Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Taxation is theft
Message-ID: <726@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 15:06:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.726
Posted: Thu Sep  5 15:06:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 04:11:22 EDT
References: <955@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1110@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: na
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 114
Summary: 

[Note to readers:  I am strongly opposed to the excesses of libertarianism.
 For the purposes of this argument, I am adopting my interpretation of
 libertarianism to refute Josh's fallacious claims that taxation is theft.
 I claim that a "social contract" is a valid libertarian-style contract.]

> >[Mike Huybensz]
> >Let's rephrase it into libertarian terms. 
> 
> [J Storrs Hall]
> Please quit lying to us, Mike.  You know and I know that you have no
> intention of trying to understand the libertarian view of things
> in either the political or moral sense, and are merely being mendacious.

On the contrary.  I understand the libertarian point of view well enough
to recognize that they quote their "principles" where convenient but forget
about them where inconvenient to their self-serving goals.  Thus I'm
pointing out those instances.  (I am strongly reminded of many political
and religious demagogues who work the same way.)

> To wit:
> > You are free to remain within or
> >leave the social contract agreed to by you by your residency in the US.
> 
> Please note the implicit assumption that some condition into which
> you were born is considered equivalent to your signing a contract.
> Mr. Huybenz might as well have said "You are free to remain within 
> or leave the contract of servitude agreed to by you by your being black."
> (to leave by the same means, altering the condition of your birth).

I think I'm going to treasure a number of your responses (like the above
paragraph) that I'm answering here, because they are precisely the kinds
of responses I've given you as examples of unjustness of libertaria.

Let's put aside (for the moment) the problem of new citizens (which
hypothetical libertarias don't seem to handle well.)  You are now an
adult.  You can come and go as you will.  So why isn't the social
contract entirely voluntary?

> >The government has the right to enforce the contract you have both
> >freely entered into and continually renewed.
> 
> Oh?  If it is a two-sided contract between partners with equal rights
> in the matter, why don't *I* have the right to enforce it, or more to the 
> point, to interpret the points of the contract?  The libertarian sheep's
> clothing on your statist wolf is slipping, Mike:  contracts are to be
> interpreted and enforced by neutral arbitrators, not the parties.

You certainly do have those rights.  You may file a suit with the Judicial
branch (note that you've agreed to the arbitor in the contract.)  If you
don't think the Judicial branch is neutral, you have several options.
You can try to organize "consumer" pressure, or you may negotiate a
contract with some other purveyor of governmental services.
 
> >There is enough choice of governments in this world for you to take your
> >pick in a more-or-less free market.  To claim that there is no libertarian
> >government for you to choose from...
> 
> ... Is a claim I never made-- 

... is also out of context of the remainder of my sentence.  I didn't accuse
you of that claim: I was pre-empting it.  Cheap debating trick, Josh.

> But by the time one reaches the age of
> majority, he has taken on a considerable overhead in terms of the 
> culture of his native land--if I moved to Japan, for example, I
> would more or less have to start all over in terms of education,
> of socialization, of making friends and so forth--not to mention 
> leaving my family behind or the pure expense of the move.

All very true.  But that is economics, not coercion (by libertarian
standards.)  If the economics (read market) dictate that you remain
here, sorry, that's the libertarian idea of fair.  Nobody is stopping
you from incurring those costs to exercise your right to make a choice.
Or do you want a government handout for it?  :-)

> I *dare* you to consider--just exercise your imagination, and think
> of a world where changing your government were as easy as changing
> your grocer.  Or not to go so far, your insurance company.  I dare you
> to comprehend what the world would be like if changing governments
> were as easy as you make it out to be above--if people really had a
> choice, if the "social contract" were really a contract.  Imagine a 
> world where Consumer Reports rated police franchises the way they do 
> fast food chains.  Imagine a world where lawmakers had to make
> laws people could understand, or no one would buy them;  where 
> judges had to be fair, or no one would hire them; where executives
> had to be competent, or no one would patronize them.

Guess what: we already have most of that.  I've seen quite a number of
reports from many sources evaluating the relative merits of the 50 states
(and numerous nations) in all the categories above.  Moving between
states is as effortless as you wish.  Moving between many nations is only
a little more difficult.  But keep in mind that the provider of services
should not be coerced into accepting you as a customer for one of their
social contracts.  If they don't like your race or nationality or religion
or language or job, they should be able to arbitrarily refuse to make a
contract with you.  So you mustn't complain if you cannot get to be a
resident or citizen of any particular nation.

> Try taking your own words at face value, Mike.  What if government
> really *were* a matter of voluntary contract?  If you find it 
> impossible to say what you mean, have a go at meaning what you say.

In the US and a number of other nations, government effectively is a
matter of voluntary contract (for adults.)  You still haven't shown me
any evidence to the contrary.

Children are a special case.  When you explain to me how libertarian
principles apply to guardianship (are spankings assault?) I'll provide as
explicit an answer as you'd like.  It might well be that our laws should be
relaxed to allow any child to fend for himself at whatever age, emigrating
if he so desires.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh