Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The first sentence only follows if the person in question doesn't also oppose the government provision of that service. This is especially true in the case of services where the government is, by law, the sole provider. You can't expect someone to fail to use tax-funded services when no alternative is available.

As for the second sentence, I'm not exactly clear on the argument you're making -- but there does seem to be a good analogy between use of tax-funded services and the nature of wage employment. Many workers find themselves in the position of having to accept low wages or poor conditions due to a restricted number of employers in a concentrated market. Like the libertarian who would like to avoid tax-funded services, many laborers cannot avoid undesirable employers.

So, in the same sense that it is callous to put the entire onus of working conditions on the worker -- i.e. "if you don't like it, go work somewhere else" -- it is callous to tell someone that they cannot object to the state's provision of services without becoming a hermit. In the latter case, it's even worse, since there is nothing more concentrated than the market for core social services. The state often stands alone as the sole provider.

The problem is that some sectors tend towards "natural monopolies", and, when in private hands, cartel-ism. Healthcare, IMO falls into that category. The best solution is such a situation is government ownership in order to prevent private cartels, because at least if the government controls it it can be responsive to public pressure, a private cartel can essentially ignore public opinion.

Originally Posted by Odin

Every time you use a service paid for by tax-payer dollars you are implicitly affirming the social contract, which includes the "fees" for the upkeep of society, which are taxes.

This is a strange argument, and on its face, seems obviously wrong. Affirming the social contract is, inter alia, consenting to the government's rule over your person, and most anarchists like myself certainly do not consent to THAT. But digging a little deeper, I'd suggest that an affirmation of the Rousseaun social contract requires some sort of alternative: consent cannot be given without the choice of refusal.

And what choice does the government (as stated by you) give us? To avoid public roads, handouts, or any other service that can be traced back to the State. In other words, the alternative we anarchists are given is a life where we are denied some very basic human needs in 21st century soiciety. And considering the State has actively rigged the game in this regard, the suggestion that refusing to use government services is a necessary condition to dissent strikes me as wrong.

Preventing freeloading in a complex must inevitably involve coercion in some form, complex societies are simply too large for the non-coercive strategies of shame and ostracism found in primitive societies where everyone knows everyone personally.

I'm puzzled as to why you think coercion is less damaging to a flourishing society than freeloading. Also, why would freeloading be rampant?

The "voluntary" nature of working to make ends meet is a mere formality when the alternative is starvation. (which is what I think Kurt was alluding to in his response to my post.) In that sense the capital holder has an inherent advantage which he uses to profit from the labor of his employees.

Fair enough. The nonconsensual nature (which I think is a direct effect of the State) of capital-labor relations makes the ethics of profit in today's society problematic. Even so, no one's natural rights are necessarily being violated by profit (it's a problem of circumstance, not active coercive force against you by your employer); the same cannot be said about taxation, where coercive force is used.

Matt
your position reminds me of a person who voluntarily resides in a large apartment complex, ten buildings and 1,000 apartments. There is a parking garage, several pools, a gym, a few meeting facilities, cable TV, high speed internet service, snow removal, air conditioning, sponsored weekly social gatherings and many other amenities which make the living there enjoyable. The complex has a long list of applicants but very few people move out. The rent is an average of $1,200.00 per month.

Each month there is a meeting for all tenants who can come and speak their mind about the place. Each year they elect a board of tenants who represent the will of the residents to the owners.

One resident does not like the way the place is run. He thinks the rent is too high and would like to see it significantly lowered. He attends the monthly meetings putting forth his ideas which are always defeated overwhelmingly. He wants to close up the pool despite using it himself. He wants to close up the gym despite using it himself. He wants to have the right not to subscribe to the package for cable TV and internet service despite using it himself. He does not want to pay for snow removal or other upkeep and wants the right to do it himself. He wants the weekly social activities to be cancelled and the facilities turned into other apartments despite the fact that he attends them quite often. He wants the parking garage closed despite parking his own vehicle in it. His hypocrisy knows no boundaries.

At these meetings he gets very little support for his ideas. But month after month he continues to put forth the same raft of ideas. In the yearly elections to be on the Board, he gets only a small amount of votes, not even one percent.

Keep in mind he was not sentenced to live there. He is not being confined there. He lives there of his own free will.

