Freedomain Radio

Hi, 

First off, it's so hard to pick the right forums for some of these questions, so if a mod finds a better place for this question, by all means help me re-locate it to it's proper forum.

I was on the FDR Chat room earlier today asking for advice as to how I ought to approach my friend about his penchant for receiving unemployment checks from the state. I don't have the original question as I'd originally posed it, but essentially, at the time I was pretty convinced that this was the same sort of leechy behavior that contributed to the health of the state and it disgusted me that one of my close friends, a gentle, intelligent, excellent friend of mine would be contributing to the problem. But, with a lot of these ideas being pretty new to me, I logged into the chat to run my ideas by some of the friendly folk that were nice enough to offer advice, and was surprised to encounter a unanimous consensus that my friend was (unwittingly) doing exactly the right thing to combat the state, by draining them of their resources, and that he was excused of any wrongdoing on the grounds that, whether or not it's happening now, the state will be robbing him for the rest of his life. 

Another nice fellow followed up and inquired a little bit more about my hesitation to talk to this so-called friend of mine, and that if he and I both had his best interests in mind, I should be able to just have this conversation with him even if I'm not 100% comfortable with the ideas, and while I for the most part agree, I feel like it'd be a better idea to strengthen my convictions about certain matters before I delve into a potentially difficult conversation about morality -- and I'm pretty glad I did hesitate so that I could talk it over some with some FDR-ers. 

But I wanted to just follow up a little bit more on the logic that it's actually desirable for my friend to be accepting unemployment checks. The consensus was that, because the state steals from everyone, it's OK to steal back from the state what's been taken from you. So, first question: what about the many people who pay no taxes and receive welfare checks? I suppose the proper response is that, whether or not they're paying taxes, their lives have almost certainly been ruined by the state due to public education and coercive legislation that kills jobs and so on, so that that would legitimize draining the state of its resources via accepting welfare/unemployment checks. Does that sound like a valid response? 

That's pretty much how things were left, but I had one more thing I was turning over in my brain that didn't make sense, namely: considering there was no hostility for the person accepting welfare checks (admiration, even), at what point does someone become an evil statist who ought to be combatted? What if, instead of sitting on my unemployed ass and receiving unemployment checks, I worked at the State Bureau of Ass-sitting, did absolutely nothing, and then accepted compensation at the same rate that I previously got from my unemployment checks? Presumably, that'd be identical? Then the question is, where do you draw the line? Is it once I start working for the IRS? Is it once I start marking tax returns for audits? Is it once I order police officers to collect unpaid taxes? 

As long as you don't fall for the "we have to have a state to help the helpless, jobless, and so on" I think it's all right to take state money. As long as you don't depend on the state so much you won't hear any questions about taking the state off our backs. As long as you're not so dependent you don't want to address issues of freedom.

As a matter of fact, the unemployment insurance we pay in Canada has such a surplus that the government is accessing it for other purposes, as it look like there never will come a point when all the money the government has deducted from pay slips can't pay the ones who are getting benefits.

Some private companies could set up job insurance schemes in the absence of government, and offer different plans to appeal to workers.

I'd say working for or getting money from the state becomes immoral when one argues that the state should violently secure his/her income stream at the expense of others. Otherwise, eating where the bread is is not something I would call reprehensible, but sure is bad for a portfolio once you try and get the same goodies in the free market. There is something unique in terms of job security you obtain when climbing the ladders in the free market. A 15 years experience programmer might not be able to get back his work from home, overtime paid 2x, 85K a year job if he/she loses it, but sure as hell nobody would want to hire someone like this for 30k a year as they'd hire a static rock. You do not get this kind of security net when working for the state. The state's decree falls, so do you, back where you started 10, 15, 20 years ago.

OK, so as long as, through my state-funded career, I never tell anyone or express the opinion that there ought to be a state, and that deep down I believe that we should abolish the state, that's A-OK? 

So I could be a unionized public school teacher as long as I didn't espouse the state or praise its goodness?

What if I were an IRS agent? What if I were just doing the job that any other statist would be required to do in my position, though I myself believed in abolishing the state? 

