How is the State different from a gang of bandits?

[Faramir]

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'm afraid I have to agree with Joel on this one PA. I too am confused as to the difference (other than scale) that you are making here. I think it is a legitimate question that I would like to see answered from various points of views as I am trying to figure out my own take on this issue myself.

Hence my earlier post. I really am not understanding what you are trying to get at here PA. And you are one of the few posters on the "left" (well way left of me anyway) here whom I have great respect for. I am not trying to pick on you, I really want to try to understand where you are coming from.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Which form of government would you like to switch to?

How about the one this country was founded on?

[Pilgrim]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Joel on this one PA. I too am confused as to the difference (other than scale) that you are making here. I think it is a legitimate question that I would like to see answered from various points of views as I am trying to figure out my own take on this issue myself.

Hence my earlier post. I really am not understanding what you are trying to get at here PA. And you are one of the few posters on the "left" (well way left of me anyway) here whom I have great respect for. I am not trying to pick on you, I really want to try to understand where you are coming from.

I'm trying to think of a good way of explaining it. The main difference is one of precedent. Our form of Government has existed for more than 200 years through the will of the people in a democratic setting. The situation that Joel proposes is a hostile, mafia, like situation that comes to pass under an already established set of laws that the community has agreed to and which the usurper ignores.

Joel (well all of us really) only has no say in the matter in so far as he couldn't ask to be born somewhere else. But we are born into an already established system in which the body politic has agreed, by the virtue of a democratically elected representation, to engage. Once we reach the age of majority, if we don't like the system we are born into and which was sustained democratically by our progenitors and see no chance of real change for it or us, we are perfectly free to try somewhere else that more closely reflects our hopes and dreams.

I'm not saying that in the sense that some have said, "love it or leave it." I'm responding directly to the assertion that the system is absolutely coercive or captive. In fact, I hope everyone stays because we need the market place of ideas to become the best version of ourselves.

[Faramir]

I'm trying to think of a good way of explaining it. The main difference is one of precedent. Our form of Government has existed for more than 200 years through the will of the people in a democratic setting. The situation that Joel proposes is a hostile, mafia, like situation that comes to pass under an already established set of laws that the community has agreed to and which the usurper ignores.

Ah. I think I see where the confusion lies.

You see, in my opinion, our form of government was set up more than 200 years ago, but was very soon taken over by usurpers. It was gradual at first, with different parts of the constitution being ignored a bit at the time.

But at this point, 200+ years removed from the founding of the constitution, the government we have now almost totally ignores the constitution which severely limits the lawful role of government.

So depending on how you look at it, I can see your point or I can see joel's.

If the "will of the people" in this analogy is the U.S. Constitution, then I think the analogy is spot on. Our "federal" government rides rough shod over the constitution and imposes it's authority where it should not have the right to according the will of the people where the will of the people = the constitution itself.

On the other hand. "We the people" can still vote and can (in principle anyway) vote to remove the tyrannical usurpers (and I mean in both parties) from power, but have chosen not to do so.

I think Joel's interpretation is more accurate.

Although the tyrannical usurpers have only been allowed to remain in power by the "will of the people" in the form of voting, I maintain that they have done so by playing on the fear and ignorance of the people they are supposedly "serving" in office.

I guess a more accurate analogy would be one where the neighborhood thug takes money from you by force and convinces the majority of the neighborhood that it is in their best interest to do so, even though it is not.

Joel (well all of us really) only has no say in the matter in so far as he couldn't ask to be born somewhere else. But we are born into an already established system in which the body politic has agreed, by the virtue of a democratically elected representation, to engage. Once we reach the age of majority, if we don't like the system we are born into and which was sustained democratically by our progenitors and see no chance of real change for it or us, we are perfectly free to try somewhere else that more closely reflects our hopes and dreams.

I'm not saying that in the sense that some have said, "love it or leave it." I'm responding directly to the assertion that the system is absolutely coercive or captive. In fact, I hope everyone stays because we need the market place of ideas to become the best version of ourselves.

