As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?
Of course there is. We've lived under centralized power for hundreds or thousands of years, after all. Why would The Powers That Be suddenly cease wanting to Be?
But centralized power cannot be justified, it can only be rationalized. If you think about the idea of the social contract for a moment, you should realize that it's not a contract at all, but merely a shackle for our minds, to keep us from finding a way out of the maze of our brainwashing.
For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either. You're either inside a country, or you're freezing to death in Antarctica. It's not much of a choice, but a voluntary choice is necessary for any contract to be binding.
Read this: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm
Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour - quite the opposite of "the social contract", and imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property. If "aggress" sounds out of place, let's say "interfere with someone's (exclusive) control of their property". There's lots of room for pointless bickering in moral issues, etc.
There are various sensible ways to view the concept of property. One is Murray Rothbard's idea of something becoming your property by "mixing your labour" with it. For example, if you build a house, or plow a corn field, they're your property.
Well no. If we're talking about capitalist property, it's between a single individual and the entire rest of the human race at once. Or, if we want to be realistic, it's between an individual and anyone in shooting distance of that individual.
>Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour
No, it works to the favor of property owners and creditors (who are, essentially, fractional property-owners in people).
>imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property
Since the entire world is thus privatized, this "one simple trick!" becomes totalitarian.
I have my own philosophy, induced from reality, which (conveniently enough) corresponds to Objectivism (since they both use a logical methodology).
> But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand.
Correct, and I can make a number of arguments against anarchy. That is just the simplest and most clever I have run up against other than "It's contradictory."
> As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?
That is a good question that people often have. I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force. Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force.
The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate. Moreover, consider the case of a just war against a country that threatens the US; there may be civilian casualties among non-participants in the country of the enemy. The proximate cause of such casualties would be the US military, but the fundamental cause is the enemy government; they died to retaliatory force. A similar case is occuring when an ideal government uses force to collect minimal taxes to establish police, courts, and military. The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights. It would be ideal if all funding for government could be levied voluntarily, via donations, but if not, my argument here provides a solution.
This is not an Objectivist view, because it was not part of anything Ayn Rand wrote. I think many Objectivists would consider it to be compatible with Objectivism, while some no doubt wouldn't.
Therein lies the problem. Governments are based on initiatory force - extortion, to be accurate. We all pay taxes because we know we'll be forcibly hauled to jail if we don't, and our property will be seized from us. Taxation itself is immoral, and since all governments are based on taxation, all governments are immoral.
>> The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights
So I guess I'm allowed to initiate erm.. retaliatory force against you, because you might want to violate my rights, or.. how does this work? :P
There is no threat before someone threatens you. Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it? You're aware that taxation is based on (initiatory) force, and thus immoral. But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.
What is profoundly immoral is condemning everyone to barbarism via a system that will lead to massive rights violations, which is what you are proposing.
I don't actually need my neat little trick. Even before I realized the truth in that, I advocated for the minimal necessary taxation, in order to otherwise establish a rights-protecting society. That is the practical thing to do, and therefore it is the moral thing to do.
You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral. It is a floating conception (i.e. it cannot be induced from or reduced to reality).
> Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it?
Yes, it is a rational idea. In a state of nature, everyone is a threat to everyone.
> But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.
Come on man, I'm not a moron. The idea doesn't fall on its face. That is just an assertion you are making.
OK, here's what you said earlier: >>> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force.
But government is based on the initiation of force in taxation. Without taxes, there is no government, and without the threat of violence inflicted on you for attempting to keep your property, there is no taxation. That is immoral, plain and simple. It's extortion.
>>> Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force.
Who are they "retaliating" against? If A initiates against B, is B then allowed to "retaliate" against C?
>>> The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate.
We agree on the first part, but who exactly is government retaliating against when taxing people? Remember, an individual is free to live all his life without aggressing against anyone, but if he doesn't give up his money to the government, then the government will aggress against him. Where's the retaliation in that? -Nowhere, that's where. It's simply clearly the initiation of force against an individual, even if he's never hurt anyone ever.
>> You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral
I already did, see above.
>> Yes, it is a rational idea. In a state of nature, everyone is a threat to everyone.
My point was that you can't both be sane, and "retaliate" against people who have not initiated against you. The possibility that someone, somewhere might want to violate your rights, does not make your force a retaliation if you're just aggressing against somone who's never done anything to you.
If A never actually initiates against anyone (regardless of any perceived/imagined willingness to do so), can B then "retaliate" against C? -That's roughly the idea you presented before.
Let's say the US retaliates against Iran's threat of force (let's just assume it makes a legitimate threat of force) and kills uninvolved Iranian citizens as a side-effect. Assume the US made reasonable attempts to minimize civilian casualties.
Was the US's force against those civilians retaliatory, or initiatory? I would say the former. Iran initiated the force and is morally culpable for those deaths.
If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory. The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights.
So when an ideal US forcibly taxes me, it is retaliating, for the same reason it is retaliating when there is a civilian casualty in Iran.
