-7

The question is, why there's so much defense of state legitimacy on cognitive level. As if "it's necessary evil" vs "it's a universal good".

It's still controversial to say that "taxation is theft".

And why is social contract theory still relevant, if nobody ever signed that social contract?

If people were honest they would say "yes, taxation is theft, and the state is coercive, but it's necessary because power vacuum is not realistic", but they tend to say "no, taxation is not theft, because it's fair, popular and necessary".

It looks like people would rather silence libertarianism by not acknowledging the compulsory nature of political organisations... rather than simply ask questions about how feasible a truly free world is.

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
very big cat
  • 503
  • 1
  • 8
  • 3
    I am voting to close this as this appears to be a rant and attack on taxes with no real question being asked. – Joe W Feb 25 '23 at 16:22
  • The question is, why there's so much defense of state legitimacy on cognitive level. As if "it's necessary evil" vs "it's a universal good". – very big cat Feb 25 '23 at 16:26
  • 1
    As I said it appears to be a rant against taxes, if you look throughout human history you will always see some sort of government forming and some sort of taxes being imposed. – Joe W Feb 25 '23 at 16:28
  • @JoeW similarly you can argue that people have always eaten animals, and always kept slaves, but that doesn't fly too well with illegal slavery and nitrogen fertilizers getting more expensive. – very big cat Feb 25 '23 at 16:30
  • I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect here in terms of "why", but maybe see https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/78384/why-has-libertarianism-achieved-so-little-as-a-political-ideology-in-the-world – the gods from engineering Feb 25 '23 at 17:07
  • 1
    -1 The State is the embodiment of the collective will of its citizens, note that collective doesn't mean unanimous. Taxation is not theft, it's the money we pay for our mutual well-being: to keep the roads open, the schools running, our internal and external security etc. etc. – Dave Gremlin Feb 26 '23 at 10:39
  • @DaveGremlin yeah, we've seen an example of state-provided security on Christmas Eve in France. – very big cat Feb 26 '23 at 22:05

1 Answers1

1

It's a matter of perspective. As long as "the state" is an alien entity that only takes, it's legit to call it theft. Like if you are a farmer that is only relying on their own field to provide for them and a king demands a part of the harvest or else threatens to take it by force, then yes that's an extortion scheme.

However if several farmers, craftsmen and whatnot get together pool part of their resources to build infrastructure and strengthen their community, than this payments aren't really theft but more of a membership fee or even an investment.

And that's where the social contract becomes relevant. So is society a mutually agreed upon club, that you profit from, who's policies you can influence and to whom you pay membership fees or is it an alien entity that extorts money from you.

The more autocratic a system is the more it's theft and the more participatory and democratic the more it's a membership fee.

The problem with libertarians is that they want their cake and eat it too. Like on the one hand they like the state because it uses violence on the behave of the haves against the havenots, while on the other hand they have a problem when it comes to paying for that state. Like without state there would be no property and actual libertarians (anarchists) would be fine with that, but U.S. style libertarians refuse to acknowledge that property is theft and that violence (a state, or any private mobster) is necessary to uphold this injustice.

haxor789
  • 3,853
  • 1
  • 9
  • 20
  • Somehow I don't see how a farmer requires a lot of infrastructure. They only need a truck several times a year, to sell their grain or meat, to buy fertilizers etc. They don't seem to need too much education, because children may learn farming from their father, and they can also help with their harvest from very young age. And retirement healthcare is also not that relevant if your lifestyle is physical work. Right-libertarians don't need state too. If I have a field and herd, and all my neighbors have guns, and we have dogs, we could defend against have-nots creeping around the village. – very big cat Feb 25 '23 at 17:29
  • And for a very rich person, the state is an entity that primarily takes. Sure they also got some education, and legal system, and highway system, but those goods are mainly consumed by others. Wealthy people only have so many children, and poor people also have cars, and they also benefit from police protection, not only against common theft, but also against abuses commited by the rich. – very big cat Feb 25 '23 at 17:32
  • 1
    @verybigcat For trucks you'd need metallurgy, engineering, oil and gas production and supply, for fertilizers in appropriate amounts and abilities you'd need a chemical industry, who relies on research, which relies on equipment which relies on ... And so on. These things are interconnected so unless you want to be employed 24/7 in menial farming producing barely enough to survive you kinda wanna pool your resources and invest in technological progress whether that is done involuntarily by a landlord or voluntarily by cooperation. – haxor789 Feb 26 '23 at 01:27
  • @verybigcat Also just because you could life a short work of physical exhausting labor with little education and the same for your children, would you want that? Also you can make agriculture a science, from biology to meteorology, depending on the region radiation safety (accumulates in soil) and so on. Also you're already imagining a commune or farmers collective? And you won't be doing farming with your gun and while you're busy doing form work and there's no alternative for you, one could still loot your stuff... And the rich also profit the most from society, that's why they are rich... – haxor789 Feb 26 '23 at 01:31
  • the point is, you no longer need research for chemical industry. Industry is highly advanced already, most manufacturing processes do exist, and at this point we're mainly spending public funds to make those processes more efficient, cleaner, cheaper etc. But you already have most of technologies that you need to survive. Therefore, I would leave innovating to businesses at this point. If you can survive on a plot of land with chickens, vegetables, solar panels and a water pump... you are extremely rich, and you can innovate voluntarily, not with money taken by compulsion. – very big cat Feb 26 '23 at 22:31
  • All that technological know-how is already there, and if the state doesn't provide knowledge or services, somebody will build a factory anyway. Probably we would have even more factories if there were no regulations around industry ]:-> – very big cat Feb 26 '23 at 22:38
  • @verybigcat New technology is developed all the time. Like the internet is only ~50 years old the world wide web only ~30 years. And most if not all of the fundamental research is done with public funding while business funded research goes mostly to direct application (the last steps in line), making use of public knowledge but NOT contributing to it. Like if progress is done private, then it's can become trade secrets and the wheel might be needed to be redeveloped over and over again. So while we have this tech, you'd need that know-how, you'd need to store it and you'd need to pass it on. – haxor789 Feb 27 '23 at 00:13
  • @verybigcat Also regulations aren't just there to annoy entrepreneurs. But also to protect the workers and the environment. Freedom and Liberty are empty words if they aren't universal and if they don't apply to workers, then they aren't universal. Also it doesn't really work for all people to be self sustaining farmers. You'd run out of land for farming pretty soon and it's terribly inefficient and technological progress would stagnate. It's basically back to feudalism. – haxor789 Feb 27 '23 at 00:17
  • Not all regulations are there to protect somebody or something. Some laws are a part of a drug war, and it's highly debatable if prohibition works... they mostly harm poor people landing them in jail. And some other are totally senseless.... for example, in Georgia it's forbidden to eat chicken with a fork, and a lady has been arrested a few years back for it. https://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/visitor-arrested-for-eating-chicken-with-fork/ – very big cat Feb 27 '23 at 00:59
  • And regarding Internet, once it has been created and applied, you could even imagine a wireless mesh network, which allows most people to communicate without any cost. Sure, you'll not always be able to watch a movie, but some text messages will pass easily. And roads? They're not even that necessary if drones can bring you anything. And if anything, it's current regulations that allow Amazon to have a monopoly. Because you not only need goods to trade. You also need to comply with regulation which makes the barrier of entry into business slightly higher - you need a legal team. – very big cat Feb 27 '23 at 01:03
  • And if the state was meant to protect the environment... they would never allow and subsidize fossil fuels. But they do. So they actually anti-protect the environment. – very big cat Feb 27 '23 at 01:07
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – haxor789 Feb 27 '23 at 12:21