Economics.org.au

Umm, social contract theory?
JQ

Thanks for commenting. What do you think of Rousseau's:

Sovereignty cannot be represented, for the same reason that it cannot be alienated; its essence is the general will, and will cannot be represented — either it is the general will or it is something else; there is no intermediate possibility. Thus the people’s deputies are not, and could not be, its representatives; they are merely its agents; and they cannot decide anything finally. Any law which the people has not ratified in person is void; it is not a law at all.

[Source: The Social Contract, trans. Maurice Cranston (London: Penguin, 1968), p. 141, bk. III, ch. 15.]

Not a fan of Rousseau. I'd probably go for Rawls – I suspect most of those you cite would go for Locke

JQ
Social contract theory is pure fiction.

Contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration. A writing signed is also required for important contracts including sale of land. Where is the offer, where the acceptance, by which I became bound to obey and pay tribute in matters of life and death?

Besides, there is nothing binding politicians to perform their promises. Under the federal Trade Practices Act, and similar legislation in the States, "misleading or deceptive conduct, or conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive" is illegal, but only "in trade and commerce", not in politics or government. Politicians can and routinely do lie on anything they feel like, including confiscating billions of dollars and killing people. You have no legal remedy whatsoever for breach of contract.

Besides, contract is already a social phenomenon. We don't say "social language" or social morality". What is added by saying "social" contract?

The fact is that, as to alleged social contract, there is no oral contract. There is no written contract. There is nothing the law recognises as contract. One party is bound in unlimited submission, while the other party can alter the terms unilaterally. The very idea is mendacious bullshit.

I don't recall ever signing a "social contract." Do you?

What do you think of Hoppe on Rawls? The key paragraph (where, like you, he uses the "z" word) is:

Rawls supposedly gets his criteria from know-nothing epistemological zombies sitting behind a "veil of ignorance," engaged in unconstrained considerations of alternative social orders for actual, non-zombie persons. For one thing, "Who cares?" What has this to do with our, human problems? But secondly, even if we wanted to know, we could not even try finding out, because we are not zombies behind a veil, but individuals who must continuously act in order to make a living. Rawls's contribution is thus irrelevant, non-operational, and self-contradictory on top.

Hi Benjamin,

Should there be 'public goods' at all? If yes, then how will these be paid for?

Who pays for the defence of a country? Voluntary payments?

How about defence of private property rights?

I'm guessing this might be taken care of by a private military/police force?

I'd love to learn more about this…

Thanks,
JJ

P.S. I hope I'm not asking dumb questions.

John,
Maybe you ought to look at the components of a contract. The so called 'social contract' is not a legal contract because among other reasons it is not voluntary and does not feature an offer and acceptance.

If we hypothetically accept it to be a contract it would be easily invalidated in a court of law as you'd argue you entered it under duress, with undue influence and arguably as most tax payers get next to nothing back (all benefits go to non productive people) there is an element of unconscionability in your so called 'social contract'.

JJ, the standard answer is given by Locke. If (having grown up here and received all sorts of benefits from our society) you don't like the social contract on offer, you are free to leave at any time. Choosing to stay implies acceptance.

BM, that just seems like a rant. Maybe you can find someone making a coherent point along the same lines.

On your response to JJ: Being free to leave does not mean that those who leave you free to leave necessarily have any right to do what they are doing to you and your property. If a highwayman says, "Your money or your life?" you can always give him your money and go on your way, but that doesn't quite make for a consensual relationship. And choosing to stay does not necessarily imply acceptance, any more than choosing to pay a ransom turns kidnapping into babysitting.

On your claim that Hoppe on Rawls is incoherent: What is incoherent about the brief Hoppe passage on the veil of ignorance I quoted, please? Does it not illustrate fundamental problems in Rawls' theory?

John Quiggin,

My questions do not imply my inclination of acceptance or rejection of the contract on offer.

They are merely questions to learn more…

Having grown up here and receiving benefits does not imply acceptance at all.

People were born into slavery… does that imply acceptance (and they they could have chosen to run away as well)?

The acceptance can only exist once one is aware that a contract is on offer… born into something which is not of an individual's choice is not a contract.

Thanks for the reference.

