Please tell me I'm missing something. I've gotten into heated debates over this, specifically government grants for musicians.
While pooping, I thumbed through the Ethics Of Liberty and stumbled up to chapter 24...
THE MORAL STATUS OF RELATIONS TO THE STATE ...This means that it cannot be unjust or immoral to fail to pay taxes to the State, to appropriate the property of the State (which is in the hands of aggressors), to refuse to obey State orders, or to break contracts with the State (since it cannot be unjust to break contracts with criminals). Morally, from the point of view of proper political philosophy, “stealing” from the State, for example, is removing property from criminal hands, is, in a sense, “homesteading” property, except that instead of homesteading unused land, the person is removing property from the criminal sector of society—a positive good...
THE MORAL STATUS OF RELATIONS TO THE STATE
...This means that it cannot be unjust or immoral to fail to pay taxes to the State, to appropriate the property of the State (which is in the hands of aggressors), to refuse to obey State orders, or to break contracts with the State (since it cannot be unjust to break contracts with criminals). Morally, from the point of view of proper political philosophy, “stealing” from the State, for example, is removing property from criminal hands, is, in a sense, “homesteading” property, except that instead of homesteading unused land, the person is removing property from the criminal sector of society—a positive good...
Okay, so I'm a stand up guy if I get some tax money for myself? Did Murray just give me a green flag to appropriate a music grant?..
I'm at odds with myself on this one.
Autolykos:I take it my guess was wrong then. Is the above what you meant by "one logical progression deeper"? Or is it just another hint? Regardless, if no one is entitled to a fixed purchasing power, then it's okay to tax them? Do you disagree that inflation is "taxation by other means"?
Regardless, if no one is entitled to a fixed purchasing power, then it's okay to tax them? Do you disagree that inflation is "taxation by other means"?
Too many questions. I'll withdraw thanks.
boniek:Method in achieving my own goals? What do you mean by statist method?
It's a bit of a trap which leftists typically use, when they justify what they are doing by what their motivations are.
"I take from the state so that it will collapse."
That's not the same as but usually is assumed to be;
"Taking from the state makes it collapse"
and
"Collapsing the state is a good thing"
I have heard all of the arguments about taking from the state. It's not taking from the state though. It is antagonizing and putting more pressure on other people. As people use the state to get things (money, power, prestige, privilege), you are using the state to get you a stateless society. In both circumstances, it's the public (non-state actors) using the state as a tool for their own ends. I call using the state, "statist means" or "the statist method".
You're NOT using the market when you use the state. You are NOT behaving in a non-aggressive manner socially when you use the state.
So this notion that taking from the state is somehow justified because it leads to a libertopia sounds a lot like Marxism to me.
Hope that helps explain what I meant.
Autolykos:There's really no difference here between you doing it yourself and someone else ("PDA" or whatever) doing it on your behalf. Strictly speaking, unless the item that was stolen from you is unique, there's no way you can completely prove that you're taking back what was stolen from you. I don't think "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is a reasonable legal standard in dealing with theft cases.
Autolykos:What do you mean by "exploitation", exactly? As far as I understand the term, a fully free-market society couldn't completely eliminate exploitation or opportunity for it.
This seems like, on the surface, something which would be readily used by bad people to justify doing bad things (i.e. easily exploitable).
ladyphoenix:There is in some cases. There is no shortage of serialized property in this world. Televisions, cars, etc. would be pretty easy to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, I think, especially in today's world.
Did you miss where I said "unless the item that was stolen from you is unique"? Serial numbers are unique. :P
ladyphoenix:By exploitation I mean it seems rather easy for people of nafarious intent to use this sort of principle to justify violations of people's persons or property. I don't, by any means, suggest that a free-market society would be remotely capable of removing the potential for exploitation. There will always be exploiters and exploited people as long as people are individuals and not Borg drones. What I'm suggesting here is that it behooves us (libertarians, and people in general) to not put ourselves in positions that are exceptionally easy to exploit. This seems like, on the surface, something which would be readily used by bad people to justify doing bad things (i.e. easily exploitable).
