Hacker News Reader

Comment by IanCal | Hacker News Reader

> When you take someone else's money by force, for whatever reason, even if you intend to give it to the poor, it is theft. But when a government does it, it suddenly becomes taxes.

I'd see taxes more like calling in a debt. It costs money to live here, you have to pay for that. You can't shout and scream "THEFT" when a hotel is trying to get you to pay for your stay, even if you don't want to use the TV yet still have to pay for it.

> "We built those roads, we gave you education". Yes, except you didn't.

I'm not sure which country you're from, but I'm guessing there are schools and roads funded by the state.

> Finally, you see, if a politician does a bad job, he still gets paid and keeps his job at least until the next election. If a private company messes up, people leave in droves and it goes bankrupt.

There are plenty of companies that do bad jobs and are still running.

View on HN

> I'd see taxes more like calling in a debt. It costs money to live here, you have to pay for that.

What do you mean costs money to live here? I already pay my rent and utilities. When I walk or drive on public roads, it is only because it is a monopoly and I have no other choice. Do you think in the absence of government no one would build roads? Or schools? Or do you argue that it costs money to stay on a piece of land? Then maybe we should start taxing breathing the air as well.

> There are plenty of companies that do bad jobs and are still running.

Because there's a demand for that particular level of service, not because they force everyone to visit them and become their customers.

I honestly cannot imagine how you can have even a small town function without a government of some sort, leave alone a whole country.

To me, it's pretty obvious that when you have a large group of people trying to live geographically close together, someone has to set up the rules, and make sure those rules are followed. Otherwise, there will be conflicts, because people will have different opinions about how something should be done, and some people will try to enforce their worldview on others. Whoever will have the power to resolve such conflicts is the government. That will be their job, and people will have to pay them to do this job.

What you don't see here is that if you have a government, it inevitably imposes the rules the majority agree with upon the minority who disagree. There is no way for the minority to do anything but wait until the next election and hope. So conflicts are not really resolved, but rather one side orders the other to shut up and do as they say.

A true resolution would be when both sides agree on the price. An simple example would be this:

I would like to throw a party on my lawn, but my neighbor disagrees. I really want that party though, cos it's my birthday, so I would go to my neighbor and try to convince him to let me have a party. I can see he wouldn't appreciate the noise so I would offer him something in exchange for his inconvenience: maybe I would let him use my bathtub for the next month, or maybe I would simply give him some money. If it wasn't just my one neighbor, but maybe 3 or 5 of them, I would have to convince them all and pay them all and that would make my party very expensive, so I would consider cancelling it.

Now on a larger scale, imagine you'd have various law firms, each protecting their clients interests and bargaining on their behalf. So, for instance, clients of one firm wouldn't like gay people to marry, while clients of that other firm, obviously many of the are gay, would be in favor of it. Even if we suppose that those who oppose gay marriage are the majority, they still probably wouldn't be able to outbid the minority here. That's because when people are asked to pay to teach others how to live, it becomes painfully obvious most of them are not ready spend their money on it.

This breakdowns tremendously in other situations, mainly because of imperfect information. Humans are notoriously bad at pricing things. Lets say I'm a very wealthy man and I'm also a serial killer. In your example, I assume I could just pay any amount of money to kill someone. I'm a wealthy guy, and I go around killing 8 year olds and paying the parents huge sums of money (10 - 20 million dollars, who would refuse?)

However, what is the real price of an 8 year old boy? Lets say I go and kill little Mark Zuckerberg. By doing so I have zapped almost 100B dollars from the economy and paid his parents 10-20 million. I'm doing a disservice to everyone by killing him, should I also pay everyone who Zuckerberg will make a future millionaire, how will I know this?

Even in your example, how does his neighbor know what the perceived cost of your action are? What if his property value goes down, because of your party and noise making? How will ever be able to calculate that cost? What if he has his elderly sick mother staying over the weekend? How does he put a price on his mother's piece of mind?

Price is subjective and only depends on your action. If you take a deal, it means you are satisfied with the price. There is no real price.

