Freedomain Radio

1. I'm loving the content that I'm finding available here. Absolutely amazing. Lots of information here which certainly does make a point.

2. I'm a silly social democrat in Ontario, Canada.

3. My story is that I'd stumbled upon the stefbot and listened to a video. I was intringued... but didn't have anywhere near enough information to make any changes... however as the idiot I am I didn't subscribe and such. I went on the my usual grazing forums... posted essentially to get more information from the resident libertarians and anarchists... they basically came to the thread in to call me an idiot for not being an anarchist already pretty much... I simply voiced issues that I see. I wanted answers to these issues and I also wanted points that are positive in that they are not just outright attacks on the current system. Such as "Politicians are corrupt" so therefore anarchism who doesn't have politicians is correct. This is just silly. You can just replace the politicians with ones who aren't corrupt and the situation is fixed. They essentially provided no positive claims. They didn't dispel any points of mine... I suddenly remembered which video I'd watched and how it had linked to one of yours in the "Related Videos" are of youtube. I have finally made it to the channel and am now watching the videos. Now there's lots and lots of content here. So I suspect things have been addressed... but let me ask the questions anyway. :)

(a.) DROs completely new to me... in the videos you address the chance that they might become a new government. I'm not to sure if that's honestly the real risk; and the fact that these DROs would essentially and likely become high market share holders. Much along the lines of a Walmart or ebay or whatever else. Furthermore... wouldn't it be advantageous for a DRO to become large? In that they start to have a much larger audience and thusly those who deal with them... also have a wider selection of people who they know are good people to deal with. Becoming large to me doesn't necessarily denote evil anyhow. Moreover; wouldn't it also be very good to have collusion essentially... in that all these DROs share their essential 'Contract rating' so you can have a much better understanding of people.

I honestly don't see any real issue given that even occurs in (a.) 

(b.)Aren't DROs essentially small-large limited governments in of themselves in a sense? I'm not sure... I'm pretty sure I'd listened to how you essentially said that those people who break rulings or what have you... it would be in the DROs interest in catching these people and putting them in jail. I'm still muddling through with all this content. However from this point...

If a woman gets raped, she then applies to her DRO for restitution. The DRO then finds her rapist - using the most advanced forensic techniques available - and sends an agent to knock on his door.

“Good morning, sir,” the agent will say. “You have been charged with rape, and I'm here to inform you of your options. We wish to make this process as painless and non-intrusive as possible for you, and so will schedule a trial at the time of your earliest convenience. If you do not attend this trial, or testify falsely, or attempt to flee, we shall apply significant sanctions against you, which are outlined in your existing DRO contract.

Who is to say he has an existing DRO contract? These DRO contracts are essentially voluntary are they not? 

 “If you are found to be innocent of this crime, we will pay you the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be funded by the woman who has charged you with rape.
 

However... this man may not be innocent at all... the woman simply couldn't prove the charge. So justice is not served and he goes free. Which is wrong and also occurs in current society no doubt... but the 20,000$ funded by the woman(which may essentially bankrupt her) can be pretty damaging to her.

 “Good afternoon, sir,” the agent will say. “You have been found guilty of rape, and I'm here to inform you of your punishment. We have a reciprocal agreement with your bank, which has now closed down your accounts, and transferred the money to us.
 

So your DRO which in my opinion seems to be a limited government... has essentially the power to coerce and do infact have the power to provide such consequences to these people. Which gets me to the essential fact behind how you define what a government is... too which I would agree with no doubt.

A government is a conceptual description for a group of people who claim and possess the moral right to initiate the use of violence against others within a specific geographical area.

Now there are a number of ways to actually go through with this... one being in the direction of national defense. As a government they claim the right to use violence against others who wish to come and conquer our society and remove our rights and freedoms... or perhaps conquer us to give us rights and freedoms that had been taken away by the government. The government also claims the right to use violence against violent people within the borders. Such as to stop murderers. The extent of this violence is not necessarily going to be to the extent of that we will be taking these people out back, they are going to slip on some ice in the summer a few times. However simply place them in jail. Which is exactly what is occuring in the situation in the situation a man is discovered to be guilty of the crime of rape... for example.

 If you set foot on the street outside your house, which is owned privately, you will be physically removed for trespassing.

So essentially his house becomes a jail.

 
You will spend your entire life running, hiding and begging, and will never find peace, solace or comfort in any place.

