How is the State different from a gang of bandits?

[Challenger Grim]

I know it's a little old, but I think I finally found a source that would answer your question.
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/309410.html

After a quite excellent example, the author concludes:

In sum, I submit that the concept of competitive private justice is fatally flawed at its root, due to an inability of the providers of justice to provide justice for themselves. Who watches the watchmen? Unlike separate nation states, who can agree to in mutually tolerant distaste respect each other’s boundaries, competitive Justice Providers would face inevitable conflicts of interest that, by the very nature of the competition, would leave them with no recourse except the last argument of kings, that is, open war.

There is no common magistrate both parties recognize as valid. There is no higher federal authority to settle a dispute about conflict of law, as there is in the Unites States. There is nothing but the hope that men of different groups will act not as men in the real world have ever acted, but will forswear their private interest for the sake of the public weal.

To pile Ossa atop Aetna, the concept of providing private justice assumes at the outset that there is no public weal, no public property, no unity of interests to safeguard, merely a collection of atomized sovereign individuals who contemplate making an alliance with each other to their mutual advantage. The idea that there are communities, with morals and customs, that have conflicts of interest, or that there are mutual dangers, such as foreign invaders, such as the loss of public trade, such as the loss of public monuments, requiring common response, is merely an idea inadequately addressed, or not at all, by libertarian and anarchist writing. The common tactic is to dismiss all public concerns as a sinister excuse to trample the rights of others.

[Faramir]

I think I have come up with another way the "State"is different from a gang of bandits. If the "State" is bound by a constitution to offer "equal protection uner the law" and had "limited powers" it would be very different from a gang of badits. In fact that is what the US constitution was supposed to set up.

Our beloved politician have turned this into a common den of the thieves so it IS hard to tell the difference.

[Challenger Grim]

I think I have come up with another way the "State"is different from a gang of bandits. If the "State" is bound by a constitution to offer "equal protection uner the law" and had "limited powers" it would be very different from a gang of badits. In fact that is what the US constitution was supposed to set up.

Our beloved politician have turned this into a common den of the thieves so it IS hard to tell the difference.

Very true Faramir.

Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive... it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Thankfully, we might still throw off such government and provide new guards via peaceful means at this time and I hope we never have to resort to violent ones.

[Zombie]

Conservatives usually support a lower tax, but if you press them on some issues, like military funding for example, prepare for blank stares followed by yelling.

exactly
military and bridges to nowhere

isnt something like 53% of us tax dollars go to 'defence' funding?
but ya cant argue the military, thats unpatriotic!

i wonder why the state of public education in the us is the way it is?...hmm...

[Challenger Grim]

exactly
military and bridges to nowhere

isnt something like 53% of us tax dollars go to 'defence' funding?
but ya cant argue the military, thats unpatriotic!

i wonder why the state of public education in the us is the way it is?...hmm...

Ummm... that's incorrect unless you cook the numbers.

As pointed out @ http://www.theresmytwocents.com/2008...-of-stuff.html

The total budget for the department of defense in 2008 was $583 billion. (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrit...8/defense.html)
The total federal government budget was $3 trillion. (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrit...arytables.html)

That's 19.4% of the budget we spend on defense.

(hmmm.... maybe education really is in a sorry state, let's improve math and economics first)

[Zombie]

Ummm... that's incorrect unless you cook the numbers.

As pointed out @ http://www.theresmytwocents.com/2008...-of-stuff.html

The total budget for the department of defense in 2008 was $583 billion. (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrit...8/defense.html)
The total federal government budget was $3 trillion. (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrit...arytables.html)

That's 19.4% of the budget we spend on defense.

(hmmm.... maybe education really is in a sorry state, let's improve math and economics first)

man, your gonna make me dig up where i got the 53% figure...come on. ill take a look but cant remember off the top my head.
got figures for '09? '07?

main point being, we spend too much on military stuff not enough on education...as my mathematical skillz prove.

[Zombie]

maybe this was it

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/13-4

interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...itary-spending

[Challenger Grim]

man, your gonna make me dig up where i got the 53% figure...come on. ill take a look but cant remember off the top my head.
got figures for '09? '07?

main point being, we spend too much on military stuff not enough on education...as my mathematical skillz prove.