Do you think it would ever occur to him to move to a place more of his liking since he obviously does not like it there and his ideas for change are embraced by very few people and have no chance of success?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Do you think it would ever occur to him to move to a place more of his liking since he obviously does not like it there and his ideas for change are embraced by very few people and have no chance of success?

Where in the world can you find an anarchist country?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Matt
your position reminds me of a person who voluntarily resides in a large apartment complex, ten buildings and 1,000 apartments. There is a parking garage, several pools, a gym, a few meeting facilities, cable TV, high speed internet service, snow removal, air conditioning, sponsored weekly social gatherings and many other amenities which make the living there enjoyable. The complex has a long list of applicants but very few people move out. The rent is an average of $1,200.00 per month.

Each month there is a meeting for all tenants who can come and speak their mind about the place. Each year they elect a board of tenants who represent the will of the residents to the owners.

One resident does not like the way the place is run. He thinks the rent is too high and would like to see it significantly lowered. He attends the monthly meetings putting forth his ideas which are always defeated overwhelmingly. He wants to close up the pool despite using it himself. He wants to close up the gym despite using it himself. He wants to have the right not to subscribe to the package for cable TV and internet service despite using it himself. He does not want to pay for snow removal or other upkeep and wants the right to do it himself. He wants the weekly social activities to be cancelled and the facilities turned into other apartments despite the fact that he attends them quite often. He wants the parking garage closed despite parking his own vehicle in it. His hypocrisy knows no boundaries.

At these meetings he gets very little support for his ideas. But month after month he continues to put forth the same raft of ideas. In the yearly elections to be on the Board, he gets only a small amount of votes, not even one percent.

Keep in mind he was not sentenced to live there. He is not being confined there. He lives there of his own free will.

Do you think it would ever occur to him to move to a place more of his liking since he obviously does not like it there and his ideas for change are embraced by very few people and have no chance of success?

Hoo boy, have YOU ever lived in a condo with an active Homeowner's Association! Your description makes me wonder if I saw you at the last meeting of the Eagle's Nest HOA here in Albuquerque - and you'd better believe everything you describe has taken place. The problem with the "just move" solution is that basically, they're all like that. Oh, one of them may insist on water-wasting lawns and sue the tenant who wants to xeriscape, and the other may be too close to the airport, but the basic structure is the same and so are the problems. You pay your HOA dues and take your choice.

You didn't mention the management company that collected a special assessment for the stucco and never fixed it, and now for some reason (we apparently pursued the matter) we can't get the money back. Or the owners who don't want to spend a cent on fixing the place up but are screaming about the security gates. Or the ones narrowly focused on getting dog owners out of the complex and unless they're placated they block everything. Or just take up meeting time filibustering about it.

Now, me, I pay my homeowner's dues both at the Eagle's Nest, in the City, the State, and the Nation. But boy, would I love to whomp some of the board members upside the head on all four levels.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Where in the world can you find an anarchist country?

How about Somalia? Perhaps he'd like it there just fine.

Where can you find an anarchist country?

My first response is a rather insincere one "gee whiz, you mean a great idea like that has no takers?!?!?!" There are over 200 nations in the world. Pick one .... if they will have you. Or, buy an island of your own. Then you can put into effect all the ideological philosophy you want to. You can be the master of your own domain. I can provide some links if you have trouble finding one. Or even a boat will do. There are people who insist on literally being the master of their own ship so they spend their lives on the water. Of course, its all a trade off isn't it?

Last time I looked, there was not a soul being forcefully coerced to live in the USA other than folks in prison for committing crimes. There are no Berlin Walls keeping anyone in.

In my little scenario I could have added that the individual also wants the right to sublet an extra bedroom but is forbidden to do that. He wants the right to use his apartment for business purposes but is forbidden to do that also. He has filed legal actions claiming his rights are being violated but has failed in that effort.

Grey Badger - in a free market for housing I have to believe that while there are similarities between buildings, there are also differences. Perfection may be a quality beyond ones means but there are buildings better than others. Then of course, there are also alternatives to apartment buildings. The free market and free choice and all that sort of thing that we hear so much about.

I have never been to your building in Albuquerque but I have been to the town a couple of times and thought it was one great place. I especially loved all those art galleries. Although I must say sushi with green chilis was something I need not experience again.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Where in the world can you find an anarchist country?

hm's not interested in where you can find a better place to live -- he's just terrified at the impending end of his way of doing things on the scrap of the earth around him, and wants to scare away the thunderclouds by jumping up and down and waving his arms.

