What's wrong with "coercion" as defined by Libertarians?

Please: Tell me how damaging another's health, liberty, or property through force or fraud (except as a direct action to prevent a party from engaging in these actions) is not wrong.

A "legally" government is one where I willingly subject myself to taxation in exchange for the government doing the services it is Constitutionally given the power to do (and The Constitution means the powers in question are obtained by consent of the governed ect ect), primarily to protect me from other force users users of force.

The US Government, and Vermont's has not been given the consent of the governed (Amendment to the US/State Constitution) to manage health care.

edited 28th May '11 10:01:35 PM by deuxhero

See my post on the first page, I asked, and was not given an answer. At least, not directly.

Oh, so your problem is one of technical issues, not principles? That would be a different discussion then.

I'd be quite happy myself with specifically adding that clause (along with various others) to said documents. Not like I don't believe they need revisions from time to time. Exhaustive ones, not piecemeal.

However, I will note, that not every country operates under constitutional principles, so that's not quite as determinative as you may think.

PS, the word damaging in your question is a biased term, framing the issue in a misleading manner. Try a more neutral phrasing.

edited 28th May '11 10:03:59 PM by blueharp

If all (Not super majority, all) people to be enslaved fully and truly consent to slavery, I can't morally object.

I'm not sure how anyone would interpret it differently if I used "harm" or "diminished" or "violated". Damage is simply the neatest grammatically when speaking of all 3.

edited 28th May '11 10:07:49 PM by deuxhero

Sure you can. You've always got the right to object. There's a reason why free speech is given such leeway.

Just don't expect to be successful with your protests if the people truly do en masse consent to such.

Not that such a situation is likely to occur, it's really just hyperbole on your part.

edited 28th May '11 10:06:58 PM by blueharp

What do you wish the government to do? Do you wish to not be taxed (while still living in a region that indirectly benefits from taxes)? Do you wish to pay taxes only for things that benefit you personally? Do you wish for a reservation on which you and like-minded individuals could create their own society?

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I wish for the government to do what the power givers (Government operates through the consent of the governed) have consented to it doing. Use the taxation to provide only for the explicitly defined services. When "taxes" are taken for any other purpose, it is theft.

edited 28th May '11 10:11:55 PM by deuxhero

Good luck with that request.

I'll await the announcement of a convention on the subject with eagerness.

Then there's a chance of a real discussion, instead of people just insisting it's not present, so it can't be done.

edited 28th May '11 10:28:01 PM by blueharp

How does the 10th Amendment fit into this? Specifically, the powers granted to the states?

(Okay, at this point I am trying to score points off of you, but I'm not just trying to score points off of you.)

edited 28th May '11 10:20:50 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

@Feo: State governments are obsolete. They should be done away with.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

This is debateable... while much corruption comes from smaller units of government, the units also set more specific solutions based on location. Congress has enough problems trying to agree on how to solve the issues of the nation in general. They're also, if I'm not mistaken, in charge of being the legislature for DC. and they're horrible at it.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

It's harder to make a decision on national scale that might satisfy everyone though, which really slow down any progress when it comes to, for example, social changes.

In war, courage. In peace, wisdom. In life, friendship.

So Deux, are you trying to tell me you not once ever used a road, the service of police or fire fighters, or a school?

Your analogy is flawed because you CHOOSE to let yourself be "mugged" by living here. You also partake in the services you are supporting. You dont want to be "mugged" then go somewhere you can't be 'oppressed' by governments.

Like the middle of Antarctica.

His beef is actually that the government is using powers not explicitly defined by the constitution, IE a strict constructionist (I think? Is that the right word/phrase?)

Anyway, you can be sure that the government will do stuff not as outlined by the constitution. Being antagonistic to him like that will score no points, though.

However, it is not a mugging. Its taxation. There is a difference. the first is the plain taking of money by force for use by an antagonistic party which will never be repaid. The second is a taking of money by legal means for use by an (unfortunately) often chaotic party which is paid back in roads, education, telecommunications infrastructure, security force, fire protection, regulation and inspection of foods, drugs and other products which will be needed directly by you, the backing of a bank account in case the bank goes under, and a slew of other things. Calling taxation mugging is, at best, lacking in a proper grounding of economic realities, and at worst actively disingenuous.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

I have seen him criticize the government for funding art projects he believes don't benefit him.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

And I have seen him criticize amendments to the Voter ID bill passed in WI as being irrelevant to the bill, which some of them were, but he chose a few which were relevant for clarification or cost control. But I'm trying t limit my argument based solely on what I've seen him say here, which is to say how he defined taxation as "Mugging".

edited 29th May '11 1:36:48 AM by Enkufka

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Actually, taxable healthcare increases your health and liberty, not to mention your personal wealth. It is very well documented that healthcare costs are lower for a far higher quality of service where there is universal healthcare rather than insurance-based.

You seem to have some kind of problem with altruism, and I find that morally repugnant.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

Taxation is theft, but the rich primarily got their money through State largesse, suppression of competition, outright land grants, State enforcement of private monopolies (copyrights or patents), and, in short, from the State.

What the State giveth, the State taketh away. Nothing particularly wrong with that: Taxing the rich is not wrong. They got us in this mess on the first place: After all, government's role is to protect their interests. Fuck them, basically.

On the other hand, taxing the middle and working classes is wrong. It's worse than wrong, it's cartoonishly evil.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Taxation is not theft, not legally. If anything, surely it's a contractual agreement that you implicitly make by living in the country? You receive the benefits of taxation as well as the drawbacks, after all.

That said, opposition to taxation ≠ opposition to altruism.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

You have the right to oppose a given tax, it's just you may be limited in the effectiveness of methods that don't have greater costs than you're willing to pay.

So ultimately, you do consent to it.

however, the key difference of theft from taxation is that you get a benefit from your taxes. If you feel you aren't getting enough in the way of benefits, you do have the right to press for more.

Do understand, it is hard to objectively determine how much benefit you really do get from your taxes.

If it's a "contractual agreement" it's an imposed one, akin to a protection racket.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Well, if you want to be cynical, what is government, if not the biggest, toughest mob around?

And even mobs can have popular support.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Sorry, but it turns out that the government can't easily let you opt out, considering how many benefits you get just from it being around. The best we can do is give you a say*

, and give you the option to leave for other jurisdictions.

Do you have some other option you'd prefer to have?

edited 29th May '11 7:41:26 AM by blueharp

"We"? What are you—the government, now?

And yes, nothing to dispute there.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Thread Hop, but it took me a little while to figure out how best to explain it.

Basically, from a libertarian POV, the entire purpose of the government is to prevent coercion of all kinds. It requires funding to do so, and therefore the people vote to give it some of their money in the form of taxes.

From an authoritarian POV, the purpose of the government is not to prevent coercion, but to enhance quality of life. Thus coercion for the "greater good" is acceptable to them, but not to libertarians.

<><

Do you have something to say in response to ideas I expressed, or is your problem simply with the expression? The "we" refers to society as a whole, which has chosen to have a government in most places. If you wish, it could be expressed in another way, but I leave that formulation up to you.

I don't believe that's an accurate description of an authoritarian point of view. Most authoritarians believe that submission to authority is the key point, not what you claim. So, no, I don't really see the latter part of your explanation as very good. The former part may be closer to accurate, but I think it's incomplete, it would benefit from an explanation of the coercion part.

edited 29th May '11 7:54:47 AM by blueharp