Topic: George ought to help.... (should we use violence on him if he chooses not to?) (Read 5047 times)

Thankfully Hawker left around the time the Olympics were getting geared up, but he'd already read that, and managed to distort it all to hell.

Implicit to your comment is the claim that law can only be provided by a state (a large territorial monopoly on the right to use violence and ultimate decision making authority). It's far from clear that this is true. And you certainly don't know that it is. Can you acknowledge that?

See The Machinery of Freedom for an example of how people have envisaged a modern stateless legal order. Or this introductory talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

Sorry without legal protection, rights are fairy tales.  Simple things like how assets get divided in divorces, how shares get traded in public companies and how leases are regulated all require a set of laws and a state to enforce them.  Saying that the state only recognises rights ignores the fact that rights don't exist at all without a state to enforce them.

The state creates no rights (there's is inherently nothing to create in the first place). That would be impossible. And even were it true, the state is still comprised of individuals. So individuals such as myself, could just as likely "create" rights.

States recognize some human/civil rights, they may even defend them from time to time, but rest assured, they are not the creators thereof.

Fred you are making the same error as the video maker.  You have property rights and cash because the state creates property rights and cash.  If the state limits those rights and you feel that the state is being oppressive to you, rebel. 

Look at the Syrian majority.  They are being killed like chickens yet they are resisting an oppressive state.  But unlike you, they don't jump from "Assad and the state he runs are oppression" to "All forms of government are oppression." 

If the state commits an act of aggression against the very people it was entrusted to protect, why should we give them a pass? I like debating the issue of liberty and what it means in a peaceful manner as much as the next person, but if the government plunders (involuntary imposts and ingratiating emoluments etc.) why don't we punish them for theft? To wit, I can't come into your home and steal your things. Were I attempt to do so, it would be extremely likely I'd end up in prison. However, when the state does it (legalized or legislated theft), we bless it.

Utterly bassackwards. It seems our benevolent and ingenious overlords have pulled the wool over our eyes. Either that, or we're so pathetic, ignorant and lazy to even care anymore.

That's fair.  I don't share your belief that it works the way in reality that its supposed to in theory, but I can respect your position. 

All governments rest upon the consent of the people when you get down to the most fundamental level.  Often people will put up with a very large amount of oppression before they finally have had enough (see Egypt), but ultimately the State requires the intellectual sanction of the populace.  Libertarians, anarchists, socialists and everyone else should approach the matter by attempting to peacefully persuade others to their position.  By and large, this is what happens. 

From my perspective the arguments usually boil down to arguments over economics and arguments over value scales.  The economic arguments are a shame, as economics is something that should be able to be objectively decided, but arguments over value scales are usually completely pointless due to the subjectivity of the subject matter. 

Absolutely agree.  some people believe in equal distribution of wealth, some people believe in equal distribution of opportunity, some believe in plutocracy and there are endless permutations where people believe partly in one idea and partly in safety nets.

The question is, how can these disagreements be resolved peacefully?  My preferred answer is that a system that the majority of people vote for and support. 

Nice.  Two strikes at one go.  I seem to recall reading somewhere on this forum about your nationality and occupation, but apparently I remember incorrectly.

Reading can be much faster than listening to or watching a video, but is only useful if comprehension can keep up.  My comprehension speed varies with the content I am reading.  I can read novels quite quickly, but slow down when reading economic essays.


I don't agree that it is more logical to say "society has decided" because society can't decide anything.  I realize the term "society" is simply a metaphor used to describe the net result of a number of individual actions, but I feel that it can be misleading to use that term.  When you say "society has decided" you mean that the majority of the individuals in a society support an action, or at least, do not actively oppose it.  It may in fact only be a minority who actively support the decision, but if the majority of the populace aren't willing to actively oppose it and accept it passively or with only minor opposition the minority may still have their way.

