Is there a better response to this argument besides the obvious one.
"Assumes that the state has legitimate claim over the land in the first place".
Or perhaps another response all together which can also be used against such an argument?
Serfdom: Love it or leave it. It's not really a choice, is it? Even if a serf could leave the land to which he had been attached, it would only be to be attached to the lands of some other lord. In any case, this line of thinking comes out of a failure to really appreciate the importance of human action. I think your time is best spent in expounding on the nature of human action and how vital the action of others is to our own prosperity. Moral arguments are the strongest if you already share some kind of common ground but everyone understands their own self-interest.
Clayton -
You can't "leave it" unless you pay a hugh tax on your wealth to the state (at least in the USA).
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I always remind people that the government is constituted by "We the People". If they disagree, then I get them to admit that they don't believe the government operates by consent. They have to pick their poison.
Bring up something they disagree with, then tell them to leave if they don't like it?
“Taxation is theft, so why blame the victim? Why, in effect, tell the victim of assault-by-taxation "if you don't like it you can leave"? That position simply affirms that opposition to the violence of taxation will beget more violence. Why not say the same things to victims of physical and sexual assault?” ~ Chris Leithner, 2009
Thanks, Conza, that has great rhetorical effect. And I don't mean that in a disparaging way. I mean it in a way that convinces people who would rather die than reason from point a to b to c.
Since their sensibilities are already fired up about the evil males and the innocent women, they should be able to see the comparison.
Reductios tend to work better when you use examples that they hold near and dear.
Great one, Conza.
I have not agreed to the rules put forward here. If you suggest I leave, I'll refer you to the non-aggression principle which gives me the position to ask even a majority to leave as I have the intellecual and -objectively- moral high ground. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. I have not agreed to this system. I have agreed to another one. Violent and coercive forces seek to initiate violence and expropriation upon me and mine within our freely agreed upon system. An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms. So is a violence-initiating defense firm. Driving me out with tyrrany is no different than a car-jacker excusing me from my car at gunpoint..
filc: Is there a better response to this argument besides the obvious one. "Assumes that the state has legitimate claim over the land in the first place". Or perhaps another response all together which can also be used against such an argument?
Not really. On my property you must indeed "love it or leave it".
Is there a better response to this argument besides the obvious one. "Assumes that the state has legitimate claim over the land in the first place".
If you find such an argument, it might be used by communists against exploitation by capitalists.
Seriously, I think legitimacy is the only difference between "the state exploits people" and "capitalists exploit workers".
The problem with the taxation is theft one is that you have to establish that taxation is theft first. Most people don't see it that way. Establishing a chain of consent (or lack thereof) is usually necessary to first establish that taxation is unjust.
Andris Birkmanis: Is there a better response to this argument besides the obvious one. "Assumes that the state has legitimate claim over the land in the first place". If you find such an argument, it might be used by communists against exploitation by capitalists. Seriously, I think legitimacy is the only difference between "the state exploits people" and "capitalists exploit workers".
Wise words.
So how would you better address the "Love it or Leave it" argument?
The best argument against it is that it isn't an argument, it's just a phrase without any reasoning behind it.
"love it or leave it"
"Love your country or shut up and don't try to change it or criticize it"
"Love your family at all times or disown your family"
It's honestly pretty laughable, don't try to improve the world in which you live, love it. The opposite of any democratic or rights based state of affairs.
"The problem with the taxation is theft one is that you have to establish that taxation is theft first. Most people don't see it that way."
That's not actually a problem, given that the "love it or leave it" argument is only ever generally trotted out - after they have no response to it NOT being theft. They accept it as theft but they think it has greater benefits for society etc.
Conza88:They accept it as theft but they think it has greater benefits for society etc.
I have never seen a love it or leave it argument that agrees that taxation is theft. The entire argument is based on consent, which is why they tell you to leave if you don't like taxes. The "people who live here" have consented, and if you don't, then leave.
Taxation as theft is only an interesting argument to libertarians. People who actually pay taxes, vote and believe in the nation state see it as a civic duty, not as the violent act it is.
^Of course, it's the only way they could justify not having things the way they would like it as individuals: by seeing it as a duty. Something that is inevitable or inescapable (death and taxes). We just don't jump through the same mental hoops.
