Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Government doesn't have to use force.

rated by 0 users
This post has 6 Replies | 2 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 20
Points 1,255
greenbabe Posted: Wed, Oct 3 2012 8:55 AM

For example, if you don't want to pay taxes, then government just doesn't provide you services. You can leave, or just somehow provide for yourself. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165

You don't just get to stop paying taxes and choose to not use government programs. They will take your money whether you use their programs or not. And what of those that use the programs but don't pay the taxes? The government must use force to give to some what they take from others.

I swear, you don't even think, do you, Kylio?

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 20
Points 1,255

Force is legit if people are freeloading. You can't just use public provisions without paying up for them. It's not fair to those that do. 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165

But "freeloading" happens with government. People from both upper and lower classes get wealth from others through government privilege. The reason is that the government uses force to take wealth. All that will be done from there is distribute enough favors to the rich to fund campaign ads that will be aired for poor people that promise "free stuff" to secure reelection by a majority vote. It's you beloved democracy at work, Kylio.

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Oct 3 2012 11:10 AM

It's not fair that the public provisions were made by stolen money.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Wed, Oct 3 2012 2:13 PM

Force is only legitimate if one individual is defending his person or property, or the person or property of another under the threat of force.  Otherwise, the act is criminal for any and all people.

Everyone freeloads and it is possible for a provider of a service to have lots of freeloaders.  For example, I recorded a television show and sped through the advertisements.  So I am freeloading on the advertisers.  My neighbor tore down his house and build a newer one that raised the value of my property, I am now a freeloader.  Walmart allows me to cross its property to get to McDonalds. 

Lastly, you own nothing to the "public".  First the public does not exist and even if you believe it does, you still can not enter into a legitimate contract with the "public" because it has sole power to use coercion and force to set the terms.  Furthermore, it can violate the terms of the contract at will.  For example, the public can raise the minimum age for Social Security and there is nothing any one of the folks paying into the system can do about it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Oct 3 2012 2:50 PM

The way to avoid the tragedy of the commons is to not have any commons. Private property solely.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS