Freedomain Radio

The following is a comment I received in response to a mini-poster I made that basically said "taxation equals theft." I made it years ago, you can take a look if you would like.

Tell me? Do you drive on public roads? Benefit from the security provided by police services and armed forces? Use money which is backed up by the state? Have Property? Well guess what? THOSE THINGS ALL COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Yes, even the Sacred Cow worshiped by Libertards of Property is a Government Construct. Without them, there is no record of Property ownership beyond what people can defend with their own power. And Power grows out of the Barral of a Gun (or more specifically the barrals of many guns owned by the gang which seizes control of the area around you). Governments need funds to work and it is not unreasonable for people to expect people to benefit. Your beleif system ammounts to a Child stopping on the floor shouting "But I don't wanna share!"

Funny, I'm giving a speech in class next week on the subject of taxation...

If violence (the initiation of force) is right in one instance then it is right in all instances. It's a double standard, a hypocrisy, and the root of much suffering. Those who support taxation, their belief system amounts to a child in the playground stealing the other kids' lunch money.

However, to be truly consistent with your stand against statism you must accept that any and all claims to the land as personal property are void. Property derived from the efforts of one's labor however are philosophically sound.

How would you respond to this?

I wouldn't.  It's insulting, not curious in the slightest, and it reeks of logical fallacies (e.g. Because money is backed up by the state now, that is the only way it can ever exist - begging the question, along with the argument from tradition).  Why do you want to respond?

1: So, if a slave accepts a meal from his master, he can't ever complain about being a slave?

2: I use money that is "backed up (lol)" by the State, because anyone who tries making his own alternative form of money gets imprisoned.  I drive on public roads because anyone who builds non-public roads gets imprisoned (and I'm forced at gunpoint to pay for them, so I might as well use them).

 

3: It's hypocritical for him to argue with you (and pointless for you to argue with him), when his point is that might makes right.  He is being logically inconsistant by arguing with you, rather than threatening you.

At most I would ask him if he has considered anything besides violence to achieve his goals, but I doubt it will be worth your time to respond at all.

Great poster!

Paul C.:

I wouldn't.  It's insulting, not curious in the slightest, and it reeks of logical fallacies (e.g. Because money is backed up by the state now, that is the only way it can ever exist - begging the question, along with the argument from tradition).  Why do you want to respond?

I wasn't planning on responding, I just wanted to hear what other people had to say regarding this. I agree, it was insulting, and perhaps that's the reason why I decided to share it here.

 

Eric Starnes:

At most I would ask him if he has considered anything besides violence to achieve his goals, but I doubt it will be worth your time to respond at all.

I don't think it is worth my time either.

 

MPeino:

Great poster!

Thanks.

Responding to this commenter on the merits of his "argument" is a waste of time.  He is clearly not inviting you to discuss in good faith the topic of government control of economic activity.  He's talking about something else entirely, and using the topic of government as a pretext. 

Here's what I see: this commenter IS that child on the playground stamping his foot, complaining to his parents.  I see HIM as the child whose parents disregarded HIS wishes and needs, and used force to coerce him into complying with their preferences. 

As an adult, he now sees nothing wrong with this way of responding to other people's expresions of preference -- with harshness, bullying, and using overwhelming power to squelch anyone else's requests. 

He's essentially saying that he can't bear the idea that everyone has the right to be free.  For him to understand that, he would first have to acknowledge that the way his parents or teachers treated him (with shouting, bullying, etc.) was wrong, unnecessary, corrupt, etc.  So instead, he has adopted their corruption, and defends it as though it were an affirmative good. He'll even invent an elaborate bogeyman fantasy of a Mad Max-style social disaster in order to justify the practice of oppressive brutality.

anarchei:

The following is a comment I received in response to a mini-poster I made that basically said "taxation equals theft." I made it years ago, you can take a look if you would like.

Tell me? Do you drive on public roads? Benefit from the security provided by police services and armed forces? Use money which is backed up by the state? Have Property? Well guess what? THOSE THINGS ALL COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Yes, even the Sacred Cow worshiped by Libertards of Property is a Government Construct. Without them, there is no record of Property ownership beyond what people can defend with their own power. And Power grows out of the Barral of a Gun (or more specifically the barrals of many guns owned by the gang which seizes control of the area around you). Governments need funds to work and it is not unreasonable for people to expect people to benefit. Your beleif system ammounts to a Child stopping on the floor shouting "But I don't wanna share!"