Unless he discontinues using the name he uses... or do these DROs require you to be finger printed, dna tested, rfid chipped? So you can't just change your identity

The vast majority of those in jail are nonviolent offenders, enslaved and in chains because they used recreational drugs, or gambled, or went to a prostitute, or didn't pay all their taxes, or other such innocuous nonsense – or turned to crime because state ‘vice’ prohibitions made crime so profitable!

I have not actually made it to any video too which this has been addressed yet... but basically... how do you define what is illegal in your society? Perhaps I agree or disagree with say recreational drugs being illegal or not... however these things are things that the society democratically came to say was a valid reason to jail people for.. just as you would essentially jail a rapist. How does your society decide whether or not Rape is illegal?

(c.) Stealing - forcing a transfer of property against the will of the owner - is wrong. Naturally, this definition perfectly applies to the practice of taxation, which is the initiation of violence against largely-disarmed citizens in order to take their money against their will.

Ok so lets say hypothetically that we have this contract... being it an implied contract or written. I provide my product. After you finish with my product you pay me X. The amount being paid does not necessarily have to be a set value. It can be a percentage. Such as a lawyer fighting pro bono who wants 5% of your money you earn after that lawyer wins the case; you pre-agree to that lawyer that given he wins the case, he gets 5% of the value. OR I live in an apartment I pre-agree to pay $300 a month. I live in that apartment for 1 month. I now owe the owner of that apartment $300. Now if I'm not WILLING to pay that 5% or $300. They call the police... is it theft from me if they actually give that lawyer 5% or the landlord $300?

Compare this to taxation. Say you are a student part time worker... you never make more than X amount income. You don't pay any taxes. You than are given the option of voluntarily giving the money to the government. If you don't give the money... they give any money you had given back... or not demand that you pay them anything. Now lets say this student finds a new job. He is suddenly is making over that certain amount. Where he will now have to pay taxes. He pre-agreed to this fact. By taking the opportunity of the job you know that you will have to pay a percentage of your money to the government. So he pre-agrees to paying this albeit something around 30% rather than 5%

If after the fact AFTER he had taken in the opportunity and service.. he decides not to pay his landlord the $300 or pay the government 30%. He is in trouble. Now the difference between the current system and the system you propose is that there are no violent police... yet the consequences for breaking such contracts are very much still in existence. Perhaps it might not become the same level of outright boycott against your person... but perhaps anyone who does as such would not be able to find another landlord ever again.

Our choice, then, is between a system which removes the tiny minority of evil people from society, rehabilitates them if possible, and makes them work productively to support their own confinement - or a state system which spends most of its time and energies enslaving innocent people, while letting the evil and insane roam free.

I do believe Norway is the country who effectively runs a jail on an island... which has mass murders in this jail... except there are no bars, there are very few guards... the criminals are possible to go into society and have jobs there. Or on the island they can work on a garden for food... or they can work to prepare the food. Furthermore the issue of jailing people who commit no real significant crimes... such as potheads. This can be fixed democratically in to bring a change to the laws and to stop the jailing of people of this manner.

Now those are things that I'm still seeing issue with. I still haven't barely touched the surface of content so...

One of my points which I have issue with... too which you have addressed I think very well and properly. Though I do think there might be an overall continued issue in this position... but I'm also of the opinion it might not exactly address it all.

Won't all the poor kids not afford to goto school you address this in that basically since there are so many of us with this concern... we will make sure that all kids are educated. Very good point. You further point out how honestly? What kind of education are they really getting? Awesome point.

The issue here however I see is that even with all those people who are out in the USA to make sure people get proper health care; before medicare anyway. There was still many people who were not covered. So honestly I don't know if all children will be educated with even a minimum schooling amount. Would love to hear more on this.

The worst thing however is... once you pull government out... places like the Kansas state school board... don't even need to worry about creating an insane fake science hypothesis called intelligent design... they can suddenly outright teach creationism to their children. So perhaps by going to a private sector, as you propose, would create a much better education IDEALLY. However in practice it would likely lead to a jesus camp rather than actual education in some places.

So how does your system fight against such things?

I think I'm going to leave it at this. Can't wait to get a response. 

Thanks, those are all excellent questions, I will do my best to respond.

Now, DROs aren't limited governments, because a government is by definition a group of people who claim and enforce the right to initiate violence in a given geographical area, against the wishes of the citizens.