The occasional 18-year-old male internet libertarian may work on the premise that money and property exist outside of society, but that surely cannot be said of many of the influential libertarian writers and thinkers.  Rothbard, for example, very thoroughly and carefully describes property and money by stepping through the logical implications of the simple two-person island economy and then moving up the chain through more and more complex societies.

Saying that money and property are both social creations doesn't preclude the possibility that different people believe there are different ways of approaching their ownership and distribution.   

Tax generally is charged against property and cash and is paid in cash. 

I don't follow why you're mentioning cash economy.


My purpose was to find out what you were referring to with this statement.

Examples of societies that don't have a cash economy and don't have a tax system?  Sorry I can't think of one. 

Our brain has not evolved very much since the stone age.
When we see someone we still make an unconcious decision:
"tribe member" or "not a tribe member"
Unfortunately most people are in the category "not a tribe member"

And sorry if I am being annoying. It is just I learn best by asking questions...

I agree that a statist society would have an advantage over its libertarian neighbor. I just don't think this has anything to do with quality of life or efficiency. I don't have much background in this so if you have historical examples I'd like to study them.

Perhaps no-one asked.  Some societies were voluntary and some used taxation.  The more efficient ones conquered the less efficient so there was never really a choice.

But taxation was not necessary in a tribal society, because shame (I realize this was my word and not yours) would work most of the time. Therefore if communities (probably 150 people or so... based on dunbar's number) would take responsibility for their own, taxation would be unnecessary.

So I guess the question is: why doesn't this occur?

Because people naturally don't feel responsible for those around them?
Because of the diffusion of responsibility (Kitty Genovese) problem?
Because they think the state will take care of it?

I've had it told to me when I point out that not all people are really fit to be self-sufficient and a safety net is needed for them.

If organising people as a charity to feed/treat the poor is efficient, of course its the best way to do things.  The point is that the things that the community's representatives have decided should be done by the state have to be paid for by taxation and its not wrong to tell George to pay his share.

This is the first time I have ever seen a claim like that. Granted, I've only been interested in this stuff for about a year. Do any libertarians claim that? In a libertarian society, what would be stopping you from organizing the members of your community to feed/treat the poor?

A libertarian society assumes that some people only exist so that the misery they suffer is a warning to others on the perils of fecklessness.  That might work in a poor world where food and medicine is in short supply.  But in our rich countries where superabundance means that no child should ever be hungry and no-one should die of a preventable illness, I don't see how a libertarian society could even be attempted. 

I see what you are saying and agree. Do you think there is reason to believe that just because this is how it has been done in the past, there is no alternative?

A libertarian society would be a qualitatively different society than any I have ever learned about. The current state-based system has alot of robustness (or else it would not have worked for so long), but that does not mean it is perfect, or even the best option under all possible conditions.

Yes.  We exist in societies and our societies have invented concepts like property rights, human rights and money.  These concepts allow us to live a lot more comfortably than our hunter gather ancestors. Taxation is the way that the collective needs of our society get paid for.  Instead of saying "Taxation is taking what is mine" its more logically to say "Society has decided to distribute property and money in this way and of the amount I got, society is taking a percentage back."

Libertarians seem to work on the premise that the money and the property exists outside of society - thats an interesting idea but false.  Both are social creations.

Now I think I'm starting to get your perspective. So the state is doing something like playing the role of tribal leaders, and taxation is a way to collect duty once a society grows beyond the point at which shame can get people to contribute?

I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I am just trying to understand in my own words... if you get my meaning.

That would be a transaction wouldn't it? 

Taxation is not a transaction because there is no "you give me this and you will get that" - you have to pay taxes even if you don't want anything the state offers.

Ok, so you define transaction as being person-person. Therefore taxes are not a transaction. Ok. Is there a more general term you use for paying money to either another person or an organization and receiving some product/service in return?

In this context, its the charitable gift of money to Oliver.  But I am including all kinds of interpersonal deals that you enter voluntarily or are of a private nature.  The contrast is with government where an old lady who lives in the mountains and hates the sea still has to pay for the coast guard through her income tax. 