Well I think that US is still the best reflection of my hopes and dreams. But that is because the constitution is the best reflection of that. However, what the government does, and what the constitution allows are miles and miles apart. And that gulf is increasing with every administration (no matter if that administration has an R or a D after the name).

So I agree with Joel. The government is robbing us blind, and a majority of the voting public just blindly accept this as good.

But I don't think that was the intent of Joel's OP. I think he was wanting to know (as do I) what the justification for such a government (or any government) is.

Joel can correct me if I am wrong on this.

[Darth Executor]

Sorry Phil, I feel pretty sick (not because of your posts, though they don't help either ) so I may not be up to my usual standard, though I'll try my best to stay coherent.

And how would you demonstrate the truth of moral facts?

I'm not a realist and don't believe in moral facts in the sense that you do. That's the point I've been trying to make. I prefer to use the word "laws" instead. Moral laws to be more specific and differentiate from stuff like the laws of physics,though they do follow a similar blueprint.

False. Verification is a scientific term and doesn't exhaust ways of knowing things.

By verification I mean having a way of knowing things that does not rely exclusively on subjective whim.

You can't verify your moral standard any more than I can.

You are incorrect. My moral standards stem from God, and God's existence can be verified, so by connection, so can my moral standards (whether the evidence is sufficient for you or anyone else is debatable, of course) as my moral standards are merely God's laws.

Intuiting them is a good reason to believe it.

"intuiting" is another way of saying "to sense" and as such it is a way of verification. IE: you see a rock, send me a picture, I see the rock in the picture, verify it exists. It's an oversimplification but that's the gist of it. You cannot do the same with your moral truths. Sure, you can conceive them in your head, but I can conceive 1+1=3 in my head. It doesn't mean it makes sense or that it must be an absolute truth.

I enforce my rules the same way everyone else. I don't do business with rapists, cheats or liars. There is nothing different between our moral standards on this point. Of course, if I admit you're right then if abortionists take all the positions of power then you would have to admit that it is right.

Seeing how I believe God has ultimate authority, i don't have to do any such thing. The abortionists are defying God's will and no matter how much earthly power they acquire they will never be right. If no God exists, I will have to be admit they are more right than I am (I believe being right is on a continuum, and some laws can be better than others; ie: newtonian physics are technically wrong, but they're 'right' enough that they're still taught in high school even though relativity supersedes them), however I will not feel any need to submit myself to it as it would not be absolute.

Sure it does. I can hopefully reveal that they share the same intuitions as I do. In fact, I think most people do have the same moral intuitions as I do, they just have been confused by groupthink. Most people believe that they own themselves and should have the final say in what they do with their body, and it's usually a simple step to a full-fledged voluntarist ethic.

I see. I was thinking of a purely rational discussion, but I didn't specify so I'll concede that bringing them up might have a point. However, even if they, in their mind, believe some of the same things you do does not make your moral intuitions true. A holocaust denier can convince another holocaust denier that it's false, but that would not change the truth of the proposition.

I don't understand this. God has absolute power. Check. His laws are absolute. Check. Therefore, it would be wrong to defy them? Uncheck. How does that follow at all?

If his laws are absolute, then His law that "Doing X is wrong" is wrong, no? I'm not really sure what you think does not follow.

You have a missing premise, precisely this: "If a being has absolute power and absolute laws, then I ought to do what He says." But why do you have an obligation to do what he says?

I'm not missing the premise, you are tainting my philosophy with your realism. I do not acknowledge the meaning of the "obligation" concept in the same way you do. To me, obligation is something you are forced to do. I do not believe in the idea of "moral obligations". IE: you have to do something just because it's wrong, regardless of consequences. To me, that's incomprehensible nonsense. Obligations without consequences are worthless. Obligation under my philosophy would run on a spectrum like this:

1. Absolute command. Unavoidable consequences will fall under this. They could range from absolute divine laws (IE: do x, go to hell) to something like the stripping of free will or mind control. Think of it as infinity if you want.
2. Enticement. This contains most of the spectrum, and can range from rewards to punishments. You are not strictly forced to do something, but the particular circumstances make it more or less likely that you will act according to the enticement. (IE: someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to give them the content of your pockets or the cops will scrub your brains off the sidewalk). Think of it as any number above 0, with higher numbers representing more powerful enticements.
3. non-binding command. Commands with no consequence would fall under here. Think of this as 0.