I hope these don't just seem like nit-picking thought experiments, but I'm still trying grasp where it becomes morally suspect to get money from the state.

I have worked for various companies, and for myself sometimes, and I most of the time accepted that people for unknown reasons had to support things the way they were, including the state. I didn't even know of anyone questioning the state, and I'd never heard of such a thing, and I assume that the majority are still in that place. FDR is changing the scene, person by person, FDR and other internet sites. Amazing new thinking is coming out. 

For me, not too much was state-funded, as I was prone to questioning the school system in high school. I wanted things to make sense even in the terms that the system itself sets out. But that didn't happen. School didn't respond, it just didn't want to hear anything I had to say, and closed up. It didn't feel like there was anything going on but a one way street and one car on the street - me - going the wrong way.

Even such a radical as Noam Chomsky was saying on one of his videos that he understood that you weren't supposed to question the system of school, and didn't. Of course, he came from a family of intellectuals, and I didn't. I came from the military branch of society, where standing up for what you are is important - well, I don't know what way to break it down, but my approach was like suicide - I quit. Nobody quit school in those days, and so I had a problem. A few years later, I was amused to see so many more teenagers really question the systems. 

When I first ran into those who questioned the need for a state, it was interesting. I still do not know how it's going to happen that we outgrow the pathetic need for states, but it's likely as Stef says, a multi-generational process.

If you work for the state, you might or might not have the consciousness of questioning. My brother worked through a career in government service, and my sister, too. We come from the nation's capital, so the jobs were handy. They don't have my force of questioning the essentials - perhaps my example of "why not to question authorities" (I was the oldest) was a lesson for them. (I had a lot of difficulties finding any place in society for quite a while.)

Where does it become morally suspect to get $ from the state? When you get any money at all, you're complict in state activities, but the state has all the force and you have none, so it's pretty uneven, the playing field. If you refuse state money for the reason that you don't want to associate yourself with overseas wars, for example, that would be admirable, I suppose.

But am I going to do it? I have lots of good reasons why not to, starting with my experience of already having done the idealist sacrifice thing regarding the oppressive school system, and I feel that that was enough. As for judging others, it's cutting both ways - the stricter you are, the stricter the self-examination will become. The more lenient, the more lenient will be your self-tolerance.

I hope this rambling post isn't too off-putting, machty. 

Testudines:

Where does it become morally suspect to get $ from the state? When you get any money at all, you're complict in state activities, but the state has all the force and you have none, so it's pretty uneven, the playing field. If you refuse state money for the reason that you don't want to associate yourself with overseas wars, for example, that would be admirable, I suppose.

But am I going to do it? I have lots of good reasons why not to, starting with my experience of already having done the idealist sacrifice thing regarding the oppressive school system, and I feel that that was enough. As for judging others, it's cutting both ways - the stricter you are, the stricter the self-examination will become. The more lenient, the more lenient will be your self-tolerance.

I don't get state money, but i still think it's OK and even moral to take the money.  For one, if the government is evil, anything that diminishes their bank account and/or prevents them from spending those same dollars on somebody more evil seems helpful to their overall decline.  Secondly, the transfer from state to bum is voluntary and it's only the transfer from taxpayer to state that was forced.  We should aim our disapproval accurately.

My analogy is this:  if an evil mafia guy drops his wallet and I find it, I can keep the money.  I didn't initiate force.  And returning it would only enable him a little more.  So if somebody believes taking the state money is wrong, then they should also want to help mafia guy find his wallet, right?

RestoringGuy:

I don't get state money, but i still think it's OK and even moral to take the money.  For one, if the government is evil, anything that diminishes their bank account and/or prevents them from spending those same dollars on somebody more evil seems helpful to their overall decline.  Secondly, the transfer from state to bum is voluntary and it's only the transfer from taxpayer to state that was forced.  We should aim our disapproval accurately.

My analogy is this:  if an evil mafia guy drops his wallet and I find it, I can keep the money.  I didn't initiate force.  And returning it would only enable him a little more.  So if somebody believes taking the state money is wrong, then they should also want to help mafia guy find his wallet, right?

