It does not matter how fair theft seems to the recipient of the services that are funded in such a way, it's still theft.
It is cool that you care about the unfortunate ones though. You are not alone in that — most people do, too. If we go from the assumption that democracies really represent the opinion of the majority, it can be seen that a lot of people do care.
So, if the majority of people really want to help the poor, they would still help (voluntarily this time) without a coercive apparatus, right?
(Obviously, private charities will be better at helping the poor, and private schools and medicine are doing a better job that the government does, but my reply focuses mainly on the moral side of things.)
That said, you are right. Taxes of any kind, if forced, is theft. If liberal minded individuals can't offer me a voluntary way to function from within society, than they'll be considered authoritarians to me. The only solution I can think of is a type of confederacy of anarchist collectives, where all collectives agree on basic freedoms (freedom to travel, freedom to leave, completely fair representation, etc) where some are bastions of socialism, and the other bastions of individualism.
The only problem I have as a right leaning anarchist with anarcho-capitalism, is wage labour. While I agree that the contract may be voluntary, the conditions leading to it may not have been, and we see exploitation in our current system regarding this, with some people becoming indentured servants.
Voluntarily-entered socialist bastions can indeed exist in an anarcho-capitalist system. As there is no state and hence nothing particularly limiting, they can aspire any kind of community — including a socialist one. As long as participation in this kind of community is voluntary, there is nothing wrong with it. Members of socialist communities may vary well subject themselves to community's rules and socialist dispute resolution providers in their internal matters.
To me it sounds like THEY want the monopoly on force to be governed by a majority or consensus, which would then impose taxes, threaten opposition with force, and centralize power.... Sounds like a government to me...
I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Thoughts?
>> I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Thoughts?
My suggestion would be to embrace anarcho-capitalism fully, if you're not quite there yet. It's the only moral, reasonable, logical, and consistent way of viewing societies. The Non-Aggression Principle explicitly forbids the initiation of force, which includes any coercion. The flipside of that is that everything should be voluntary, which should be really hard to reasonably argue against.
Are you already aware that free markets produce the most wealth to the largest percentage of people anyway? It's all about letting people produce wealth and spread it around through voluntary exchanges, after all. Check out http://mises.org
Deontology <: morality. That is, deontological moral codes are a strict subset of all moral codes people actually find compelling.
What I meant was that while I believe equality and guaranteed access to basic needs as the goal of humanity and necessary for future growth at some point, I also believe that it's impossible to achieve these goals through institutions and governments.
My moral change from being a left leaning anarchists to a right leaning anarchist was because I was swayed by Stefan Molyneux's Philosophical arguments for Individualist Anarchy. The only sticking point I still have is the question of wage labour, which I am opposed to. But then it's hard to imagine a society where you can't work for a wage...
I think there's a saying about how cows in the slaughterhouse can't truly argue about what's outside. They both have no experience.
Good job so far. Next, you need more knowledge of economics: http://mises.org and you'll get around to reaching full sanity :p
Minarcho-capitalism has only one moral rule: the Non-Aggression Principle. It has no considerations of the virtues its system inculcates in people, nor for their utilitarian well-being. It only acknowledges one rule as being a moral factor. Ever.
Meaning: go ahead and eat puppies or kick people in debtors' prisons, because you're still obeying the One Rule of not violating private property.
Hence my objection: you can't structure an entire society on one moral rule that corresponds to nothing else in any other form of ethics or morals.
You just made up a new political philosophy there.
>> It has no considerations of the virtues its system inculcates in people
The virtues "its system" inculcates in people? Look, we're all brainwashed into the cult of statism while growing up, and I've spent my time arguing against sanity too. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and start seeing reason when it's presented to you.
Freedom is not a "system". It's just the absence of coercion. If you want to call waking people up into reality, and trying to get them to be consistent and rational in their thinking "inculcation", then be my guest. But that changes nothing about the nature of the world we actually live in.
>> nor for their utilitarian well-being. It only acknowledges one rule as being a moral factor. Ever.