You can skim through the archives of several threads if you want to see the results of attempted rational discourse with a terrified relic of a passing age. Glance over them and save yourself the time going forward.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

How about Somalia? Perhaps he'd like it there just fine.

Heh. If the US and its proxies would quit invading and massacring there for a couple decades or so, it might not be a bad idea. Seems like they do a whole lot of developing and recovering in those brief interregnums in between your guys blowing everything back up again.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Last time I looked, there was not a soul being forcefully coerced to live in the USA other than folks in prison for committing crimes. There are no Berlin Walls keeping anyone in.

America's Berlin Wall

The flight option in the "fight or flight" decision has become more expensive. An "exit tax" has been passed to deter those seeking to give up their U.S. citizenship and residency.

Poor lonely Justin.... living in a world hostile to his ideology and philosophy and badly out of sync with the time you were thrust into. Better you had been born into the 18th century when the world fit your ideas much better. Its rather sad and pathetic how you think you are defending the honor of your ideological mistress by attacking me personally.

fruitcake - we have plowed through that particular field before you showed up. It does not stop you. Nobody is stopping you from leaving. Nobody.

You should read the information in your own links

If your current or near future net worth is less than $2 million U.S. dollars (married couples $4 million), for the moment you need not concern yourself with this new potential tax liability.

Its almost always about money and taxes with you folks.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Poor lonely Justin.... living in a world hostile to his ideology and philosophy and badly out of sync with the time you were thrust into. Better you had been born into the 18th century when the world fit your ideas much better.

Man, I've found like minds pretty much everywhere I've gone. One needs merely be motivated to recognize them. Suffice to say that the remnants of the world that are hostile to the way I think are small and shrinking -- at least in the ways that matter.

And it is largely thanks to the modern world that people think the way they (and I) do. After all, we -- unlike you relics of past ages -- are products of the world-that-is.

But go ahead and jump and flap and stomp -- it clearly comforts you. We contemporary types have great sympathy for the efforts of our predecessors to ease the pain of their own passing.

Oh Justin - it is your age that is past...... the wonderful years of the 17th and 18th century will never come this way again for you no matter how many internet message boards you attempt to dominate.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

hm, you've made it abundantly clear you can't even identify what age mine is; there are no olden days that are worth pining for, as far as we're concerned. But no worries for us -- our future is bright...

your age is easy...... several centuries past when the world was a different place ....

and all the pretty or not so pretty pictures in the world cannot change that.....

it would be nice if we could leave the personal stuff behind --- both of us.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Do you think it would ever occur to him to move to a place more of his liking since he obviously does not like it there and his ideas for change are embraced by very few people and have no chance of success?

The "Why don't you just move?" line is tired. Seriously folks, there are other considerations regarding where to live besides government. (Friends, family, etc. I'm also attending university here.)

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

How about Somalia? Perhaps he'd like it there just fine.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Heh. If the US and its proxies would quit invading and massacring there for a couple decades or so, it might not be a bad idea. Seems like they do a whole lot of developing and recovering in those brief interregnums in between your guys blowing everything back up again.

Indeed. But by virtually all measures, things have been far better (PDF link) in quasi-anarchist Somalia than the state of affairs that existed during Somalia's statist period.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

The "Why don't you just move?" line is tired. Seriously folks, there are other considerations regarding where to live besides government. (Friends, family, etc. I'm also attending university here.)

You're attempting to argue against the concept of Progress, Matt, which, by all means and definitions is an absolute and mandatory good. Any step away from Progress is by all means and definitions a regression, and must be avoided.

If you do not adhere to Progress, you will be beaten out by the stronger, more evolved, Progressives. Survival of the fittest at its basic. Instead of a forced exit or genocide, Progressives hope the undesirables will simply not exist out of free will.

The Future is Progress. Progress is Life. Progress is Eternal.

from Matt

The "Why don't you just move?" line is tired.

Tired of what exactly? This great bit of wisdom is your answer?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

This great bit of wisdom is your answer?

Rhetorical and purely-assoholic questions require no answers.

Yours wasn't rhetorical.

While I have more often than not disagreed with things fruitcake has posted thus far, posing an "exit tax" on people choosing to leave the U.S. and other such exit restrictions sort of concerns me. I'll elaborate.

