See the last post of the previous page to see my question.

@spyman: "But you do think the free-market is a good thing for small enterprises? No? How small is small. Imagine i have a small business: I design and make websites. How many employees am I allowed before I am too large."

I don't particularly care whether or not the free market is a good thing for small enterprises, Spyman. What I care about is what's best for society as a whole, and I am convinced that free markets are NOT what is best for society as a whole.

Now, on your specific question of 'how many employees am I allowed?" - assuming a form of Communism where some amount of private enterprise is allowed, there are two possible positions:

1. You are allowed no employees. You are allowed to operate a one-man small business, but that's it, because as soon as you employ someone, you cease to be a worker, and become a capitalist - you are exploiting that worker and robbing them of a proportion of the value of their labour.

2. The limitation on the size of your business is not based on the number of employees, but some other factor such as turnover. The argument for this is that the 'size' of a business is not necessarily dependent on how many people they employ, but on their impact on the economy.

My own instinct tends towards option 1, I must say, and that any non-state business larger than one person should be on the basis of a co-operative, not a traditional "I'm the boss and you're my employees" model.

"And as far as self defense and legalizing drugs: so you are hooked and need another fix but the (now legal) drug dealer says you gotta pay him, however you can no longer hold down a job because you don't do good (or any) work and you are a danger if operating anything more than a telelphone to your coworkers, so you rob a liquor store for the $100 you need to buy your smack and kill the clerk in the process. Did the clerk agree to your contract with the smack dealer? Even if it was sold at the drug store, the Walgreens is still your dealer. Yes, they may be a lot cheaper and safer than the illegal drug dealer's we have now, but the effect of the drug is still detrimental to your physical and mental state which means it still puts society at risk."

The crime here was to rob the liquor store.

Besides, the only reason why drugs cost and are bought from drug dealers is because of the fact they are illegal. In a free market, they would be sold by the tobacconist and/or pharmacy.

Jamiet, would people be buying and selling goods in your communist state then?

The tobacco and pharmacist still cost money and if you think cigarette and alcohol taxes are bad, wait until the feds get their fingers in the drug pie. You'll be paying as much for drugs under the giv as you do under the dealers (OK, maybe not as much, but still a lot more than they cost to make and distribute even with middleman profit margins). So the issue still remains that the junkie (and they will still be junkies, legal or not, the addictive effect still exists) will have to find a way to pay for their habit, be unable to hold down a job, and will have to turn to other, less savory means to fund their habit.

No, because my ideology is not "legalise drugs" its for the government to get out of the economy and people's lives.

I forgot, you aren't from the US where $1.01 per pack (not carton) goes to federal taxes and that doesn't include each state's tax per pack.

My question for you is: can we live without this seemingly ubiquitous feature of human exitence? And do we want to?

an attempt to get back on subject.

Can we live without, no. But we could live with a reduced form of it and I would fully support that.

Thanks Sic/Draug. I didn't really want to wade into a discussion about whether working wages constitutes a form of slavery. :/ Not that it isn't relevant or interesting, I just despair of making up my mind about it.

----

Once again regarding the State;

I think we could live without it, and be a lot happier for it.

But I willingly accede the point that statelessness is a vulnerable position to be in if there is a risk of powerful militaristic/ and or economic heirarchal blocs developing elsewhere.

My corollary question that I brought up earlier still remains however. What are the things that only a violent, exploitative and coercive State can do, other than providing protection against worse forms of exploitative and violent coercion?

I still have not yet seen anything convincing in response.

I guess my question is which states (governments of course, not US states) do you consider a violent, exploitative, and coercive? We may have a basic disagreement on that and that would make the answer that much more difficult to reconcile.

@Draug: All states.

So, your saying the US Government, the British Monarchy and Parliament, and the French Republic are violent, exploitative, and coercive? Please provide evidence for such inflammatory remarks. And such evidence needs to point to the government in question doing this as a practice against it's own citizens. For instance, fighting a war to protect my freedom does not make my government violent.

Well....
Honestly? Nearly all of them. This statement of course will require a bit of qualification.

I find the vast majority of States to be either a) Clearly violent, exploitative, and coercive all the time b) Only selectively violent, exploitative, and coercive with some justification for it's otherwise abhorrent acts or c) Rarely violent, exploitative, and coercive, but retaining the self-given right to be so and often significantly less powerful.

Generally, the first category is made of large, undemocratic States. Quite clearly a State like the Russian Federation is a violent institution, responsible for supressing ethnic and religious minorities, launching wars, expanding influence, killing journalists, and explicitly denying a large number of freedoms. Even smaller state's like North Korea or Sierra Leone also fit this category, though fortunately they pose (comparatively) less hazards to citizens of other state's.