You umm... you didn't bother checking the links did you?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrit...arytables.html
Has tables on it for 2006-2012.

Also there's been no proven correlation between spending and test scores. But that doesn't even answer the question of... well how much should we spend on defense?

Finally, I check your links and http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/13-4 has red flags all over it for anyone with a modicum of statistics.

The budget for the 2011 fiscal year, which has to be voted by Congress by this Oct. 1, looks to be about $3 trillion, not counting the funds collected for Social Security

So the government budget is not counting Social Security? Umm... why?

since the Vietnam War, the government has included the Social Security Trust Fund in the budget as a way to make the cost of America's imperial military adventures seem smaller in comparison to the total cost of government

What? Have I entered some land where Social Security isn't a part of government or run by it? That line there alone ought to disqualify this article from any real thought.

That figure includes the Pentagon budget request of $708 billion, plus an estimated $200 billion in supplemental funding, called "overseas contingency funding" in euphemistic White House-speak), to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,

Looking at the budget office, I notice that its charts are generally divided between "general" info followed by 'specific' info. In other words, I'd like the author to show their work that they're not counting 1 amount twice.

some $40 billion or more in "black box" intelligence agency funding,

Yeah, 40 bil added onto the 700 bil total mentioned before is still pretty low.

$94 billion in non-DOD military spending,

What does that even mean? For all we know, this could be completely made up.

$100 billion in veterans benefits and health care spending, and

Wait... THIS counts as military spending? Benefits and health care are provided to ALL government employees, not just those under the military part of it. This isn't a part of the military, it's a part of employment contracts between government and workers for it. They're majorly cooking this number.

$400 billion in interest on debt raised to pay for prior wars and the standing military.

...bwahahahaha Do I even need to reply? Funny how the social security which must be spent is taken out only to have this (which also must be spent and can't be cut) is added back in.


Look, here's at least a calculation which gives you more details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...kdown_for_2011


And even that should make you laugh. How does any cent paid to interest or pensions or veteran goodies defend us from anything? And the FBI is listed? We're going to start counting law enforcement here?



Here's a better chart for 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2007.png

"The 2011 military budget, by the way, is the largest in history, not just in actual dollars, but in inflation adjusted dollars, exceeding even the spending in World War II, when the nation was on an all-out military footing."

No duh you idiot (the author I mean), the nation also HAS more money now than in WW2 even in inflation adjusted dollars. Quick example for statistically illiterate: Last month I spent $100 on guns. This month I spent $1000 on guns. Am I spending too much on guns? Why in the world did my gun expense go up? Here's the catch: last month my total budget was $150 dollars. This month my budget was $1,000,000. Raw numbers don't mean squat without context.

[Zombie]

No duh you idiot (the author I mean), the nation also HAS more money now than in WW2 even in inflation adjusted dollars. Quick example for statistically illiterate: Last month I spent $100 on guns. This month I spent $1000 on guns. Am I spending too much on guns? Why in the world did my gun expense go up? Here's the catch: last month my total budget was $150 dollars. This month my budget was $1,000,000. Raw numbers don't mean squat without context.

so this dude cooked the numbers based on inflation?
man, i was so wanting to ----- about good ole govment spending, guess ill find something else.

[Challenger Grim]

so this dude cooked the numbers based on inflation?
man, i was so wanting to ----- about good ole govment spending, guess ill find something else.

Technically no, he was right and you should adjust for inflation when trying to compare $$$ and such across long periods of time. What he doesn't give is any proper context for those numbers.

Again, think about the example.

In the past, I spent less money on guns than I do right now. However, I also had less money for things not guns in the past than now. So by that author's logic, it's horrible that I'm spending $1000 on guns this month when I spent $100 last month, even though this month I have $999,000 this month to spend on food and entertainment while last month I only had $50 to spend on food and entertainment.

This is why that other site you linked is actually better because it gives more context like % of GDP. Notice how the USA actually spends one of the lowest % of its GDP on defense yet it's military total is so much greater than anyone else spending more? That's because we have a higher GDP, we're richer.

