The Story of Your Enslavement

[Fredom101]

That’s like asking me if I support scarcity and corruption. Those things exist in society because they are a part of our nature; in the same way you can get rid of scarcity by passing a law, you can’t get rid of violence and coercion by getting rid of government. In fact, I’d wager you’d have a lot more of it without a state.

I find that anarchist and communists share the same flaw in that they both have things backwards. Scarcity and corruption don't exist because of capitalism; capitalism exists there is scarcity and corruption; in the same way, violence and coercion don't exist because of a state; the state exists because there is violence and coercion.

If you can understand why abolishing capitalism won't destroy scarcity, you should be able to see why abolishing the state won't end coercion.



If I understand your point correctly, you’re basically saying that one person robbing you under the threat of violence is no different than a group of individuals getting together and deciding, through a democratic process to set up a system of collective defense of property rights through the collection of limited taxation ?


The reason why you can’t opt out of taxation without living in the wilderness is because you perpetually consume government services when in you're in a civilized area. If you use roads, electricity, water, have a bank account, have contracts, or even eat food you don’t grow yourself without paying taxes, then you’re making someone else pay for your expenses, and that's without bringing the police and military protection in the picture.

If you want to bring about anarchism, you have to convince enough people that they don’t need government in the areas of building infrastructure, subsidizing food, providing security, providing dispute resolution, etc.etc. And then have them support a candidate who wants to legalize all those areas to competition.

It's a slow process, but it's the only way to reduce the power of the state in the long run; if you want to get rid of the state, you have to get rid of the idea that people need it first.

(It also might be helpful to be a little less smug, using terms like "12 years of indoctrination camp" doesn't do anything besides antagonize people don't already who share your narrow viewpoint of education.)

TR you're using straw men.

I never said anything about violence and corruption existing BECAUSE there is a state. The state, however, is given a monopoly on this violence, and we must obey its orders or we get shot.

Since your premise of what I was saying is completely false, I don't feel the need to debate each point that we made.

The first thing we need to establish is why does one group of people get to legally initiate force against everyone else? "Because violence exists in nature" is a non-answer.

 

[free1]

The first thing we need to establish is why does one group of people get to legally initiate force against everyone else? "Because violence exists in nature" is a non-answer.

In a perfect world, they don't. But do you remember 5th grade? Always some "Alpha" male type that thinks everything is solved with a fight.

 

[Vessol]

In a perfect world, they don't. But do you remember 5th grade? Always some "Alpha" male type that thinks everything is solved with a fight.

And when he punches you, you punch back.

That's not the point.

That's like suggesting that you can solve the problem of bullies being bullies by beating them up.

 

[Teaser Rate]

You did not answer the question. Do you support the initiation of force and coercion by the state? I think you do not answer the question because you know that you will contradict your beliefs down this road. This is called cognitive dissonance.

I support the state using force to the limit of where it prevents further violence by non-state entities.

One criminal’s rights to be free are superseded by the rest of society’s rights not to be aggressed against.

You have it all wrong. Violence will always exist with or without the state. The state has the monopoly on violence in a given geographic area. There is no competition and thus they are unaccountable. Leave these essential services, that you think need to be forced upon people, to the free market and they will be provided more efficiently and with customer service in mind.

The state is held accountable through the process of democratic representation. I’ve read quite a bit about the possibility of private law and law-enforcement agencies, and I’ve yet to be convinced that such a society would be less violent or more efficient than our current one.

Yes. Democracy is just the rule of the majority.

So if you had a choice between getting robbed at gun point by a stranger and having to pay taxes in exchange for government-provided services, the better alternative will always be the one which takes less money away?

I do not force anyone to to do anything by just existing. This is just ridiculous to state. I pay gasoline tax when I purchase gasoline. I will be happy to pay this, no one forces me to buy gasoline. I pay for electricity and water, these are services that if not paid for I do not receive. Bank account? How would having a bank account have anything to do with taxes? I get a service from a bank for letting them use my money for investments. You are all over the place here.

Government subsidies are everywhere; everything would cost a lot more if they were to go away, that includes food, electricity, gasoline, etc. and your bank account is ensured by the federal government. Do you not think you benefit directly from not having to worry about bank runs and voided contracts?

You also made an interesting comment about paying gasoline tax; does that mean you agree with a government ban on the sale of untaxed gasoline?

That is exactly what voluntaryists are doing. When I speak of governmental schools, I am not being smug, this what I believe. I am forced to pay for other peoples children to have an education. I have no children of my own and would never send my children to these schools.

I disagree with you on the point that most voluntarists are trying to work within the system to shrink the government through an educational campaign and strategic alliances; in my experience, they tend to be see things in a very polarized fashion - anyone who disagrees with them on anything as an evil statist.

