Night Ripper wrote:When you talk about nations you're talking about imaginary lines drawn in the sand which don't really exist. If someone attacks California then Florida is no more under attack than the USA is under attack when someone attacks France. In anarchism there's no such thing as national defense. There's defense of me and my property. If the north pole gets attacked, I don't pay for it because it doesn't affect me. If the west coast gets attacked, I don't pay for it because I'm on the east coast.
National defense is more of a preemptive measure, we don't wait for being invaded and then mobilize a citizen army, we have a standing army for deterrence. Do those who don't believe that we need it still have to pay for it?
Or another example. Will a power plant that pollutes the surrounding area be forced to compensate the residents of that area? I guess I am asking whether externalities are forcedly offset, since that wouldn't be voluntary.
If you don't pay for X then you don't get the direct benefits of X.
Of course, if I buy cable TV and you stand on the street watching my TV through the window then you're indirectly benefiting off of me but so what? Why should I care as long as you aren't costing me anything?
As for externalities, if you're dumping toxic waste in the river and my dog sprouts an extra set of legs or I can demonstrate that your actions have somehow damaged me or my property then you're initiating force against my property.
Briefly, in perhaps a few bullet points, please summarize for me what you perceive is the proper role of government.
When is authority legitimate? Illegitimate? Why?
Night Ripper wrote:If you don't pay for X then you don't get the direct benefits of X.
If you do get the benefits of X because it's a benefit to us all, do you have to pay for X?
Night Ripper wrote:Of course, if I buy cable TV and you stand on the street watching my TV through the window then you're indirectly benefiting off of me but so what? Why should I care as long as you aren't costing me anything?
In the case of defense, free-riders are costing you. Because the fewer people the bill is divided amongst the more each of them has to pay. And what if they choose to not pay for it because they know that you will?
Night Ripper wrote:As for externalities, if you're dumping toxic waste in the river and my dog sprouts an extra set of legs or I can demonstrate that your actions have somehow damaged me or my property then you're initiating force against my property.
How about positive externalities? Say you own a forest. Then keeping it for the beauty is no financial benefit, because people get that without paying for it. But if you knock it down to build tenements, you do get paid. So unless everybody living near that forest is forced to pay you a little bit for keeping it, all the forests get chopped down.
This is getting boring. What it boils down to this, if you want to give your money away to pay for welfare programs or to pay for armies to invade countries then go for it. Have a blast. I respect your right to do that and I won't use violence to stop you. The only question is, will you offer me the same respect? If I disagree with you about welfare or wars, am I free not to give my money away or will you point a gun at my head and throw me in jail?
That's what you need to ask yourself. Are you willing to point a gun at me just because I disagree with you and don't feel like giving my money away?
Yes, people are willing to point a gun at you because you don't feel like giving your money away, in case you haven't noticed.
No, I wouldn't initiate violence against you to take your property, nor would I employ the state to do it for me.
However, if the state forces you to pay the full price of your choices, is that 'initiation of violence'?
Well, people have different understandings of what 'initiation of violence' is. Who started the violence and who has justification to react is a value judgment. It's like figuring out who started a fight; both say the other one started it, and they just responded.
You say if the bank takes your house, it is really you who is initiating the violence, because you didn't pay your loan. But the bank voluntarily gave you that money, they are the ones who introduce active coercion into your transactions.
Therefore leftist anarchists would say that your actions do not excuse the banks use of force. Violence is initiated by those who actively use force first, having been stolen from is not an excuse to employ force. With such a system it wouldn't be possible to develop very sophisticated financial markets, because you only have the honor system to deal with people, but it would exclude all initiation of violence.
Those on the other extreme say that even taking advantage of another persons physical want is initiating violence. Employers can only make workers toil for the meager pay they get because they need the money to buy food. He is therefore forcing them to work for him. Not actively, but scarcity is doing it for him. And that is initiating violence.
Forcedly redistributing his income, or using state force to raise the wages, is not the initiation of violence, because he is the one stealing peoples labor by exploiting them. It would even be liberal to take such actions, because you aren't free if you are coerced by physical want.
So while I don't think too many people would support initiation of violence, they do have different understandings of what that is. And might support measures that to you see as the initiation of violence. While you support measure that others see as initiation of violence.
The purpose of the state is to **** over anyone that is not in on the circle of power. Sure, it sounds good to say that a state represents the people that it rules over, but in reality, it only represents the people who have interests that are foundational to the society that the state allows.
people are often biased. Therefore, that people have different understandings of things implies nothing whatsoever about the truth of their understandings.
The primary purpose of state is to protect the rich from the poor.
kennethamy wrote:people are often biased. Therefore, that people have different understandings of things implies nothing whatsoever about the truth of their understandings.
Oh yes, certainly there are many who are just plain wrong, i.e. their positions are at odds with the truth. But are you saying that there is a objective opinion of what initiation of violence is? If so, which of the three positions that I outlined in the last post is incorrect, and why?
Are you willing to point a gun at me just because I disagree with you and don't feel like giving my money away?