Thanks for your questions. On funding public goods, I recommend this short document and this longer one. Do you find them convincing?

Justin Jefferson and everyone else: I recommend "No Social Contract," a short essay that shows 10 problems with social contract theory. See, Justin, you're not alone.

Guys, clicking "reply" on the specific comment you are responding to will make for a tiered and easier-to-follow conversation thread.Thanks.

Ben and JJ, we come into the world naked. Any property we acquire in a given society is held subject to the rules of society. As long as emigration is freely permitted, your references to slavery, kidnapping etc are irrelevant. Leave – we're not stopping you and you can take whatever property our rules (under which you got the property in the first place) allow.

If you don't like the social contract in Australia, go elsewhere or persuade the rest of us to change it. If you don't like any of the existing social contracts, and aren;t into persuasion, there's always seasteading or space travel – leave the rest of us alone and see how you go on your own. Or maybe you think the rest of us owe you something because you read a book by Ayn Rand?

How were "the rules of society" at the time of my birth justified? Suppose "society" (whatever that means) decreed that every first-born child be murdered; does it then become, not murder, but a voluntary act, like suicide or euthanasia? In any case, the rulers were never given the consent of my ancestors. Where is the evidence? How do you differentiate between the rules of "society" and the rules of a protection racket? You can always leave the jurisdiction of the protection racket, and take whatever property the protection racket allows you.

Lastly, for what it's worth, I've never got around to reading anything by Ayn Rand. I'm a big Don Quixote fan, though, and do believe my achievements "worthy to be ingraved in brass, on marble sculptured, and in painting shewn, as great examples to futurity!"

What right do you have to impose a "social contract"?

If it really does emerge from "society" as you claim it does, then fine, let's get rid of government, because we obviously don't need it. "Society" will take care of making people pay for "public goods" and the like.

Also, this is another example of how utilitarian arguments are better.
Why discuss abstract concepts of 'social contract' when at the end of the day, people would be better off without this government taxing and spending.

Posing the question you did leads people to incorrectly frame this debate as 'the rich wanting to keep their money to the disadvantage of society", which obviously does not go down well.

Yes, exactly. We need some controls on the 'entrance' to our piece of paradise we shouldn't hold guys back who want to exit – providing they leave their share of public booty at the gates. None of this seems too hard. Within reasonable limits I'm happy to pay my taxes providing my neighbours do too; and I'm happy for the politicians my neighbours elect to decide how to spend it providing I get a vote too. With my fellows who opt in, I'm more interested in 'duties' and 'obligations' than 'rights'.

In case anyone reading this is under the impression that Ayn Rand favoured anarcho-capitalism, she did not:

"…some people are raising the question of whether government as such is evil by nature and whether anarchy is the ideal social system. Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: for all the reasons discussed above, a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Hi Benjamin,

Bearing in mind that, ultimately, 'democracy' is the most persuasive argument able to be leaned upon by those in favor of taxation, I'd like to answer your question with an even more fundamental question, if I may so:

Can a democracy reasonably be described as self-governing? Or, for more precision, should a democracy be thought of as governing selves? And if so, how is this semantic paradox — given the definition of selves — to be rationalized without (irrationally) reducing observable pluralism into a conceptualized singular ('our democracy'), at the expense therefore of each man's individuality – the well spring of any and all thought and reason? Or, is this simply the unavoidable result of democracy – a public devoid of serious thought & reason?

Merry Christmas everyone, and a happy new year

Alister

yeah Ayn Rand is shit

Andrew: I am in enthusiastic agreement with your use of the phrase "public booty". How do you differentiate what you support from a protection racket?

I was not the one who introduced the "social contract" into the conversation. Instead of debating the "social contract", do you think it would have been better had I said, "Let's ignore the concept of the social contract, and talk about something different"?

As for how you think people read my question, I see no evidence that anyone read it like that.

Lastly, my highlighted question is about utilitarian arguments rather than legal ones. So I can't work out why you object to it. You might need to read the four explanatory points to get the full picture.

It is difficult to answer your question without knowing how you define democracy. Your first use of the word has inverted commas, so you realise this. Democracy could mean the free market, where every dollar is a vote; or it could be a majority rule arrangement, where the minority can be outvoted and imposed on.