Instead of trying to bring as many people as possible together for a common cause such as ending the war on drugs or balancing the budget, most anarchists will dismiss everyone who doesn’t share their world view as an enslaved, brainwashed sheep still suffering years of indoctrination camp. The following post from another thread illustrates this attitude quite well:

But the evil is the enemy of the good. Kucinich may want to end the wars, but he wants to turn the guns on the people and make them pay for domestic welfare. How is this not evil? Beck may want to end a lot of social programs, but his war support is pure EVIL. We need to stick to principles here, which neither of these two men have.

For my part, I’m happy to work alongside neo-cons to cut the deficit and with socialists to end wars and decriminalize drugs.

And I think anyone who cares about actually making a difference in the real world more than intellectual gratification should willing to do it as well.

 

[Teaser Rate]

TR you're using straw men.

I never said anything about violence and corruption existing BECAUSE there is a state. The state, however, is given a monopoly on this violence, and we must obey its orders or we get shot.

Since your premise of what I was saying is completely false, I don't feel the need to debate each point that we made.

The first thing we need to establish is why does one group of people get to legally initiate force against everyone else? "Because violence exists in nature" is a non-answer.

My post wasn’t addressed to you directly, so I’m not sure why you took it so personality, but ok...

The parallel I drew between anarchists and communists was based on my experience dealing with both groups, socialists keep saying “capitalism = greed” and anarchists keep saying “state=violence”. As I see it, capitalism and government are the best ways to regulate each respective attribute and when correctly implimented, limit the abuse of both.

Why do we have a state? Because it’s much more effective for a society to outsource the enforcement of property rights to a few well-trained professionals who are founded and held accountable through a democratic process than it is for everyone to have to defend their own property by themselves or outsource it to a third-party which would be conflicted between achieving higher profits and maintaining a peaceful order.

 

[Vessol]

My biggest issue is the fact that I have no choice in the matter. Why can I not choose if I wish to pay taxes to the government? Or if I want to buy my land and not have the government claim it as their territory?

It's the same argument that the socialists use. That there is a "social contract" that I have to obey and be part of.

 

[phill4paul]

My biggest issue is the fact that I have no choice in the matter. Why can I not choose if I wish to pay taxes to the government? Or if I want to buy my land and not have the government claim it as their territory?

It's the same argument that the socialists use. That there is a "social contract" that I have to obey and be part of.

You do have a choice. Martyrdom usually sucks in that you loose everything while those inspired by you gain everything.

 

[Vessol]

I know very few martyrs, if any, whom are not just tools used by some institution to control.

 

[free1]

That's like suggesting that you can solve the problem of bullies being bullies by beating them up.

Always worked where I grew up

 

[Fredom101]

In a perfect world, they don't. But do you remember 5th grade? Always some "Alpha" male type that thinks everything is solved with a fight.

And does this make government right?

 

[Fredom101]

My post wasn’t addressed to you directly, so I’m not sure why you took it so personality, but ok...

I didn't take it personally, but I saw errors in your thinking I wanted to correct.

The parallel I drew between anarchists and communists was based on my experience dealing with both groups, socialists keep saying “capitalism = greed” and anarchists keep saying “state=violence”. As I see it, capitalism and government are the best ways to regulate each respective attribute and when correctly implimented, limit the abuse of both.

I'm just curious, under this system of corporatism, where you were able to draw the conclusion that government and businesses regulate each other?

Why do we have a state? Because it’s much more effective for a society to outsource the enforcement of property rights to a few well-trained professionals who are founded and held accountable through a democratic process than it is for everyone to have to defend their own property by themselves or outsource it to a third-party which would be conflicted between achieving higher profits and maintaining a peaceful order.

Well this is according to you, but the facts fly in the face of this. Government does not maintain peace, it uses the initiation of violence to achieve its ends. It starts wars and throws people in jail for holding a plant. Government is the opposite of peace. You mentioned property. How can government both claim to defend property, and yet steal 50% of our property through taxes every year? It's a massive contradiction that you'll have to explain to me to have me convinced that government is a good thing.

 

[free1]

And does this make government right?

Not really, just pointing out that there's always some dude that thinks he's better than everyone else, and when you give people like that government sanctioned power, well it corrupts, absolutely.

BTW: "The Story of Your Enslavement" 131,000+ people have been educated so far!

Pass the link around!
YouTube - The Story of Your Enslavement

 

[Teaser Rate]

I'm just curious, under this system of corporatism, where you were able to draw the conclusion that government and businesses regulate each other?

When you misunderstood what I said? Hint: if by “each respective attribute” I meant government and capitalism, I would have used the much simpler “each other”.

Well this is according to you, but the facts fly in the face of this. Government does not maintain peace, it uses the initiation of violence to achieve its ends. It starts wars and throws people in jail for holding a plant. Government is the opposite of peace. You mentioned property. How can government both claim to defend property, and yet steal 50% of our property through taxes every year? It's a massive contradiction that you'll have to explain to me to have me convinced that government is a good thing.

