How is the State different from a gang of bandits?

[Philosophickle]

Let’s look at the social contract by seeing how things look in its absence. If there is no social contract, you have no collective recourse to demand that:

1) Your neighbors keep their dog from pooping on your yard.

Sure you do. You can do the same thing you do now. Kick the dog, put of a fence, etc.

2) Your neighbors rescue you if they see your house on fire.

It is good that people do this, but there is no moral obligation to pull people out of a fire. Even now it's perfectly legal to refuse to go in and save people from a burning building.

3) Your neighbors pull your toddler out from in front of a car.
4) Your neighbors not run over your cat on a public thoroughfare.
5) Your neighbors alert you when they see a burglar breaking into your house.

Same as (2). However, there are good reasons for doing those things without govt. intervention. Humans are social animals, and we live and die by things like reputation and good-standing with people you are in contact with. I just don't see how this makes a difference; govts don't have laws now about pulling toddlers out from behind cars. The govt. seems irrelevant here.

6) Your neighbors not keep two dozen pigs and goats in their yard.

That just seems fine to me.

7) Your neighbors not dump raw sewage into the gutter.

A violation of property rights. It'd be easy to think of ways in which this would have negative repercussions.

8) Your neighbors not run a 24-hour bar and strip club in their garage.

Darth's mom needs a job doing something.

The same social contract that provides recourse in these types of situations provides for society to make collective demands on people who choose to live within its pale. If you don’t like it, you’re free to move to a less demanding society (provided you can find one that will accept you), or to voice your opinion in the collective (e.g. by voting). Otherwise it all boils down to Dodge City and the wild west.

The Wild West was safer than Washington DC.

[Philosophickle]

I simply believe that collective social contracts (like the state) are rooted in the nature of what it means to be human. For me it's no more complicated than that.

-Neil

Then the govt. is redundant.

[JimL]

Taxes are just an example. The broader question includes any act by the State where if it were done by any other individual or group, it would be an act of aggression, a violation of rights, unjust, etc. (E.g., using the Sword to enforce a minimum wage restriction or to "punish" adults who perform certain consensual sex acts. Thus this question cuts across "liberalism" and conservatism.) Tax is just a handy example.

And as far as I know, conservatives are not opposed to all taxes. They don't want taxes to be zero. Not even all (or perhaps even most) of libertarians think taxes should be zero. Usually the debate is regarding how high should they be above zero, or how should the taxes be imposed. So the example of taxes still cuts across both conservatism and "liberalism".

So if you acknowledge that everybody agrees that for a society to function there need be some taxes, then where is the thievery? We don't get to choose for ourselves as individuals which taxes we want and which taxes we don't want. We give that power to our legislators when we elect them. If we as a majority disagree then we have the right to throw the bums out.

[Philosophickle]

So if you acknowledge that everybody agrees that for a society to function there need be some taxes, then where is the thievery? We don't get to choose for ourselves as individuals which taxes we want and which taxes we don't want. We give that power to our legislators when we elect them. If we as a majority disagree then we have the right to throw the bums out.

So if the majority of people were in favor of slavery then that somehow makes it right?

[joel]

If you don't consent you don't have to participate. Simple as that. Just because you don't have the ambition to move or the resolve to change your geography don't lay that on the government.

If any of my neighbors who don't consent to my taking the portion of their income they too "don't have to participate." Just because they don't have the "ambition" or "resolve" to move don't lay that on me.

They are free to leave (their homes, their land). Fine they can leave. I'd still be committing an act of aggression (whether they leave or not). If they choose to stay in their homes and I take their money, that's theft. Do you deny that?

I'm not denying that you can leave. I'm not denying that "there are options." There are in fact 3 options in this act of coercion. Other acts of coercion may have only 2 or more than 3. (None has only 1.) (That's not counting the option of using physical force to defend yourself. If that is possible, add one to each of those totals, in which case there are 4 options in this case.) The number of options does not make it not coercion.

THis little "analogy" that Joel is proposing is not even worth really considering. It's so far removed from the American experience of cooperative and democratic government that there's really no comparison. I get it though. I understand the point. He wants rights not responsibilities.