So, to get back to your question, why do I have the obligation to do what he says? It's simple: because I have no choice. I don't mean this in the fatalist sense that I'm stuck on one path I cannot deviate from. Rather, no matter what I do to defy the command, I cannot escape the consequences. Example:

1. God says eating pork is wrong. The consequences for eating pork is watching Rosie O'donnel get a full body rub for all eternity.
2. The US government says eating pork is wrong. The soncequences for eating pork is getting a bullet to the head.
3. Farmer joe says eating pork is wrong. But farmer joe won't do anything if I do eat pork.

1. I eat pork. I spend my afterlife watching rosie o'donnel get a full body rub. There is nothing I can do to escape this consequence, making the command to eat pork absolute.
2. i eat pork. The government uses all its resources to put a bullet in my head. There's a chance I can avoid them until i die of another cause, though the chance is slim. However, since the chance is not absolute, this would fall under enticement and while carrying a much higher weight than farmer joe's command would, it is not absolute and I am not strictly obligated to follow it.
3. I eat pork. Farmer joe does nothing. His law is completely worthless.

Bottom line is, under my philosophy, moral laws cannot be separated from consequences and still retain meaning as laws. They become mere non-binding concepts I have 0 obligation to follow.

[NeilUnreal]

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought."
-- Matsuo Basho

In the Constitution and government, our founders left us a gem. But they didn't leave it as an artifact, a lifeless rock to be tucked away in a museum and admired. Rather, they ground it into a lens that each new generation has to use as an aid to viewing the particular living slice of history in which they find themselves.

-Neil

[Faramir]

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought."
-- Matsuo Basho

In the Constitution and government, our founders left us a gem. But they didn't leave it as an artifact, a lifeless rock to be tucked away in a museum and admired. Rather, they ground it into a lens that each new generation has to use as an aid to viewing the particular living slice of history in which they find themselves.

-Neil

So you are saying the constitution is pretty much whatever our elected leaders want it to mean. Making it pretty much useless except as a...welll... and artifact.

:irony:

The truth is that the U.S. Constitution is a lot like the British monarchy. Great for show and pageantry, but no real connection to the running of the government.

That is NOT what our founders intended, no matter how many nice sounding platitudes are created to make it seem that way.

[NeilUnreal]

That is NOT what our founders intended, no matter how many nice sounding platitudes are created to make it seem that way.

I don't think they intended for the Constitution to mean just anything, they put very real meanings into it. But they also provided for its amendment, interpretation, and the adjustment of its details via legislation. And they tried to create a "more" perfect union; none of them would have been under the illusion that they were creating the final "most" perfect union for all time.

I think the founders would have been flattered, but aghast, at the idea that what they had created should be viewed as a fiat work of immortal scripture.

Our Constitution was written the real people, in ink on parchment, not carved in stone. And our government is formed by real people and their actions, working every day.

The founders created a work to get us started. They meant for us to keep working, not bow down and worship it. I think Benjamin Franklin, at any rate, would have had a good chuckle at the idea that we might someday deify what they were about. He would have reminded us that good government is about keeping faith with one another, not about seeking to return to the faith of some golden era that exists only in hindsight.

-Neil

[joel]

Not necessarily. Social contracts are the fundamental means by which we enter into relationship with other beings.

So, it's the act of talking and other interaction?

Yes. No. Government is expedient. There is no moral sanction for, for example, collecting taxes. However, there is a moral sanction (I believe) for providing for the common welfare.

This seems related to something that came to me last night as I was thinking more about your previous post. When I replied, I said that I agreed with Phil's comments on your (9) statements. But he did not comment on statement (9) and I realize that it needs commenting.