I don't see how it's exceptionally easy to exploit. Are you assuming that the alleged thief could take no subsequent legal action? Why is that?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: boniek:Are you going to stop thieves by moralizing them? Better thieves inspire better security solutions. More thieves inspire thoughts about why there are that many. I see nothing disturbing here. Thieves in that sense have good role to play in society. My issue with your viewpoint isn't about stopping thieves. It's about you apparently considering their theft to be justified in some sense. This simply goes against the Non-Aggression Principle.
boniek:Are you going to stop thieves by moralizing them? Better thieves inspire better security solutions. More thieves inspire thoughts about why there are that many. I see nothing disturbing here. Thieves in that sense have good role to play in society.
My issue with your viewpoint isn't about stopping thieves. It's about you apparently considering their theft to be justified in some sense. This simply goes against the Non-Aggression Principle.
I have problem with word justified. I just can't imagine objective justice. If there is none then we only have opinions about it. That means my justice is no more correct than yours. My opinion is: stealing is bad and I would like to live with people that respect this opinion and agree that stealing should be punishable in some way, because that would benefit me most in long term.
Autolykos:By your reasoning, you should also applaud car thieves for "showing weakness in systems they crack and making money off of it"
Except banksters and lobbyists don't steal my money. Government does. So I don't see how your analogy applies.
liberty student:I try to make very simple, very precise statements, without implying all sorts of other things.
liberty student:But that would be an argument from ignorance. It wouldn't falsify what I am saying.
Is that what you mean to imply? ;)
Autolykos:Did you miss where I said "unless the item that was stolen from you is unique"? Serial numbers are unique. :P
I certainly see your point though. I did not take it as far as I could (or should) have.
Autolykos:I don't see how it's exceptionally easy to exploit. Are you assuming that the alleged thief could take no subsequent legal action? Why is that?
Everything else I can think of reduces to the argument "well, what's to stop him from committing all the aggression he could afford to compensate others for?" Which of course, the answer is, "Nothing except perhaps negative social consequences."
ladyphoenix:They aren't very simple if, in general, people can't understand them.
The simplicity of an argument isn't based upon the comprehension of the other party.
ladyphoenix:I have a very hard time understanding your "cryptic" responses.
It is truly my curse that I am regarded as cryptic.
ladyphoenix:So no one should ever take anything "belonging" (and I use that term very loosely here) unless he is able to determine exactly where it came from (i.e. exactly which taxpayers' tax monies went to pay it), lest he be guilty of theft from those taxpayers himself?
Please take a step back for a moment, and think about how you came to ask this. I said that we could track government money, which you said may be true, but you felt you could not as an individual. I said, that's an argument from ignorance (just because you don't know something, doesn't make it not true) and you replied back with the above, which has nothing to do with my claim that we can indeed solve the problem of restitution.
I never claimed we should, I never made any value claims at all, and yet above you are asking me to make a value statement which is completely outside this discussion. That was why it was somewhat silly of RJM to call me a Rothbardian and say I was making ethical claims. I haven't made any ethical claims.
This is what an argument based on logic looks like. I am disheartened that so many people regarded it as foriegn and hostile.
ladyphoenix:Is that what you mean to imply? ;)
I *try* not to imply things. I'd rather say what I mean. I don't know what individuals should do. It is a full time job trying to figure out what I should do on a day to day basis. I am not an oracle or spirit guide. I do not carry the stone tablets down from Sinai.
liberty student:I said that we could track government money, which you said may be true, but you felt you could not as an individual. I said, that's an argument from ignorance (just because you don't know something, doesn't make it not true) and you replied back with the above, which has nothing to do with my claim that we can indeed solve the problem of restitution.
I accept the truth of the matter is that we could, indeed, track where the funds came from.
I want you to impose a value judgement. :) Do you agree with Rothbard in his assertion that it is not immoral to "take" from "government?"