Evidently there is a huge obvious difference between the two that you see and I do not. Please tell me. That is why I created this thread. As far as I can see it's not even really an analogy--there is no difference at all that I can find. If it really is such a huge, obvious difference, it should be easy for you to point it out, and I would be grateful.

I don't know what you mean by "He wants rights not responsibilities." Explain? Maybe that's the key to this difference you are seeing and I am missing? As far as rights, it has nothing to do with what I want, but what is. And there are responsibilities/obligations of course. A right is, on the flip side, an obligation. For example, your right to life is my (and everyone else's) obligation to refrain from doing you violence.

[joel]

Is that right? I don't think so, but I can't think of a better way to effectively organize 300 million people.

Ah. There's an interesting answer: There is no difference. It is evil. But it is nevertheless "necessary." That would be a separate question.

[joel]

Let’s look at the social contract by seeing how things look in its absence. If there is no social contract, you have no collective recourse to demand that:

1) Your neighbors keep their dog from pooping on your yard.
2) Your neighbors rescue you if they see your house on fire.
3) Your neighbors pull your toddler out from in front of a car.
4) Your neighbors not run over your cat on a public thoroughfare.
5) Your neighbors alert you when they see a burglar breaking into your house.
6) Your neighbors not keep two dozen pigs and goats in their yard.
7) Your neighbors not dump raw sewage into the gutter.
8) Your neighbors not run a 24-hour bar and strip club in their garage.

9) Your neighbor not coerce money out of you and the other eight neighbors.

The same social contract that provides recourse in these types of situations provides for society to make collective demands on people who choose to live within its pale. If you don’t like it, you’re free to move to a less demanding society (provided you can find one that will accept you), or to voice your opinion in the collective (e.g. by voting). Otherwise it all boils down to Dodge City and the wild west.

-Neil

I can't really judge whether your (9) statements are correct unless I know what a social contract is and what makes it valid. Is it just "whatever the majority says goes"?

(And I agree with Phil's comments on your statements.)

It seems you are arguing that government is expedient. But even if that is the case, does that confer it moral sanction?

[joel]

What would I/we have to do to add a "social contract" to that scenario such that it becomes legitimate to coerce those neighbors who oppose me?

Significant interference with their ability to live their lives. I realise this is pretty vague, but that's done on purpose, as things should be judged on a case by case basis.

So it is your position that my aggressing against them only a little bit is unjust/immoral, but if I really aggress against them severely then is morally acceptable (or even praiseworthy?).

[JimL]

So if the majority of people were in favor of slavery then that somehow makes it right?

This is not a matter of what you or I think is right or wrong. It is about society. If you do not like being a part of a particular society because you disagree with the obligations, laws or even its morality, then you can try to change by legal means what you disagree with or you are free to go elsewhere if you wish.

[joel]

I'll start with a question: How, or from what, is the right to own property derived?

We can go into this if you wish, but it isn't necessary for the purposes of this question, which is not just about taxes but anything government says you must do or forbids you from doing. If it is something any individual (or group) cannot morally do to their neighbor, why can the government do it? What makes it different?

So where does that right come from? Surely it only starts to exist when we can get a group of people to agree on property rights, and enforce it on those who disagree. And guess what that starts to look like? A social contract, maybe?

I reject such subjectivism/relativism/collectivism. (In fact, the very point of rights is protection of minorities from the majority/powerful, not giving power to the majority.) If you are going to say that the collective makes up morality, then you've undermined the question. In that case, by definition, nothing the collective does can possibly be immoral. There would be in that case no possible moral objection to the most brutal tyranny of the collective.

But again, if property rights are giving you problems then drop them for now and we can come back to it if necessary.

Also, note that society is prior to government. If governments are formed to protect/preserve certain societal relations, that presupposes that they already existed.

To answer the original question, the difference is that the Government decrees that they are different.

That begs the question. Not only does it commit the fallacy of an appeal to authority, but it appeals to the very authority that is being questioned, and thus is circular reasoning.