But the more people that "sign up" for programs that get money from the state, the more the state will have to rob people to pay for it. I guess you could say, the state was going to grow anyway even if you hadn't joined, but, then again, the state is nothing but the people that it pays, and I'm not really sure how else the state could grow other than people signing up to receive checks from it. Some of these people condone violence and commit violent acts themselves, while others commit no violence but their very presence on the payroll increases the amount that the willfully violent ones have to rob from other people. 

By being on the payroll, you're increasing the amount that the state robs from other people, while also withdrawing your energies from a productive private sector (assuming your state "job" takes all your time, or that, like my friend in the OP, you're accepting state money because you don't like working and would rather pursue your own, less lucrative craft). I think, with this narrower viewpoint, such an act is decisively immoral. The only saving grace is the proposition that you'd be contributing to the state crumbling under its own weight. I mean, maybe that justifies it, but while the state is still hobbling along, I think it's fair to say that you're robbing everyone else just as much as the state is, but in a more cowardly way (e.g. you're reluctant to be the one holding the gun).

Not sure how many of you are convinced of Stef's "against me" argument, namely that when confronting a person as to whether or not they support state violence, you can really cut to the chase and get a more honest/direct answer if you append "against me", i.e. "do you support state violence against me, if I, say, don't agree that I should pay taxes, or send my child to public school, etc.?" But if you're on the state's payroll, even with the mindset that you're helping the state crumble in on itself, I don't think someone could confront you with the "against me" argument with you responding decisively (and honestly) in the negative. To some extent, you'd have to say, "I support state violence, but only when it aids in the collapse of the state." Am I missing something here? 

machty:

But the more people that "sign up" for programs that get money from the state, the more the state will have to rob people to pay for it. I guess you could say, the state was going to grow anyway even if you hadn't joined, but, then again, the state is nothing but the people that it pays, and I'm not really sure how else the state could grow other than people signing up to receive checks from it. Some of these people condone violence and commit violent acts themselves, while others commit no violence but their very presence on the payroll increases the amount that the willfully violent ones have to rob from other people. 

By being on the payroll, you're increasing the amount that the state robs from other people, while also withdrawing your energies from a productive private sector (assuming your state "job" takes all your time, or that, like my friend in the OP, you're accepting state money because you don't like working and would rather pursue your own, less lucrative craft). I think, with this narrower viewpoint, such an act is decisively immoral. The only saving grace is the proposition that you'd be contributing to the state crumbling under its own weight. I mean, maybe that justifies it, but while the state is still hobbling along, I think it's fair to say that you're robbing everyone else just as much as the state is, but in a more cowardly way (e.g. you're reluctant to be the one holding the gun).

Not sure how many of you are convinced of Stef's "against me" argument, namely that when confronting a person as to whether or not they support state violence, you can really cut to the chase and get a more honest/direct answer if you append "against me", i.e. "do you support state violence against me, if I, say, don't agree that I should pay taxes, or send my child to public school, etc.?" But if you're on the state's payroll, even with the mindset that you're helping the state crumble in on itself, I don't think someone could confront you with the "against me" argument with you responding decisively (and honestly) in the negative. To some extent, you'd have to say, "I support state violence, but only when it aids in the collapse of the state." Am I missing something here? 

This is a good observation.  I don't accept that signing up to recieve the check increases the amount the violent ones need to rob.  The amount they rob is of their own choosing.  If I find a mafia guy's wallet, I would not return it thinking "now mafia guy will need to beat up fewer people."

Just because the government sets up an elaborate system of sign-ups and accounting, doesn't seem to separate them morally from basic street robbery.  And if they allow me to "sign up" to receive the money, so long as I don't aid or approve of violence, that seems like a stupidity on their part.  The government "dropped their wallet"  and nothing more.