Anyway, we run the risk here of being rationalistic (i.e. talking all about concepts that ultimately are not connected to reality). There is another way to look at the point that I am making, which is to say: In a state of nature (i.e. if the government suddenly disappeared), force rules. The only way to get out of a state of nature is to use force to elimiate it. That is perfectly moral, and perfeclty practical. It is the use of force that makes the protection of rights possibile. (That would even still be true if government were 100% funded via donations, since it properly uses force against criminals anyway.)
> You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral
You said it is immoral "plan and simple" because it's "extortion." Unless I missed your argument. That does not justify the claim of "immoral" because it does not link it to a philosophical theory of morality that itself is, ultimately, logically derived from and necessitated by perceptual reality.
For instance, many libertarians support the "nonaggression axiom." That is just a floating axiom that they arbitrarily assume. Some of them have deeper philosophical arguments for it, presumably, but many do not believe that such are necessary.
The good news it that we actually can rigorously defend liberty using a chain of reasoning that starts from perceptual reality. And we should. Don't be satisfied to believe a good thing when you can also prove a good thing, which is so much better. :)
However, that reasoning will lead to the conclusion that a minimum necessary amount of taxation is, well, necessary, and thus justified. A proper theory of morality does not contradict that. I am willing to sacrifice the ideal of having zero taxes in exchange for being right.
Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified?
> If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory.
Why should some group of people decide what personally I need and impose payments for that "service" upon me? Did I have a say?
> The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights.
So, basically, to protect the people from robbery, we need to institute a larger theft body? Sounds like a good plan.
Now, what if I don't like the way government does its job protecting my rights? What if I find the govt performs this task in an inefficient and quite costly manner? What is I'm a pacifist and I don't want anybody to protect me? I can't opt out of the government "protection"; I can't switch the provider either.
Because that was how I phrased the hypothetical.
> Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified?
Because in the hypothetical retaliatory force was being used to defend US citizens---something I believe is moral and which the guy I was talking to seems to agree with.
I don't think you are in agreement so I don't think we can progress at this point in the discussion. We would have to backtrack first to talking about retaliatory vs. initiatory force. That is too much to bite of in an HN comment discussion.
As a side note, you could switch the names of the countries, it doesn't matter.
Not really, mostly just trying to get you to see it doesn't make sense.
I won't go through your example with the US and Iran now, let's concentrate on your rationale for using force. You keep talking about retaliatory force but without anything to retaliate for.
First, someone has to initiate force against you, before you can retaliate with force, and you can't retaliate against some innocent bystander. If A has never done anything to harm anyone, B simply can't retaliate against him. It makes no sense.
Likewise, if Person A has never harmed anyone, then Government B simply cannot use force on A in retaliation for anything, regardless of the fact that taxes are needed for any government to do anything.
Furthermore, the mere possibility that someone somewhere might use force against you does not enable any kind of retaliation on your part. You just can't retaliate if no one has wronged you yet.
>> That does not justify the claim of "immoral" because it does not link it to a philosophical theory of morality that itself is, ultimately, logically derived from and necessitated by perceptual reality.
How about the idea of natural rights and the Non-Aggression Principle? -How about common sense, and our intuitive morality as human beings? For example, do you personally have the right to take someone else's property by force, even though he's never done anything to harm anyone?
>> That is just a floating axiom that they arbitrarily assume. Some of them have deeper philosophical arguments for it, presumably, but many do not believe that such are necessary
The problem with philosophical debates is that anyone can just filibuster any conversation by delving into semantics or the nature of language or the meaning of specific words or whatever, or ultimately the nature of reality itself. "What do we really know about reality, or the nature of man as a life-form? For all we know, we could be living in a simulation!"
That's why it's understandable if some libertarians don't feel like bothering to argue about morality. But as for the NAP ("non-aggression axiom"), it really is axiomatic, and that's already enough by itself. You know it's wrong to aggress against anyone, and so does everyone else. It's just that if this principle is consistently applied to everyone regardless of whether they're in uniform or not, then governments are clearly seen as immoral.
>> In a state of nature (i.e. if the government suddenly disappeared), force rules.
Does it? Think about how many people you know would go on a killing spree if suddenly there was no government tomorrow. -How about a string of robberies?
.. Or would most people just continue their everyday lives, trying to get by comfortably? -That's certainly what people in general would do in a free society, just like that's the way they behave now. If you don't have any intention of hurting anyone, then you have no problem adhering to the NAP.
>> The only way to get out of a state of nature is to use force to elimiate it
Let's get this straight. Because the use of force is immoral, we need even more force to prevent the use of force, by force?
The use of force is immoral, so you want to establish the ultimate force - a monopoly on violence, to extort people in order to prevent the use of force?
We need to engage in Immorality, to prevent Immorality?
In other words, we need to do that which is forbidden, to discourage others from doing the same, because doing what's forbidden is.. forbidden?
We need to Violate, to prevent Violations, because Violations are not allowed?
Are you starting to see it? Do you see that if you adhere to the moral principle that the initiation of force is immoral, and thus, forbidden, then you can't base a whole society on top of exactly that which is forbidden, while still claiming to adhere to that specific moral principle. You can't get around that either, by making "retaliation" mean something that it does not actually mean here in the real world.
Actually, plenty of us pay taxes because we like having roads and schools and healthcare and firefighters and armies and such.