DROs are perfectly voluntary, and optional, and so do not conform to the definition of a government.

It is certainly true that a rapist may not have a DRO contract. That doesn't matter at all, though, since those people who do have DRO contracts, who provide him with food and shelter will be informed that he is a "nonperson," and that no interaction with him will be protected in any way. If a landlord rents an apartment to someone who has been rejected by all DROs, his DRO will not help him in any way in that interaction.

Thus it would be like trying to rent a car without insurance -- practically impossible. Yes, of course DROs could attempt to arise that may try to "cover the uncoverable," but no reputable DRO would deal with them, and since they were attempting to enter into contracts with people who had broken all prior contracts, it is hard to see that they would survive economically in the long run.

The problem of false accusation is endemic to any legal system, and could be handled by DROs in any number of ways, such as charging the person whose accusation turns out to be false (Perhaps with one "freebie.")

Miscarriages of justice will undoubtedly occur, since a free society is not perfection. The point is that those miscarriages of justice will be highly negative to the DRO, in a way that does not occur in a statist society.

And yes, the house does become a jail if you refuse to answer charges against you. (Please note that these are only possible ways that all this can work.) I have no particular problem with that. No one is obliged to offer you free use of their property.

I don't really know how DROs will work with the problem of identity. I certainly do believe that thumb scans are far more convenient then carrying around ID, but that will be for the free market to decide. If you want to join a DRO that does not require identification, that of course will be your choice -- if enough people share your choice, such a DRO will inevitably come into existence.  There will be costs and benefits to all of this, which I strongly suspect will come down to thumbprints or something like that.

As to what will be prohibited in a free society, all I can say is that undoubtedly certain crimes such as rape, theft and murder will be prohibited, for both economic and moral reasons.

However, "vice crimes" such as visiting prostitutes, drug use and so on, will not be "illegal," since it is only economically productive to outlaw them if you can fund that ban through compulsory taxation.

If your DRO comes to you and says: "We will charge you another $500 a year and attempt to get rid of drug use in your neighborhood," how many people would be willing to pay that?

And even if the majority of people are willing to pay that, how would they feel when the DRO came back the following year (as it inevitably will) and demands $1,000, since it turns out the drug use increased as a result of their attempt to curtail it?

I couldn't really follow your example of renting the apartment, perhaps you could try again?

Thanks again, and let me know what you think!  

Well lets hope quotes work :)

Now, DROs aren't limited governments, because a government is by definition a group of people who claim and enforce the right to initiate violence in a given geographical area, against the wishes of the citizens.

I hadn't seen the against the wishes of the citizens before. I understand the point and it may be just nitpicking... but dont we democratically agree upon creating such laws... so in a way the wishes of the citizens are giving the right to initiate such violence?

That doesn't matter at all, though, since those people who do have DRO contracts, who provide him with food and shelter will be informed that he is a "nonperson,"

While this brings up the good old days before unions and such... were there was a literal blacklist against workers. Where they couldn't go get a job because all the employers were friends. I think the smaller towns were capable of doing this... but if you instituted this in a city much like Toronto; wouldn't it be highly impractical essentially to send around a picture of the person. or what have you. Now given you propose below this thumbprint scanners. Which fixes this issue somewhat. However finger prints can be cut off. etc. It just doesn't seem very practical in the same sense. Given violence from the police is certainly not better... but it does seem more practical.

The problem of false accusation is endemic to any legal system, and could be handled by DROs in any number of ways, such as charging the person whose accusation turns out to be false (Perhaps with one "freebie.")

(Please note that these are only possible ways that all this can work.)

which I strongly suspect will come down to thumbprints or something like that.

Perhaps eye or voice scanners.Definitely more practical in that these are very hard to change.

I couldn't really follow your example of renting the apartment, perhaps you could try again?

It wasnt actually in relation to DROs.  I am essentially explaining how I do not see Taxation as theft.