I'm pretty sure a large portion of society would bet against you if you decided to kill an 8 year old boy. You would never have enough money to outbid the society. It doesn't matter how much money you pay to the parents, the society would still be willing to put you in jail, since it doesn't want people killing other people, no matter how rich they are.

You can go right now to Liberia, hire enough mercenaries, and start killing bunch of people for fun if you want to. The entire society of Liberia wouldn't able to stop you from doing so. Let's see how willing they are in putting people behind jail. It is the ultimate paradise of weak government, one that cannot/will not protect its own people. On the plus side, you can avoid paying any tax.

So would the same thing happen in the US if people woke up tomorrow and realized there is no government and they don't need one? Because, you see, a weak/strong government says nothing about the well being of the people. You can have very strong governments, yet people would be suffering a lot more under those regimes.

How? Where are these mythical people suffering under good governments? These people who are enslaved by theft of taxes? As a rule of thumb, people living in countries with strong social democracies, with strong rule of law (enforced by strong government) are the healthiest, the happiest, the most well fed, innovators of science who have launched humanity beyond earth and touched the stars.

On the other hand, we have places with weak rule of law, where the governments are corrupts, or cult of personality places men above law. These are the places where people suffer, have little hope or freedom to progress and have constant boot of power pressed on their face.

If strong government is what is stopping the utopia, why is there no such utopia in Somalia? I am finding it very hard to match reality with your claims.

So why is there no utopia in North Korea and Cuba and Iran? Very strong governments there.

Because they are following a wrong way of forming a government, one where the rule of men trumps the rule of law. Even then, you can see degree of their progress. NK, with almost mythical god like rule form single person is way worse off than Cuba, where the politburo rules, followed by Iran, where the power is shared by large amount of clergy and secular government.

A good government is quite different than absence of any government, which the anarchist claim would lead to utopia. History and current situation are littered with examples of weak rule of law with practically no government. Why doesn't this fabled anarchist utopia rises there? Why does every time there is a power vacuum, some local warlord arises to fill in the gap? Why don't these mythical "good humans" just learn to live without ruling other and being ruled .... just as proposed by anarchist/libertarians?

I have given you examples of good working government, and pointed out what I don't consider to be the proper idea of government. Provide me with evidence of your utopias.

Even your simple example of throwing a party breaks down in the real world. What do I do if my neighbor throws a loud party without asking my permission? Do I go and confront him? What if he tells me to f* off? Do you see where this leads to?

If he tells you to fuck off, there are numerous ways to get back at him. In the real world, you'd call your protection agency, which would in turn call his protection agency and they would settle the dispute for you (without actually going to war with each other, as some people would suggest). The difference from the current system would be that you wouldn't have a monopoly on laws and people would be compensated for their inconvenience.

In real world, your neighbor is the local warlord, and you cannot possibly summon enough amount of army to counter his army. The only guy who can stop him is the guy with bigger army somewhere in capital city, and he couldn't care less about you. Welcome to feudalism. History is rife with the system you are proposing, and it did not went well for humanity.

Can you summon enough amount of army to battle the global warlord which is the government?

Yes, if I can convince other, I can summon army of 100 million voters who can change the system overnight (well, once every 2 years) and make whoever they want their global warlord to be. The global warlord works for them, and not the other way round.

The fact is, people are happy enough with the system as it is, and they do vote out the "mafia thug" if he acts particularly bad. This global warlord requires money to maintain its strength and most people are more than happy to pay their share of taxes.

So wouldn't it be much easier to convince 100 people to act against your local warlord than 1 million people to act against the global warlord?

It is easier to control one entity that has monopoly over force and can be ruled by reason, than to control gazzillion small forces which are accountable to no-one. We also have these local warlords that you speak of. They are called the police and the mayor.

How can it be easier to control an entity that has a monopoly over force and that requires you to convince 1 million people instead of 100 for any changes to happen?

Also, ruled by reason, really? Same reason that helped it decide to spy on all people and kill millions in bloody wars all over the globe? I mean, it's not just the US. If you look at history, no criminal organization, even the most bloodiest and craziest one, can compete with an average government in how many people it killed, tortured or imprisoned.