My claim: The state exists because it provides an efficient form of collective self-defense.

Your response: I’m not going to address your point, but instead I'll list all the things I hate about government and hope no one notices I don’t have a viable alternative.

Your non-answer is comparable to someone who'd respond to the claim that all life on earth is directly linked to the sun's heat by listing skin cancer rates.

 

[Agorism]

One of the things a Ron Paul presidency could do to strike a stake in the beast would be to declassify all government documents across the board on the first day.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

When you misunderstood what I said? Hint: if by “each respective attribute” I meant government and capitalism, I would have used the much simpler “each other”.



My claim: The state exists because it provides an efficient form of collective self-defense.

Your response: I’m not going to address your point, but instead I'll list all the things I hate about government and hope no one notices I don’t have a viable alternative.

Your non-answer is comparable to someone who'd respond to the claim that all life on earth is directly linked to the sun's heat by listing skin cancer rates.

I think you're oversimplifying your opponent's points. Just because one person doesn't have all the solutions to every problem that may arise in the absence of the State does not make the State system "good" or Stateless society "bad".

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

From Freedomain Radio
We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own.
YouTube - The Story of Your Enslavement

If it, indeed, was the Truth and is the Truth that once sat and keeps us free, then nothing we have done and can do will ever set us free, none of the wars we ever fought and will ever fight will ever set us free, and none of our political manipulations have or will ever do so. As this comes directly from the Almighty Himself, what can be any clearer?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If it, indeed, was the Truth and is the Truth that once sat and keeps us free, then nothing we have done and can do will ever set us free, none of the wars we ever fought and will ever fight will ever set us free, and none of our political manipulations have or will ever do so. As this comes directly from the Almighty Himself, what can be any clearer?

To be nitpicky, nothing comes directly from the Almighty-it comes through his "prophets" (and Yeshua, if you are Christian).

 

[Arion45]

I support the state using force to the limit of where it prevents further violence by non-state entities.

One criminal’s rights to be free are superseded by the rest of society’s rights not to be aggressed against.

Is this the only place where you support state violence? This basically telling me you only support laws that violate natural rights. From what you have posted previously I find this hard to believe.

The state is held accountable through the process of democratic representation. I’ve read quite a bit about the possibility of private law and law-enforcement agencies, and I’ve yet to be convinced that such a society would be less violent or more efficient than our current one.

The state is almost never held accountable for its actions. Look at social security and the theft of it. Look at the SWAT teams that makes mistakes, murders innocent people and not one is held accountable. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin, operation Ajax, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, 13 trillion dollar debt, bail outs of the super rich. I could go on and on. If you think that the people of this country are represented then you are deluding yourself.

So if you had a choice between getting robbed at gun point by a stranger and having to pay taxes in exchange for government-provided services, the better alternative will always be the one which takes less money away?

I will let Lysander Spooner answer this question for me.

The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

Government subsidies are everywhere; everything would cost a lot more if they were to go away, that includes food, electricity, gasoline, etc. and your bank account is ensured by the federal government. Do you not think you benefit directly from not having to worry about bank runs and voided contracts?

You are sorely in need of education. I would suggest you read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by Edward Griffin.

When governmental subsidies are used that money comes from the tax payer. The money that is taken from the economy is not directly seen by people but this money has to come from somewhere. So while corn is subsidized, the tax payer looses money to buy things like a new coat or a new television by the taxes they pay. This money is removed from the economy and forced to pay for corn.

The point being is that you may pay less for corn but that money is still taken in taxes and thus there is no net gain and usually a net loss.

As for runs on banks, have you heard of the Federal Reserve? Bail outs?

I disagree with you on the point that most voluntarists are trying to work within the system to shrink the government through an educational campaign and strategic alliances; in my experience, they tend to be see things in a very polarized fashion - anyone who disagrees with them on anything as an evil statist.

I would agree with you that most voluntaryists work out side the system. I would think that anyone who advocates violence against non violent people are evil.

Instead of trying to bring as many people as possible together for a common cause such as ending the war on drugs or balancing the budget, most anarchists will dismiss everyone who doesn’t share their world view as an enslaved, brainwashed sheep still suffering years of indoctrination camp. The following post from another thread illustrates this attitude quite well:

Ending the war on drugs is a honorable goal. Why would some one who understands the non aggression principle and self ownership want to balance the amount of money that their robbers take from them? Wouldn't a better goal to be to end the theft?

When people support their oppressors and aggressors with patriotic songs, pledge allegiance to pieces of cloth, worship pieces of paper as holy doctrine, support murderous wars against innocent people, believe their money supply is protected by the ones who steal it, believe phony history as truth, and basically have an overall Stockholm syndrome to their holy empire, I would say they have been a little brainwashed.