I see, forgive me if you answered this already. I got busy and forgot about this thread for a bit, I'm not seeing an answer. But what is your definition of transaction?

Correct - George is the salient character.  And if George does not want to help Oliver, no-one should force him to.  The video says that is a reason why George should not pay his income tax.  The logic error in the video is to extrapolate from the voluntary transaction between George and Oliver and say "Paying tax should be voluntary too."  But tax is not a transaction so the logic fails.

I'm not sure why you're focusing on the friend who wanted to give. Many times people would voluntarily pay for the same services the government provides them, so it is not an issue (besides arguments about efficiency which are outside the realm of this thread) The salient character is George, who does not want to pay.

Tax is not a voluntary transaction at all.  The thing between the friend and Oliver was a transaction and it was voluntary.  Comparing that to paying income tax is like comparing apples and oranges.

To go back to this... I dont think you answered it. I do not see a "voluntary transaction" occurring in that video (except between the friend and oliver). George is being threatened with violence, making it not a voluntary transaction. So the analogy works.

Um, what's the deal with asking us to watch videos?  They are fun to make I suppose but if the content is of any value, its available in writing.  If I wasted 30 minutes on every daft video people post here, I wouldn't have time to post.

The George video is a case in point.  The logic is fundamentally flawed.  I pointed that out on Youtube and the author blocked me.  So the time was wasted twice; once watching and seeing that he confused things and secondly point out that he made a mistake.  I regret wasting the time now.

Apparently posting it for the second time didn't convince Hawker to watch it
But sure, my bad. I'm not very good at reading...
I also created a separate thread for it here, thought it deserved it.

I did that in that in the second post.  Maybe if people took time to read the threads, instead of posting repeated things, we'd have more useful conversation.

The last video I posted here is only 30 minutes, it would actually save a lot of time from reading, arguing and asking questions.
Although I agree that these forums are exactly for that, so I'm not going to discourage you from doing any of that.
Everyone finds its own way to the truth.

We are all speed readers.  Reading is something like 4 times faster than listening and that assumes the video isn't packed with atmospheric music and still scenes. 

I'm not British and I am not a lawyer but at least you got 1 out of 3 correct.

Hawker is a speed-reading British lawyer; if you want him to consider your arguments you have to provide them in written form.

I gave up on George when he started getting illogical.  Given the level of argument, I sort of wish I didn't bother watching it and with respect will skip yours.

Well you did watch the original video about George, so I don't see a problem.
Here is another one opening up the truth about how our beloved state actually works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

Videos are a waste of time.  If the person has an idea worth taking seriously, they'd have it written down somewhere.

Things are going to change and change a lot. The current model of society is not an exception.
Here is an excellent video, why state and the old ways will become irrelevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=mjmuPqkVwWc

I pointed out his error on Youtube and he blocked my comments.  Pathetic.

The "them" and "us" thing does not affect the basis of society.  The Occupy crowd all accept that the state is legitimate as do the Tea Party.  "them" and "us" is a debate about redistribution.  What percentage of people does society have to carry in order to avoid disruption?

Social contract, no record of it, and you (supposedly) agree when you are what 0 years old? Also, the main way to learn about it is from internet posters.

I like the message, but the monotone voice and corny animations ruined it for me.  xD

I believe authority-based societies are a thing of the past (or soon will be). It creates this feeling of separation: there are "them" and "us". And as separation grows this division becomes more evident, "they" try to become a master race turning "us" into slaves. This is the end game in every authority-based society no matter how good it starts. Everyone should become their own authority. Why should some people born on the same planet tell other people what to do? F@#k "them"!

In bitcoin society everyone is equal in front of the network. All conflicts of interest should be resolved the same way as conflicts in the blockchain are resolved! Yes by voting with your computer power. End of story.