Heck I'll complain about government spending too, but then I'm not a fan of the welfare system.

[Zombie]

This is why that other site you linked is actually better because it gives more context like % of GDP. Notice how the USA actually spends one of the lowest % of its GDP on defense yet it's military total is so much greater than anyone else spending more? That's because we have a higher GDP, we're richer.

Heck I'll complain about government spending too, but then I'm not a fan of the welfare system.

i have to admit the f-22 is a pretty cool plane, but isnt there some better things to do now with that money?

i cant knock the welfare system too much, ive been collecting unemployment until recently, now that i moved out of state for work. unemployment was fun for the first month and painful for the rest. the phone/internet system they use is on par with an old commodore 64.

[joel]

Came across an article arguing that taxes are not theft.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm
I thought I'd point it out and respond to it.

They are arguing that a supposed "social contract" makes the act (that would otherwise be theft) not-theft. They don't give much idea of the nature of this "contract" or its existence.

But they do give an indirect argument. They say that anyone who doesn't think they are not in any such contract,

"should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible. Although these alternatives may seem unpalatable, they are the only consistent ones in a person who truly wishes to reject the social contract."

The first problem with what they are saying is that the reason why one has no alternative to those "services" is because the government maintains a monopoly on those things by force. The government will use force to stop anyone who tries to compete with them in those areas.

There cannot be any implicit consent if you force me to use your services. If I offer a service and seize funding for it by force from others, I cannot legitimize my theft by using force to prevent all competitors, thus leaving everyone with no alternative. (The same is true also if you crowd out competition by providing the service for "free", funded by the stolen funds, rather than use force against competitors.)

And this brings me to a more fundamental point which is that if this method of legitimization works, then it must work for anyone else who does the same thing. I, individually, should be able to legitimize my theft by providing something in exchange. I should be able to set up my own school and force everyone in my community to fund it (say by a percentage of my estimation of the value of their property each year). After all, I'm offering a service.

Of course I would guess that the author of the article would not agree that that legitimizes my theft, but then why does it do so for the government? Thus the author begs the question.

Furthermore, even if I did manage to avoid all of the government's "services", I would still be forced to pay taxes, which undermines the author's argument.

The author considers the particular case of "social insurance." And justifies it by saying, "In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance." Yes, because they don't steal! They operate on a voluntary basis. Anyone can refrain from purchasing a policy from any or every insurance company. "Social insurance" if provided on a similar voluntary basis would also not be theft. But life and property insurance based on taxes would be theft. Again, the author does nothing to say the act is not-theft when the government does it.


Then the author presents a second argument, which is a pragmatic (rather than moral) argument that taxation by majority rule is the best we can do in practice. Assuming the author is correct (which I don't; I think there are viable alternatives), this would only mean tax is a necessary evil. It does nothing to say that tax is not theft.

The author tries to argue that working within the system to reduce or eliminate taxes is implicit legitimization of the government and its taxing. Lysander Spooner refuted this by pointing out that voting implies no consent. It may be used as a tool of self-defense against unjust government action, without legitimizing any unjust action.


Later the author makes an argument based on a faulty understanding of economics. The author is under the impression that because government spending is 29% of the GDP (today it's more like 44%), then 29% of the production is done by the government, and thus 29% of everything you own is because of the government and thus owed back to the government in taxes.

This argument is flawed in a number of ways. First the government does not produce anything. The 29% is a burden upon the economy not a portion of the productive activity. If the government burden was lifted, then productivity might increase by 29/(100-29) = 40%. If anything, one could argue that the government owes the taxpayer, not the other way around. Secondly, even if the premise were correct, it would not be uniform--e.g., 29% of my car, 29% of my house. And again, the government didn't loan anything to me. I never agreed to any debt; I never accepted any loan.

But the central point, again, is that even if his argument works to legitimize the govenment's action, it would also legitimize the same act if anyone else did it. Thus anyone and everyone may do the same thing. They say, "It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for." But then if that legitimizes the action, so does it legitimize my theft. If I paint paintings and give them to the author and force him to give me your money, he can't complain that I shouldn't do that and that he doesn't even want my paintings, after all my efforts "need to be paid for!"