Lastly, I'm not sure if you've browsed the middle and right columns of this site, where many of the objections that anarchocapitalism provokes are dealt with.

Hey Benjamin

I define democracy as being a majority rule arrangement, where the minority can be outvoted and imposed on

Fingers crossed you haven't forgot to answer my question still Benajmin

[Addendum]

Lysander Spooner quote:

If our fathers, in 1776, had acknowledged the principle that a majority had the right to rule the minority, we should never have become a nation; for they were in a small minority, as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over them

Sorry for the delay. I think your original question has too many big words and too few full stops for me. But obviously, if democracy is defined as majority rule where the minority can be outvoted and imposed on, then democracy is no friend of the individual, the minority of one.

But I'm not sure that I understand your question. And I'm not sure I can see how your question answers my question.

There's about 6 billion minority of one's on earth – no need for such morbidness dear Benjamin! To be sure, you seem to have understood my question perfectly. As for answering your question – I don't believe it does either

Menzies House is a forum for people broadly considering themselves centre-right to post and discuss things, I am unsure how, therefore, considering the breadth of opinion covered, how it can 'answer'.
Personally, however, and speaking only for myself as part of the editorial team, I have never attempted to justify government expenditure on utilitarian grounds for starters, and secondly will wholeheartedly agree with the notion that tax is theft. And would very much rejoice if we move to a system based on voluntary taxation alone, as I think that it would be more than adequate to cover the (very few) legitimate functions I believe government does have

If you wish, however, will more than happily post this for our readers!

Sorry for not sufficiently familiarising myself with Menzies House. Thanks for your welcome correction. I will pay more attention to Menzies House in the future.

Yes, please; I'd love it if you'd post the article for your readers. Much appreciated.

Feel free to put anything from Economics.org.au on your site.

Ever the principled libertarian Mr Marks recognises copyright is a statist institution to the core, involving the state to bully people who dare build on and utilise ones work is as unethical as one can be and thus keeping with the tradition of this site he has offered his work up as open content.

Much respect Benjamin and keep up the good work with this site, the recent article on the workers party playboy interview was fascinating as I'd never expected such a movement to have existed in this nation.

'Social Contract' is an anti-social contract, isn't it? You know, that contract sounds fairly involuntary to the non-violent ears.

It’s hard to factor in the involuntary nature of tax (and government in general) into a standard policy benefit-cost analysis because the morality of voluntary behaviour is by it’s nature deontological which does not translate easily to consequentialist reasoning.

That does not mean it should not be done.

For my own part, I require that the benefits of government policy clearly, significantly and unambiguously create a net benefit. I know that “significantly” is a bit of a fluff word, but it is the best I can do.

Social contract theory have never been meant by honest people as a contract, but as an analogy. Clearly it is not a contract, because contracts require the parties to have agreed voluntarily (which I did not). Social contract theory is an argument for why it is moral to help others, and I agree with that. Where I disagree is that I don’t think it’s the responsibility of government to promote or impose morality.

Finally, the argument of “love it or leave it” when it comes to a country is perfectly legitimate if your starting assumption is that the government owns all of Australia. I don’t accept that starting assumption. I believe it makes more sense to see Australia as a place with many private land-owners, ruled by a government which often violates those property rights (with the best of intentions perhaps). And if you insist that the government does indeed own Australia, then my first political argument is that they should not.

Yes, it's coercion. It's up to you to explain why that makes it immoral.
Arresting and imprisoning someone for rape and murder is also coerction but not obviously immoral.

The object of this article is very specific. It is simply and obviously to point out that those who attempt to justify government intervention on utilitarian grounds do not do so in any scientific manner, for the reasons I explained in the article. And yet that is precisely what defenders of government pretend can be done when they say that this or that government measure will be in the public good, or make society happier and better off.

Moreover, the difference between unjustified coercion (aggression) and justified coercion (self-defence, proportional punishment) is touched on in point 1 and 2 in my article. And points 1 and 2 do say why coercion by government in collecting tax is unjustified.

And points 1 and 2 do say why coercion by government in collecting tax is unjustified.

No. Point 1 is that it's coercion and point 2 is that the taxpayer doens't want to pay, which is the same thing. In other words, point one and point 2 are simply that it's coercion. That doesn't prove that it's unjustified. Plenty of coercion is justified.