Social contract seems to be a convenient fiction.  There is not even copy of the contract in existence let alone any evidence that anyone anywhere ever agreed to it :S

I prefer to see society as being based on authority.  In modern societies, democracy is a way to stop the masses rebelling.  A sensible argument for progressive taxation is that if you grind the middle class and the poor down too far, they will rebel.  George may feel that he is entitled to keep his money but if the authorities don't support hi, then George will have to pay up.

One word: Social Contract

George essentially is in a contract with society to help out.

That he didn't have much choice in signing up or not, and that it is very difficult, if not impossible to cancel the contract by emigrating, are other questions.

That is not how a state works.  Thats more like how a market works and even then would be messy.

If we apply this to bitcoin community, basically everybody is equal in relation to the network, network becomes the objective and just "state" so to speak. So if enough people on the network agree that they need a school they can set up a fund to donate to it and then elect a few people to build the school and hire teachers. If another group decides that they need a new road they would do the same. Note that only people who really need the school or the road would donate, not everybody. Some people would set up a fund to hire some armed guys for their protection and so on.

So basically if the services that the state provides are so useful and so needed to the society, then the state should be able to earn money from the network the same way other people do, by providing services and doing some work. The difference from what it is now is that it's going to be voluntary and more transparent.

Good question.  Paying taxes and obeying laws are not transaction based activities but they are at the core of every society.

Perhaps the basis is duty?  Historically people felt a sense of duty to their tribe and would pay taxes and go and die in battle for the tribe.  It still works that way across the developing world.

Modern states seem to have stepped into the old tribe slot.  People feel a duty to support their country with taxes and they take pride in their sons going off and being killed in conflicts that have no benefit to them or their families.

Personally I think there is a "well there is no alternative" to why modern states work.  If you want to live in a society with schools, roads, army and all the benefits of modern medicine, there are no alternatives to living in a state that charges taxes to support itself. 

ftfy

What if he wants to?

I think george shouldn't pay anything.

On rereading this I don't agree with the second point. If not transaction based, what is the basis? I suppose this depends on the definition of transaction.

If George gives money to Oliver due to your personal threat of violence would you consider it a voluntary transaction? If so, please define "voluntary" and "transaction" further because I do not understand. If not, what would you consider such a transaction?

Tough call.  Myself and a friend used argue about it.  He said the state is like a football game where we all know the rules because otherwise you won't have a common enterprise.  I said that states evolved from bandit fiefdoms where people paid one warlord for protection rather than pay every fool with a spear who comes along.  

No doubt there are better theories.  

I'm not sure why you call that a failure when I see it as the point. I will watch the video again later on. Can you explain what you think is the source of a state's legitimacy?

So we are in agreement.  And that's why the video about George fails.  It tries to apply the logic of 2 people in a transaction to taxation and of course it doesn't work.

Here is where I think you are going off track. Generally, you could say person-person interaction is voluntary, sure. There are also times when one person forces the other to do something. Like if the coast guard sent a guy with a gun to the granny in the mountain and told her to pay up or else.


I agree, this is why the activities of the state are not modeled very well by voluntary transactions between two people.

That's not true.  There is no person-person equivalent of taxing a granny who lives in the mountains to pay for the coast guard.  Person-person generally is voluntary and transaction based.  States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.  You don't choose to be French and you don't choose to have restrictions on what price you are allowed sell bread for yet every Frenchman does both.

Because the actors who implement the will of a society should be (and are commonly) expected to act in line with the values that determine the socially acceptable way for George-Oliver interactions to go down.

I guess what I am saying is that interpersonal interactions are most fundamental. Person-society, society-person, society-society interactions are an abstraction of person-person. Yes there are some emergent properties of societies that shouldn't be ignored, and feedback between the different levels... My point is it would by folly to call the social norms that regulate interpersonal interactions irrelevant to determining how societies should behave.

To quote myself for emphasis:

I believe this is the main point on which you differ from the creator of the video and myself.

It is a very well done video.  It doesn't ask if our taxation is violence; that is assumed.  It asks if violence is moral.  The seems to be the tougher question.