I too could simply declare to my neighbors that I am "different," and thus it is not theft for me to take their stuff (or imprison them or whatever) against their will.

[Soyeong]

Ah. There's an interesting answer: There is no difference. It is evil. But it is nevertheless "necessary." That would be a separate question.

Taxes are necessary to run this form of government of which we a part of voluntarily. If you are extending the definition of theft so far that it includes this, then yes, I agree that there is no difference between theft and taxes, but that is now a meaningless statement. For example, I need to buy gas and the cheapest gas is $3 a gallon, which is still higher than I'd like to pay, but I don't have a choice if I want to continue to drive my car. Am I literally being robbed if I choose to buy gas?

[Philosophickle]

This is not a matter of what you or I think is right or wrong. It is about society. If you do not like being a part of a particular society because you disagree with the obligations, laws or even its morality, then you can try to change by legal means what you disagree with or you are free to go elsewhere if you wish.

The only way this makes any kind of sense is if you think the United States govt. owns everything inside the borders of the country. I can't make a contract with Joel without interference from the govt. I can't move anywhere I want without interference from the govt. I can't vote the way I want without interference from the govt. Society doesn't have any morals or obligations; people do. What you are suggesting is that if enough people gang up on a small enough amount of people, they can do whatever they want. If those bullied people don't like it, they can leave under the conditions set forth by the big group.

That is banditry.

[Philosophickle]

Taxes are necessary to run this form of government of which we a part of voluntarily. If you are extending the definition of theft so far that it includes this, then yes, I agree that there is no difference between theft and taxes, but that is now a meaningless statement. For example, I need to buy gas and the cheapest gas is $3 a gallon, which is still higher than I'd like to pay, but I don't have a choice if I want to continue to drive my car. Am I literally being robbed if I choose to buy gas?

Not everyone is a part of the govt. voluntarily.

[joel]

So if you acknowledge that everybody agrees that for a society to function there need be some taxes, then where is the thievery?

I did not acknowledge that. There are people who think there should be zero taxes.

Also, if someone thinks that a certain level of taxes imposed for a given reason is morally acceptable, that does not imply that they agree that any level of taxes or any reason is morally acceptable.

And if everyone agreed that we should have X amount of taxes imposed for Y reasons, then it's no longer a tax, but voluntary donations (or exchanges), and would not require a State to tax.

We don't get to choose for ourselves as individuals which taxes we want and which taxes we don't want.

That may be the fact of the matter, but it doesn't answer the moral question.

We give that power to our legislators when we elect them.

Ah, here is a new suggested answer to the question: that voting implies consent. I would have to disagree. First of all, what of those who refuse to vote? Surely then they would be exempt. What about those who voted for the other guy? They certainly did not give or delegate any power to the legislator who got elected. Surely they would be exempt too. Even those who voted for the guy that gets elected surely have bound themselves only to the duration until the guy's next election.

And it's all done by secret ballot, so we wouldn't know who falls into what group.

Quoting Lysander Spooner on this point,

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

“Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to."
http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#no.6

This is not a matter of what you or I think is right or wrong. It is about society. If you do not like being a part of a particular society because you disagree with the obligations, laws or even its morality, then you can try to change by legal means what you disagree with or you are free to go elsewhere if you wish.

You are assuming that the "society" has a legitimate claim over the land where you live. Otherwise, you would not have to leave. Why couldn't you stay where you are and refrain from participating in society (assuming that you don't aggress against them)? The only reason you would morally have to leave (i.e., society have the right to make you leave) is if "society" has the legitimate authority over that land where you would otherwise like to remain. But that begs the question. The very question is how someone gains such a legitimate (moral) authority. You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove.

If I or any other group were to claim such an authority over my neighbor it would be an immoral act of aggression. What makes it different if a large number of people do it?

[NeilUnreal]

Then the govt. is redundant.

The government is not redundant; the government is simply a formal implementation of the social contract. It’s analogous to the way a formal marriage is an implementation of the social contract of pair bonding that many people choose to enter into. Government and laws are not themselves social contracts, rather, they enable the social contracts that we have generally already decided on at a more fundamental level.

-Neil