Well, it's not even so much an argument as it is an assertion. The responder is basically making 2 false assumptions... (1) that the state is the only way to have the goods and services listed (which is, of course, very common for those little exposed to anarchist ideas)... and (2) that someone who benefits from something without paying for it is a thief. This equivocation is false. If followed to its conclusion, since "everyone" is receiving positive spillover effects from "everyone else", "everyone" has a claim on "everyone" else's property.

Suppose a child psychologist wrote a popular book that taught parents how to raise a more intelligent, proactive, and confident child. Suppose your parents read the book and utilized the authors advice in raising you, benefitting your development as a child and consequently for the rest of your life. Does that author have a rightful claim to your income or other property?

Is a mafia syndicate legitimate in forcing someone to pay them because they offer protection services? Is slavery legitimate because a plantation owner offers his slaves food, shelter, clothing, and education?

The fact that I enjoy ice cream, and would happily pay for it, doesn't make it right for Ben and Jerry's to send me a bill every month for a "free" lifetime supply of Chubby Hubby. I somehow doubt this person would be arguing in favor of a corporation's monopoly on roads, even though at least said corporation wouldn't charge me for them if I chose not to drive on them. Ah, but the response to that is always... "we get to VOTE for state politicians, not corporate CEO's!!!" It truly is amazing how, in so many people's minds, aggression can quickly become ethical if you get a say (not even a choice) in who your aggressors are. It's totally baffling to me now, but I once thought that way too. Sometimes I forget what a mountain it is to climb to get to the anarchist perspective.

 

Paul C.:

I wouldn't.  It's insulting, not curious in the slightest, and it reeks of logical fallacies (e.g. Because money is backed up by the state now, that is the only way it can ever exist - begging the question, along with the argument from tradition).  Why do you want to respond?

Not only that but projection (re: child stomping about "sharing"), bad grammar and spelling too.  I agree with Paul.

He's trying to get you to self attack for all kinds of things, mostly "selfishness".

I have the exact same discusion in one of my native skeptic forums. And arguments are almost exactly the same: if you use "services" then state has a right to tax you. Then I say there are no alternatives, State do not let the competition, then they try using "love it or leave it" arguments. Then I point out, that state do not own a location where I live and so on, I own my house, for example, so why should I leave whole country etc.Then they insist I should go to Antarctica and create my own state... Damn crazy people. Arguing with skeptics is fun.

One of them even tried to define a state using a private restaurant analogy, that I have to pay for services in restaraunt, therefore, I have to pay taxes for a state. That's absurd. I can choose a restaurant, I can choose if I want to go there or not, but I can not choose the state, I was born there. State do not own land, because this ownership is illegitimate and so on.

And guess what? NO "SKEPTIC" in that forum dared to prove me that ownership of whole state teritory is legitimate. I am still waiting for answers, but again and again they run in circles, using same old false analogies (with restaurants, lol) and "love it or leave it" arguments.

 

 

 

 

anarchei:

Tell me? Do you drive on public roads? Benefit from the security provided by police services and armed forces? Use money which is backed up by the state? Have Property? Well guess what? THOSE THINGS ALL COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Of course they come from government. If anyone else tries to provide these services, they are violently represed by the government. If government had a monopoly on farming, then you could say "Do you eat? Well guess what? Food comes from the government".

anarchei:

Yes, even the Sacred Cow worshiped by Libertards of Property is a Government Construct. Without them, there is no record of Property ownership beyond what people can defend with their own power.

People are incapable of maintaining records of ownership? You're basically saying that we need an institution that has the right to rob us of our property in order to protect our property rights. Isn't that like saying we need a bodyguard that can feel free to beat the hell out of us any time they want in order to protect us from assualt?

anarchei:

And Power grows out of the Barral of a Gun (or more specifically the barrals of many guns owned by the gang which seizes control of the area around you). Governments need funds to work and it is not unreasonable for people to expect people to benefit.

