Libertarian Limited Government and Military Spending

Printable View

10-09-2009, 01:49 AM
Laughing Man

Libertarian Limited Government and Military Spending

Theoretical example:

Tomorrow the government caves in on itself and resorts to a libertarian style of limited government.

Question:

How will the military of this libertarian style limited government achieve its financing?

A.) Through Taxation
B.) Through voluntary exchange

If the answer is A then the very foundation of libertarianism, namely the Non-Aggression principle is being violated. Taxation is thief [ even if it is a 1% tax ] and is backed by the threat of violence [ throwing someone in jail ]. Therefore in terms of logic and reason, the limited government would stop being libertarian if it imposed taxation onto its citizens in order to create/sustain a fighting force.

If the answer is B, then the limited government itself is just another protection agency. Those who do not want to buy the protection services of the government can either A.) go without them and join in / create a voluntary militia which can be organized for defense or B.) contract the services of another protection agency that can defend the citizen. Now if the government tries to prevent this outside protection agency from giving services to the individual then again they are violating the foundation of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, by threatening an individual or individuals with time in jail for providing a desired service. If there are other agencies that can provided the service of protection, then why not legal services?
10-09-2009, 02:01 AM
ChrissyMaria

How about militia's trained by ex-us military ex navy seals...etc?

I know that a whole lotta vets need cash why not turn em into instructors to teach local militias?
10-09-2009, 02:02 AM
Descensus

Quote:

Originally Posted by guerilla

How about militia's trained by ex-us military ex navy seals...etc?

I know that a whole lotta vets need cash why not turn em into instructors to teach local militias?

Private companies can hire them to train future employees, if they so wish.
10-09-2009, 03:09 AM
Taosaur

Taking the question at face value with no concern for liberty, values or quality of life, this nation would stand invasion-free for a looooooooong time with no centrally administered military whatsoever. We would be less of a threat/enticing-target without the possibility of organized overseas interventions, but would still be prickly with trained military personnel and an unpredictably dispersed arsenal of weapons from blunderbuss to military grade artillery, aircraft and long-distance rocketry. Given our sheer landmass and per-capita armament, it would be difficult for any world power to subdue us with force that would not corrupt the entire global biosphere.
10-09-2009, 03:07 PM
Hercuflea

God laughing man you are so obsessed with this theorizing. Yes, I support limited government, and yes, there is a time and place where a LEGITIMATE tax is permissible, as long as it benefits EVERYBODY WHO IS PAYING IT. Such as a tax in order to maintain a navy/air force/etc. The Constitution says that no standing army should be funded for more than two years, unless we are in a declared war.
10-09-2009, 03:34 PM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

God laughing man you are so obsessed with this theorizing. Yes, I support limited government, and yes, there is a time and place where a LEGITIMATE tax is permissible, as long as it benefits EVERYBODY WHO IS PAYING IT. Such as a tax in order to maintain a navy/air force/etc. The Constitution says that no standing army should be funded for more than two years, unless we are in a declared war.

So it is only legitimate to steal when enough people are benefiting?
10-09-2009, 09:43 PM
Hercuflea

Well, you always have the option to leave if you do not agree with the policies the government is putting your money towards. So its not necessarily stealing.
10-10-2009, 01:39 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Well, you always have the option to leave if you do not agree with the policies the government is putting your money towards. So its not necessarily stealing.