The object of this article is very specific. It is simply and obviously to point out that those who attempt to justify government intervention on utilitarian grounds do not do so in any scientific manner, for the reasons I explained in the article.

Your entire argument rests declaring that taxation is "coercive" and therefore non-utilitarian. But while it may appear self-evident to you, that's not an obvious conclusion at all. You've failed to prove that coercion is a violation of utilitarianism.

As I said earlier, yes it's coercive: so what?

In other words, how is coercion a violation of utlitarianism.

Not that I'm a huge fan of utlitarianism anyway, but this is your argument, not mine, and we'll deal with it on the ground rules that you set (including, assume utilitarianism).

I do not claim that coercion is a violation of utilitarianism. All I claim is that coercion disadvantages, at least in some sense, the person being coerced, and that therefore, they suffer some lost utils. Since utils cannot be aggregated and compared, it is therefore impossible for any scientific economic analysis to conclude that government is justified on utilitarian grounds. Is this clear?

yes. what this boils down to is that it's impossible to compare a nation state with anarchy, from a utilitarian point of view.
Ie "government cannot be justified on ulitarian grounds."
but that's only if you start with taxation. Maybe you justify the nation state on other grounds and then end up with taxation as an unavoidable byproduct.

at any rate, I get the impression that you're against the nation state. but by your own logic you can't argue against it on utilitarian grounds. This can only ever be an article of faith.

If you know of a way to justify government on utilitarian grounds, please inform me of it. One of the features distinguishing government from business or other voluntary organisations is its use of initiatory coercion to get funding.

I don't argue against government on utilitarian grounds in a general sense, but only in a limited sense. For example, if you want to help the poor, the minimum wage is not the way to do it.

For what it's worth, here is an article I've written against utilitarian arguments for capitalism.

If you know of a way to justify government on utilitarian grounds, please inform me of it.

sure. A state gives protection to individuals as a group as well as providing a safe orderly social environment. Non-state does not provide that.

Or to put it simply, ANY benefit arising from states feeds into the utilitarian equation, and there are bucketloads of them.

But government is funded through coercive means. Therefore, the taxpayer's money is going somewhere other than where they most wanted to spend it. Therefore, at least in this one sense, they lose out. Therefore, since utility cannot be aggregated, it cannot be scientifically established that government is of net benefit. So you are wrong to use the phrase "utilitarian equation" in a literal sense.

You say also that only government can provide defence for a group of individuals. Rubbish. Why can't people voluntarily choose to fund a defence company, in a similar way to how they currently fund insurance companies? And even today there are plenty of private defence companies, security guards that shopping centres fund, etc.

Ok, I want to say straight up that I am a newbie to libertarianism and other related political ideas so please be kind! There is a good chance that if you start quoting 'basic' stuff at me, I am unlikely to actually know it so need to go 'uh duh!'. I am keen to expand my understanding of the issue through discussion so if you take it slow with me, I'm sure I'll learn! No matter how stupid I might sound, I am not trolling you – I want to learn more.

My take on the question is that our form of government, however imperfect, is a natural evolution from centuries of trial and error and overcoming tyranny (which I see as the natural force of power in the world) and that the desire for government springs from a natural 'instinct' (not the best word for it but I can't think of any better) of the people. That is, there will always be government in some form and a state as we know it because, for whatever reason, it remains a feature of humanity's approach to organising themselves.

Although the limits of particular governments might not be a universal feature, a government gains the right to tax the population because government springs out of an innate feature of human existence. How much and for what purpose government uses taxes – that is up for debate. But why can governments tax us? Because we (that is collective humanity, even if individuals dissent) want government and it doesn't come for free.

To put my cards on the table, I guess you could describe my political instincts/background as born into a socialist-type environment, who became an evangelical Christian, who has converted to a conservative political position who is branching out into libertarian thinking (convoluted I know…). If I'm honest, I would say that I would see the state as a feature of being made in the image of God, though I think that stance is reasonably consistent with what I know of history.

I hope that makes some sense because I think the question you pose is an excellent one and something that you guys rightly point out isn't being talked about. I guess it also cuts to existential questions around government and the state.