This is a quote from Mao Tse-tung, one of the 20th centuries biggest mass-murderes, and is nothing more than a justification for all forms of violence. The knowledge that there are people out there that use violence to ATTACK people doesn't justify it any more than the knowledge that there are murderers out there justifies murder or the knowledge that there are rapists out there justifies rape. Yes, violence can ethically be used to DEFEND yourself, your loved ones, and your property, but that does NOT justify using violence to AQUIRE property.

anarchei:

Your beleif system ammounts to a Child stopping on the floor shouting "But I don't wanna share!"

If a child doesn't want to share, the correct response is to threaten them with a spanking until the "decide" to share? To take it by force? How is that "sharing"? When we try to teach a child the benefits of sharing, isn't it usually from something that is GIVEN to them BY the parent? The state doesn't give us the value that we add with our labor. The state TAKES AWAY that value. The analogy is not of us sharing what our parents give us, but of our parents taking our paper route money and threatening us with a spanking if we don't give it to them. First off, our relationship with the state is NOT a parent/child relationship. Second, if it WERE a parent child relationship, this would be an abusive parent.

 

 

 

And Power grows out of the Barral of a Gun (or more specifically the barrals of many guns owned by the gang which seizes control of the area around you).

Sartwell makes a great point in the need statists have in legitimising the state, or at least providing the state with a veneer of legitimacy:

 

States have no need to establish their own legitimacy in general except as a response to an anarchist critique, that is, to people who are seriously entertaining the idea that there is no obligation to obey state power. That, indeed, is the semi-practical aspect of the issue of legitimacy: it asks whether there is any binding force to authority or law that is not merely prudential. The idea that, for example, obedience to the law rests merely on prudence in the face of force could actually be, and is actually, a real threat to state power. For the notion that you have no obligation to obey the law except that it would be bad to get caught is merely an argument for not getting caught. -- Crispin Sartwell, Against the State, (Albany: SUNY Press, 2008), p. 9

When I was in the army we were told that the only rule was "don't get caught"

anarchei:

Tell me? Do you drive on public roads?

 Yes, and they are more expensive and less quality then ANY toll or private road I have ever driven on.

anarchei:

Benefit from the security provided by police services and armed forces?

 HA!? What security? The security to be beaten and robbed by persons who can do anything they want to me and never be punished for it? The security to wait untill I have been robbed or killed before I can make a call for help to someone who may or may not decide to show up; who then may arrest me if I tried to defend my self or others or my property?

anarchei:

Use money which is backed up by the state?

Money that is pretty much worthless, but if I tried to use other currency, I could be arrested, or charged with counterfit, or money laundering?

anarchei:

Have Property?

That I have given a part of my life to obtain, backed up by documentation and use, that the government may declare now belongs to them, by reason of whatever whim they may have at the moment, such as they can get immediate cash, and potentially higher taxes from someone else who covets it?

anarchei:

THOSE THINGS ALL COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Yes, they certainly would like you to believe these things, instead of the reality that they come from PEOPLES ideas, hard work, and private capital. After all, they force you to go to their schools, just to be sure they can "teach" you that all things flow from the generosity of the government, not really from your neighbors pocket while they HOLD A GUN TO HIS HEAD.

anarchei:

And Power grows out of the Barral of a Gun (or more specifically the barrals of many guns owned by the gang which seizes control of the area around you).

Yes, the power of the government does grow out of the barrel of a gun. Around here the gang is called city government, which kowtows to county government, who bows to state government, who pays tribute to the ultimate enforcer with the most and biggest guns, the federal government.

anarchei:

Your beleif system ammounts to a Child stopping on the floor shouting "But I don't wanna share!"

And your belief system amounts to the child who says "I want it now! I don't want to earn it! I want you to give it to me now, I don't care who it belongs to! I want it! I want it! Give it to me now, or I'm going to break everything and throw a tantrum!!!"

BTW, you may want to invest in spell check so you don't come off looking like an ILLITERATE entitled brat.

 

You could answer it like this. You would be correct, but it won't change their mind.

Oh, and i kinda had fun answering this. But I hope you didn't fall into his trap. It really doesn't deserve any reply.