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

Let's suppose for the moment that protecting people from theft is a morally legitimate function of a State. But this is not an example of a case to which the question of this thread applies. It is morally legitimate for me to engage in self-defense, defending myself against theft. It is morally legitimate for me to act to help defend my neighbor against a thief. Thus, this is something that is morally acceptable (even praisworthy) for anyone to do. But this does not pertain to this thread's question, which regards only those things for which it is immoral for everyone else except (supposedly) the government to do.

It is moral for individuals to defend themselves and others from theft (or violence or fraud). It is therefore moral for them to set up one or more institutions/organizations to defend themselves and others from theft. In this case we can see that moral powers that the individual has to begin with are being delegated to the organization, and thus gives the organization moral authority.

I have no problem with the logic of that. That's not what I'm questioning. The question of this thread is different--regarding moral powers that some organization supposedly has that are clearly not delegated to it by anyone, because no one else has such a moral power. No person has the moral right to take what is someone else's against their will; therefore, no one could have delegated this power to the organization. But then where did this moral license come from? What makes this organization different from all other individuals and organizations, such that they are seemingly exempt from moral law?

[Faramir]

I don't think they intended for the Constitution to mean just anything, they put very real meanings into it. But they also provided for its amendment, interpretation, and the adjustment of its details via legislation. And they tried to create a "more" perfect union; none of them would have been under the illusion that they were creating the final "most" perfect union for all time.

I think the founders would have been flattered, but aghast, at the idea that what they had created should be viewed as a fiat work of immortal scripture.

Our Constitution was written the real people, in ink on parchment, not carved in stone. And our government is formed by real people and their actions, working every day.

The founders created a work to get us started. They meant for us to keep working, not bow down and worship it. I think Benjamin Franklin, at any rate, would have had a good chuckle at the idea that we might someday deify what they were about. He would have reminded us that good government is about keeping faith with one another, not about seeking to return to the faith of some golden era that exists only in hindsight.

-Neil

Ha. I actually pretty much agree with everything you just said. At least in principle. However, I imagine in practice, we have pretty different ideas of the proper use of the constitution.

IMO, the current administration, and the administrations of at least the past 100 years have been ignoring the constitution to a greater and greater extent with each passing election.

Not following it, not interpreting it, ignoring it.

I certainly do not deify the constitution. It is obviously flawed. If it were perfect, we would still be following it today. I just can't think of a way to make it better. (other than losing a few amendments like #14, 16, 17).

Particularly ignored is Article 1 section 8 and the 10th amendment. The "federal" government is assuming all sorts of powers that it was never intended to have, and only a twisted "interpretation" of Article 1 section 8 and the 10th amendment would allow for all this excessive government involvement.

[NeilUnreal]

I just can't think of a way to make it better.

Neither can I; on this we agree completely. Our founders weren't perfect, but they were darn fine craftsmen when it came to leaving us a foundation, and we ignore that foundation at our peril.

-Neil

[joel]

Essentially the government can do it because it has the power to do so, and the individual can't do it because he doesn't have the power.

What do you mean by power? A successful (individual) thief obviously does have the physical power to do it.

Power? A rapist has power over his victim. Power does not makes a person or group morally special or exempt.

I think you mean "ought to" rather than "can",

I said "can morally".

and in that case we're into all kinds of stuff about whether a society should make and enforce rules. The answer to this is "they have to" or there would be anarchy. and no society is going to survive long like that.

I'm not disputing that. But there are moral "rules" that it is moral for even an individual to "enforce." I see the logic in them. I am asking only about those cases in which it is immoral for every other person and group.

Nope. The collective, in some societies at least, holds the power. That's all. Nothing to do with morality at this stage.

Oh, well then you are talking about something different than the question of this thread. The question I have asked is a question of morality.

I suspect you are appealing to some "higher morality" to justify your original question.

A morality prior to the government, yes of course. As I said, if morality were something created by the government then no action of the government, however reprehensible, could be said to be immoral.

Is the government obligated to give people who refuse to pay taxes any rights at all?