The second category is slightly less common, and would include a large variety of state's that profess to be Democratic in nature and thus justify their limitations of rights or propagation of warfare on a democratic basis. State's like Brazil or the United States would fit here.

The final category is almost exclusively made up of small States that possess neither the resources nor the required level of political centralization to be truly violent, exploitative, and coercive. State's like Iceland or Finland would fit here.


I don't really think that you can deny these if you are aware of the facts. Violence, exploitation, and coercion are the raison d'etre, the meat and potatoes, the bread and butter if you will, of State's. The fact that they are sometimes limited in acting out these abuses or choose not to sometimes is beside the point. The more relevant debate at hand is whether some violent acts of coercion (eg. police action) or exploitation (eg. taxes) are in some way justified.

(ps. American States also fit the bill for being violent, exploitative, and coercive, they are just limited in their ability to always be so by their smaller size and the interference of the Feds)

"For instance, fighting a war to protect my freedom does not make my government violent. "

Yes, yes, yes it does, particularly if that war was fought under circumstances other than those of direct self-defense. Maybe you think that it is justifiably violent, but it sure as hell ain't peacable to kill hundreds of thousands of people across the globe for a decade even if it is based on 'self defense'. I am considering the entirety of a State's impact here, not just it's actions against it's own citizens.

@Friendly Sword,

You seem to be saying that "because a government CAN do it, it means they are", in the example of Iceland, or Finland. For example, I don't think if Sweden has the opportunity to be violent and coercive successfully that they would necessarily take it. You're making your categories so broad that everything HAS to fall into it, and imo, that just isn't a good practice when arguing.
While I agree that many governments are violent and coercive (whether or not their intentions and reasoning are good or not), I think it is simply ignorant to claim that *all* governments can be described as such.

@Draug: I don't consider wars to have anything to have to do with my freedom, so I that is part of my example as to how Governments are violent. As for violence against their own citizens, how about the force police use against people for "violating the law"? How about police brutality? How about the death penalty. How about the fact that a state needs violence and force to maintain it's power?

And taxes are a very good example of the exploitive and coercive nature of government. What gives the government the right to take people's hard-earned money?
And don't give me that crap about how they use it to provide for society. Everything they do could be provoded by private companies for a price or (in my ideal system), for free, as there would be no money in my ideal system.

Oh by the way Draugnar, 2 questions:
1. Are you a Christian?
2. Do you consider the government sovereign over you?

1. Yes, but more a theist in many ways.
2. No. Christ has sovereignty over me. In that regard I am a Christian, I just don't believe every word of the Bible is the fact and that much of the OT stories are parables no different than the one's Christ told to make his points.

Violence against their own citizens in the US. Police are only supposed to use violence if the citizen themselves are threatening the life o the officer or of someone else. The government does not sanction and, while there was a time the blue wall of silence protected cops, it no longer does so. If a cop acts out of line and uses excessive force he is no longer protected by the other cops. They watch out for their own from false accusations, but most cops are good people who truly want to protect and serve, not abuse and exploit.

Taxes: We elect the people in power who decide what those taxes should be. If we don't like it, we elect new people. The biggest problem is when both sides are just as corrupt, which is unfortunately most of the time.

Death penalty - not a federal law. Some states have it some don't. Don't blaim the feds for that one.

Needing violence and force to maintain it's power. Prove it. Police enforce laws put together by lawmakers voted for by the people. Those laws are a necessity to keep the most base of our citizenry from running roughshod over the weak and innocent who just want to live their lives in peace. If you keep having run ins with the law, I suggest you look to your own personality as to why you feel it necessary to commit the actions in question. Laws are there to protect us, not keep us under thumb.

Yo,

Just because a lot of people support a police state (or aren't given a choice to get rid of it) doesn't mean it isn't a police state.

Sure, people vote for, and benefit from taxes, but the aren't given a choice of personal noncompliance.

Even in the relatively benign countries of Sweden and Denmark, massive taxes must be paid under the threat of violent and coercive force, and police have a large degree of power and relative immunity to enforce a large number of popular (but certainly not universally accepted) measures. Even if the cops are nice people, the system in which they exist is inherently a violent and coercive one that supports economic exploitation.

Once again, I am not arguing (now) that these uses of violent coercion aren't justified, or not popular, I am just saying they exist, and it is clearly wrong to suggest they don't happen.

For instance, maybe protesters at G8 summits ought to be beaten, shot with rubber bullets and noise blasted, but it is foolish to argue that those are not examples of violent coercive force meant to maintain State(s) authority.

-----

Now, some more specific rebuttals;

"Death penalty - not a federal law. Some states have it some don't. Don't blaim the feds for that one."

