The proper role of the state and limiting state power
Posted by scottburch 7 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
If we say that the proper role of the state is protection of the individual and property, then it becomes necessary for the state to have the ability to use force against those who use force against individuals.
I always get asked the question, "given that people will take advantage of power, how do we then keep the state from becoming corrupt and taking property and liberty from the individual?" Mostly I am asked this by statists who want a large powerful state believing that the state is all good if it was not for those evil "corporations". I believe that this is the reason why it is not possible to have a "perfect" state. The solution of the founders of the US was to say that the people collectively should have the means to use force to eliminate such a government.
However, as we are probably all well aware. Most of the people have been tricked into believing that the people using force to remove the government is crazy and want to take away the people's ability to use force to ensure their liberty.
I guess the question is, who decides when a government has overstepped it's bounds and needs to be removed, with force if necessary, in an individual centered society.
I am sure this is a common thought, but I would like to hear opinions, because I have no answer to this question. The answer to go Galt and allow the rest of society to do what it wants does not work when others believe they have the right to use force against you to make you conform to their will. This turns all free thinking individuals into slaves to the collective.
UPDATE
Thank you to everyone for your responses. This has been helpful.
The responses did solidify something for me. Keeping control local is key to a free society. There is a law in the US that says the military can not be used against the people, however, they just called the federal guns "federal police" and sent them against the people. "A rose by any other name..." If we started over, we would make it clear that local communities police themselves.
I live in Canada and I believe there is a version of this. Small communities who don't have the means to train their own police can pull from a pool of federally trained police (RCMP). The community pays and houses them, and can be replaced at any time by someone else in the pool because they are answerable to the community. I rarely ever see the local police, even in very small towns, but when I have talked to them, they are courteous and know what is going on in the community.
I am new to the community here, and have already gained value, so, of course, I have signed up as a producer.
I always get asked the question, "given that people will take advantage of power, how do we then keep the state from becoming corrupt and taking property and liberty from the individual?" Mostly I am asked this by statists who want a large powerful state believing that the state is all good if it was not for those evil "corporations". I believe that this is the reason why it is not possible to have a "perfect" state. The solution of the founders of the US was to say that the people collectively should have the means to use force to eliminate such a government.
However, as we are probably all well aware. Most of the people have been tricked into believing that the people using force to remove the government is crazy and want to take away the people's ability to use force to ensure their liberty.
I guess the question is, who decides when a government has overstepped it's bounds and needs to be removed, with force if necessary, in an individual centered society.
I am sure this is a common thought, but I would like to hear opinions, because I have no answer to this question. The answer to go Galt and allow the rest of society to do what it wants does not work when others believe they have the right to use force against you to make you conform to their will. This turns all free thinking individuals into slaves to the collective.
UPDATE
Thank you to everyone for your responses. This has been helpful.
The responses did solidify something for me. Keeping control local is key to a free society. There is a law in the US that says the military can not be used against the people, however, they just called the federal guns "federal police" and sent them against the people. "A rose by any other name..." If we started over, we would make it clear that local communities police themselves.
I live in Canada and I believe there is a version of this. Small communities who don't have the means to train their own police can pull from a pool of federally trained police (RCMP). The community pays and houses them, and can be replaced at any time by someone else in the pool because they are answerable to the community. I rarely ever see the local police, even in very small towns, but when I have talked to them, they are courteous and know what is going on in the community.
I am new to the community here, and have already gained value, so, of course, I have signed up as a producer.
The suggestions to simply "have a constitution," "have separation of powers," or "vote better" have all been tried and didn't work. Basing our political system on the initiation of force against innocent people (i.e., taxation) is immoral as well as being the practical reason that the system as it is can never function to protect the individual's rights and property.
Doesn't the use of the product of someones labour without their permission fall under theft?
People are inventive and will seek to further their own goals. This includes not only the moral, but especially the immoral. The government of today has so far exceeded the express Constitutional foundation it began on no serious parallels can reasonably made. To dismiss this as the failure of the Constitution, however, is to play the victim and deny that the true failure is a failure on the part of the people to educate themselves on the Constitution and the tenets of natural law and vote into office those who uphold those tenets.
The problem I see is not in mandatory taxation, but in that government has grown outside its mandate because the people themselves have allowed it to.
This is a difficult question for me too. I would really like to hear the answer.
Now here's where things tend to run amok, and that is where the government decides to take on additional powers and roles and use the police power to enforce them. That is where we tend to run into trouble, because what should be recognized is that those additional powers and roles may not necessarily come with a police power! And why not? I would advocate that it relies entirely on the individual merits of the asserted role or power and whether or not the people of society voluntarily agreed to it - both prongs of such a test being required for the condition of "justice" to apply.
