AC and power

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
State initiation of force in some instances is legitimate and tacit consent is given by all citizens by virtue of their participation in society. (I think this is a far less compelling position.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If I go and become a hermit subsistence farmer in the middle of nowhere can I avoid state interference?

What if I take other people with me? Does our society have to yield to the larger one?

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

In this case, the statist still believes that some force to coerce citizens is "legitimate" - so the accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. The fact that this statist thinks that *some* force is "over the line" is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the example I gave, the state's use of force is legitimate when it is protecting someone's property. Protection of property is one your core values, isn't it?

Regarding your objection to the second point, as I said, I don't find it very compelling either. My point is that the typical theory of the state (the social contract) holds that individuals consent to the rule of the government and participate in the creation of all laws that concern them. You and I both know that in practice ('representative democracy') this has led to a variety of practices that involve the illegitimate initiation of force against individuals and their property. As part of this, many people view these actions as legitimate by virtue of their faith in the government. That doesn't mean that the theory of the state, or the ideal notion most people have of it, includes illegitimate force. Many people don't think critically about it, or misunderstand key concepts. But you'd rather simply call them 'thugs.' I'm sure that makes you feel good about yourself, but that's about all it does.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In this case, the statist still believes that some force to coerce citizens is "legitimate" - so the accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. The fact that this statist thinks that *some* force is "over the line" is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the example I gave, the state's use of force is legitimate when it is protecting someone's property. Protection of property is one your core values, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but in your example, you're ignoring how that legitimate use of force is funded.

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean that the theory of the state, or the ideal notion most people have of it, includes illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show us a state, "ideal" or otherwise, that doesn't include initiation of coercive force.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but in your example, you're ignoring how that legitimate use of force is funded.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm actually not. I said that the position includes the fact that the coercive externalization of costs (i.e. taxation without direct consent) is a product of flawed implementation and is NOT legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]

Please show us a state, "ideal" or otherwise, that doesn't include initiation of coercive force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, as soon as you show me a market driven society that doesn't include same. Why don't you demonstrate to me why the theory of the state necessarily includes violence against innocents, since that's what you're claiming?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but in your example, you're ignoring how that legitimate use of force is funded.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm actually not. I said that the position includes the fact that the coercive externalization of costs (i.e. taxation without direct consent) is a product of flawed implementation and is NOT legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me repeat:

The accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. Any personal view over whether the force is legitimate or not is irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Please show us a state, "ideal" or otherwise, that doesn't include initiation of coercive force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, as soon as you show me a market driven society that doesn't include same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, cowboy. I've never said violence, or the initiation of coercive force, will disappear without a state.

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you demonstrate to me why the theory of the state necessarily includes violence against innocents, since that's what you're claiming?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you funding it?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

If you need to categorize my position, I suppose you could label me 'undecided.' Am I not allowed to make observations about the behavior of people, markets and states without endorsing one or the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to be undecided, that's fine. But note, you can't be opposed to something and undecided about it.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
The accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. Any personal view over whether the force is legitimate or not is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statist in this example endorses violence against others to the exact extent that most ACists do. So I don't really see how you have a leg to stand on making that accusation.

Again,

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you demonstrate to me why the theory of the state necessarily includes violence against innocents, since that's what you're claiming?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that is exactly what you and Borodog have said about the state. In answer to your question about funding, a perfectly legitimate state would be administered and funded via direct democracy, including all matters of taxation.

I am not disagreeing with you that states have overwhelmingly been the PRIMARY initiators of illegitimate violence against individuals and property throughout recent history.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

If you need to categorize my position, I suppose you could label me 'undecided.' Am I not allowed to make observations about the behavior of people, markets and states without endorsing one or the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to be undecided, that's fine. But note, you can't be opposed to something and undecided about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Change me to 'deeply skeptical of all available options.'

[NT!]

Sorry, by 'direct democracy' in my previous post, I am referring to a system wherein each person consents to any law concerning him/her. Not merely where each person votes or participates. That obviously changes things, should be more specific.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah and you need to eat. So using the services of food providers are not voluntary. In fact they are not unlike a tax

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Sustinence is a tax your body charges to keep functioning. Would you be able to suspend this too in AC Land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the government the only entity that can provide for this need? No, of course not. So why do you think it should be the only provider for other needs?