The Mongols killed more people as fraction of living population that any government. The Mongols were also more close to your ideals of anarchy. May I suggest you to brush up your history?

Yes, ruled by reason. The same reason that forces them to withdraw from wars, same reason that checks military spending to less than 3% of human efforts, the same reason that maintains property rights for people to function, the same reason that can channel together forces to plant 200 million plants to stop the dust bowl .... and I can parrot on and on. Is the government perfect? Hardly, but it is in every way superior to lack of government, where my ability to maintain my rights depend on how big armies I can summon on my side.

Your tiny force of hundred cannot lead to change of any reasonable measure because there would be a person with an army of million. Always has been, always will be. I am not making stuff up just to argue with you. Feudalism is exactly the result of model you propose. When local security forces run by private party are supposed to enforce whatever any one pays them, it is just in their own benefit to merge together to form bigger force ... which goes on till the ultimate biggest force is run by a King at the center, and small forces run by local security guy. Now unlike trust busting which the government (ruled by citizens) can undertake, there is no one in your utopia who can stop security agencies from forming cartel. Again, brush up your English history (Or Russian history for that matter). When rules depends on who has more money in his pocket, ECON 101 rationale follows, forming ever larger security force accountable to no-one but itself ... enforcing not the rule of law, but whatever whims it wants to.

Mongols were a proto-state. The fact they didn't have a permanent territory means nothing. They had an hierarchical structure. The only thing that was different was that other "states" realized it would actually be much profitable and safer to sit in one place and tax the shit out of their own people (and possibly those they conquered) instead of running around the globe and robbing everyone indefinitely.

I think the mistake you are making is thinking that it's either a modern state which gives you certain benefits or some sort of medieval anarchy situation with warlords and lots of random violence. How about when you have 3 or 4 major protection agencies. You may think of them as governments, but instead they work within one country and everyone is free to switch to one or the other at any time. Those agencies sell laws to their customers want, resolve conflicts and enforce property rights. Why do you think such a competition would be worse than having a monopolist who doesn't even live by its own laws (Example: senator did cocaine? made a mistake. A regular person did cocaine: jail). Try to understand that the word Anarchy doesn't mean what you've been told it means. Anarchy simply means no state, but it doesn't mean no rules.

Oh, so it would be just like the 90s in Russia? Where you would pay your "protection agency" to "settle the dispute" for you, right? Are you old enough to remember how it used to work those days? What if my neighbor is a member of the protection agency? What if I don't have money to pay for my protection? What are you going to do?

Russia in the 90s wasn't absence of government. It was a curious mix of government and bandits, which, of course, continued into our days. Except that now it's actually much easier to identify the bad guys: they are wearing a uniform.

But the point is, you can't just burn a church in a village and expect people to become atheists. Which is an analogy for what happened with the USSR. People got their freedom, but they had no idea what to do with it. So it was gradually taken back from them again.

People got their freedom, but they had no idea what to do with it.

That's the truth right there. Vast majority of people already have more freedom than they know what to do with. Those people, if faced with a clear choice, would gladly trade some of that "freedom" for stability, security, and comfort in their lives.

If you remove a government from a society, it will quickly descend into chaos. Various armed forces will longer be held accountable for their actions. What do you think will happen? Anyone with a gun can become a "government". Now instead of one government, you have a thousand. Eventually, power will consolidate, and you will end up with a single government, back where you started.

I feel a bit strange having to explain these obvious things, it's like I'm talking to a 10 year old. Do you not realize that the societal order you're proposing has been tried many times since the beginning of civilization? It has never worked. Every time, some kind of power (official or unofficial) had emerged sooner or later (usually sooner), and eventually a some sort of a centralized government was formed. This happened every single time. If people could function without a government, surely we would have seen an example of that somewhere.

It's like going back to the 17-th century and saying, "surely, if a society could function without slaves, we would've seen an example somewhere".

