How is the State different from a gang of bandits?

[JimL]

Yes. I should get to make the decision on my own money. I know that is a novel concept for looters and their supporters.

You do get to make those decisions, after you pay your taxes. Do you know of somewhere that you can go where you can get all the benefits of society without contributing to it?

I know of one in which at least those who are not looters will get to agree.

You know of a system in which everyone willget to agree,or one in which everyone will agree?

I will thank you not to tell me what MY point is.

Okay, what's your point?

That has as much credibility as the bigot saying that his best friends are black.

Explain please. Why is my being happy that some of my family is well off lack credibility?

Sounds soooo much better than socialism/communism/facism. I am so glad I don't have to perfume the hog.

So even social justice equates to socialism/communism/fascism now, it has no place in your Christian world view?

Cry me a river, life isn't fair.

Thank you for acknowledging this at least. What do you think as a Christian we should do about that?

Why shouldn't people who are healthier be required to give up a kidney to those who unfairly were born with nonfunctioning ones etc ad nauseam. Get your hands out of my purse.

Because it is an unreasonable requirement, but helping to save that persons life who might be your own son by paying taxes I don't think is to much to ask, do you?

Says who? I have an individual responsibility, not a "collective" one.

Well unfortunately if you wish to be a part of a community where you get the benefits thereof then you have a responsibility also to that community.

I was not born into a wealthy family nor am I wealthy now. I have never had an issue getting a job. I dropped out of high school. Don't give me your crap.

So what! We have similar backgrounds, what does that have to do with anything? You mean because things worked out okay for you, we needn't concerned for others?

Please tell me your more complicated way of interpreting that Biblical principle?

What I said is that the Bible is contradictory and one can find a quote to support a particular view. Here is one in opposition to poor Paul's: Acts 4:34-35.

Obh pluusseeeease. And I am simplistic? Please tell me again about how happy you are for your wealthy family members.

What does the one have to do with the other? Your making no sense.

Yes. That is not the job of the government. Stealing is wrong despite your Robin Hood complex.

Oh, society helping to feed the hungry is wrong! You'd have made a great Marie Antoinette: Let them eat cake.

Really? Please do tell where I can find a verse that says that cursing God is acceptable.

I don't know, and I really couldn't care less.

I don't rob people, and I don't want them to rob me. See? That was easy.

I can't say that I am not surprised that that is your take on the meaning of that quote.

There is a thing called individual responsibility.

Yeah, and you have an individual responsibility to pay your taxes if you are able.

Grandparents survived just fine prior to that ponzi scheme. Our parents and grandparents and US should be saving for our own retirement rather than counting on the forced contributions of people not even born yet.

How would you know how the aged and the disabled lived before 1935? Why do you think it was enacted just to steal your money. I know, dumb question, of course thats what you think.

Libel much? The fact is that you don't know me, and I love how the slander comes out the minute I object to your advocacy of looting.

What libel? You've pretty much said all that matters to you is you, that your only responsibility is to yourself. That pretty much translates into you don't care about the plight of others, they're not your concern, right?

I am not even kosher in the "not eating pork" sense of the word. Sheesh, does your post-modern redefinitions have any boundary? There is no other sense of the word. You either believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour or you don't.

Gee, the Bible could have been a lot shorter had the authors only known.

[Alien]

Yes, attempt, but a strong single individual could defy them without consequence anyway. I see a social contract more as a blueprint for profitable co-existance between multiple individuals, rather than as some sort of transcendent source of laws.

Transcendent? No, of course not. A social contract (or the terms thereof) is always going to be a work in progress.

I wasn't either.

OK.

God. If there's no God, there is no one source and the only rights you have are the ones you can keep.

Agreed, but I'm not sure that rights from God are not essentially the same as any those handed down by any more powerful entity (except, hopefully, they are in some sense "perfect", or at least better than any others). But that's another discussion.

They rest on force (I would say power, as power is a bit more encompassing in that it includes non-forceful manipulation) regardless. Rules only have meaning if they can be enforced. Otherwise they're not really rules or laws, they're just someone's subjective opinion. As I said, I see the idea of a social contract more like a blueprint for profitable co-existence rather than a source of rights.