For my part, I’m happy to work alongside neo-cons to cut the deficit and with socialists to end wars and decriminalize drugs.

And I think anyone who cares about actually making a difference in the real world more than intellectual gratification should willing to do it as well.

Why would I want to work along side people who support wars that kill innocent people and people who support the theft of the fruits of my labor?

I would rather gather with like minded people who have woken up and just say I do not consent. I like the Declaration of Independence for this one.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

I chose to declare myself independent.

 

[Teaser Rate]

Is this the only place where you support state violence? This basically telling me you only support laws that violate natural rights. From what you have posted previously I find this hard to believe.

All laws essentially violate natural rights to some extent. What we disagree on is the degree to which the collective can impose its will on individuals.

I think I phrased my original answer in an unclear manner; it would have been more accurate to say that I support government intervention which maximizes the exercise of rights, such as police protection of property and expression. i.e your right of free-speech is maximized if you live in a society that will protect you from anyone wishing to cause you harm for voicing an opinion.

The state is almost never held accountable for its actions. Look at social security and the theft of it. Look at the SWAT teams that makes mistakes, murders innocent people and not one is held accountable. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin, operation Ajax, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, 13 trillion dollar debt, bail outs of the super rich. I could go on and on. If you think that the people of this country are represented then you are deluding yourself.

I think people are perfectly represented; they just don't care about such things.

Corruption is the natural result of apathy in a democratic system.

I will let Lysander Spooner answer this question for me.

Theft = someone steals from you and keeps it to themselves, you have zero say in the matter.

Taxes = someone collects a portion of your wealth and invests in government programs of yours and your community’s choosing which directly and indirectly benefit you.

You are sorely in need of education. I would suggest you read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by Edward Griffin.

When governmental subsidies are used that money comes from the tax payer. The money that is taken from the economy is not directly seen by people but this money has to come from somewhere. So while corn is subsidized, the tax payer looses money to buy things like a new coat or a new television by the taxes they pay. This money is removed from the economy and forced to pay for corn.

The point being is that you may pay less for corn but that money is still taken in taxes and thus there is no net gain and usually a net loss.

As for runs on banks, have you heard of the Federal Reserve? Bail outs?

If you re-read my comments, you’ll realize that I was not making a case for subsidies, but a case why someone not paying his taxes under our current system benefits from their existence.

The same goes for the bank account analogy, without paying your share of taxation, you essentially pass on the costs of your insurance to other people.

(Also, please make an effort to cut the smugness a little, telling people to get an education is neither a good way to win a debate nor to bring someone over to your side)

I would agree with you that most voluntaryists work out side the system. I would think that anyone who advocates violence against non violent people are evil.

You’re never going to make any political progress in society as long as you don’t realize that most people do not agree with the anarchist argument of taxation=theft. It’s not that they don’t understand it; they just think it's bunk.

Going back to my communist/anarchist comparison, taxation=theft is the anarchist equivalent of profit=exploitation.


Put it this way, by which of the following actions do you think vegetarians can reduce the amount of meat consumed more effectively ?

A- By working with other groups such as environmentalists and anarcho-capitalists to expose the true social, economic and environmental costs of consuming meat.

B- By saying "meat is murder" over and over again and refusing to collaborate with any group who might help their cause because anyone who eats meat is evil.

Ending the war on drugs is a honorable goal. Why would some one who understands the non aggression principle and self ownership want to balance the amount of money that their robbers take from them? Wouldn't a better goal to be to end the theft?

When people support their oppressors and aggressors with patriotic songs, pledge allegiance to pieces of cloth, worship pieces of paper as holy doctrine, support murderous wars against innocent people, believe their money supply is protected by the ones who steal it, believe phony history as truth, and basically have an overall Stockholm syndrome to their holy empire, I would say they have been a little brainwashed.

Why would I want to work along side people who support wars that kill innocent people and people who support the theft of the fruits of my labor?

I would rather gather with like minded people who have woken up and just say I do not consent. I like the Declaration of Independence for this one.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

I chose to declare myself independent.

You're better off participating in the political system because working to limit government even with limited influence is going to lead to a more free society than letting all the big-government proponents control the guns.

Independence from the corruption of politics and power is perhaps a noble sentiment in a theoretical sense, but in real life decisions are made by those who show up.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

subtle point

The people who benefit from unintended consequences of government programs do so through the consent of the majority of people, this is very different from a slave-master relationship. If enough voters could be convinced that something the government does is harmful or unnecessary, then it would be cut, along with the taxes required to pay for it.

I don’t really see where the perpetual debt and slavery comes from.

The true relationship in tyranny is between the master-slave-outcaste. As the master class exploits the slave class, both the master and slave collectively reject the outcaste. This has always been true around the world but was most apparent on the continent of Africa.