I am not sure the "against me" argument means I would "support" the state even to limited extent of defeating them.  I would only be exploiting them.  That is the big confusion in my opinion.  Exploiting somebody is not necessarily supporting them in some tiny way.  I don't say I support violence of the mafia guy by keeping his wallet "only when it aids his collapse".   I am exploiting his money, and his collapse is not enabled by violence that I encouraged him to do.  Why is the government different?

machty:

I was on the FDR Chat room earlier today asking for advice as to how I ought to approach my friend about his penchant for receiving unemployment checks from the state.

How long has your friend been recieving unemployment checks?  Is he searching for a job?

KyleC:

How long has your friend been recieving unemployment checks?  Is he searching for a job?

For about a year? I'm not sure how it works or what you have to prove to get it, but I think they started coming in around a year ago after he was fired from his job as a waiter for being unpunctual and inattentive. Nowadays, he gets catering jobs every so often, and spends every other waking hour (roughly 20 hours a day) on his music. He gets by on whatever minimal amount he gets from catering, plus the unemployment checks, and probably occasionally from his parents (unconfirmed). Extremely motivated guy, doesn't want to spend any more time than necessary away from his music. 

Have you talked to him about how the state is violent?

KyleC:

Have you talked to him about how the state is violent?

In the past, when I wasn't as eloquent in expressing these ideas, back when I was more of a minarchist, newly inspired by Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, and some others. I definitely think it's important to let your ideas stew for a bit so that your newfound exuberance doesn't undercut a difficult, nuanced argument you're trying to make. He'd been inspired by Ayn Rand in the past, before "growing up" and realizing that living life according to your values wasn't practical, was too painful to others and generally anti-social. But before I started entertaining some of the ideas espoused by Stef and FDR, I definitely modelled myself after him since he was (and still is) quite adept at living life according to his values, but still humors his boring parents every so often by coming home for family vacations and consistently having an extremely shitty time, as is to be expected. But while he's arguably better than (I bet) a lot of FDR listeners who haven't yet overcome social pressures to keep their relationships virtuous, strictly voluntary, non-hypocritical and guilt-free, he'd be extremely reluctant to tell others difficult truths the implications of which he doesn't think they'd be able to overcome, and he doubts heavily that a fringe philosophical group (e.g. FDR) would have the answers to a lot of the world's problems, and, similar to FA Hayek's approach to a lot of questions of social organization, he believes that we probably have limited knowledge as to how/why society has evolved over the years to what it is today, that we should temper our convictions to some degree and leave some room that there might be a very good, legitimate, desirable reason to keep some modicum of violence infused in the backbone of society. 

We actually had an argument about these sorts of topics a year back (yes, probably around the time he started accepting unemployment). There was something about the way I posted on Facebook (and other venues) about these topics, something about how I just seemed so sure of myself, that he was immediately on his guard against a lot of what I had to say. I remember him saying something along the lines of, "Fantastic, you have this grand scheme of how things ought to work, but 1) you do realize that you're some young guy who diverges from 95% of older, Ph D intellectuals who spend their lives studying this shit, and 2) who the hell cares? Everyone knows politicians are evil, but why get wrapped up in all the bullshit? I for one have no problem living my life the way I want to and letting the politicians keep their loot and rule the world." I think he was ultimately suspicious that I merely enjoyed the seemingly contrarian argument in and of itself and the feeling of being right, but that considering things aren't going to change any time soon, why was I wasting my time trying to convince anyone about political shit? 

I suppose it's been a while since I delved into this stuff with him, and I've certainly improved at being able to express my ideas. Probably time for another go? But I'm definitely glad I vetted my approach to the whole unemployment checks thing before I shot myself in the foot. That said, I'm still not entirely convinced at the seemingly unanimous FDR viewpoint that he's harming the state and somehow NOT contributing to the robbery, so...

RestoringGuy:

Just because the government sets up an elaborate system of sign-ups and accounting, doesn't seem to separate them morally from basic street robbery.  And if they allow me to "sign up" to receive the money, so long as I don't aid or approve of violence, that seems like a stupidity on their part.  The government "dropped their wallet"  and nothing more.