Subject to what I said above, I agree.

I agree. I think property rights require some sort of social contract to have any comprehensible meaning. For example, if one takes a "first come first serve" attitude regarding property, a society as a whole would have to agree to it. Otherwise people will just ignore the guy yelling "I found this first" and just take whatever they want.

Exactly. You may have some wonderful principle that says you have a right to your own property, but see if that impresses Tony Soprano when he comes and takes them away.

[joel]

Is somebody...treating your house and possessions like their own? I don't think so, at least no one is doing that to me or anyone I know.

Yes, a huge percentage of what I own is confiscated. And the government also dictates what can be done with my house. If I want to do pretty much anything to my house I am required by law to beg the government's permission first.

You seem to think that a peoples agreed upon goals should be YOUR agreed upon goals.

You are missing the point, and holding a false dichotomy. You are assuming that we have to restrict everyone to one set of goals (either Phil's or others), and force them upon everyone who disagrees. But there is no reason to restrict things so. Why not allow a diversity of goals to be pursued? Why should everyone be forced by the Sword into the same mold? (Again, we don't have to (and should not!) force everyone to eat the same food or drive the same kind of automobile or wear the same kind of shoes or clothes, etc.)

You know of a system in which everyone willget to agree,or one in which everyone will agree?

Here is the false dichotomy again. Your implied premise is, "If everyone does not agree (and they never will) then we have to force everyone into one choice by the Sword." But why not let people disagree? Society can exist while people disagree. People can pursue different goals while still interacting socially. The division of labor is an amazing thing.

You do get to make those decisions, after you pay your taxes.

Wow. "You get to, except insofar as you don't."

Do you know of somewhere that you can go where you can get all the benefits of society without contributing to it?

If these benefits are so great, then why do we need to force people to pay for them? Are these services so poor that no one, if they had the choice, would voluntarily purchase them?

Because it is an unreasonable requirement, but helping to save that persons life who might be your own son by paying taxes I don't think is to much to ask, do you?

If I didn't have to pay a huge percentage in taxes, I would be better able to help my son. (If I one day have a son.)

Well unfortunately if you wish to be a part of a community where you get the benefits thereof then you have a responsibility also to that community.

I wish I could opt out of most of its so-called "benefits".

Oh, society helping to feed the hungry is wrong!

No, that is another false dichotomy, and a straw man. (Also there is no entity called "society" that thinks or acts or has moral obligations. Society is simply a term for a collection of individuals and their actions. Like "a basketball game".)

Yeah, and you have an individual responsibility to pay your taxes if you are able.

Ah, but that is the unanswered question of this thread: Why? And even if so, how is it not immoral to force it by the Sword? You still have not solved the question of this thread. You are still assuming the answer you want to be true.

[joel]

Exactly. You may have some wonderful principle that says you have a right to your own property, but see if that impresses Tony Soprano when he comes and takes them away.

Yes, indeed Tony Soprano's gang of bandits or whoever that takes away your property. I'm not denying that some people have the physical power and will to take other people's property or enslave them or otherwise inflict violence (and violent threats) upon others. That's not the question. The question is whether there is any difference between "the State" and anyone else who does the same kind of act.

[Alien]

Yes, indeed Tony Soprano's gang of bandits or whoever that takes away your property. I'm not denying that some people have the physical power and will to take other people's property or enslave them or otherwise inflict violence (and violent threats) upon others. That's not the question. The question is whether there is any difference between "the State" and anyone else who does the same kind of act.

I have question for you about this.

If the State is a bandit and Tony Soprano is a bandit, why are you choosing Tony to take your stuff?

You're going to say you're not, but I hear you say a lot about the State is not supposed to do this and the State is not supposed to do that, so what may it do to stop Tony? After all he's just doing what seems good to him, just as you want to. If there is no government and everyone handles things for themselves, how do you protect your property from stronger individuals or groups? You've just emasculated the State after all. It isn't allowed to take your money without your permission to provide a police force, so all we have is voluntary donations, and when people see you refusing to pay, then why should they pay. And when an area that has mostly poor citizens and criminals can't afford (or don't want) a private police force and form themselves into a super gang of bandits and invade your area to take your hard earned property, how will you stop them?