I feel like the general population has put up with oppressive governments for thousands of years out of pure ignorance of it's true nature: If you didn't know you were a slave, would you think you were being oppressed? If the answer has been no through time, then there would be no reason for people to revolt. It's just passed down through culture.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I think many statists cave in to equating taxation with theft. They just don't see it as a problem. They look at it from a utilitarian viewpoint and think that funding public goods through theft is something that society just has to accept or else there won't be any "public goods" like sewer systems, police, national defense, etc. If you could show them a theory that meets these demands (i.e., market anarchism), then they should change their viewpoint. But, on the other hand, you are dealing with the human animal, one that is adverse to change and subject to groupthink. They'll dismiss the theory out of a hunch that they've never seen it work, so therefore it probably won't work. And then they'll vote for Romney or Obama.
One other point I think I should bring up, they disagree with the notion of libertarian aggression as well. They believe in entitlements beyond just not directly interfering with people's property. They see it as impractical that essential services be left up to the volatility of the market and feel that having a state project means it is guaranteed.
"I have never seen a love it or leave it argument that agrees that taxation is theft."
Ok, that's great. But I have. Room full of minarchists. You've never heard - government is evil, but it is a necessary one?
"The entire argument is based on consent, which is why they tell you to leave if you don't like taxes. The "people who live here" have consented, and if you don't, then leave."
They accept it as violence, if you do not pay - you go to jail. They're not braindead. For them it is about consent, yes - they've consented , so they agree and put up with it. If you don't "consent", well then too bad - "leave".
And yet - why should I be the one who has to leave?
"People who actually pay taxes, vote and believe in the nation state see it as a civic duty, not as the violent act it is."
And you don't think pointing out the inherent violence is going to change anything? (Even be it for fellow observers of the discussion?)
What I've never seen is anyone even be able to give a response to the proposed question, let alone turn the tables.
There's a great response. Find out the opponent's political standing, and then start talking about how great X politician, who is on the opposite end of the spectrum, is. They cannot raise an argument against you without contradicting the "love it or leave it" platform.
Conza88: Ok, that's great. But I have. Room full of minarchists. You've never heard - government is evil, but it is a necessary one?
I have never heard that argument. Ever.
Conza88: And yet - why should I be the one who has to leave?
You shouldn't.
Conza88: And you don't think pointing out the inherent violence is going to change anything? (Even be it for fellow observers of the discussion?)
No, I don't.
Conza88: What I've never seen is anyone even be able to give a response to the proposed question, let alone turn the tables.
And their silence has stopped the taxing?
"I have never heard that argument. Ever."
That's surprising to me.
"No, I don't."
Why not?
"And their silence has stopped the taxing?"
Their silence stopped further justifications for it. Maybe if the individuals silenced were those who were part of the state, it'd be different - but some how - I think their self interest would over rule that option. lol
Conza88: "No, I don't." Why not?
You have to recognize where the violence comes from.
Conza88: "And their silence has stopped the taxing?" Their silence stopped further justifications for it. Maybe if the individuals silenced were those who were part of the state, it'd be different - but some how - I think their self interest would over rule that option. lol
But after you made the argument, they dropped all consent for the state because they saw it as illegitimate, right?
Andris Birkmanis:If you find such an argument, it might be used by communists against exploitation by capitalists. Seriously, I think legitimacy is the only difference between "the state exploits people" and "capitalists exploit workers".
Of course it is. But not all standards of legitimacy are created equal. In the case of "capitalists exploit workers", any standard of legitimacy that makes this statement true will lead to contradiction.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Libertyandlife:I feel like the general population has put up with oppressive governments for thousands of years out of pure ignorance of it's true nature: If you didn't know you were a slave, would you think you were being oppressed? If the answer has been no through time, then there would be no reason for people to revolt. It's just passed down through culture.
As you probably know, this was Etienne La Boetie's insight. I think it's more complicated than this, though.
For one thing, I think people instinctively resist cognitive dissonance - at least on a mental level. One example of cognitive dissonance is "Do this because I said so." Many a child, I imagine, has replied "But why?" upon hearing that "reason". (I know I did.) The child doesn't understand - rightly, in my opinion - how a command creates an obligation out of thin air. And this is because the child doesn't understand that his parent presumes to have authority over him.
Now, if the child rejects the "explanation" given above, the parent might then threaten the child with physical violence. "If you don't do as I say, I'll hit you." The child does understand this. He certainly doesn't want to be hit. But he still doesn't understand why he must do as he's told - why it's okay for him to be hit if he doesn't do it. So his cognitive dissonance doesn't go away. Rather, it becomes persistent.