Why should I leave my property? The government doesn't own the land that I reside on, I do. Now if the system of taxation is permissible if it provides services for everyone, then you should also by logical extension favor taxation for government health care, taxation for government clothes, taxation for government food, taxation for government education, taxation for any good that the government can supposedly provide to everyone. If you do not, why not? It does not contradict your earlier statement of 'as long as it benefits EVERYBODY WHO IS PAYING IT'

And you are also forgetting an Austrian tenet. Benefit can only be established by voluntary transaction due to reverse inequality of value. Say I want military defense services and you want money. Only under voluntary exchange can we establish at what cost I value defense in terms of money and at what cost you value money in terms of defense. Therefore your tenet concerning taxation is inconsistent with Austrian economics
10-10-2009, 05:39 AM
Hercuflea

Yeah but under anarchy there is no reason for the person "providing" you with those military services to just say f*** off and takde your money after you've made the exchange. They've got the bigger gun, so they win in anarchy.
10-10-2009, 08:13 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Yeah but under anarchy there is no reason for the person "providing" you with those military services to just say f*** off and takde your money after you've made the exchange. They've got the bigger gun, so they win in anarchy.

One: You can sue them for fraud.
Two: Say that does happen, you think that they can just keep on doing it without being noticed and therefore prevented in the future?
Three: What is stopping government from doing this? We've paid trillions of dollars and they couldn't even defend us on Sept 11th.
10-10-2009, 06:39 PM
Alric

There is a simple answer. Personally I am a libertarian but I am not against minimal taxes. If we had a 1 percent sales tax, that went for funding government, and that it. I would be happy.

To answer your question though, you just do not have a standing army during peace time, and go with B. It doesn't matter if people create their own militia's. In fact that is a good thing. If you got half a dozen militia's in a state, they are all going to defend the area if it gets invaded.

Or everyone just buys there own gun. They say something like half the people in the US own one or more gun already. I am pretty sure, this is how laughing man expects a pure anarchist government to work. If everyone owns their own gun, then you do not need police or an army, as everyone can defend them self. If you get invaded everyone has a gun and can just join the voluntary militias and fight it out. Some guy starts causing trouble, you round up a posse and go catch him. Same thing works in a libertarian or anarchist government. The only real difference in that case, is what you do after wards, because there are no jails or anything in a pure anarchist government.

The basic difference between anarchy and libertarian is that a libertarian believes that a little organization will help everything run more smoothly. Taxation isn't theft however. Libertarianism believes in personal responsibility, and a fair and reasonable tax that is voted and agreed upon can exist.
10-10-2009, 06:58 PM
Descensus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

Taxation isn't theft however. Libertarianism believes in personal responsibility, and a fair and reasonable tax that is voted and agreed upon can exist.

Taxation absolutely is theft. If it was voluntary, obviously not, but when are taxes voluntary? They're stealing your money to pay for their things which may, or may not, benefit you, like all those roads you never drive on.
10-10-2009, 11:36 PM
Hercuflea

I have nothing against militias and I believe we should actually have a militia system more like what it was in the early 1800s/late 1700's again, but the problem with having only militias would be that they could not deal with a nuclear threat. Militias are citizens with guns. They couldn't stop a biological or nuclear attack
10-11-2009, 03:31 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

I have nothing against militias and I believe we should actually have a militia system more like what it was in the early 1800s/late 1700's again, but the problem with having only militias would be that they could not deal with a nuclear threat. Militias are citizens with guns. They couldn't stop a biological or nuclear attack

Well who would use a biological or nuclear attack against a decentralized geographical local?
10-11-2009, 03:45 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

There is a simple answer. Personally I am a libertarian but I am not against minimal taxes. If we had a 1 percent sales tax, that went for funding government, and that it. I would be happy.

Well if you don't think that 1% is theft then why do you think 20% is? Or 100%? It is not a difference in form, it is only a difference in degree. You are being inconsistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

To answer your question though, you just do not have a standing army during peace time, and go with B. It doesn't matter if people create their own militia's. In fact that is a good thing. If you got half a dozen militia's in a state, they are all going to defend the area if it gets invaded.