Maybe I'm being unfair, so if I am please, instead of just knocking down other people's arguments, give us a turn by setting out exactly how your preferred society would work. Yes, the present system has its problems, but what would you put in its place? Remember, you still have to deal with people, with all their flaws, who won't, by and large, always act reasonably and morally. Also, a flawed system based on certain "immoral" values that works some of the time is better than one based on "moral" values that doesn't..

From your other reply, I'm going to suggest one last thing, after which I'll give up. You suggested some ways in which taking property by force could be moral. I'd like to add one. And I'll make it as general as I can.

An action that is immoral in isolation can be moral when it is done in the service of a "higher" (can't think of a better word offhand, though it's not quite what I mean) value. Thus, taking property by force, though immoral in isolation, can be moral if it is done in the service of, say, helping those in need. My point is that morality is not always straightforward and we sometimes have to decide what is most important. In the taxation example, the question might be: Is it more important to have everyone keep all the money they earn, or for everyone to have healthcare? This is just an example that I hope illustrates my point, I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion about healthcare. :-)

Here's something to ponder. The "higher good" might be maintaining the structure of society. I hope you will agree that an organized society survives better than an individual (on average), and it is therefore to the benefit of an individual to be part of a society. So having a structured society is a good thing in and of itself, and that could be the ultimate justification for overriding (some) individual freedom in order to preserve that good. Even a primitive monarchy is better than total anarchy.

[joel]

I have question for you about this.

If the State is a bandit and Tony Soprano is a bandit, why are you choosing Tony to take your stuff?

You're going to say you're not, but I hear you say a lot about the State is not supposed to do this and the State is not supposed to do that, so what may it do to stop Tony? After all he's just doing what seems good to him, just as you want to. If there is no government and everyone handles things for themselves, how do you protect your property from stronger individuals or groups?

First let me say that I have never seen the show, but I gather that Tony runs the mafia or mafia-like organization.

I think I addressed this in an earlier post. It is not immoral for "the State" to use force in defense and restitution against thieves and murderers and the like (assuming that it has the delegated power to do so). But this is not a problem with the question of this thread because individuals inherently have this right (of self-defense) and may delegate it to a group or firm or organization. My question pertains only to things that are immoral for everyone else to do, and I'm asking what makes "the State" exempt. I never said there should be no government(s) at all. Generally it is advantageous to create one or more voluntary associations to provide for common defense.

You've just emasculated the State after all. It isn't allowed to take your money without your permission to provide a police force, so all we have is voluntary donations,

And other forms of (non-coercive) funding. For example, a lottery may be a non-coercive source of funding. I should think that most costs should be forcibly extracted from the criminals who necessitate the defensive force. Thus the level of voluntary funding needed should be minimal. Another possibility is a trust fund or court fees.

and when people see you refusing to pay, then why should they pay.

The same could be said about churches. Yet there are lots of churches doing well, as well as various other voluntary organizations. People want defense and are willing to pay for it.

And when an area that has mostly poor citizens and criminals can't afford (or don't want) a private police force and form themselves into a super gang of bandits and invade your area to take your hard earned property, how will you stop them?

Are you describing North Korea?
The answer depends on the situation. If we are talking about the people of a region the size of, say, New York creating this defense association, then they may very well to decide to defend everyone in the whole region. The poor people, though not paying, would be covered too.

On the other hand, if you are talking about another region dominated by bandits, then that's like considering a hostile foreign land. We would want our local defense to defend us against both domestic and foreign aggressors.

The question of whether we should (or even have the right to) liberate the oppressed innocent citizens of such a foreign land--that's another question for another thread.

Maybe I'm being unfair, so if I am please, instead of just knocking down other people's arguments, give us a turn by setting out exactly how your preferred society would work.

Hopefully my comments above have now done that?

But it is maybe beyond my original question. I'm not really trying to argue pragmatics here. I'm just asking about logical consistency. Maybe the alternative suggestions would be practical, or maybe there is another alternative that would be more practical, or maybe even no alternative would "work."