The thing is, I realize a lot of people are not ready to be unplugged. That's fine. But there are a lot of people who share my views who would like to live without a government and who know how to do it. The problem for these people is that all the land is taken by states already. And, mind you, most of it is unused. It doesn't have to be some really good land, Las Vegas was built in the desert after all. I guarantee you, if such a land was made available, you would see an unprecedented migration of people and businesses into it and a huge economic boom. The reason it's not available is because states are mostly afraid that if they sell a piece of land to someone completely (that is, allow to secede) many more would follow.

It's like going back to the 17-th century and saying, "surely, if a society could function without slaves, we would've seen an example somewhere"

Ok, good point. The society without any government is possible in theory. It's possible that in the distant future, human civilization will evolve to some kind of government-free organization.

However, you are claiming that it is possible today. Let's say we completely remove all people from California, restore it to its wild prehistoric state, and declare it a government-free zone. Anyone can move there and do whatever they like. No laws, no infrastructure, no social services, just wild nature. The blank slate. Let's say a lot of all kinds of people from all over the world will move there and will want to start a new life. Also, for the sake of the argument, let's say no outside influence will be exerted on that land, it will be allowed to develop independently.

Please describe what is going to happen there in the next 100 years? What makes you think it will be different this time around than how it was 200 years ago?

Oh, no, I never said it's possible now. Or, to be precise, I never said it is possible at the current state of understanding of the world most people have. For most people, a state is like religion. If you burn a church in a village the villagers don't become atheists.

My point is that there are people who understand liberty and understand how to build a free society. They would like an exit. The problem, in my view, is that those in power wouldn't allow them such an exit, because as soon as others see them succeed, the state would lose its legitimacy.

You ask me, what is my solution to this? 1. Educate people about the evil and predatory nature of the state 2. Use Bitcoin. And that's all I have to say about the war in Vietnam.

current state of understanding of the world most people have

Your problem is you believe you understand the world better than others. You want to educate others, but even here on this forum, where people generally listen to reason, and are disillusioned with the government, you haven't persuaded anyone with your arguments.

For me, a state is not a religion. For me government is a service, and I'm fine paying for that service. I'm fine trading some of my freedom for security, stability, and comfort. I still have plenty of freedom left.

I honestly don't understand what are you complaining about. If you're living in Russia, and your life there sucks, just move to a country with a better government, with better laws, or with better whatever it is you're not happy about.

You see, it's not about Russia or any other specific country. Russia has a lot more freedoms in certain areas than European countries and the US. It's a matter of principle. As for believing my understanding of the world is better - isn't it what most people who are trying to convince others of anything believe they have? I mean, what kind of moron would I be if I tried to convince people of something I didn't believe myself? Oh, wait, I'd be a politician.

Also, I don't particularly enjoy running around and preaching. HN is interesting because some people here indeed listen carefully and actually read your arguments, sometimes presenting challenging questions.

The horrifying thing is a huge number of people do believe that without government there wouldn't be roads. Every libertarian or anarchist FAQ you find will have a response to the "but who will build the roads" question. Government has done an excellent job of convincing the vast majority of people of its indispensability.

It is a serious question. Until of now, no project of the scale of public works has been taken by any private cooperation anywhere in world. Although the incentive are clear (permanent cut on profit from all transportation), none of them have either the capital, the risk appetite or the power of taking land if so required.

Extraordinary claims require proof from the party making the claim. How do libertarian and/or anarchist propose that intercontinental freeways be built and maintained at the same cost as they are done by the US government?

> Until of now, no project of the scale of public works has been taken by any private cooperation anywhere in world.

I suspect one reason for that is that their primary competitor is government, which often has major advantages, like the legal authority to seize property right right of ways and virtually endless funds through taxation and debt.

I don't think that any proposals would claim that all things created by government would exist in a stateless society. Remember, it's possible to not have things like intercontinental freeways but to instead have more economically efficient solutions. The road system in the US, for example, isn't some example of "pure economic good." Freeways require people in cities to subsidize people in rural areas. They also are a massive subsidy to the automobile industry, and a disaster for the rail industry. It's conceivable that a much different (and more efficient) organization of society could emerge without the government creating what it judges to be the "best" public works.