You can live in Canadian society and never pay taxes. The moment you get a job which moves you into a tax bracket essentially.. you know you will have to pay taxes... By accepting the job. You are also accepting the cost too which you must pay to hold that job. This being exactly the same as having to pay your landlord the cost too which you accepted/agreed upon before you moved into that apartment. If you do not pay this cost... You cannot keep that apartment or keep that job. Even if after the fact... you are unwilling to pay your landlord or the government the money because you do not accept the level of service or any other complaints. To not pay your landlord after living there or the government after the fact is theft itself. Which is why not paying your taxes or not paying your landlord is fought against with the same force. These are even analogous to Essentially going to a restaurant.. ordering something from the menu. Which has a price next to it.. By ordering it you pre-agree to pay that cost for the food. If you finish eating that meal and you run off and not pay that bill. It is theft.

 Which is why when people who say Taxation is theft... try not paying your taxes. What is truly happening is Taxation is a cost of living essentially. If you choose not to pay your taxes... that is the action which is theft.

 
Anyway I'm off to respond to a christian who believes Jesus existed.
All I can say though is that you are certainly convincing me of your position. I just have a few hangups still due mainly to my ignorance no doubt... Given I was in a catholic school and when we got to the topic of anarchism they defined it.. albeit accurately in the sense they called it essentially without rulers. Which is what the word means in the greek. However that's basically all we discusses about on anarchy. So my knowledge of anarchy is from teaching myself essentially.

Munky99999:

You can live in Canadian society and never pay taxes. The moment you get a job which moves you into a tax bracket essentially.. you know you will have to pay taxes... By accepting the job. You are also accepting the cost too which you must pay to hold that job. This being exactly the same as having to pay your landlord the cost too which you accepted/agreed upon before you moved into that apartment. If you do not pay this cost... You cannot keep that apartment or keep that job. Even if after the fact... you are unwilling to pay your landlord or the government the money because you do not accept the level of service or any other complaints. To not pay your landlord after living there or the government after the fact is theft itself. Which is why not paying your taxes or not paying your landlord is fought against with the same force. These are even analogous to Essentially going to a restaurant.. ordering something from the menu. Which has a price next to it.. By ordering it you pre-agree to pay that cost for the food. If you finish eating that meal and you run off and not pay that bill. It is theft.

 Which is why when people who say Taxation is theft... try not paying your taxes. What is truly happening is Taxation is a cost of living essentially. If you choose not to pay your taxes... that is the action which is theft.

First, the situation with the landlord is not the same as the situation with the state.  The landlord is the other party to your contract and each of you can chose weather to deal with the other.  However the government is not actually a party to an employment contract and there is no opportunity to opt out.  Even if both you and your employer desired not to deal with the government, it would be a crime for them to hire you without paying taxes or reporting income (at least in the US) and for you to work without paying taxes.

Second, is a protection racket theft?  Take the stereotypic protection racket in a mob movie.  A man in a nice suit requests that a shopkeeper pay excessive sums for insurance while his goon makes comments about how flammable the place is and the risks of crime.  When opened the store in the neighborhood, he implicitly agreed to pay the costs needed to keep the store.  He cannot justly keep his store without paying the costs.  There is no difference that those costs to the mob for the privilege of the mob not hurting him. This is the same argument you used to argue that taxation is not theft.  By what principle is it a valid argument there, but not a valid argument here?

First, the situation with the landlord is not the same as the situation with the state.  The landlord is the other party to your contract and each of you can chose weather to deal with the other.  However the government is not actually a party to an employment contract and there is no opportunity to opt out.  Even if both you and your employer desired not to deal with the government, it would be a crime for them to hire you without paying taxes or reporting income (at least in the US) and for you to work without paying taxes.

This isn't very accurate. As Steve Jobs for example reports $1 of income. Or microsoft for example pays no taxes. Furthermore... dealing with the government certainly isn't mandatory. You may leave the country any time. Soon as you do that... assuming you have no commited crimes and they will wish for your extradition... you no longer deal with that government anymore. So yes you do have the option of dealing with the government or not. However if you go into the government's borders. You suddenly are taking advantage of services which are available within those borders. Which have an associated cost. Albeit this cost isn't a universal annual cost. It is instead taken from people who take a job or run a business or do something which incurs taxes. These people previously agreed upon paying this cost. So I very much see the analogies as valid.

Second, is a protection racket theft?

Whether or not it is theft is a question... Do they actually provide protection from common criminals? If yes. They are providing a service at a cost. Thusly not theft. If no. Then it is theft. This is beyond the point. Protection rackets are wrong because they extort the protection. Which is unlike government.