You are confusing the question. If it were the government that creates and "gives" morality and moral license, then no government action could ever be said to be immoral. On the other hand, if we can morally judge government action (e.g., Hitler?) then the premise of your question is faulty, (or at best has nothing to do with the question of this thread).

Which form of government would you like to switch to?

The question of this thread has nothing to do with the form of the State (i.e., democracy vs monarchy, etc.), but rather with its actions (regardless whether it is the King doing it or the majority doing it or elected officials doing it or whoever).

Nobody is going to be in complete agreement with everything their Govt. does, thats why we have elections,

There's a false assumption in there. The only reason for elections is to force the majority will upon everyone else. But this is not (always) necessary. Not everyone agrees on what automobile they would like to or should drive (or refrain from driving). But that doesn't justify our holding an election to force one type of car upon everyone. Why not, instead, let different people do different things?

Nobody is going to be in complete agreement with everything their Govt. does, thats why we have elections,

There's a false assumption in there. The only reason for elections is to force the majority will upon everyone else. But this is not (always) necessary. Not everyone agrees on what automobile they would like to or should drive (or refrain from driving). But that doesn't justify our holding an election to force one type of car upon everyone. Why not, instead, let different people do different things? Why, if they are leaving us alone, would it be moral to impose our will upon them? That would be not consent of the governed at all, but rule by conquest and force.

[joel]

I'm trying to think of a good way of explaining it. The main difference is one of precedent.

Ah, here is another suggested answer to the question: tradition. But then we are just saying: this State apparatus has been commiting this act (which would normally be considered unjust) for so long, that it is no longer immoral for it to do it. That does not make any sense at all.

Murray Rothbard wrote on this point:

"Many and subtle are the ideological weapons the State and its intellectuals have used over the centuries to induce their subjects to accept their rule. One excellent weapon has been the power of tradition. The longer lasting the rule of any given State, the more powerful this weapon; for then the X-Dynasty or the Y-State has the seeming weight of centuries of tradition behind it. Worship of one's ancestors then becomes a none-too-subtle means of cultivating worship of one's ancestral rulers. The force of tradition is, of course, bolstered by ancient habit, which confirms the subjects in the seeming propriety and legitimacy of the rule under which they live."
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p23

Our form of Government has existed for more than 200 years through the will of the people in a democratic setting.

Tradition and "will of the people", but clearly not all of the people. And probably no single person's will matches that of the government's. I don't see how "consent of the governed" or tradition transforms an immoral act into something moral.

The situation that Joel proposes is a hostile, mafia, like situation that comes to pass under an already established set of laws that the community has agreed to and which the usurper ignores.

But I even got a majority of the "community" to vote for me. (This is even supposing that morality is just something made up by the community, which I don't agree with.)

Once we reach the age of majority, if we don't like the system we are born into and which was sustained democratically by our progenitors and see no chance of real change for it or us, we are perfectly free to try somewhere else that more closely reflects our hopes and dreams.

But we are not free to stay where we are and refrain from participating in the "system." Thus you are assuming that the established "system" has the moral authority over the land where I would like to remain. That is, you are assuming the very thing you are attempting to prove (the very thing this thread is asking). Otherwise their forcing someone to "comply or leave" is really an immoral act of conquest and rule by force.

[Alien]

Oh, well then you are talking about something different than the question of this thread. The question I have asked is a question of morality.

As I don't seem to be getting anywhere with my original argument here, I'll try to answer based on morality.

The bandit's action is immoral, most people would agree with that. That does not imply that taking property by force is necessarily immoral in all cases. I think that taxation is a case which can be considered to be moral. It has grey areas, certainly, but the general principle of making people contribute to the running of the country, defense, the maintenance of the infrastructure, and so on is moral. After all, everyone benefits from these things. Why should paying for them be optional? We could even suggest that allowing people to "get away with" not paying is immoral, as it constitutes a burden on those who do pay.

That's only one justification for the morality of course, but it illustrates my answer, which is that banditry and taxation are not necessarily equivalent morally.