Even if we all adhere to the NAP, which we're actually naturally inclined to do automatically (because it's not like people walk around wanting to hurt anyone) we're still free to use our common sense whenever the need arises.
In other words, the NAP is not some all-encompassing, universal moral absolute that rules out any and all considerations for what might be the right thing to do in some specific situation.
>> Meaning: go ahead and eat puppies or kick people in debtors' prisons, because you're still obeying the One Rule of not violating private property.
Your brain is working pretty fucking hard in avoiding having to accept reason and reality. As I said, I've had to go through that phase too. But try and get past it already. Let Larken Rose be your therapist: http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose/videos - he's awesome.
>> you can't structure an entire society on one moral rule that corresponds to nothing else in any other form of ethics or morals
But "don't hurt anyone" is a pretty good moral rule, don't you think? -That's basically what the NAP says.
1) Public education is shit anyway,
and mostly just meant to
indoctrinate us into the Cult of Statism.
2) Private schools would do a vastly better job,
for a small fraction of the price.
As for private schools doing a better job, you probably know how competition works. You get better stuff for lower prices.
Thats what the governments pays now for the entire system. The teachers, the building costs, the supplies, etc. If we really wanted to have an alternative to public schooling, IMO (I'm an anarchist) it couldn't be done with a voucher system.
The best solution is to question school as an institution. It was primarily for very young children and for reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_Uni...
We need to rethink these institutions and consider the technological advantages. My solution would be to put half of that 70 billion into Libraries, and make the accomodable for children during the day. Make it completely optional.
What about them? There are plenty of children growing up today that either don't go to school, get expelled, or refuse to learn anything. I don't see the difference. The percentage of children of going to these places? What about the last 5000 years of human progress? Surely they progressed without mandatory/forced state education. Would you agree with yourself if we were all in North Korea knowing what we know? That's the problem with hypotheticals, you can expound ad infinitum.
> The problem is that for a percentage of children (varies by country, but quite high in the third world), handing the responsibility of their education to their parents is even shittier.
Which doesn't matter. The question isn't what's more economically efficient or favourable to higher literacy rates. It's a matter of morality. If the state requires me to let them raise my children, and threatens me with force if I do not, then in your opinion, who's in the wrong?
Now of course, things need to be in context. But you can't simply make an assertion that the state will always be better of a parent to a child than even a poor or illiterate or even neglectful parent. The problem with the ability to exert pressure on persons to send their children to public schooling is that it violates a natural and historical bond, and replaces it with "the monopoly on violence" in the name of justice. Always in the name of justice.
Ask yourself this, if you're worried about children becoming illiterate, then surely you're worried about children joining armies to fight economic wars, children being locked in prison for nonviolent crimes, and children being used to scapegoat authoritarian measures right? What about the children -is not a defense between the DPRK threatening to take my child because I won't permit them to indoctrinate her.
That's what I'm saying. I wouldn't agree if we were in North Korea, but I will if we're talking about a third world country where the alternative to no public education is simply no education. What I see where I live is that where there is no public education, kids end up joining drug trafficking gangs, or end up crack addicts. If we're talking about Northern Europe, sure, go ahead, abolish public education, I won't be worried, I'm all for personal freedom from the state where it isn't irresponsible. It's just that some places, if you take away the state's presence, there are other forces with high interests in taking over that space where the state used to be.
Where I'm from, we have free schools (anarchist workshops where anyone can attend or present), volunteering workshops, apprenticeships, etc. If you're community has a mafia(s) abusing a local area, you don't send your kids to the biggest one for protection and call it moral. It's just more comfortable. The moral option would be to fight the coercion that your community is suffering from (which seems entrenched sadly).
Also, I don't think public schooling gives a free pass at the potentiality that these students won't join gangs. It's most likely a complex set of reasons that may include that gang being the dominant form of force in the area (a mafia/government w/o the monopoly on force).
Also, I don't believe there is such a thing a no education. Again, just because some people don't have book smarts doesn't mean they aren't smart.
Besides, how many percent of everything you're taught at school do you actually find interesting? -We all learn what we want to learn, and that's about it. In a free society, people would just get exactly the kind of education they actually want.