If you go to B then the government is just another protection agency and ceases to be the monopoly force in defense. There is no rational for why the government can bar corporations from providing a desired service on the market and if there is competition, it ceases to retain its monopoly and becomes just another service provider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

Or everyone just buys there own gun. They say something like half the people in the US own one or more gun already. I am pretty sure, this is how laughing man expects a pure anarchist government to work. If everyone owns their own gun, then you do not need police or an army, as everyone can defend them self. If you get invaded everyone has a gun and can just join the voluntary militias and fight it out. Some guy starts causing trouble, you round up a posse and go catch him. Same thing works in a libertarian or anarchist government. The only real difference in that case, is what you do after wards, because there are no jails or anything in a pure anarchist government.

That is nothing close to what I said. I even provided reading material as to what an ideal would be, you have obviously not read it, so your mischaracterization is your own fault. The material is in the From Limited to Government to Anarchy in Ten Easy steps, specifically the article called "The Public Sector III: Police, Laws and Courts". If we are going to continue this discussion at least make yourself knowledgeable concerning my argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

The basic difference between anarchy and libertarian is that a libertarian believes that a little organization will help everything run more smoothly. Taxation isn't theft however. Libertarianism believes in personal responsibility, and a fair and reasonable tax that is voted and agreed upon can exist.

The basic difference between anarchy and libertarianism [ at least what you are portraying it as ] is not 'a little organization'. It is a difference between 'a little government'. The free-market is the voluntary, social, beneficial, spontaneous order that society needs. While government is the involuntary, anti-social, harmful, coerced order that steps on the individual. And this non-sense that taxation isn't thief, are you honestly pulling my leg? Everyone in the United States voluntarily pays over 40% of their income and would happily continue to do so if the threat of jail didn't support taxation? Concerning your last point, if you want to get a bunch of saps together and say 'ok let's vote to pay taxes or not' then by all means do so. However, you don't have the right to oppress that vote onto individual who do not want to vote as to whether or not to pay taxes. That is their own decision and you have no right nor does the government have a right to coerce them into paying.
10-11-2009, 03:57 AM
Hercuflea

We used it on Hiroshima, one city.
10-11-2009, 04:28 AM
Alric

There is a large difference between reasonable taxes, and unreasonable taxes. It is a difference in form, not in degrees and here is why. I believe the governments job is to protect people, and so they can and should take reasonable steps to protect us. What we currently have, is the government overstepping it's bounds, and basically doing whatever it wants.

The government shouldn't be giving money to other countries, it shouldn't be trying to control the market, or dictating how people live their lives. It should be protecting people and that is it.

So having police, having a reasonable military(we don't need a military large enough to face every country in the world at once), and things of that nature are acceptable. While wasting money, spying on people, and things like redistribution of wealth are totally unacceptable.

People have problems with unreasonable taxes, for things they do not want and things they hate, and for their money being wasted. Almost no one has problems with small taxes for important things. It is the waste and corruption, and people feeling like they do not have a real say that is the problem.
10-11-2009, 05:13 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

We used it on Hiroshima, one city.

We did nothing. Harry Truman did and Japan cannot be considered a decentralized geographical local that lacks a government that intervenes in the foreign affairs of others. It can hardly be considered a political isolationist state.
10-11-2009, 05:25 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

There is a large difference between reasonable taxes, and unreasonable taxes. It is a difference in form, not in degrees and here is why. I believe the governments job is to protect people, and so they can and should take reasonable steps to protect us. What we currently have, is the government overstepping it's bounds, and basically doing whatever it wants.

That is wonderful dodging. Please, explain to me how a 1% tax isn't thief yet a 100% is. I eagerly await your defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

The government shouldn't be giving money to other countries, it shouldn't be trying to control the market, or dictating how people live their lives. It should be protecting people and that is it.

Well thank the powers that be that taxation doesn't distort the market nor is it dictating to individuals their social lives by demanding they work harder to get what they want while in order to also pay taxes. Taxes are not neutral.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

So having police, having a reasonable military(we don't need a military large enough to face every country in the world at once), and things of that nature are acceptable. While wasting money, spying on people, and things like redistribution of wealth are totally unacceptable.