There is an additional consideration: that continued association with a particular society (especially a free society) inherently and implicitly dictates an acknowledgement of the laws and government of such a society. True freedom is to be found in the ability of a member of that society to leave said society of their own accord (again see First Amendment). But I find inherent contradiction in the notion of being a member of a voluntary society who wants to take advantage of the perks without paying for them.
I see the question as more of keeping the "perks" something that people would want to pay for. If paying for government services is voluntary then it is subject to the same market forces as any other service. If they become something that people will not pay for, then the ability to maintain the services will start to suffer.
Without these feedbacks, how do the government agents know how to adjust the services?
If we believe in the invisible hand of the market, why can it not work as well for government services? I see that as a contradiction for those that believe in free market, but want the government to use force to extract labour from the people (Slavery).
With regard to market forces, you are thinking of market transactions only in terms of money. The currency of choice in a democratic republic, however, is in the vote. If you look at the market of the government in terms of its functional currency - the vote - you can see that it does operate on a principle of supply and demand. The problem is that ultimately, the functional currency of government doesn't translate to the functional currency of action in the marketplace - and this is where the ultimate debasement of both currencies has come to fruition.
The other thing you allude to and which I believe has substantial merit is in the notion of the inflated size of the various markets within the government "economy". What government frequently "votes" on is the establishment of various policies, procedures, bureaucracies, etc., but there is an entirely separate second vote which is on the size and scope of those policies, etc., aka the Budget. It is within this market where the exchange rates are established for the two currencies of votes and dollars. The problem is that the market feedback you are looking to impose only applies on the dollars end of things - it doesn't necessarily translate via the exchange into the votes of actual government currency and therein lies the disconnect and problem. We have to stop trying to force a conversion of dollars to votes on our terms.
As you stated, if the payment of taxes is left to every individual regarding, say, common defense, then individuals that do no pay do get the unearned benefit of that common defense.
My issue is still that once you allow the government to take labour by force, there seems to be no end to how much they can take "for the common good".
Since I am on a site dedicated to Ayn Rand style egoism, how do you protect the rights of the "smallest minority" from the tyranny of the majority?
See my previous comments regarding the source of government. If the government was organized by choice rather than by coercion and is maintained by choice rather than coercion, I fail to see the justification in calling it slavery. I would point out that in the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers did not complain about taxation per se, but rather taxation without representation ie being forced to pay taxes without having a say in their own governance. To me this critical distinction is the key to establishing whether or not the taxation is justified.
(BTW - I agree with you that labour and dollars are interchangeable.)
" you allow the government to take labour by force, there seems to be no end to how much they can take"
As I mentioned before, first, there is the justification of taxes itself. I think I've shown that one. But then you also have the quantity of taxes as another issue. I totally agree with you. This was pointed out by several people at the Founding, most notably Alexander Tytler who said "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
So the question becomes, at what point does a taxation level become tyranny? It is an excellent question and I think there could be much debate about the matter. I think the guide should be that if the government is exceeding its specified powers, it is edging into tyranny. As you correctly identify, the issue is that money = power for government, thus it wants to keep spending more and more money regardless of its source. I think that the way government currently approaches revenue and spending is wrong.
I support several things in tandem:
1) repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and with it all individual and corporate income taxes
2) a return to tariffs as the primary source of Federal government revenue
3) mandatory sunset provisions of two years (corresponding to the term of a Congressman) on every spending bill.
4) every bill coming before Congress must cite the specific Constitutional authority under which it operates.
5) Spending bills must be authorized individually by department. (No "omnibus" bills.)
As to your question about tyranny of the majority, it is solved very easily by permitting the minority to leave. What I caution against is what our current system has turned into: tyranny of the minority.
Second, why I call it slavery. I think that taking labour by force against the will of the individual has a definition in our society. That definition is slavery.
We could, of course, go to an opt-in system, but I would argue that we already in large measure have that. When one registers to vote at eighteen, one is indicating the desire to participate in self-governance (such as it is). One certainly may at that point choose to renounce citizenship and move to another nation instead, though few acknowledge that this is an option.
While I certainly agree with you about the definition of slavery, I just fail to see at this point a system which coerces one into working without voting (unless one is an illegal immigrant - who can't legally vote anyway), nor do I see a system which prevents one so inclined from revoking their citizenship and moving. While I can certainly identify with the frustration at the excesses and overreach in our existing system, because there are options which can be taken to divest one's self of citizenship, I think it far too strong to suggest the applicability of slavery at this point. Could the next four years cross that line? Absolutely.