Sorry for the delay responding to this post. Since it does not appear to be a response to the question in the article above, it might be best to post the questions to facebook, point by point, as that seems to be working well. Thanks.

There was an answer in there! My answer would be: government gains the right to coerce taxes out of us because government is an innate feature of humanity's approach to organising ourselves collectively and will always exist in one form or another.

The rest of the stuff was just to give you an idea of why I think that.

Thanks for clarifiying.

It is incorrect that "government is an innate feature of humanity's approach to organising ourselves". If it is an innate feature, how come there is still statelessness between nations, statelessness in many industries and statelessness in many relationships? In other words, since there is not government presiding over every relationship, it is clear that government is not an innate feature of humanity.

Now, is it true that government "will always exist in one form or another"? Perhaps. But won't theft, murder and rape always occur in large societies too? So just because it appears to be hard to get rid of, it doesn't mean it is not criminal, and not worth opposing. (I discuss this argument here.)

Answer pt 1

The reach of the state is always on a continuum. In times gone by there has been less statelessness ('world'-wide empires, like Alexander, etc; even though they didn't actually cover the entire world, the 'civilised' world was conquered and had guys like Alexander had the resources, he would have conquered the whole world) and there has more (I'm thinking the time leading up to Europe colonising the world). Collectivism has had more influential periods to time (1917-1949) as well, where there probably comparatively more liberty worldwide than then.

One feature that is universal is the existence of a state (no matter how large or small it is/it reaches). It may look different in different but authority that has the power to coerce the unwilling (the most basic feature of the state) is almost always present (small isolated villages may not have it but any larger organisation of people will have it). I guess I could put up a psychological or some sort of evolutionary argument for that but I think it is (primarily) because humans are made in the image of God and were created to rule over the world under his rule. We have an inherent tendency towards having authority over us, to organise government (in whatever form it takes). Because of the rebellion of humanity, our rejection of God to rule the world and our lives for ourselves, government has been perverted by self-interest, leading in particular to the absolute horrors of truly collective government (absolute monarchy, facism, communism, etc), who ironically are the most likely to replace the role that god would have in the lives of individuals with the state.

Answer pt 2

Which isn't to say that people shouldn't fight the intrusiveness of the state. The state will always have different forms because societies aren't static – there is constant evolution. Pointing out that taxation is a form of theft and that government is a legitimised extortion racket may not lead to the abolition of the state but it would hopefully help people to push back against the state. Like crime, the state will never be eradicated but it can be minimised.

At this point in time, I would say that anarcho-capitalism is a pipedream BUT that isn't to say anarcho-capitalist though doesn't bring a big bucket of honesty to the discussion. Society needs radicals who cut through the BS and point out the honest truth. If we're honest, tax IS a legitimised form of theft. Private enterprise in a truly free market does have an efficiency and a responsiveness to individual needs that government will never fulfil, not in a million years.

I know if I was a politician, I would need anarcho-capitalists getting in my face, not accepting second best. There is an excellent proverb in the Bible: As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another (Proverbs 27:17). It is too easy to stay within your groupthink and accept the implicit assumptions of your own mob. I find what your blog puts forward invigorating because it challenges many of my assuptions. Hopefully, I can put some stuff forward that will keep you on your toes, if I can be so bold, because then we are both bettered.

I am happy to be criticised, but, I am sorry, I am unsure what your criticism is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to agree that tax is theft!

I wasn't criticising here; more saying why it is worth opposing the state and advocating statelessness even if the state will be a permanent feature of human society.

You asked should we still oppose crime even if it is hard to eradicate, and I am essentially saying: please do keep advocating anarcho-capitalism (AC) because it pushes us non-ACists to think more clearly about the state.

Thanks for the encouragement. If you are interested in my motives, I explain myself here.

[...] is the market order. All those who attempt to explain taxation as justified in a utilitarian sense, fail to take the coercive nature of taxation into account. Therefore, since the Australian government requires taxes, and no cost-benefit analysis of [...]

"It shows a fundamental blindspot in their worldview, a yawning gap in their education, a crucial oversight in their supporters, and a cowardly and corrupt evasiveness in their arguments."