If yes, do you believe that to include property more than that which "government" has taken from you?
I'd also like to add...
liberty student:This is what an argument based on logic looks like. I am disheartened that so many people regarded it as foriegn and hostile.
liberty student: boniek:Method in achieving my own goals? What do you mean by statist method? It's a bit of a trap which leftists typically use, when they justify what they are doing by what their motivations are. "I take from the state so that it will collapse." That's not the same as but usually is assumed to be; "Taking from the state makes it collapse" and "Collapsing the state is a good thing" I have heard all of the arguments about taking from the state. It's not taking from the state though. It is antagonizing and putting more pressure on other people. As people use the state to get things (money, power, prestige, privilege), you are using the state to get you a stateless society. In both circumstances, it's the public (non-state actors) using the state as a tool for their own ends. I call using the state, "statist means" or "the statist method". You're NOT using the market when you use the state. You are NOT behaving in a non-aggressive manner socially when you use the state. So this notion that taking from the state is somehow justified because it leads to a libertopia sounds a lot like Marxism to me. Hope that helps explain what I meant.
Thanks for clarification. I will clarify as well. Taking from the state makes prosperity of society collapse. State does not collapse, because people think it is necessary. As long as that persists there will be a state. I'm not using state to get stateless society. I'm using state to benefit myself. I'm not stealing by using state services. State steals. I see this. Not many people do. I agree that it puts pressure on others (especially on persons that are not interested in using state services, but pay for them anyway - like me). That means others will want to use state even more. When shit goes to hell like in Greece either people will reflect on what went wrong and act on it in some new way or just continue the cycle.
Anyway state collapse is side effect of my motivation. My motivation is to benefit myself.
ladyphoenix: liberty student:This is what an argument based on logic looks like. I am disheartened that so many people regarded it as foriegn and hostile.I didn't think it was hositle at all. I was simply trying to understand. I'm sorry if you took it to mean that I viewed it as hostile.
No need to apologize. We're a-ok.
ladyphoenix:I want you to impose a value judgement. :) Do you agree with Rothbard in his assertion that it is not immoral to "take" from "government?"
I do not agree. Rothbard and I part ways on what is effective libertarian strategy.
boniek:Thanks for clarification. I will clarify as well. Taking from the state makes prosperity of society collapse.
Yes, we agree upon this. It hurts other people when you take from the state.
boniek:State does not collapse, because people think it is necessary. As long as that persists there will be a state.
Agreed.
boniek:I'm not using state to get stateless society. I'm using state to benefit myself.
So you're using the state to organize your fellow humans into a collective host you can parasite off because it is in your self interest.
boniek:I'm not stealing by using state services. State steals.
You're endorsing their stealing. You know the money is stolen and taken with force, and you are willing to accept it anyway. You're using the state as an agent, which is what every statist does.
boniek:Anyway state collapse is side effect of my motivation. My motivation is to benefit myself.
Right. You are not acting as a libertarian, you are using might makes right, or ends justify means arguments.
I wonder, would you kill another person if it was to your benefit? Maybe you could take their children or their property. Would that also be consistent with your moral philosophy?
liberty student: ladyphoenix:I want you to impose a value judgement. :) Do you agree with Rothbard in his assertion that it is not immoral to "take" from "government?"I do not agree. Rothbard and I part ways on what is effective libertarian strategy.
A little story.
I need a new copy of my birth certificate. I have to petition the state for the pleasure of getting a new copy of their ownership papers of me. That's what a birth certificate is, the state's number for me, a brand on my hindquarters. I have spent 1 year putting this off. I loathe the idea of asking the state for anything. It doesn't make me moral, and it doesn't even mean my choice will be moral, it just means that I am not kidding myself about my relationship with the state.
Kaju is right. I don't want to homestead in the forest. But that doesn't mean I think I am entitled to welfare or the fruits of anyone's labor, through the state as agent. I know what is wrong, and I know I will make bad choices but I do not kid myself that they are really ok choices that hurt no one.