Why is it acceptable to have military socialism [ in the sense that government owns the means of production for the military market ] yet not healthcare socialism? Why not clothes socialism? The answer as you are probably figuring out is "Well because I want it to be that way" well nothing in the Constitution is going to stop people from getting government to setup these industries. We are already a slave to the majority through voting. The Constitution isn't going to grow fangs and attack politicians nor does it mean much if 51% America wants socialism. Taxation is a redistribution of wealth, yet you supported that a paragraph ago, now you are saying its unacceptable. And also I find it ridiculous that you are implying that the market can work for things like pants, toothbrushes and combs but somehow legal services and protection agencies have this mystical veil in which cooperative, voluntary exchanges cannot take place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

People have problems with unreasonable taxes, for things they do not want and things they hate, and for their money being wasted. Almost no one has problems with small taxes for important things. It is the waste and corruption, and people feeling like they do not have a real say that is the problem.

Now you are claiming to be the voice of all? Saying what is right for them and not? If people value protection, then why is it impossible not to have a market for it? The opposite of government providing everything is not that you make everything for yourself. Just because government doesn't make shoes doesn't mean I have to. We are talking about the division of labor and specialization, something that you are implying by saying 'only the government can provide this' that such a system cannot work. Well what is the government? Is it some mystical institution? No, it is people. Anything the government can try to provide, the market can provide in a more efficient, cost-less, non-coercive manner.
10-11-2009, 06:19 AM
Alric

I just did explain it.

I know the government is wasteful, which is why I want it gone as much as possible. However, a government is more organized, when it comes to protecting a large area. Personally the best thing would be if there was many private militia's that worked alone, but during large problems, came together into one group for the common interest for all. However if you do that, it is no longer true anarchy.

Cooperative, voluntary exchanges is the best thing possible. However in anarchy, there is no cooperative part. Which is why small amounts of government can be used to help make things work. Government isn't there to force cooperation. Government is group cooperation. If you have any large scale cooperation, then you have a government.
10-11-2009, 07:14 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

I just did explain it.

I know the government is wasteful, which is why I want it gone as much as possible. However, a government is more organized, when it comes to protecting a large area. Personally the best thing would be if there was many private militia's that worked alone, but during large problems, came together into one group for the common interest for all. However if you do that, it is no longer true anarchy.

Why is that not true anarchy? It is a voluntary, non-coercive, non-monopolistic, organization, hence it is nothing that is government. I have see no rational defensive of why taxation is not thief at 1% while 100% it is. You are merely giving out arbitrary emotional arguments such as 'Well it's not thief because I don't think it is'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

Cooperative, voluntary exchanges is the best thing possible. However in anarchy, there is no cooperative part. Which is why small amounts of government can be used to help make things work. Government isn't there to force cooperation. Government is group cooperation. If you have any large scale cooperation, then you have a government.

So you think that the free-market, an expression of anarchism, is not cooperative? If government is not forced cooperation, then why do I need to obey government? Why do I need to pay taxes? Why can they kidnap me and call it conscription? If you have large scale cooperation, you can have either voluntary cooperation [ Anarchy ] or involuntary cooperation [ Government].
10-11-2009, 07:25 AM
Alric

Large scale voluntary cooperation is still government. The government isn't forced cooperation, nor should you ever be forced to obey the government, unless you are harming others around you(which is where the protection comes in).

If people come together, and created a state and agree that they will pay a 1 percent tax in order to protect the community, this isn't stealing. This is what we had originally when people came together and agreed on how they would run the government. However, the government is currently out of control, and is no longer doing what the people wanted, and is wasting money and harming everyone.

You say its arbitrary but its not. When the government crosses the line, and it is hurting people that is to much. Being financially, emotionally, or physically.
10-11-2009, 07:30 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

Large scale voluntary cooperation is still government. The government isn't forced cooperation, nor should you ever be forced to obey the government, unless you are harming others around you(which is where the protection comes in).