To my use of the word slavery. Maybe I am skipping steps or not explaining my view fully.
Money is a representation of labour
Taxation is the involuntary taking money by force
* The taking of labour by force is slavery
Since money = labour and taxation is taking money by force, taxation is the taking of labour by force which equals slavery. I think this is pretty flawless logic. Unless you argue with the soundness of any of the premises?
We agree. Adam Smith FTW!
"Taxation is the involuntary taking [of] money by force"
No. Taxation is not by definition involuntary. To be involuntary, one can have no part in the process by which taxes are created, apportioned/levied, or enforced. If you can vote, you have a part in the process - whether or not you choose to use it and how. Can the process of voting be manipulated? Yes, and it is an egregious violation of self-determination and free society.
If one chooses to participate and set up a society, then authorize the apportionment of taxes for the functioning of said government, one is choosing to do so voluntarily, and any "force" involved would be the justified enforcement of a law one originally agreed to. Is this the rarity? I freely admit yes. But to this point, it is the system of the United States of America - a free society where citizens may vote and as a condition are subject to taxation. Do I support a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment? Absolutely. Was it passed under pretense and manipulated into what it is now? Yes. Until repeal happens, however, I must either live with it, go to jail, or renounce my citizenship.
"The taking of labour by force is slavery"
Agreed.
"Is opting out of citizenship actually an option?"
Yes. I'm not saying it is easy or that there are "good" alternatives. But the option does exist. I would further point out that the Declaration of Independence itself cites the circumstances in which it is lawful of a people to rise up against their rulers and demand change.
I think we just disagree that taxes are not backed by force, although if I don't pay what the government tells me to, men with guns will eventually show up to lock me in a cage.
I also will disagree that just because it is good for the collective, it is fine to demand labour from the individual. And, the only way to escape state violence is with the assistance of a large enough portion of the collective. I think I agree with Rand on this one.
Although, I don't know of a better alternative, I can imagine that there would be one. I agree that the founders of the US tried very hard to protect the rights of the individual, but I think they ultimately failed in reaching that seemingly impossible goal.
I also agree that allowing people to opt out of paying for things that they receive benefit for is also immoral. However, I still believe that the individual should have the right to choose, which , I fully admit, is a contradiction, but only until a better solution is found.
"I think we just disagree that taxes are not backed by force"
You have defined for yourself no case in which taxes are justifiable and you have ignored the situations I brought up citing voluntary action as the critical piece in determining force. The question - again - is whether or not one has the option to fairly participate in the process of governance. If the answer is "no", then all action taken by that government is based on coercive assertion of power, whether it be taxation, law enforcement or otherwise. If the answer is "yes", however, then one's participation in the process equates to voluntary acceptance of the results regardless of agreement with them individually.
In other words, if you choose not to opt-out of being an American citizen, you choose to pay taxes. You choose to take advantage of the military protection so provided, the public services so provided, the consular services so provided, and the status so provided by being a citizen and in exchange you pay for those privileges. Is the overall tax rate justified? No, because many of the services government provides are not tasks government has been authorized in the Constitution to carry out. I do not conflate the ability to tax with the level of taxation nor justify the basis of taxation with its effective rate.
"just because it is good for the collective, it is fine to demand labour from the individual."
I never said this either. I specifically agreed with you that coerced labor equated to slavery and was immoral. You just choose to use a bad definition for taxation.
"which , I fully admit, is a contradiction"
And that is the crux of the matter. The contradiction results because you have created for yourself a faulty definition. I think you will find that once that definition is revised, the resulting logic and argument resolves itself.
Having the "right" but not the tools (guns) is ludicrous.
Remember the quote: "... a republic, if you can keep it ..."?
I think that the Founders made an assumption about the level of knowledge and rationality of the electorate.
Currently the entire educational establishment is doing its best, deliberately, to hinder the acquisition of those qualities by the young.
The results are obvious, I think.
If you have the time and the inclination, read Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr.'s "The Decline of American Liberalism". A sad and very enlightening history, in my opinion.
Best wishes.
Maritimus
EDIT: Inserted a missing word.
I think we all here decry the welfare system at the Federal level as being nothing more than vote pandering. Though I doubt we can eliminate it at this point, as an interim measure I would fully support that one of the provisions of receiving welfare was to lose the ability to vote. At least that way we couldn't fall into the trap identified by Alexander Fraser Tytler: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship."