Benjamin, speaking of which…your entire ideological foundation is based on a false dichotomy. Mises said over and over that there wasn't a third solution; it's either socialism or capitalism. But in this blog entry I conclusively prove that pragmatarianism is a third solution… http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2011/11/third…

What were the global and historical consequences of Mises intellectually coercing himself and others? What will the unforeseen consequences be if you and others cannot sufficiently free yourself from Mises' coercion to genuinely consider the value of this third solution?

There's a negative correlation between coercion and choices. If you intentionally only offer two choices to people when you're well aware of a third choice then you are engaging in some degree of intellectual coercion.

There is no such thing as "intellectual coercion" or "self-coercion". If taxes were voluntary, then, according to the Rothbardian definition, they would not be called taxes at all. Maybe the only difference between you and me is that we use different definitions of "tax" and "coercion"?

A christian refusing to genuinely consider the science behind evolution is a victim of intellectual self-coercion. They have limited their ability to think freely. When parents only offer one religion to their kids they intellectually coerce their children.

When Mises only offered one viable solution to his followers he engaged in intellectual coercion. The coercion was unintentional though because he had coerced himself into believing a false dichotomy.

Your inability to understand my solution is a direct manifestation of your intellectual coercion. All you had to do was visit my blog with an open mind and we would already be discussing the merits of this third solution.

Instead, you're questioning my understanding of things like "voluntary", "taxes" and "coercion". I've read and understood the arguments of Adam Smith, Bastiat, Tocqueville, Herbert Spencer, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Milton Friedman, etc…

As a result I appreciate the value of giving taxpayers the freedom to directly allocate their taxes. I see the benefits of applying the invisible hand to the public sector. I grasp the necessity of transferring control of taxes from congress to taxpayers just like people can grasp the necessity of transferring control of taxes from a king to parliament.

The difference between you and me is that I completely grasp both our arguments.

No, the difference between us is that you believe that voluntary taxes should still be called taxes, whereas I don't. So we just use different definitions, but are otherwise in complete agreement.

Self-coercion is a silly term, because it is synonymous with voluntary choice, its apparent opposite!

"Voluntary" taxes would be called donations. I'm not advocating that people should be allowed to choose whether or not they pay taxes…I'm advocating that taxpayers should be given the freedom to directly allocate their taxes among the various government organizations.

The biggest obstacle to your ideal world isn't that people love coercion…it's that they do not understand how the invisible hand works. They have no idea that taxpayers can allocate their taxes more efficiently than congress could.

I know this for a fact because when I advocate pragmatarianism people's number one concern is that "important" public goods would be underfunded. If they think that important public goods would be under funded even though the total amount of taxes collected would be exactly the same….then how can they even begin to appreciate your advocacy for the complete elimination of taxes?

If people consider what I'm saying to be far-fetched…and I say absolutely nothing about the tax rate…then what do they think about your arguments to eliminate taxes?

The question of whether or not pragmatarianism is more likely to convince people of libertarian ideas than more Rothbardian arguments is different to the question of whether Rothbardian argument are justified.

Why are you "not advocating that people should be allowed to choose whether or not they pay taxes"? If it is because you think taxation is just, then I disagree with you; if it is because you think it is unwise strategy for free-market advocacy, then fair enough.

So, do you agree with Rothbard on everything but strategy, or is there more to it?

While in a remote village in Afghanistan a distraught woman told us that a couple days earlier her husband had been beaten to death for refusing to give his family's only food to the Taliban. The Taliban probably thought they were asking the man to make a reasonable sacrifice…clearly he disagreed.

We're all just blind men touching different parts of an elephant. Having lived in a tribal society for a year my perspective was certainly different than Rothbard's. He hated the state so much that if there was a button that could destroy the entire state then he would have pushed that button until his thumb blistered.

How could you ever trust somebody who would be willing to gamble our entire society on their very limited perspective? Maybe we are ready for a stateless society…but what would the cost be if we were not?

My thought was to give each and ever taxpayer their own button that they could push to direct their individual taxes away from unjust government organizations (GOs) towards the most just GOs.

We all have access to some truth…and we should be able to allocate our taxes according to the bits of truth that we do have.

So…I have no idea if taxes are justified in the big picture sense. There are sound arguments for and against taxes. Strategy wise I think it would be valuable for every free-market advocate to make the effort to understand the arguments for and against pragmatarianism.