So the global market is government? International trade between corporation A and corporation B is government? I think you need to reexamine your definitions of what is and isn't government. And the government isn't forced cooperation? Really? Can I sell weed to another individual now? Can I say marry someone of my same sex right now? Can I travel to Cuba right now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

If people come together, and created a state and agree that they will pay a 1 percent tax in order to protect the community, this isn't stealing. This is what we had originally when people came together and agreed on how they would run the government. However, the government is currently out of control, and is no longer doing what the people wanted, and is wasting money and harming everyone.

Well if that is true then people can come together to create a government that gives out free healthcare, free clothes and free food. Also I never agreed to this contract therefore I am not held to it AND if government is no longer following a contract that you think I should follow then by that very action government has broken the contract and it is irrational that I still abide by it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

You say its arbitrary but its not. When the government crosses the line, and it is hurting people that is to much. Being financially, emotionally, or physically.

You are setting up this line at your own volition. That is the define of arbitrary. No longer should it be 'No taxation without representation' but 'No more thief, no more taxation'
10-11-2009, 07:36 AM
Alric

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So the global market is government? International trade between corporation A and corporation B is government? I think you need to reexamine your definitions of what is and isn't government. And the government isn't forced cooperation? Really? Can I sell weed to another individual now? Can I say marry someone of my same sex right now? Can I travel to Cuba right now?

A deal between two parties isn't large scale cooperation. And just because some government is forced cooperation, doesn't mean all government is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if that is true then people can come together to create a government that gives out free healthcare, free clothes and free food. Also I never agreed to this contract therefore I am not held to it AND if government is no longer following a contract that you think I should follow then by that very action government has broken the contract and it is irrational that I still abide by it.

They could come together and do that, and they did in some places. And you are right, if the government doesn't stand up to its side, then there is no reason you should either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You are setting up this line at your own volition. That is the define of arbitrary. No longer should it be 'No taxation without representation' but 'No more thief, no more taxation'

Its not my own volition. There are large groups of people that believe the same thing. You can either believe all tax is bad, no tax is bad, or taxes are bad but a reasonable amount is acceptable. The third is in no way arbitrary, and is what most people believe.
10-11-2009, 07:48 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

A deal between two parties isn't large scale cooperation. And just because some government is forced cooperation, doesn't mean all government is.

The free-market, is it or isn't it large scale cooperation? Government is a monopoly on the legal system in the established region, therefore you cannot accurately say which laws are forced and which ones aren't. Perhaps there is a neighborhood that doesn't like drugs, they can make a contract in that neighborhood in which drugs would be deemed illegal. Now they could very well say that drugs can be open and free, that you can smoke them out on your front lawn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

They could come together and do that, and they did in some places. And you are right, if the government doesn't stand up to its side, then there is no reason you should either.

Well I never signed the constitution, I never explicitly agreed to it, and the government isn't following it then I'm not going to be held to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

Its not my own volition. There are large groups of people that believe the same thing. You can either believe all tax is bad, no tax is bad, or taxes are bad but a reasonable amount is acceptable. The third is in no way arbitrary, and is what most people believe.

If you want to give the IRS all of your income, some of your income, or whatever percentage you can conceive then I don't have a problem with that, it is your property. However that is not taxation. It could be considered charity, or payment for services rendered, however taxation itself is the widespread thief of income, whether or not you agree with it.
10-11-2009, 09:48 AM
Alric

Well we can just go with your idea then. Make taxes purely optional, then display publicly the people who do not pay. If everyone in the community feels like they no longer want to do business with that person, they are free to.
10-11-2009, 10:24 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alric

Well we can just go with your idea then. Make taxes purely optional, then display publicly the people who do not pay. If everyone in the community feels like they no longer want to do business with that person, they are free to.

Absolutely fair. Just no baring other protection agencies from offering services to those who do not want to have governmental ones.