I suppose YOU know what's better for them right? The argument is founded on the morals that people should be given freedom, along with the benefits and responsibilities that entails.
Most of our 5,000+ years of known history had no public schooling and constant albeit slow progress. If you're trying to say you're morally obligated the threaten to take my children away from me because I/them decide their education is acceptable, even if YOU view it as none, then ask yourself if this exact same discussion would still be defended by yourself if we were living in the DPRK under harsh and oppressive control by our government.
Thats the main difference really between individualists and collectivists thought. You think we're stupid, and we think you're evil. The government of the US or Canada ISN'T the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but to me, it could be. All we need are less individual rights, and more dependence on a nanny state that thinks it knows what's best for me. You may choose safety, but I'd rather choose Liberty. My option permits yours. Does your mine?
If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem.
Take minimum wage for example. You want poor people to get higher salaries, but in reality, all you accomplish by raising the min. wage is preventing some lowest-skilled people from getting a job (which contributes to economic stagnation too, ofc).
Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please.
> If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem.
Isn't correct. No individualist chooses anything for anyone else less it be voluntary and without force/coercion.
> Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please.
Resorting to name calling isn't going to win you any awards. I'm an atheist and I just simple believe freedom comes at a cost of having to have individual responsibility in terms of sustaining your welfare and direction. I come from a multi-generational welfare home. The state pacified my family, it didn't help them. I broke the cycle through individual merit and determination. This would still allow you to do as you wish, so long as others volunteer for your collective, and you don't infringe on an individuals rights.
My system permits yours to exist. Does yours permit mine to exist? That's the real moral crossroads we sit at. Also:
> Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups
You know Philosophy isn't science right? The fact you ask for it screams you're a utopian statist who simply wants to be god. What is your alternative to individual freedom? A complex set of fluidly changing social rules that bind/limit us all that go beyond violence? Jail or Injure a Man/Woman because they disagree to cooperate with your rules? Just don't harm or tell me what to do and we'll be friends. Sounds like that's not reciprocal with you, and that I'd be required to follow other rules, lest I be jailed/killed/banished/boycotted.
Also, it seems like any anarchist society not predicated on either individualist or consensus based policy is prone to majority rule. What do you do with opposition? Punish them? Even if they're non violent. This all screams government, which ruins the anarchy...
1) you want to help the poor
2) you confiscate wealth from other people, and give it to the poor
3) you have just removed money from the economy
and caused it to get used much less efficiently
than it would have, and demotivated lots of people
from doing business and producing value
to the world at large.In contrast, I do not have to justify my position that no ideology or system being proposed today is globally optimal. That is simply an accepted truism.
So basically, you're preaching from a pulpit of pure theory and ideology, while I'm down here saying that you need to provide empirical proof and can't, and I'm not the one making a claim of global optimality.
You don't get it. There's no need for "empirical studies", because it's a simple matter of reasoning.
Suppose Person A is fresh out of high school or something, and Company B might be interested in hiring him as some kind of entry level worker. Person A has basically no experience in anything, so he's worth very little to the employer. He really wants a job though, because he needs to start some kind of career to get by in life.
Suppose Company B consider's Person A's meager productivity worth $6 per hour, but the minimum wage is set to $10 per hour. Will Person A get the job?
Well, no. The minimum wage prevents Person A from getting a job, and thus, getting experience and advancing his skills and future salary potential. Everyone loses. Person A has no job and no further experience, and Company B has no employee and a task left undone.
If you still don't get it, imagine the minimum wage being set at $1000 per hour. If it's all good, then the higher you set it, the MOAR good will come out of it, right?
In which case you're preaching pure, deontological bunk with no relation to the real world whatsoever. You are literally claiming your ideology is the optimally moral economic system despite refusing even the concept of empirical evidence or justification.
>If you still don't get it, imagine the minimum wage being set at $1000 per hour. If it's all good, then the higher you set it, the MOAR good will come out of it, right?
Don't be ridiculous.
I just gave you a real-world demonstration of why minimum wage is harmful, and in very clear terms too. But I'm done with you for now.