Your criticism of Rothbard pushing the button is equally applicable to your idea "to give each and every taxpayer their own button that they could push to direct their individual taxes". People might not be ready for such responsibility either!

Moreover, ALL tax-funded organisation are unjust, and there are NO sound arguments for taxes. If you believe there is, then answer that one question, as instructed at the top of the page.

I think you are right that pragmatarianism is a good strategy. That is not where my disagreement with pragmatarianism lies.

When an interviewer tried to ask Milton Friedman a hypothetical…if you were dictator for a day type question…Milton immediately interrupted him and said quite strongly, "If we can't persuade the public that it's desirable to do these things, then we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it."

Unlike Rothbard, I wouldn't push a button that would immediately implement what I consider to be a vast improvement over the current system.

The only "one" question of yours that matters to a consequentialist is this one…"How can the benefits of government provision of public goods be shown to offset the disadvantages in taxing people to pay for it?"

Pragmatarianism would reveal the answer to this question. The invisible hand would determine the scope of government. If the invisible hand reveals that government is indeed necessary then the taxes needed to pay for its functions would be just.

If you get a chance you should check out my challenge to Stefan Molyneux… http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/33138.a…

My challenge to Stefan is that the biggest obstacle to a stateless society is not immorality…it's simply that people do not understand how the invisible hand works. By focusing on moral arguments anarcho-capitalists are barking up the wrong tree.

You are like Rothbard in that you would allow taxpayers to push a button to decide where they're taxes go, even if they are not persuaded that they should have the choice. So your criticism of Rothbard is equally applicable to yourself. Personally, I agree with Albert Jay Nock that:

Even a successful revolution, if such a thing were conceivable, against the military tyranny which is Statism’s last expedient, would accomplish nothing. The people would be as thoroughly indoctrinated with Statism after the revolution as they were before, and therefore the revolution would be no revolution, but a coup d’Etat, by which the citizen would gain nothing but a mere change of oppressors. There have been many revolutions in the last twenty-five years, and this has been the sum of their history. They amount to no more than an impressive testimony to the great truth that there can be no right action except there be right thinking behind it. As long as the easy, attractive, superficial philosophy of Statism remains in control of the citizen’s mind, no beneficent social change can be effected, whether by revolution or by any other means.

And:

[I]f it were in my power to pull down its whole structure overnight and set up another of my own devising — to abolish the State out of hand, and replace it by an organization of the economic means — I would not do it, for the minds of Americans are far from fitted to any such great change as this.

But all this is quite irrelevant to our central disagreement, which is that tax is always criminal, and as soon as you make it voluntary, it should no longer be called tax. You can not ask people how much they want to be stolen off or where they want the money that they have stolen from you to go; yet, as best as I can tell, that is exactly what you are calling for.

In a pragmatarian system people would have the option to just give their taxes to congress.

You really wouldn't want the option to boycott the government organizations responsible for stealing your money?

This post of yours replies to only the first part of my comment. It ignores the final paragraph of my comment, which begins: "But all this is quite irrelevant to our central disagreement …"

I think taxation is evil. I also suspect it is necessary. In a way it is like using fire to fight fire. Or a vaccination, which is a weakened infection, to prevent infections. That said I'd be happy to try operating without taxes for a while to see how things pan out.

Taxation is not like a vaccination (a weakened infection to prevent bigger infections); taxation brings on the disease to a bigger extent than would have otherwise been possible. Once you say government should provide some important services, then people will say, yes, and therefore they should provide other important areas also, and if they should provide important things, there's no harm government providing less important services too! When you look at the growth of government, you can see this playing out.

Taxation is worse than the problems it tries to address, and most of the problems it tries to address are the unintended results of other government legislation in the first place.

Most people are comfortable with their enslavement and believe they are already free. When a suggestion occurs that is not the case, there is strong objection, usually along the lines of "if you don't like it leave". Almost as if there is a choice in the matter. Where does one flee to? And don't we have the right to express our viewpoint without being shouted down without due consideration? The answer would appear to be no, you don't, you have to meekly accept what the government dictates to you, regardless of what that something is. Day by day, our rights and freedoms we imagine we have and what makes this country so great in our minds is being eroded away by government. A government free to spend taxes on whatever they deem worthy, whether it be an overpriced shelter over a quadrangle, cheap, faulty insulation from a foreign manufacture, overpriced fighter planes or straight in their own pocket. Implement laws that serve no real purpose, fund projects that have no benefit to anyone except the receivers of that funding. And there's not a damn thing you can do to stop them.
The ironic thing is that they don't need a secret police, our own people will shout us down.