 You have Person X. He wants to open up a nightclub. Before he does anything... he knows that he will have to pay taxes. There are also deductions so it is possible that he works it out such that he does not pay taxes. On top of this.. lets say he cannot afford to purchase a nightclub himself. He has to rent. So he looks out, finds a good nightclub, starts renting. He gets a business license. Before he ever hires any other people. He has 2 costs at least. One is rent and the other is taxes.He accepts these as a cost... or why else would he continue on...lets jump ahead to the grand opening. Everything is running well. His books are balanced. He is in MANY contracts. Be these literal pen and paper contracts or simply implied contracts. If this man does not wish to honour one or more of these contracts... he will be accused of theft, or similar crimes. Which contract they break should not depend in any way. You can simply look at the free market value or similar of such a crime.. and give the appropriate punishment. Albeit I tend to have been swayed quite heavily by Stefan in that police should no longer be using violence as the punishment. However such non-violent punishments I think are not necessarily stateless only capable.

A man in a nice suit requests that a shopkeeper pay excessive sums for insurance while his goon makes comments about how flammable the place is and the risks of crime.  When opened the store in the neighborhood, he implicitly agreed to pay the costs needed to keep the store.

You would need to show that the extortion occurs before the lets say 'nightclub' is ever created and they somehow threatened the existence of this non-existent 'nightclub'. The fact here is that the cost of the 'nightclub' being taxed is universal knowledge. You know for a fact that if you are in the USA or Canada. You will have to pay taxes. The mafia extortion on the other hand is not universal knowledge. Many of these people open businesses thinking they do not have to pay any money to a mafia. These mafia people often come into the story well after the fact and threaten the business if they do not pay.

To make your example valid would be the potential business owner is aware, WITHOUT the man in the nice suit coming and stopping by, that he will have to pay rent, taxes, and a percentage to the mafia. He than accepts those terms and ventures into creating his business. There is absolutely nothing wrong here. No man in a nice suit coming with a thug. To create extortion. He previously agrees to pay them for protection. If he did not agree to paying that protection money... he simply has to NOT create the nightclub. Issue solved.

Now that example of where all business owners or potential business owners are aware of the fact that they must pay protection money... chance are the police also would know... so chances are that such a mafia would be shut down. Given the police are capable of finding actual evidence of extortion and not just business owners giving money to them for protection.

By what principle is it a valid argument there, but not a valid argument here?

I hope I explained this well enough above. 

Munky99999:

Furthermore... dealing with the government certainly isn't mandatory. You may leave the country any time. Soon as you do that... assuming you have no commited crimes and they will wish for your extradition... you no longer deal with that government anymore. So yes you do have the option of dealing with the government or not. However if you go into the government's borders. You suddenly are taking advantage of services which are available within those borders. Which have an associated cost. Albeit this cost isn't a universal annual cost. It is instead taken from people who take a job or run a business or do something which incurs taxes. These people previously agreed upon paying this cost. So I very much see the analogies as valid.

 

Those calling themselves the "government" aren't in a position to offer the ultimatum of "get out or submit to our rules" because not a single one of them can claim ownership over my land or your land or anyone else's land than their own.  It's as if someone came to your house and said, "Give me money or abandon your home."  There is no way that can be construed to be just.

Munky99999:

Whether or not it is theft is a question... Do they actually provide protection from common criminals? If yes. They are providing a service at a cost. Thusly not theft. If no. Then it is theft. This is beyond the point. Protection rackets are wrong because they extort the protection. Which is unlike government.

It doesn't matter whether or not they provide a service for you or not, I would argue it's still theft, and either way it is a blatant act of coercion.  By your reasoning, it would be perfectly moral for me to bake you a cake and then upon giving it to you, demand that you pay for my services, even though you never contracted me to bake the cake in the first place.

Munky99999:

 You have Person X. He wants to open up a nightclub. Before he does anything... he knows that he will have to pay taxes. There are also deductions so it is possible that he works it out such that he does not pay taxes. On top of this.. lets say he cannot afford to purchase a nightclub himself. He has to rent. So he looks out, finds a good nightclub, starts renting. He gets a business license. Before he ever hires any other people. He has 2 costs at least. One is rent and the other is taxes.He accepts these as a cost... or why else would he continue on...lets jump ahead to the grand opening. Everything is running well. His books are balanced. He is in MANY contracts. Be these literal pen and paper contracts or simply implied contracts. If this man does not wish to honour one or more of these contracts... he will be accused of theft, or similar crimes. Which contract they break should not depend in any way. You can simply look at the free market value or similar of such a crime.. and give the appropriate punishment. Albeit I tend to have been swayed quite heavily by Stefan in that police should no longer be using violence as the punishment. However such non-violent punishments I think are not necessarily stateless only capable.