The statist argument assumes helplessness of law-abiding citizens. Trouble is: those same statists want the LAC's helpless. The statist argument also assumes that those initiating force will prevail without the State to restrain them. They forget: in most cases those who want to be civilized, have the numerical advantage. That's how Western towns survived, and even thrived, before organized government followed the first settlers to the frontiers. A local sheriff could, more often than not, count on a majority of gun holders in his town supporting him.
Note: High Noon is a fiction. It also illustrates everything that can go wrong when a pacifistic philosophy, religious or otherwise, takes hold in a town. Soon the criminal element effectively rules, because everyone else is disarmed--or has turned coward.
A firm foundation of morals, principles and ethics that have been time tested and proven is the best defense. Check this out: http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPre...
This does not imply that I would want direct democratic rule on topics other than the behavior of police.
Wouldn't this kind of environment make the feedback incorrect? Or, is it because people would get to know the police that these cases would not be anything in the first place?
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
To be in compliance doesn't require some act not being mentioned. It has to be specifically mentioned and given approval.
I think what you have been saying is that by participating in the society at any point in your life, you implicitly agree to whatever the society may want to do to you in the future. This is my problem with the social contract. This dos not exist in any contract that I am aware of. I know of no contract that is one-way where the other party can change the terms of the contract at any time. Or, where the contract is not written that binds one party so firmly that they can be jailed for breaking the contract.
I don't think I am trying to define something into existence, just using logic.
As far as the contradiction, I don't think it is my contradiction to resolve. It is yours. I think you are making the claim that the individual should control their own labour except for in this one area.
For, example, I have never voted. I never saw it as useful. Why am I subject to the contract. Many say that it is because I bought food in a store, or took a job and made money. However, does that mean that someone that is kidnapped who takes food to survive from their captors implicitly agrees to be their captor, and they can now do anything they want to them?
No, that's not what I said. My comments were specifically that one must have a voice in the ongoing process of governance: a vote. If that is deprived or falsified, coercion is instituted. I agree with you completely that a change in the terms of a contract must be mutual for it to be binding. The assertion I can not support is that assent must be a conscious act of consent, such as a signature, rather than simply a failure to do anything at all. That's like a tenant claiming that he doesn't have to pay the rent when the landlord raises the rates on a new contract year, yet still gets to live in the apartment.
"I think you are making the claim that the individual should control their own labour except for in this one area."
You are mistaken. I did not make such an exception. Your definition of taxation was that of an absolute (necessitating coercion). My correction was to note that it was not an absolute, but rather conditional situation. I went on specifically to state that only voluntary taxation was justified.
"I have never voted. I never saw it as useful. Why am I subject to the contract."
Avoiding decision is in and of itself is a decision and all decisions have consequences. The only rights we lose are the ones we fail to exercise - or have exercised on our behalf. To build on the analogy, you continue to live in the apartment, yet complain about the rent. Either negotiate a new contract (vote for people who will change the laws) or move out and find a new apartment.
We think we know the answer. At least we know the approach to the answer, with some of the rough edges polished off. But until humanity matures to the point where it is able to except a rational philosophy, don't expect too much. Rather, be aware that you will need to steer things toward the goal of human rationality. That, fellow Gulchers, may take a while. A very long while. Don't give up, but don't become concretized by saying it has to be perfect now or we'll cease to participate by running away. In Atlas Rand used a device to make a point. Unless you want to keep apart from the rest of humanity, this plan is limited, and in the long run, at least with foreseeable technology, cannot be defended.
Second is expand control don't lose control. Recall is available at the local and state level and if you are in a state that doesn't have it it's a slave state - get it.
Federal level we should have it but despite the Constitution clearly stating other than age and residency requirements AND leaving the conduct of the selection to the States that somehow these servants of the states are exempt once the Senate or Representative Houses accept them.
The fix for that has never been attempted and it is pay the base salary and let the feds pay the added costs of travel and living expenses. But base salary as primary employment requires taxes and is proof of who employs whom.
That string having been run out You don't punish just one of them with recall it punishes all of them so a bad political party at the federal level can be punished at the state level with recall or not voting them into office. True we don't have None Of The Above but whose fault is that? The citizens. No reason why it can't be implemented along with a straight Yes or No if only one candidate is running. Same as with any proposition or question or proposal.
Any or all of that would have fixed thei problem long ago but the worst part is the eligible voter pool provides only half the registered voters a lot of them don't actually vote. Clearly then half the country has become disintereasted and usually because they have no representation and if they do vote their vote is tampered with by changing the name or results under winner take all rules.