If we were talking only about the question of this thread, my answer "works" because it is logically consistent: there is no difference. There is then no troublesome logical question to be solved. But if we go with a "State" that does things that would be immoral for anyone else to do, then we do have to address the apparent logical inconsistency. Or admit that it is immoral and try to assuage our consciences some other way.

Such as:

a flawed system based on certain "immoral" values that works some of the time is better than one based on "moral" values that doesn't..

Better in what sense? Not better in the moral sense. "Works" in what sense?

From your other reply, I'm going to suggest one last thing, after which I'll give up. You suggested some ways in which taking property by force could be moral. I'd like to add one. And I'll make it as general as I can.

An action that is immoral in isolation can be moral when it is done in the service of a "higher" (can't think of a better word offhand, though it's not quite what I mean) value. Thus, taking property by force, though immoral in isolation, can be moral if it is done in the service of, say, helping those in need. My point is that morality is not always straightforward and we sometimes have to decide what is most important. In the taxation example, the question might be: Is it more important to have everyone keep all the money they earn, or for everyone to have healthcare? This is just an example that I hope illustrates my point, I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion about healthcare. :-)

The "greater good" eh? Nightmarish evils have been done in the name of the greater good. (Have you read the Harry Potter books by any chance? One of the themes there is the evil of "the greater good".) Whose greater good? If it is a net cost to someone, let's call her Alice, then why are other people and not Alice part of (and partakers of) the greater good?

In your scenario above, you are considering what you ("we"?, which we?) should decide to do with the lives of other people. I'd question the underlying premise of this: What gives you the moral right to interfere in such ways with other people's lives? You are trying to decide what is more important (to you?) about other people's lives. Such a decision won't be unanimous, and so you'd be back to a group of people ruling over others. But why is that moral? I think your greater good proposal is based on that faulty premise. Furthermore, if it is moral to take the fruits of their labor of these other people against their will, then surely it would be equally moral to simply engage in forced labor directly. But hopefully we agree that slavery is immoral. But that is what your premise suggests. It suggests that you (or the mysterious "we") have rights to this other person's person--that is, that we (at least in part) own him/her. That we can decide what we may do to him. But I reject slavery. Why should some people own other people even in part?

Another way to look at it (and tie it back to the original question) is that it is immoral for an individual to steal from his neighbor to help the poor (for the greater good!). So why would it become not-immoral just because a larger group does it? Who is the mysterious deciding "we" such that they are somehow exempt?

I can see where the greater-good concept comes from. Indeed, it is good to give up a lesser value for a greater value (e.g., personally sacrificing present pleasures for future, greater values). But this is true on an individual basis (i.e., the lesser value that you "sacrifice" is your own). There is no grounds to make decisions over other people's lives and values unless you already assume that you have special moral authority over them--that you own them.

Here's something to ponder. The "higher good" might be maintaining the structure of society. I hope you will agree that an organized society survives better than an individual (on average), and it is therefore to the benefit of an individual to be part of a society. So having a structured society is a good thing in and of itself, and that could be the ultimate justification for overriding (some) individual freedom in order to preserve that good. Even a primitive monarchy is better than total anarchy.

Yes, a structured society. But there is nothing about it that logically necessitates coercive maintenance of the the structure. Probably the strongest societal "structure" is the division of labor, and this results in amazing order/organization by individual planners, without a central planner. Individuals have an incentive to engage in and maintain the structure of the division of labor. It is mutually beneficial. Individuals voluntarily engage in it because they are better off doing so. The only force we need to maintain it is defense of property rights (including self-ownership) from anyone else. The only (individual) freedom we need to override is infringing the rights of others. And self-defense is already moral (and the act being defended against is immoral/unjust), so there is no logical conflict there.

There is no need to force people to participate and positively help maintain the structure of society. As you agree, it is in their interest to do so. And if someone doesn't want to interact with others, fine, let him be a hermit or engage in mutually beneficial societal interaction as much or as little as he chooses. We need to use force against only those who do violence to individuals and their social interaction.

You seem to be discounting decentralized/spontaneous order, and assuming that there will be no organization without central planning.

(Again, this is a pragmatic discussion, which may or may not be related to the main question of this thread.)

[CommanderVimes]

The government doesn't GIVE me my basic rights at all. Even the founders understood that. Sheesh.