You would need to show that the extortion occurs before the lets say 'nightclub' is ever created and they somehow threatened the existence of this non-existent 'nightclub'. The fact here is that the cost of the 'nightclub' being taxed is universal knowledge. You know for a fact that if you are in the USA or Canada. You will have to pay taxes. The mafia extortion on the other hand is not universal knowledge. Many of these people open businesses thinking they do not have to pay any money to a mafia. These mafia people often come into the story well after the fact and threaten the business if they do not pay.

To make your example valid would be the potential business owner is aware, WITHOUT the man in the nice suit coming and stopping by, that he will have to pay rent, taxes, and a percentage to the mafia. He than accepts those terms and ventures into creating his business. There is absolutely nothing wrong here. No man in a nice suit coming with a thug. To create extortion. He previously agrees to pay them for protection. If he did not agree to paying that protection money... he simply has to NOT create the nightclub. Issue solved.

Now that example of where all business owners or potential business owners are aware of the fact that they must pay protection money... chance are the police also would know... so chances are that such a mafia would be shut down. Given the police are capable of finding actual evidence of extortion and not just business owners giving money to them for protection.

Does knowingly moving into a dangerous neighborhood morally justify any harm that comes to you?  Because that seems to be the premise you are building from.  If I know that when I buy some land, some self-righteous thugs are going to demand that I pay a fee for me merely owning my own land, it morally justifies the actions of the thugs?  Their actions may be expected, but their actions are most certainly still coercive.

Those calling themselves the "government" aren't in a position to offer the ultimatum of "get out or submit to our rules"

I was dispelling the claim that taxes aren't voluntary. The sheer fact that you can leave makes them voluntary. Once you understand that they are voluntary you still may or may not agree with paying them in the first place... which I suspect is the larger majority. I am doing a poll currently to find out if taxes were voluntary would you pay taxes. I am getting some rather interesting results and responses. The government however isn't going to say get out. Unless you aren't a citizen anyhow... there are many other options however, such as take a job where you pay no taxes. Or use deductions and similar avoidance methods to not pay taxes. OR democratically change it so taxes become voluntary. Than deal with the consequences of that choice. I do believe the USA and their Articles of Confederation basically proves that point.

because not a single one of them can claim ownership over my land or your land or anyone else's land than their own.

Though it may be your land in a sense... try to declare your land a sovereign nation.

It's as if someone came to your house and said, "Give me money or abandon your home."  There is no way that can be construed to be just.

I have already addressed the taxation=extortion claim. I have shown this how it is a false analogy. I won't bother to go further in this.
 

It doesn't matter whether or not they provide a service for you or not,I would argue it's still theft

Again as I have already pointed out. The service being rendered or not which is the service of 'protection' denotes whether or not it is theft. The other issue is extortion which is what makes the example illegal... As I have addressed the claim of taxation=extortion this is probably why you want to call it theft. Which is incorrect.

and either way it is a blatant act of coercion.

Yes that is the idea behind what extortion is. 

By your reasoning, it would be perfectly moral for me to bake you a cake and then upon giving it to you, demand that you pay for my services, even though you never contracted me to bake the cake in the first place.

Actually this shows your ignorance of how implication contracts of fact work. It is action + action = contract. So you prepare the cake. That is the first action... The second action would be my acceptance of the cake. If I accepted the cake. I owe money. Your example however has 1 action from 1 party. This by no means becomes an implied contract.

Does knowingly moving into a dangerous neighborhood morally justify any harm that comes to you?

If you move into a dangerous neighbourhood.  Is there an absolute 100% chance that harm will occur to you? Furthermore you haven't established taxation as morally unjust or harmful. So you fail on another analogy. You receive services for the taxation. So if the taxation is harmful in that they take away money from you. Paying a bill at a restaurant would also be harmful to you. That does not compute with me.

Because that seems to be the premise you are building from.

I'm glad you said "seems" because otherwise your false analogy would have also been a strawman.