I would argue that this state of persistent cognitive dissonance is known in psychology by a different name - "learned helplessness".
That's astute autolykos, and I think it also has a lot to do with people's core belief systems. I mentioned in another thread that people are biased to protect themselves psychologically from remorse and accountability for error. Some of you who may have relatives or friends who run to the church to look for absolution of sins which they cannot muster the courage or honesty to ask from the person they hurt, is a good example of this. Many people will reinvent themselves before taking responsibility for their actions.
The state provides this cover, whether it is the church acting in a statist capacity or some government. The state is an agent we can sin through without direct and complete consequences. It is our agent and permission to do the things we know we ought not to do.
liberty student:That's astute autolykos, and I think it also has a lot to do with people's core belief systems. I mentioned in another thread that people are biased to protect themselves psychologically from remorse and accountability for error. Some of you who may have relatives or friends who run to the church to look for absolution of sins which they cannot muster the courage or honesty to ask from the person they hurt, is a good example of this. Many people will reinvent themselves before taking responsibility for their actions. The state provides this cover, whether it is the church acting in a statist capacity or some government. The state is an agent we can sin through without direct and complete consequences. It is our agent and permission to do the things we know we ought not to do.
Yes. The way I see it is that many people, today and historically, look for ways to be absolved of things that they've done to others but that they would not want done to themselves. Apparently it's too psychologically painful for them to admit to themselves that they did those things simply because they were able and (more importantly) willing to do them. Cognitive dissonance cuts both ways.
"You have to recognize where the violence comes from."
Aye? Isn't that what I said - i.e pointing that out, in the right direction?
"But after you made the argument, they dropped all consent for the state because they saw it as illegitimate, right?"
Essentially it looked as if most of the whole room had an attack of anxiety. No-one had a response or answer, I had responded to the entire panels 'rebuttals'. They knew deep down their position was wrong & untenable. You could see most people begin to get uncomfortable - it was the fear of the unknown imo. This created the anxiety - they needed an answer or something to fill that void for them. So far my responses had been entirely reasonable, they had not been able to pigeon hole or dismiss the argument. Not many can handle not knowing.
I had not advocated a position at all up until this point. I was just pointing out the logical conclusions of their own... (I had started of with asking questions - slavery had come up and I asked them to please define "slavery", then ok - imagine a society with a 100% income tax. Is that not the same thing? Well isn't a 50% income tax not partial slavery? Simply a difference in degree not kind? and it had proceeded on from there to love it or leave it) Anyway, they reached the point of not being able to defend their own position (so far so good) - so then they turned to me (to find out my position & what I "believed") - this was awhile ago & hard to remember, but it was phrased more like - so you're an anarchist then? Or it was - so you don't accept any role for government? I wasn't at all prepared for this - this being my first time attending / speaking up at a conference / seminar - I made the mistake of saying "yes, that's right".... and accepting his terms / phraseology. In hindsight, the better response was: "I am against monopolies" or something similar. After that mistake though you could instantly sense the room had regained their "comfort." They didn't even follow anything up, it was as if there nothing else to even discuss, haha. I had been mentally filed into the "kook" category for the majority of those there, lol. And that's all that mattered to them. I must say, I don't think I'll ever forget it - pretty amazing / instructive stuff.
Afterwords though several members came to speak to me about voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism (they knew about it & agreed), but hadn't come out about it. Others were curious and I suggested they check out mises.org. And the rest seemed happy to go about what they were previously doing - either working within the young liberal (Republican) and young labor (democratic) party organisations, or being paid to staff & work for a "right wing" think tank. So in this instance - no not all. But that's because I screwed up, not because the method is invalid. I felt if I was to be in the same position again, adding in more humor - kind of stefbot / Rothbard style with the ability to actually present the alternative position in more than a few sentences (you know actually present on the issue) it'd be fairly different.
"if you don't love it, leave! let this sonnng that i'm singing, be a waarnning! if you're running down my country, man, you're walking on the fighting side of me!!!!"
don't agree with the sentiment but i love the song.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Conza88: "You have to recognize where the violence comes from." Aye? Isn't that what I said - i.e pointing that out, in the right direction?
No. I am talking about observation, not proselytizing. You can't begin to address an issue until you can identify it.
People know not to steal, they still do it. People know not to be mean, they still do it. People know not to cheat on their spouse but they still do it.
People know that the consequence of not paying taxes is violence. It's why they choose not to do something about it that is important.