For whatever reason, things like running away and/or hiding have always sort of been in my instincts. I don't know why. But as a kid I was awesome at hide and seek, and in Middle School even got in personal trouble a couple of times since I would basically egg on this group of bullies about two years older than me on my bike and then speed away for the thrill of the chase. In restrospect this was clearly dumb but over time this instinct or whatever it is led me to always have some sort of escape plan, whether the nuclear plant 6 miles to my south has some incident or whether something awful causes this country to start persecute groups of which I am a member, no matter how remote. Things like driving down lightly-trafficked roads to get to our family second house in relatively remote Upper Michigan (in the case of the nuke plant thing) or driving to Canada or the airport to catch the first international flight (in the case of the persecution thing). I even know whether the airport option or the drive to the border option would result in a faster exit based on the time of day. I even have a list on my computer of international flight schedules leaving Minneapolis. I know this stuff barely makes any sense whatsoever, but crazy things have happened in developed nations in 4T less than 100 years ago. Like what if I was a Jew in Germany or something? I'd probably be the type to leave as soon as things started getting pretty bad if I had the means to do so (like a good amount before Kristallnacht). I'm not paranoid or anything but I at least like to believe that I could just get up and escape danger in a hurry. So legislating exit restrictions like this is a bit worrisome for someone like me, although again I'd be highly surprised if I ever did have to actually leave for some reason.

Originally Posted by Odin

The problem is that some sectors tend towards "natural monopolies", and, when in private hands, cartel-ism. Healthcare, IMO falls into that category. The best solution is such a situation is government ownership in order to prevent private cartels, because at least if the government controls it it can be responsive to public pressure, a private cartel can essentially ignore public opinion.

Can you give an actual historical example of a natural monopoly? I'm at a loss to find any. There are certainly many industries where a natural monopoly was claimed in order so that state monopoly would be granted, but actual examples of natural monopoly are thin on the ground.

Is health care a natural monopoly? Clearly not, since the steady consolidation of this industry has followed the increase in state involvement in the industry. As I've argued before in this thread, the state is the primary (and perhaps the sole) agent driving centralization of industry. The current "reform" legislation shows that process quite plainly -- reforms are typically driven by the industry being regulated, and for their benefit.

Competition has been steadily "reformed" out of the health care industry, since that makes it easier for the industry to extract profits from us.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Matt
your position reminds me of a person who voluntarily resides in a large apartment complex, ten buildings and 1,000 apartments.

If governments were typically this size, then perhaps your argument would have merit. In the real world, they are quite large and thus "living somewhere else" will impose substantial costs.

To reiterate my argument up-thread. I suspect that you would not accept this sort of argument with regard to employment contracts. Or do you think that the only appropriate response to employer abuse is to find a new job?

There is a further reason why your analogy fails. The "apartment complex" that is the United States was not entirely built by its government. Much of the territory is either virgin land or the product of the labor of persons not really connected to the government. A better analogy would be if a neighborhood watch organization tried to transform itself into a homeowner's association and begin dictating how people landscaped their yards. I think most of us would find that obnoxious.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Tired of what exactly? This great bit of wisdom is your answer?

Are you aware that there is more than one definition of 'tired?' Are you aware that I posted another sentence designed to counter your focus on government structure?

Jason you remind me of a certain type of high school student who popped up from time to time in the high school where I taught. He or she thought they were something special and some sort of icon or leader of a sector of the student body. The expected others to defer to them and show them a high level of respect and generally get out of their way and kiss their ass. As long as others did this, everything was fine and they could even pass for a decent enough individual. But if anyone decided to not place them on that pedestal they had selected for themselves, then they became the victim of petty attacks and general meanness.

That is you in this forum. You see me as the opponent of your beloved ideology so you have to make personal attacks on me as your adolescent way of defending your beloved. Its sad and pathetic. But I guess you feel that that some of your clique would be disappointed if you did not continue in this silliness - so I imagine you will continue until you grow up.

Kurt and Matt - the use of the apartment building was intended to show the similarities between the anarcho-libertarian who constantly complains about the USA and taxation and authority but more than willingly lives here, sucks up all the services and benefits they can get of living here, but clamors for changes which would destroy those services and benefits for others. The word HYPOCRITE comes to mind. An apartment building is where a person decides to live just like a country. They are free to live somewhere else if they do not like it there.

As for the word "tired"..... using it any way you want to use it does not then mean that you have hit the ball out of the park wit hits use. Okay, you do not like my comparison and underlying sentiment. Fine. Its a free country. But so what? Its still valid.