Private Property and Violence

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This argument has been brought up by cappie types in every thread - that only capitalism makes the initiation of force illegitimate . . . and that taxes are extorted at the barrel of a gun. I agree that government inevitably rests on violence, but the same applies to capitalist institutions, which rely on the ability to violently smash opposition, and ensure continued dominance of the social framework.

But, what is the truth?
When one participates in the 'democratic' structure of a government, one enters implied social contract with them, which includes submitting oneself to taxation, and the threat of coercive violence being deployed against them should one step outside the contract, and so on. If one does not wish to be taxed, or to find themselves at the nasty end of a gun, then they are theoreticly welcome to not participate . . . but the huge concentration of power in the hands of government naturally makes this a realistic imposibility.
When one participates in the openly and unashamedly authoritarian institutions of capitalism, one enters a contract with them, which includes submitting oneself to having the value of their labour taken from them (in fact, it functions much like the taxation capitalists claim to despise), the threat of coercive violence being deployed against them should they step outside the contract, and so on. If one does not wish to have the value of their labour stolen from them, or to find themselves at the nasty end of a gun, then they are theoreticly welcome to not participate . . . but the huge concentration of power in the hands of capitalists naturally makes this a realistic imposibility.

:lol:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

C'mon Cappies, let's get this started, eh?

I mean, you've got to have some sort of pre-fab "straight-from-the-faq" response to this rather obvious comparison, right?

[Publius]

Not participating in the governmental social contract is simple.

Don't live here.

Since all this land is the domain of the United States government, your presence implies certain terms.

And many libertarians would do away with taxation and provide user fees for roads, schools etc.

National defense, personal defense, court system, government etc. all effect whether you like it or not, as such, you are tied to them throught taxation.

You have to pay for the benefits you get.

In capitalism, the situation is quite different.

It's still a mutual exchange where both parties gain something and lose something.

You say labor is stolen from laborers.

No more than capital is stolen from the capitalists by the laborers.

It's an even exchange, your labor for my capital.

Both sides lose something, and both sides gain something, in each case, each party gains what they desire more, either money or labor.

Just as taxation (For certain things) cannot be considered taxtion (As the army defends you whether you want it to or not), you working for someone is not them stealing your labor.

It's you trading it for something more valuable to you.

You also have the right not to engage in this. Whether this is practical or not is irrelevent.

The social contract exists because both parties mutually agree to it. If you wish to end your labor, you're more than welcome to. No coercion is involved.

[Professor Moneybags]

But, what is the truth?
When one participates in the 'democratic' structure of a government, one enters implied social contract with them, which includes submitting oneself to taxation, and the threat of coercive violence being deployed against them should one step outside the contract, and so on.

I don't recall signing any contract, especially not one giving the government unlimited means to violate my rights. I shouldn't imagine anyone else does either.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Nor do I sign a contract that explicitly outlines my relationship to my boss - but the worker/owner relationship is implied - that everything I produce by my labour becomes the property of the owner of the means of production. I've never signed something explicitly stating this, because it's assumed - and in not resisting, I imply consent.
Similarly, when one participates in democratic government (voting, etc.), uses the services provided by government, etc. it is implied that one grants the government freedom to expropriate yr wealth for its benefit . . . and non-resistance is consent.

What you're setting up Prof, is a dreadful double-standard.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 6 2005, 05:55 PM
This argument has been brought up by cappie types in every thread - that only capitalism makes the initiation of force illegitimate . . . and that taxes are extorted at the barrel of a gun. I agree that government inevitably rests on violence, but the same applies to capitalist institutions, which rely on the ability to violently smash opposition, and ensure continued dominance of the social framework.

But, what is the truth?
When one participates in the 'democratic' structure of a government, one enters implied social contract with them, which includes submitting oneself to taxation, and the threat of coercive violence being deployed against them should one step outside the contract, and so on. If one does not wish to be taxed, or to find themselves at the nasty end of a gun, then they are theoreticly welcome to not participate . . . but the huge concentration of power in the hands of government naturally makes this a realistic imposibility.
When one participates in the openly and unashamedly authoritarian institutions of capitalism, one enters a contract with them, which includes submitting oneself to having the value of their labour taken from them (in fact, it functions much like the taxation capitalists claim to despise), the threat of coercive violence being deployed against them should they step outside the contract, and so on. If one does not wish to have the value of their labour stolen from them, or to find themselves at the nasty end of a gun, then they are theoreticly welcome to not participate . . . but the huge concentration of power in the hands of capitalists naturally makes this a realistic imposibility.

:lol:
Actually you're pretty off base. Like maybe if "base" were Miami, you'd be in Hong Kong. Ya dig, sport?

Yes, one gives up a share of freedom to join a society.

However, in capitalism, one is free to move in and out of the workforce as he or she wishes or is able. If something better is available, he or she is free to move. He or she owns property which he or she is pretty much free to use as he or she likes.

Your plan on the other hand offers no such freedom. You take what government gives you and you do what government demands, or you leave.

You're advocating for the tyranny of the majority, which is a very dangerous thing.

Remember, the majority favored slavery in the 1850s and the majority favored the Vietnam war in the 1960s.

If you were in charge, you'd have told the abolitionists and anti-war protestors to like it or get out.

You're kind of scary.


:ph34r:

[dakewlguy]

and that taxes are extorted at the barrel of a gun. I agree that government inevitably rests on violence, but the same applies to capitalist institutions, which rely on the ability to violently smash opposition, and ensure continued dominance of the social framework.

Uneccessary exaggeration to make those in favour of taxes appear worse.


When one participates in the 'democratic' structure of a government, one enters implied social contract with them, which includes submitting oneself to taxation, and the threat of coercive violence being deployed against them should one step outside the contract, and so on.
Wrong, the threat of breaking the social contract is to have the government take away their part of the bargain - providing your freedom. Ie Jail, or having money taken from you. Neither of which are violent.


one does not wish to be taxed, or to find themselves at the nasty end of a gun,
Again, exaggeration to make your point appear more correct.


When one participates in the openly and unashamedly authoritarian institutions of capitalism
Firstly the social contract between the government and its people comes from the very birth of society, and is not unique to Capitalism. Secondly authoritarian would be forcing labour, currently people have the choice to work however they please, and in exchange for wages.


one enters a contract with them, which includes submitting oneself to having the value of their labour taken from them
The exact same occurs in Feudalism, and Communism, labour must be provided if one wishes to get anything in return.