There's also the issue that a major reason the state is still around is that so many people still think it is legitimate to keep society from dissolving. People see the gloomy statistics on poverty and think, "It sucks, but it'd be way worse without state subsidies." People see how many people are employed by the state and might think, "Ok, we could afford to rid ourselves of a few bureaucratic departments, but what are those state employees going to do once they're thrown on the streets?" Now, we all understand why these objections are bankrupt, but our job as truth spreaders becomes more difficult the more people are convinced that in the absence of the state, all the people that have come to depend on it (which, to the uninformed, will seem like anyone getting a paycheck from it) will be thrown out in the streets and have no social safety net. The statistics won't be able to distinguish between an intelligent capable dude who is very much intentionally poor (because he values his music more than material wealth) vs. someone whose parents were poor and uneducated and couldn't provide this someone with a reasonable degree of education and opportunity. These statistics, of course, make a good argument for why institutionalized, large-scale, state-managed charities are a bad idea, but to the masses that are still uninformed and state-leaning, it simply fortifies their conviction that we very much need a state, otherwise certain people would be completely fucked. It's up to us to change these people's minds, but the more we let (or condone, even) free-loaders to sign up for checks from the state, the harder we're needlessly letting our job become. 

So, we want to end the state above all. One way for this to happen is for the state to crumble in on itself, and we can speed that along by signing up for payouts from the state (or taking up state jobs without us personally committing the violence ourselves). But, we also have to make sure that when the state crumbles, the ideas for freedom are reasonably pervasive so that we don't end up with something worse, and the more we make it seem that just about everyone depends on the state, the harder it is for us to spread these ideas. It's a balance, is it not?

machty:

But the more people that "sign up" for programs that get money from the state, the more the state will have to rob people to pay for it.

 

Yes, and the more the state spends, the closer to it gets to its bankruptcy. Which is what we also want. Your objections to taking state money actually helps the state financially staying alive that much longer. This is a statist concern, it should not be of any concern to you.

francisd:

Yes, and the more the state spends, the closer to it gets to its bankruptcy. Which is what we also want. Your objections to taking state money actually helps the state financially staying alive that much longer. This is a statist concern, it should not be of any concern to you. 

Yeah, I'm definitely coming around to this viewpoint, but I think it cuts both ways. See my previous post. 

 The consensus seems to be " by taking state money I am helping to bankrupt the state, so I am helping bring it down". The only bankrupting I see with here, is the logic used to support the statement.. Here's why I think this.

1.   You can not bankrupt the state. It has already happened decades ago. Still it trudges on using the blood of the unborn to bribe its way into the future. No matter how much you try to drain the funds from the state it will only steal more either by taxes or printing more money that steals from us all under the table by inflation.

2.  The state has no resources of its own. Everything it has it stole from someone who worked for it. Regardless of the reason why, If you take state money you are receiving stolen property. IMHO this makes you just as criminal as the state.

3. You may think you are helping to destroy the state by taking it bribes, but the state will use the increasing numbers of people depending on it justify itself and steal even more. This will also be the reason they use to increase the police state, as they will need it to steal more from the populace who doesn't want to give up more of their resources. You are building the states power to enslave us all.

4. This argument seems like a double standard to me. To say the state is bad and supports immoral monopolies with it stolen money and that is wrong, BUT it is OK for me to take money from the state because I'm working against it. Seems to be setting the rule "Taking money from the state is wrong for others but OK for me. Doesn't this break the exception rule. Wrong to do, except for me?

5. I do not believe you can destroy anything by being an accomplice to its crimes. No matter the reason why you take the money, by taking the fruits of a criminal action you are an accomplice to the crime.

6. I believe that no matter the reason why. If you use state services you are supporting the state. Because you are increasing the demand for state services. And increased demand will bring about a bigger state.

7. I truly believe that the only way to get rid of the state is to refuse to participate in it and to actively work against it. This shows the illegitimacy of the state as it no longer has our consent. To take state money is to give your consent to the state to rule over you as this is a prerequisite of receiving the money.

8. The best way to actively work against the state is to take personal responsibility for yourself and your family so you are not dependent on the state. The state thrives on dependents and could not survive without them, not without showing itself to be the tyrant we know it is. To be independent is to put another nail in the coffin of stateisim.

What says you?