The primary competitor, the government, has been set up by people explicitly to take benefit of the ultimate economy of scales, one where it is backed by the will and money of every single individual who believes in the Constitution which establishes and defines the role of the said government. These endless funds and the monopoly of force is given to it for explicit purposes of stepping in when the private group of individual are unable to get stuff done.

The interstate do not arise in vacuum, nor are they product of mere transportation concerns. They are product of very reasonable concern of quickly transporting war equipment and connecting parts of countries to one another, so as to facilitate quick movement of goods and people, adding their value to GDP. The rail industry is thriving well, doing its job as low cost goods carrier.

"It's conceivable" -- except no one has given good argument that thing which is so obvious has escaped human imagination for close to 10,000 years now, and all the places which are good approximation of said ideologies have people in utterly poor state.

> The primary competitor, the government, has been set up by people explicitly to take benefit of the ultimate economy of scales, one where it is backed by the will and money of every single individual who believes in the Constitution which establishes and defines the role of the said government.

Pardon the snarkiness, but did you learn that in public school? I ask, because I had those ideas unabashedly hammered into my brain my entire childhood in government schools. The problem is that whether someone consents to the actions of government empirically does not matter. Even the founding fathers either deliberately perpetuated this clever lie or managed to deceive themselves like a lot of Enlightenment philosophers. "The consent of the governed" and so on.

If only my country had functioning public schools, may be I would have learned that. And in any case, in what ways do you see consent of governed not mattering? Are you part of any local democratic organisation? Have you bitched about anything to your local alderman (assuming you live in a city)? How is that if my consent does not matter, the garbage picking became better when I bitched about it?

For sake of simplicity, lets talk about UK. If the consent of governed does not matter, why hasn't David Cameron taken all the land for himself, a la William the conquer? Was the history of past 1000 year just sham? Something people told themselves to drink the cool-aid? Did all the workers who rioted and all the people who fought and died on side of Parliament against the King stupid? Why exactly are these people living under lie? And how does that country, based on lies and shams, has a well functioning society where you can go from being born in poverty to governing the country in one life time?

And any ways, you still haven't answered the question. Why aren't there incredible large scale projects popping up in north Mali, where Caterpillar industry can go tomorrow and built awesome infrastructure? Surely we in democratic world have to face the tyranny of government in every step ... why haven't the more enlightened countries with little government shown us the way? And if everyone can be lied and manipulated, how is this perfect utopia of anarchy supposed to work?

Except your friendly neighbourhood power or telecom monopoly.

You see, I live in Russia. Historically, up until recently, the telecom was a very unregulated industry. Government just didn't care enough. So do you know what am I paying for a 100Mbps connection and unlimited traffic? $10/mo. Do you know what I'm paying for an unlimited 3G and calls? ~$10/mo. And this has been the case for many years. No monopoly here. Monopolies only emerge when governments and companies start making sweet love to each other.

No monopoly in 3G? How do companies refrain from transmitting at each other's frequencies? No monopoly in telecom? How do they lay all the wire without permits and regulation? Or in good old days, can I dig up anywhere in Russia and lay wires directly to my customers?

You can't and it's precisely because government sets the rules where you can lay wires and which frequencies you can use. In Russia, this hasn't gone beyond that yet, that's why the prices are that low. In other countries, regulators are a lot less reluctant.

So Telecom was very "unregulated" because you agree with all the regulations. That's some interesting play of words.

>> "We built those roads, we gave you education". Yes, except you didn't.

>I'm not sure which country you're from, but I'm guessing there are schools and roads funded by the state.

And the state is funded by... you and me. I paid for that road, that school, and so did you. Not one dollar was generated by the government. Hey, I'm all for paying for roads and schools and stuff, and am, in fact, willing to pay for it with my own money. I am willing to pay taxes, so that there will be roads to drive on and schools to learn in. So I pay for it (not that I have much choice.) But it is our money that pays for the roads and schools, not "the government's".

> I'd see taxes more like calling in a debt. It costs money to live here, you have to pay for that.

And what if I were to write a little poem here, charge you $100 for it, and show up at your house with guns if you fail to pay?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com