Basic rights come with conditions. The government sets these conditions.

[joel]

Basic rights come with conditions. The government sets these conditions.

Explain? Give an example?
There are logical "conditions" with rights pre-existing the government--e.g., the rights of others. It seems to me that the government need only enforce these already-existing conditions. What other conditions would the government need to create and impose, and why would doing so not be immoral? How is the "government" different such that it is exempt from the moral law that applies to everyone else?

[Philosophickle]

Basic rights come with conditions. The government sets these conditions.

That makes no sense. Basic rights come with conditions. Granted. I don't use my freedom to harm other people. The govt. sets these conditions? How? What? Are govts. basic like rights are basic? That makes conditions too complicated and arbitrary.

[CommanderVimes]

There is no grounds to make decisions over other people's lives and values unless you already assume that you have special moral authority over them--that you own them.

If someone is trying to harm you, what gives you the right to expect protection from the police? Do you own them? If people don't want to pay tax then why should they expect others to put themselves in harms way for them?

The state provides protection and services for the money you pay.

[CommanderVimes]

That makes no sense. Basic rights come with conditions. Granted. I don't use my freedom to harm other people. The govt. sets these conditions? How? What? Are govts. basic like rights are basic? That makes conditions too complicated and arbitrary.

Laws? We are free to live in our society as long as we follow the rules.

[joel]

If someone is trying to harm you, what gives you the right to expect protection from the police? Do you own them? If people don't want to pay tax then why should they expect others to put themselves in harms way for them?

Indeed. Nothing gives me such a right, per se. Their protection would be the act of a good samaritain. Morally praiseworthy on their part, but not something I have a natural right to. What makes the government different? Why would I have a rightful claim to their services, but not anyone else's? Why would I own them but not anyone else? This would be a flip-side to the question that this thread originally posed.

The exception, of course, would be if these other people have already voluntarily bound themselves to defend me. For example, we entered a contract, where I paid them money in exchange for their services. I don't own them, but have purchased their services. Then I would have a rightful claim to the promised services or my money back (and probably other restitution, such as for damages that resulted).

The state provides protection and services for the money you pay.

I have addressed this objection earlier.

To add to my previous comments, here is a quote from economist Joseph Schumpeter (who was not a libertarian) from Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, "the state has been living on a revenue which was being produced in the private sphere for private purposes and had to be deflected from these purposes by political force. The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind."

(Also note that in today's governments, the defensive services that people demand comprise only a small fraction of what taxes are used for.)

[joel]

Laws? We are free to live in our society as long as we follow the rules.

This begs the question. If the laws merely recognize and protect already-existing rights, then that's one thing. That's not immoral for others to do. But this thread is specifically questioning the legitimacy of those laws specifically that use force in such a way that is immoral for anyone else to do it. What makes "the government" different such that those laws in particular are not immoral?

If you just assume from the beginning that all laws are just and legitimate, then you are engaging in circular reasoning.

[CommanderVimes]

Explain? Give an example?
There are logical "conditions" with rights pre-existing the government--e.g., the rights of others. It seems to me that the government need only enforce these already-existing conditions. What other conditions would the government need to create and impose, and why would doing so not be immoral? How is the "government" different such that it is exempt from the moral law that applies to everyone else?

What rights would one have with anarchy? Everyone would have complete freedom to do what they like but without any set rules there can be no rights for anyone.

A society must first exist for us to have any rights at all. Our rights are basically an agreement with the society and must therefore be defined first by the society and will exist only inside that society.

E.g I have the right of freedom of speech. I can say anything and I will be protected and that is my right. With anarchy I will still have the freedom to say anything I want but others will also have the freedom to beat me up if I anger them. If I then go to North Korea then I will also lose my right to speak freely.

More on this when I get back.

[CommanderVimes]

This begs the question. If the laws merely recognize and protect already-existing rights, then that's one thing. That's not immoral for others to do. But this thread is specifically questioning the legitimacy of those laws specifically that use force in such a way that is immoral for anyone else to do it. What makes "the government" different such that those laws in particular are not immoral?

If you just assume from the beginning that all laws are just and legitimate, then you are engaging in circular reasoning.

Are we talking about taxes?