How?  If your society has decided that roads are a good idea and that taxes are the way to pay for them, whether or not you share a projector with your neighbour is irrelevant.  Most people would class that as a transaction that happens between George and Oliver.  Paying taxes or building roads is not transaction based and logic based on transactions doesn't apply.

I think at the very least it is relevant to the topic.

I am trying to establish why I disagree with this statement.

Of course it isn't wrong.  Ask Bill Clinton what happens when you caught deviating from a moral or cultural norm.

Sort of off topic there aren't you?

Is it wrong to expect the actions of politicians (or anyone who represents a collection of people), to comply with moral and cultural norms? Regardless of whether it is "wrong" or not, do people vote based on this expectation?

Its not a good real life analogy.  In real life, people are elected to make decisions that affect the whole society.  What Oliver and George do as individuals is irrelevant to deciding what kind of society you want to live in and what level of taxation is needed to support that society.

I'll go with 5 + aggression if agreement broken.

So I think there is a pretty good real life analogy.

Oliver bought a projector, the bulb burned out. A new bulb is about $300, which is a rather large purchase. His roomate, George, used the projector all the time, and was responsible for a significant portion of the wear and tear, but claimed to not care if it got fixed or not. Oliver personally wants a functioning projector, and knows that george will be able use it if oliver pays to get it fixed. Should Oliver:

1) Try to peacefully convince him to pitch in
2) Just go ahead and buy the new bulb himself (knowing George will get a free ride)
3) Not purchase the bulb and just go without a projector, even though he could afford it and it is something he wants.
4) Violently force George to contribute to the fund since Oliver "knows" he will use the projector once it is fixed.
5) Strike some deal in which George agrees he no longer has use of the projector (and trust him not to cheat).
6) Lock up the projector when he is not around so that george cannot have any use of it.
7) Anything else?

Curious, why do they take helping poor oliver as example, and not say, paying for the military?
Do you think its okay for george to refuse paying for roads, for the police or the defense of his country, or even speeding tickets if he doesnt want to?

If george doesnt like paying for military, or speeding tickets, or helping people in need, in a democracy he has the ability to vote.
If he doesnt like the outcome of the vote, he can move elsewhere. You dont get to cherry pick laws to obey or things to pay for.

Not at all.  Everyone has ideas and values and being in a minority of 1 is not that uncommon.  The best you can hope for is to persuade people that you are right.

As to George saying he won't accept jail, if its a cause worth dying for, then going down shooting is indeed the right thing to do.  Objecting to paying tax is generally not seen as a cause worth dying for.

Is your argument just that people should accept whatever others do, because as members of a "society," they are dependent on the choices of others? If George won't accept jail, he can go down shooting, and that's fine, too? That's why man made guns in the first place.

@Hawk's reply (so as not to create another post): Seems reasonable. Was just wondering where you were coming from.

What is money?  What is property?  Legal constructs that society has created.  If George has been blessed with an abundance of these under the present system of distribution, good for him.  But if the society decides to redistribute, that's fine too.  If George won't accept this without a spell in jail, well, that is why society makes jails in the first place.

So you are saying that it is ok to use violence against George in order to take back what was given to him by society?

When you say "money"  do you mean wealth,  or government issued currency?

I'm not trying to start a flame war.
 To me it seems so clear that it is not OK to use violence against George,  so I am trying hard to understand how anyone else could see it so differently.

Half baked logic.  George's money was created by society, it was given to him by society and he only keeps it because society provides him security.  So the amount he has is not his decision, its a collective decision.

I liked the video

Here's one right back at you...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

Please take a look at the following youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs


I think this is one of the most powerful videos on taxation that I have ever seen.
If you like this video,  please support the creator by making a Bitcoin donation on his website:

http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/
His Bitcoin address is 1LqYpj6MNppH8yiKBWXDH2mkSLiMYwQMx6

If you don't like this video,  I would be curious to hear why.