Just because something is under State jurisdiction doesn't change anything. A State is still a State (lol moment) even if it doesn't get to dictate it's foreign policy, and other policies. The apparatus of government coercion is categorically the same.

"The biggest problem is when both sides are just as corrupt, which is unfortunately most of the time."

Precisely Draug, precisely. The electoral system is a flagrant example of something that is fundamentally broken, almost everyone knows it, and yet no one will change it (or can change it) because the political elites have bought so firmly into it.

"Laws are there to protect us, not keep us under thumb."

Someone told me once that there are as many people as laws in the United States.
Another person told me that the number of laws issued by a government or it's judiciary was directly proportional to the power and corruption of the State.

While I am too lazy to dig these quotes up, I believe them to be very apt.

While some laws work to the advantage of the majority of the populace, the vast majority are either unnecessary or instruments of money and power. Fug the legal system, at least in it's current state.

"So, your saying the US Government, the British Monarchy and Parliament, and the French Republic are violent, exploitative, and coercive? Please provide evidence for such inflammatory remarks."

read a history book yo.

Sicarius. History is in the past, I asked about the present. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, but you can't say something *is* just because it *was* once.

@Draug - How can you believe that only Christ has sovereignty over you (which is true), and still not be an anarchist? Because the State does claim to be sovereign iver all the people in it's borders.

On electing people to decide taxes: And that matters why? Here's what happens. I vote for someone. They win. They then tax me. So I vote for someone else. They win. Then THEY tax me. So I still get taxed. And as I pointed out earlier, taxes are coersion

Render into Caesar that which is Caesar's... Christ has sovereignty over my whole life and beyond. The states ends at my death and is only over my physical presence for that time. My soul belongs to Christ. My love of my fellow man belongs to Christ.

Wow, this one's come back to life!

@Ghostmaker: "Jamiet, would people be buying and selling goods in your communist state then?"

Eventually I would like to see 'buying' and 'selling' become reduntant concepts, consigned to the dustbin of history. In the early stages of transition, some form of money would probably still be needed, but I would want to see it phased out as early as possible.


@FriendlySword: "My corollary question that I brought up earlier still remains however. What are the things that only a violent, exploitative and coercive State can do, other than providing protection against worse forms of exploitative and violent coercion?"

The things that only a state can do? That's simple. Only a state can maintain stability, order and organisation across a large geographical area in a way that is accountable to the people of that area.

A Corporation can do it, but not in an accountable way. An anarchist commune cannot do it at all.

Does this answer your question?


@Conservative Man: "And taxes are a very good example of the exploitive and coercive nature of government. What gives the government the right to take people's hard-earned money?"

The state has that right because without a state, the economy would quickly collapse and your hard-earned money would be worthless. The state also has the right to levy taxes because the vast majority of your fellow citizens have agreed that they should have that right. Don't like it? no problem - just move to Somalia.


"Everything they do could be provoded by private companies for a price or (in my ideal system), for free, as there would be no money in my ideal system."

I also envisage a system with no money. However, I'm a communist. You are, in your words, a Libertarian. So I'm imagining your 'ideal system' would be different to mine. Can you tell us how your ideal system would operate, and how in particular the use of money would be eliminated? I'm very interested in your model.


@ FS: "Even in the relatively benign countries of Sweden and Denmark, massive taxes must be paid under the threat of violent and coercive force, and police have a large degree of power and relative immunity to enforce a large number of popular (but certainly not universally accepted) measures. Even if the cops are nice people, the system in which they exist is inherently a violent and coercive one that supports economic exploitation."

Could you please justify your use of the term "exploitation" in this context? I accept that people are to an extent coerced into paying taxes, but I do not consider taxation exploitative.

"Eventually I would like to see 'buying' and 'selling' become reduntant concepts, consigned to the dustbin of history. In the early stages of transition, some form of money would probably still be needed, but I would want to see it phased out as early as possible"

But presumably there would still be transfer of goods. Would that be done on a totally gift-based system then?

The violence argument can be used to oppose a wide range of economic and political ideologies. For the libertarian taxation could be viewed as violent coercion, while perhaps for the communist the notion of private property (especially land and it's resources) is violent and coercive. Whenever we decide upon any universal method of organizing ourselves (by universal I mean society as a whole) ultimately depends upon coercion.

@ Ghostmaker: "But presumably there would still be transfer of goods. Would that be done on a totally gift-based system then?"

Resources would be allocated to people based on their needs and, where choices were available, their choices. In return, they would have to work conscientiously to the best of their ability.

The basic needs I can understand, food, shelter, clothing are provided by most western states (in Australia we have social security, for the unemployed this can last indefinitely). With regards to everything else - choices? The luxuries are more scarce - how do we decide how to distribute them? We can't all have everything that we might choose.