Justification of a Coercive Government

[Hugo]

I stand by my comments. I am uninterested in discussion characterized by the tactics you put on display.

Yes, and I am sure I know the actual reason. You were mired in your self-contradictions and unable to mount any kind of defence. It wasn't so much that you were taken out of context or misquoted, more that you did not understand the implications of what you had said and were humiliated when they were shown to you. Basically, your viewpoint is internally inconsistent and logically invalid.

it is the other members of the club called Canada that insist you leave.

Really? Which ones? Because I can name two dozen, off the top of my head, who'd insist I stay.

So what you really mean is that some "members of the club called Canada" insist I leave, and moreover, insist that they be allowed a power of veto over private contracts that they have no involvement in.

What gives them this right? If they are able to defer this right to elected representatives and their agents, then they must have had this right in the first place. Are Liberal voters gods amongst men who can violate everybody else's property rights and free will as they choose?

If yes, by what right? If no, then why are you contradicting yourself?

You have government as soon as several people split a single bill in a restaurant.

Not until one of them was coerced into the deal, you don't. Government acts by force, that is the definition. When it doesn't, that is not government, it's just a business.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You were mired in your self-contradictions and unable to mount any kind of defence.

That's false. I had no need to 'defend' anything. I was attempting to discuss an issue with you, but your habit of distorting my positions and ignoring my comments made that a pointless exercise.

[August1991]

TS, I think Hugo is as thick as a brick. Perhaps I'm wrong. His grammar and spelling are impeccable.

In the past (200 years ago), someone signalled their intelligence by their correct spelling and grammar.

But maybe in FutureWorld, good grammar and spelling will no longer signal intelligence. They will merely signal "rote learning education".

[Hugo]

TS, I think Hugo is as thick as a brick.

I'm saddened that you feel the need to constantly insult me. Since I've repeatedly asked you to desist and debate like an adult, requests that you have ignored in favour of childish insults, I have no choice but to report you to Greg.

By the way...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

TS, I think Hugo is as thick as a brick. Perhaps I'm wrong. His grammar and spelling are impeccable.

An insult tempered with a compliment puts you back at 'ground zero', no?

I will admit to you that the base of gov't power is coersion. However, that same power is one you deny as the base of property rights. Yet they are one and the same.

As to the collection of taxes by force, the 'anarchists' simply need to establish a majority that refuses to pay those taxes. There would be too many for the gov't to prosecute. That would require, however, abandoning anarchism (at least for a time) and voluntarily joining a 'group' or society of those with common values (such as a tax-revolting cadre).

PS., I don't think of you as 'thick' by any stretch, but you do tend to hold tightly to the 'absolutes' by definition. Perhaps a better insult for you would be "Herr Sphincter-Klench". Just kidding.

[Guest eureka]

The concept of power in any form implies the possibility of coercion. With government, in a democratic society, the right to use force is given to government for the protection of the society.

Coercion comes into play only when there is a breach of the behaviour required and necessary for the maintenance of the society's expectations.

[August1991]

I will admit to you that the base of gov't power is coersion. However, that same power is one you deny as the base of property rights. Yet they are one and the same.

I would agree if you mean the following:

The very first residents in the condo building obtained their apartments in arbitrary fashion (property rights). These initial owners established a common management committee to assess fees and maintain the entry (government).

All subsequent residents would have to purchase an apartment from a selling owner and abide by the established rules of the condo.

In this case, is the government coercive? Not really, because an unhappy resident is free to sell and leave.

----

IMV, the idea of coercive government arises in the question: why would an individual voluntarily sign a long term contract to stay in the condo building? That is, why would an individual voluntarily submit to a contract that may not be beneficial in the future? The answer may lie in a strategy of commitment.

[Hugo]

An insult tempered with a compliment puts you back at 'ground zero', no?

I don't particularly care if it's tempered with a dozen roses and a box of chocolates. Personal insults have absolutely no place on this forum.

No Personal Attacks and or Insults

Please respect others using this board by refraining from personal attacks. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with a thought or idea and attacking an individual. We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints, not tirades against another poster. Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them...

2) It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. 

3) Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious.

It doesn't seem to propose that insults might be OK if they are tempered somehow. August has repeatedly shown that he is too immature either to understand or to follow these rules and constantly resorts to personal insults, which is just one reason why he should not be taken seriously as a poster here.

I will admit to you that the base of gov't power is coersion. However, that same power is one you deny as the base of property rights. Yet they are one and the same.

Please clarify this. Are you arguing that property is based upon and depends upon force/coercion, or that property is force/coercion?

As to the collection of taxes by force, the 'anarchists' simply need to establish a majority that refuses to pay those taxes. There would be too many for the gov't to prosecute.

This has actually been proposed by some anarchists, basically, that the anarchists of the world all descend upon a small country and vote its government out of existence.

I don't think of you as 'thick' by any stretch, but you do tend to hold tightly to the 'absolutes' by definition.

Why not? The universe is demonstrably ruled by absolutes. Are not the laws of thermodynamics or gravity absolute? Intellectually, one should search for absolutes, or truths, and then base theories and propositions around them.

With government, in a democratic society, the right to use force is given to government for the protection of the society.

Who gives government this power? If they were able to give it, they must have had it (you cannot give what you do not have), which means that some people in our society have the right to use (initiate) force against others, while the rest of us do not. What is the moral basis behind this, please?

Coercion comes into play only when there is a breach of the behaviour required and necessary for the maintenance of the society's expectations.

Who sets those expectations and who decides when a breach has occurred?

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I have no choice but to report you to Greg.

Poor show.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The universe is demonstrably ruled by absolutes.

Demonstrably not. Not demonstrably.

Who gives government this power? If they were able to give it, they must have had it ...

No, 'power' is created by the interaction of individuals. Absent the interaction the 'power' does not exist.