I do take your point that it would be nice to have another option for those that don't want to pay, like a total exemption from the system (benefits as well as taxes). I don't see how that could work practically though. How would you handle defense?

[joel]

The bandit's action is immoral, most people would agree with that. That does not imply that taking property by force is necessarily immoral in all cases.

I agree there. The exception is when it is in defense or restitution. That is, we can take from the person because he previously initiated aggression. For example, taking back stolen goods. That's not theft because it is restitution for a prior act of aggression.

(Note here that I explained how it is different. There is a difference between an act of aggression upon a non-aggressor, and exacting restitution from an aggressor. The situation is actually different.)

I think that taxation is a case which can be considered to be moral.

If so, then how is it different?

It has grey areas, certainly, but the general principle of making people contribute to the running of the country, defense, the maintenance of the infrastructure, and so on is moral.

"Running of the country" begs the question. What exactly is a "country"? How is it different than my drawing an arbitrary border and forcing my will upon the 4 neighbors who don't consent? Why am I not a "country"? It is immoral to force those 4 neighbors to join in and contribute to "running" my "country".

If the people on, say one of the British isles wanted to defend themselves and wanted to be separate from "Great Britain's" forced contribution, why is it moral for "Great Brittain" to force them to contribute? Assuming that "Great Brittain" already has moral authority over that island begs the question. It would not be moral for me (or any other person or group) to start to defend others and force them to contribute to this protection (which they may not even want).

What if people want to maintain their own "infrastructure" themselves? Why does the State have to run it? Why is it moral for the state to be forcibly holding such a monopoly to begin with? It would not be moral for me or anyone else to seize and hold such a monopoly by force, let alone force others to "contribute" to it. So what's the difference?

After all, everyone benefits from these things.

I already addressed this in an earlier post. It is immoral if anyone else forces such a thing on someone (e.g., forcing them to exchange their money for my bread against their will, or forcing them to labor for me in exchange for some supposed "benefit" I provide them). What makes it different when "the State" does it?

(Even if this argument worked, it would not apply to cases where the government is a net cost (rather than benefit) to someone.)

Why should paying for them be optional?

Because the alternative is immoral in every other case. What makes this case any different from all the others?

We could even suggest that allowing people to "get away with" not paying is immoral, as it constitutes a burden on those who do pay.

Perhaps. But even if so, it does not justify force. It may be immoral for my neighbor to commit the sin of pride or gluttony or envy or adultery or dishonoring your parents or whatever. But it would also be immoral for me to initiate force against my neighbor because of that sin (e.g., to force him to stop). Most people generally agree that it would also be immoral for the government to use force against such sins. Not all immoral acts justify the use of force.

Suppose I and 8 of my neighbors form a voluntary (private) organization to patrol our neighborhood, defend ourselves, and scare criminals away. The remaining neighbor refuses to contribute. Sure, we may think (perhaps rightly) that it is unfair--even immoral--that the remaining guy gets some benefit from our activity but isn't contributing to it. But it would still be immoral for us to force him to contribute.

That's only one justification for the morality of course, but it illustrates my answer, which is that banditry and taxation are not necessarily equivalent morally.

Then what is the difference?

I do take your point that it would be nice to have another option for those that don't want to pay, like a total exemption from the system (benefits as well as taxes). I don't see how that could work practically though. How would you handle defense?

There are various possibilities: Allowing secession, voluntary methods of funding, people providing and hiring their own defense, etc. I'm not saying any one of them is necessarily good or the best option, but there are logical possibilities.

But, even if there were no practical alternative, that doesn't answer the question. Theft may be expedient, but that doesn't magically turn the act into not-theft.

But again, taxation is the (apparantly) extreme case. If "total exemption" bothers you, we could consider any other acts that the government does that would be immoral for any other person or group to do (e.g., enforce price controls, such as minimum wage laws, or ban certain consensual sex acts between adults, force people to buy health insurance against their will). What makes "the State" different such that it becomes moral for it to do this otherwise immoral act?