refuse paying for your child's schooling? Am I dangerous for refusing to pay for corporate bailouts?

Quote

If you still want to argue, why not go to Somalia or somewhere that an efficient government does not exist and then come back and tell us how good it is?

I'd like to point out that the typical appeal to Somalia is fueled by nothing but ignorance; I'd like to recommend to you Benjaming Powell's case study on development in Africa (Focus on Somalia). There is also a great resource here at the FLL detailing it in clarity with references and citation of studies done on Somalia. Somalia is not perfect, but it's not the hellhole that the media and government make it out to be.

[Anarcho Jesse]

I feel it bears repeating-- what the solutions would be to the myriads of problems would be aren't the issue at hand, but rather, am I free to disagree?

It's a really simple question.

[Vaal Satori]

Donations are usually tax deductible, which means you can have control over where your tax dollars go. If you don't want your taxes funding things you don't like then give more to causes of your choosing and remember to write it down on your tax forms every April.

[Maggoty]

The government gains it's legitimacy from the people. If even 10 percent considered the Government illigetimate, and just 1 percent was willing to act against that government, then we would have serious problems. Thus the vast majority approve this form of government, giving it legitimacy.

You know that vast majority which you said didn't apply?

And no voting is not a violent act. You can vote for whomever you like, even the lizard people without fear of redress from anyone.

As far as your arguement that people would fund it if it was so obviously essential to them, maybe I should re-word the statement, while the state governments all wanted independance, they nevertheless failed to properly fund the Federal Government and thus the Army. This was why we had to rely on under trained, and under equipped militiamen.

If your entire point of veiw rests upon the assertion that the government is not a legitimate government, I would ask you to prove they are not legitimate since you are the one challenging the assertion.

Note- My use of federal government isn't completely correct but I'm using it so that everyone knows what I'm talking about.


Also My whole point which I thought you had gotten was that you are free to disagree to a certain point. Once the majority has spoken, within the constitution, the matter is closed until you can get it officially re-opened. You are always free to act upon your disagreement even after you lost the arguement with the majority, but then they are free to force you back into line.

This post has been edited by Maggoty: 23 April 2009 - 01:09 PM

[Czar Garrett]

Anarcho Jesse, on Apr 23 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

I feel it bears repeating-- what the solutions would be to the myriads of problems would be aren't the issue at hand, but rather, am I free to disagree?

It's a really simple question.

You're free to disagree as much as you'd like.


That being said, the way the American (and most of the Western world's) governments are set up require that you adhere to the laws made, lest you suffer the consequences.

Don't want to pay taxes? Go ahead, skip out on them. But if you go to jail, don't complain. What you should be doing is attempting to change the problem, not ignore it.