No, my reply did not ignore your final paragraph. I asked you if you would want the "option" to boycott the GOs responsible for stealing your money.

Freedom is a continuum of options/choices. Even in an anarcho-capitalistic society your freedom to swing your fist would END where somebody else's nose begins. Your freedom would be limited by the non-aggression principle (NAP).

You believe that the NAP is a reasonable justification to limit people's freedom. That's fine. However, the majority of people believe that the harm principle is a more reasonable justification to limit people's freedom given that it maximizes the benefit to society.

Now, it's important to understand that there's absolutely nothing "natural" about either principle. You can't go hang out with wild lions and expect them to respect any other principle other than the survival of the fittest. Any principles that we, as humans, agree to…are only legitimate if they are based on consensus…and as such are completely arbitrary.

Currently, we do not have the freedom to directly allocate our taxes. Yet, you're saying that we can not allow people to have this option. You're telling me that freedom is all or nothing…which is clearly not the case.

Pragmatarianism offers people a choice that they did not know that they had. Yet, as far as I can tell, you have not posted an article about pragmatarianism on this website. You certainly have the choice as to what articles you share on this website but by choosing not to post such an article on this website you are knowingly and willfully limiting people's choices. In other words…you are engaging in intellectual coercion.

This was the point of my very first comment…and it's a point that you have yet to address.

Personally I'm an atheist, but in the Garden of Eden God said that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit from ALL the trees in the garden EXCEPT for one tree. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God limited their freedom…and they choose to doubt his one simple rule.

What was Mises' one simple rule? That there was no third solution. Obviously you don't seem to doubt his rule. Yet, if you do not doubt his rule then why not post a critique of pragmatarianism on this website?

I have posted a critique of pragmatarianism in this thread. To recap:

1. If tax is voluntary, then it should not be called tax and what it goes towards should not be called government. Now, if you use different definitions of tax and government to Rothbard, then fine, but we must realise that we are then in agreement and only using words very differently.

2. You accuse me, in your comment immediately above, of not allowing people the freedom to allocate their taxes. I think this comes down to our different definitions (as explained in the previous paragraph).

3. You say that the majority of people do not believe in the non-aggression axiom. I agree, but that does not affect its truth value, and as I am have repeatedly tried to make clear: I am critical of the truth value of pragmatarianism, not necessarily its strategic benefits for advocacy.

4. The non-aggression axiom is in the natural order of things. As Albert Jay Nock said:

Any contravention of natural law, any tampering with the natural order of things, must have its consequences, and the only recourse for escaping them is such as entails worse consequences. Nature recks nothing of intentions, good or bad; the one thing she will not tolerate is disorder, and she is very particular about getting her full pay for any attempt to create disorder. She gets it sometimes by very indirect methods, often by very roundabout and unforeseen ways, but she always gets it.

And Bastiat said:

[W]e assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.

Through those two passage you should see what is meant by natural order.

If you get a chance you should check out this critique of anarcho-capitalism…
http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2012/01/ungla…

The critique is from the perspective of strategy…not from the perspective of truth value.

Regarding your comment… when I observe nature and I observe mankind I observe two distinct orders. So when you say "natural order" I interpret it to mean "human order". In that sense…the non-aggression axiom only has as much value as we bestow upon it

Given that most people would steal a loaf of bread from a billionaire in order to save the life of a starving child…the NAP has limited practical value. In other words…it seems like it's more of a "natural order" to hold that life is more important than property.

Here is a defence of anarchocapitalism from the perspective of strategy: http://economics.org.au/2011/03/the-minarchist-ca….

Your criticism of the "natural order" does not apply to, for example, the law of supply and demand. That is all that is meant by it.

[...] of Roads and Highways – Human and Economic Factors’ which is available for free online at: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf « TAX = [...]