Ironically, the author ends the article with "Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident." That is exactly my argument against him. Any of his legitimizations of taxes for the government can equally as well be applied to anyone else "in the private sector", thus anyone can legitimize their own theft.

[drbrumley]

Came across an article arguing that taxes are not theft.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm
I thought I'd point it out and respond to it.

They are arguing that a supposed "social contract" makes the act (that would otherwise be theft) not-theft. They don't give much idea of the nature of this "contract" or its existence.

But they do give an indirect argument. They say that anyone who doesn't think they are not in any such contract,

"should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible. Although these alternatives may seem unpalatable, they are the only consistent ones in a person who truly wishes to reject the social contract."

The first problem with what they are saying is that the reason why one has no alternative to those "services" is because the government maintains a monopoly on those things by force. The government will use force to stop anyone who tries to compete with them in those areas.

There cannot be any implicit consent if you force me to use your services. If I offer a service and seize funding for it by force from others, I cannot legitimize my theft by using force to prevent all competitors, thus leaving everyone with no alternative. (The same is true also if you crowd out competition by providing the service for "free", funded by the stolen funds, rather than use force against competitors.)

And this brings me to a more fundamental point which is that if this method of legitimization works, then it must work for anyone else who does the same thing. I, individually, should be able to legitimize my theft by providing something in exchange. I should be able to set up my own school and force everyone in my community to fund it (say by a percentage of my estimation of the value of their property each year). After all, I'm offering a service.

Of course I would guess that the author of the article would not agree that that legitimizes my theft, but then why does it do so for the government? Thus the author begs the question.

Furthermore, even if I did manage to avoid all of the government's "services", I would still be forced to pay taxes, which undermines the author's argument.

The author considers the particular case of "social insurance." And justifies it by saying, "In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance." Yes, because they don't steal! They operate on a voluntary basis. Anyone can refrain from purchasing a policy from any or every insurance company. "Social insurance" if provided on a similar voluntary basis would also not be theft. But life and property insurance based on taxes would be theft. Again, the author does nothing to say the act is not-theft when the government does it.


Then the author presents a second argument, which is a pragmatic (rather than moral) argument that taxation by majority rule is the best we can do in practice. Assuming the author is correct (which I don't; I think there are viable alternatives), this would only mean tax is a necessary evil. It does nothing to say that tax is not theft.

The author tries to argue that working within the system to reduce or eliminate taxes is implicit legitimization of the government and its taxing. Lysander Spooner refuted this by pointing out that voting implies no consent. It may be used as a tool of self-defense against unjust government action, without legitimizing any unjust action.


Later the author makes an argument based on a faulty understanding of economics. The author is under the impression that because government spending is 29% of the GDP (today it's more like 44%), then 29% of the production is done by the government, and thus 29% of everything you own is because of the government and thus owed back to the government in taxes.

This argument is flawed in a number of ways. First the government does not produce anything. The 29% is a burden upon the economy not a portion of the productive activity. If the government burden was lifted, then productivity might increase by 29/(100-29) = 40%. If anything, one could argue that the government owes the taxpayer, not the other way around. Secondly, even if the premise were correct, it would not be uniform--e.g., 29% of my car, 29% of my house. And again, the government didn't loan anything to me. I never agreed to any debt; I never accepted any loan.

But the central point, again, is that even if his argument works to legitimize the govenment's action, it would also legitimize the same act if anyone else did it. Thus anyone and everyone may do the same thing. They say, "It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for." But then if that legitimizes the action, so does it legitimize my theft. If I paint paintings and give them to the author and force him to give me your money, he can't complain that I shouldn't do that and that he doesn't even want my paintings, after all my efforts "need to be paid for!"

Ironically, the author ends the article with "Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident." That is exactly my argument against him. Any of his legitimizations of taxes for the government can equally as well be applied to anyone else "in the private sector", thus anyone can legitimize their own theft.

Good post sir. I have been waiting along time for someone to show me this social contract that I or anyone has supposedly signed.

Bottom line ALL Taxation is theft. If they have to coerce you under threat, I don't see how one can not consider it theft.