If I know that when I buy some land, some self-righteous thugs are going to demand that I pay a fee for me merely owning my own land,

Is there a 100% chance of these thugs extorting money? If you say yes... you may go back to how I already dispelled this claim.

it morally justifies the actions of the thugs?

certainly not. You would see this if you understood how your false analogy of taxation=extortion does not hold up.

You haven't answered anything.

I have answered every point too which I have found issue with. I am not here to proselytize anyone because my position is already actively accepted by the majority; though popularity obvious does not mean truth. I am here to listen to evidence for your position. The burden of proof is on you guys and bringing faulty arguments such as taxation=evil doesn't stand up as evidence.

If you cannot address my points and instead simply state that I haven't answered anything which is incorrect. I see this very same thing with creationists. Albeit that evolution is not accepted by the majority; which again popularity does not mean truth. The burden of proof however is not on evolution any longer. It is on creationists for example. I go to creationist area and state issues I see with creationism and do read what they have written to bring up specific points too which they address. I than allow them to bring up their arguments against my issues. The same result always seems to come up. Which is why I think the conversation may essentially be over. As the following:

If it is theft, then you must condemn taxation.  If it isn't then you couldn't complain if I showed up at your house with a pistol demanding your life savings.  Either say it isn't or say it is and take the consequences.

...has already been addressed and shown to be faulty.

I will continue to muddle through all the content and perhaps the answers lay in there. I will also continue to monitor this thread in hopes that my points become addressed.

PS.

I would also like to simply add on that while popularity doesn't explain truth, it also doesn't explain where the burden of proof is. Currently the burden of proof is upon anarchists. Unfortunate fact perhaps but true. 

So, taxation is not theft because you can leave, correct?

Tell me, where would you go?  Every continent, bar Antartica, is full of various mafioso carrying brightly colored flags that will demand a portion of your labor just for existing on their land.  Are you suggesting that because we could go live in Antartica without taxes, they are not extortion?

Also, can you tell me, are there any governmental programs you're not happy with?  War in Afghanistan?  Socialized Medicine?  Subsidies to Oil Companies?  Exploitation of Native Populations?  Anything at all you'd not pay for, if you had the choice?  Are you not in a position of being exploited by having to pay for these programs by threat of prison, nay death if you don't pay?  Now, imagine, that like us, you would not pay for ANYTHING the government does, if you had a choice, because you think voluntary organizations could do it better.  Can you honestly tell me that the threat of death for not paying for these programs is not exploitation?  If so, what is your definition of exploitation?! 

nexalacer:

So, taxation is not theft because you can leave, correct?

Tell me, where would you go?  Every continent, bar Antartica, is full of various mafioso carrying brightly colored flags that will demand a portion of your labor just for existing on their land.  Are you suggesting that because we could go live in Antartica without taxes, they are not extortion?

Also, can you tell me, are there any governmental programs you're not happy with?  War in Afghanistan?  Socialized Medicine?  Subsidies to Oil Companies?  Exploitation of Native Populations?  Anything at all you'd not pay for, if you had the choice?  Are you not in a position of being exploited by having to pay for these programs by threat of prison, nay death if you don't pay?  Now, imagine, that like us, you would not pay for ANYTHING the government does, if you had a choice, because you think voluntary organizations could do it better.  Can you honestly tell me that the threat of death for not paying for these programs is not exploitation?  If so, what is your definition of exploitation?! 

 Let's say X country is legitimately owned by a country and that the land of that country is leased indefinitely. In this case, it is fine to say "love it or leave it". Of course this is not the case. So, you must address the issue of property rights rather than claiming there is no suitable place to live. The government does not legitimately own the US or X country or my land. Therefore, it's not "love it or leave it", but rather "love it or get shot without a voluntary agreement to such measures beforehand".

Munky99999:

While this brings up the good old days before unions and such... were there was a literal blacklist against workers. Where they couldn't go get a job because all the employers were friends.

If someone behaves really badly, it is realistic to think no one wants to employ him and employers would cooperate to warn each other. But if  he is of some use, it would pay an employer enormously to hire him on the cheap on a location where he can not do much harm (e.g. a rapist could chop down trees in the forest). Excluding people from your work force/customer base reduces the employers profits, so a nice balance will form between

1.Trying to include as much people in his business as possible and increase his profits

2.Excluding the individuals that really form a threat, which hopefully corrects their behavior. 

Tell me, where would you go?  Every continent, bar Antartica, is full of various mafioso carrying brightly colored flags that will demand a portion of your labor just for existing on their land.

There are tax havens and places where taxes aren't mandatory. For all I care you live off a cruise liner sized boat in international waters.

Are you suggesting that because we could go live in Antartica without taxes, they are not extortion?

Yes. Despite your attempt at trying to make it sound OMGZ TERRIBLE NOT ANTARCTICA. The Bahamas on the otherhand is another example. You can go there and live without taxes. Though good luck in getting justice and protections among other issues.

Also, can you tell me, are there any governmental programs you're not happy with?

I am more or less happy with the services I am getting in Canada. Things I disagree with I can democratically change. Or I bite the bullet and accept that issue.

Anything at all you'd not pay for, if you had the choice?

For the most part no. The issues I do have I can go to my representative and attempt to make change. If it never happened... I either accept it or leave. I don't see any issue in Canada that I disagree with and cannot change. If there was such issues... for example there was a fundamental law that cannot be changed because the majority of the country was Muslim... where anytime you are caught in the same room alone with a non-relative woman. We killed these people. I would be escaping and leaving immediately.

Are you not in a position of being exploited by having to pay for these programs by threat of prison, nay death if you don't pay?

As I see not paying your taxes is basically the same thing as not paying your landlord or bill at the restaurant. You enter an implied contract everytime you have to pay taxes. If you break that implied contract.. you are the one in the wrong. When they come to get you in a non-violent way such as a letter to show up in court. If you do not do that... you are in the wrong and you need to be punished. Does the government or a DRO have a monopoly to the point that they can make it impossible to live in society... I don't think so. So arresting these people in a non-violent way and placing them in jail is a good way. If the person resists arrest. They again now are the one bringing violence into the situation. Police may need to
defend themselves using violence. I think that may be a necessity because the government doesn't even have the power to essentially blacklist these people from taking advantage in society.

Now, imagine, that like us, you would not pay for ANYTHING the government does, if you had a choice, because you think voluntary organizations could do it better.

I'm not yet at the point to believe that they do things better. I am seeing issues.

Can you honestly tell me that the threat of death for not paying for these programs is not exploitation?  If so, what is your definition of exploitation?!

I do not support the threat of death for people who don't pay their taxes. I don't even think the USA has capital punishment for tax evaders. So I suppose you are talking about how there could be the situations when police come to arrest people who are thieves and these people resist arrest and resist to the point that deadly force is necessary for the police in self defense.

Let's say X country is legitimately owned by a country and that the land of that country is leased indefinitely. In this case, it is fine to say "love it or leave it". Of course this is not the case. So, you must address the issue of property rights rather than claiming there is no suitable place to live. The government does not legitimately own the US or X country or my land. Therefore, it's not "love it or leave it", but rather "love it or get shot without a voluntary agreement to such measures beforehand".

I'm not sure if you were replying to me as you were quoting nexalacer.

The unfortunate thing is that governments do own the land. Some describe it as the ground down while you own ground up. You have bought the area on top of the land essentially. Yet they continue to own the land itself. Which is why you cannot own land and declare yourself a sovereign nation. The only true exception of this is land which is based under the title of Allodial land. Nobody within the country is ever given this title. As if you did get this title you would NOT have to pay taxes, ANYTHING would be legal to be done on your land. Irregardless to the law of the country's laws. You are given the Feudal Land title on the otherhand. Which is actually for the express understanding that the government still owns the land and limits you from freedoms that you would have had given if you had the TRUE property rights on the land.

If someone behaves really badly, it is realistic to think no one wants to employ him and employers would cooperate to warn each other. But if  he is of some use, it would pay an employer enormously to hire him on the cheap on a location where he can not do much harm (e.g. a rapist could chop down trees in the forest).

I agree. This concept however is not Anarchism-only. Hopefully [url works :)

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2421818120070827 

These same people are moved out of society so they cannot do any more harm. However,  they are still productive people in society.

Excluding people from your work force/customer base reduces the employers profits, so a nice balance will form between

1.Trying to include as much people in his business as possible and increase his profits

2.Excluding the individuals that really form a threat, which hopefully corrects their behavior.

The problem that I see is that some cities are so large that communication isnt practical in stopping people. So you require a mechanism to essentially blacklist people... but how long until that is used in a corruptive way? 

 edit/trying to fix the urls