I'm registered this year but only voted in the primary to cover local issues to avoid having my vote stolen and re-assigned to someone else.
You've seen the results of this year and you've also seen how the Government party and it's two halves has moved to block any further efforts at them controlling and rigging the elections Short of Trumps speech the problem is ignored so WHY are you enabling them year after year?
The problem with that it is negates the reasons for any other steps. as long over half the nation is participating in the enabling. In fact it blocks the need for anything further because it clearly shows at least half or more of the nation is not unhappy.
That one little fact is probably why the military hasn't upheld their oath of office which would be the next step but it shows how perilously weak the government really is. They can't remove the military's requirement for that oath except by amendment or ignoring it and that would give the military the reason it needs to act. 'support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.' A second way is to subvert and suborn the military into also ignoring their oaths of office which considering the way they have been treated by Obomba ain't going to happen. The third way is reduce the size of the military which he has done by half and that the most important half and suborn the remaining half which hasn't worked except for the careerists he appointed.
The next way is also an ongoing Obumbler project is to increase the size of the protective echelon or as you know it the DHS to the size and power of the military. Protective Echelon is from a German term schutzstaffel whose main and real purpose is to protect the government. I'd say most of what they do is in that area of concern. I don't think they take the same oath. Howeveer many are former military.
But the intent of the nation as a whole is 50.5% over half are happy. If tht figure went to 55% or 60% be a different story.
Why should they. Consider the largest tax increase from 2008. Devaluation of the buying power of the dollar, regardless of the price of gas, is still a fact. That's done through inflation and that's done by going heavily in debt and then repudiating or refusing the debt. Welshing is another word. So 30% cut in buying power or one third it's value did NOT show up in COLA but instead two groups got hit and hit hard. Retirees who are done working or cannot work and the unfunded military retirement. Another reason the military does not much care for Obungler they see him as Oburglar.
And there's anothere one coming as the bill to pay his debt is about due. So more inflation, devaluation and refusing the debt by decreasing the value of retirement or college savings or home savings is going to show up again. It was no Recession it was a scam.
Long winded but that 's where we sit. As for armed insurrection? On what grounds? Over half the nation is happy look at the amount voting to keep us in power!
And there it ends.
The solution is
QUIT Enabling
TAKE control
MAKE changes
In that order
In this couch potato nation. Fat chance.
And now you know why we have a Hillary and a Donald as candidates. Remember the saying always take advantage of a good crisis and if one doesn't come along manufacture one?
I give you the present elections Hillary and Trump ARE the crisis.
And they have trapped you once again by controlling who can get on the ballots even before they rig the results.
i really don't think anyone in DC gives a fig which one is elected their power is real and secured by the greatest wall ever built. Couch Potato Citizens who 'don't get it.'
To the point they don't even pretend to honor the Constitution part of Constitutional Republic - except for some fig leafs that like Contract with America will be watered down and disappear until next election.
Hillary of course has proven she cannot lead, nor manage, nor supervise. The real lesson learned from massive failure of both herself and her trainer and responsible supervisor. That's what happens when citizens fail in their responsibility and concentrate only on their rights - to steal, loot, and plunder.
A change that would help is get the Cabinet Secretaries out of the Act of Succession. They have zero votes which in itself is a denial of due process and the role of the citizen in selection. they should be concentrating on their job and training their successors as managers and supervisors - for leadership we presumably have the military itself . It's sort of a peacetime, war time chain of command.
The Chief of Staff in war time should be equal to the SecDef and Called something more appropriate Commander, US Armed Forces would suffice. The top two civilians would still be in charge with two backups selected by the two Congressional Houses.
As for the succession which so far has given us the horror of Pelosi it 's up to the Congress and the President's signature.
I submit that the order should be members of the senate, the Governors, members of the House and if 635 aren't enough we're in real trouble. Better to keep the top two separated.
Why? Votes? Senators are elected by entire States. The approval of the Representatives could be added and vice versa. Which means either a stated individual or the Senator Pro Tem and the Speaker would be the only one with any urgency. Surprise we've gone about 15% of our history without a VP. There is no time requirement for selection or approval.
Governors second and Representatives last due to sparcity of votes. Reps represent about half a million citizens they are elected by a significantly smaller number. Not even Nevada nor Rhode Island can produce less votes for Governor than they can for a Representative.
Last. Same party. That stops a Pelosi style coup. In the main it's a case of due process. The nation votes for hillary and she croaks which looks likely absent a diet and personal trainer, the VP at the same time then the third in line would be one selected by the House or 435 people or the Senate if changed at present. No requirement to keep Pelosi out if Trump were in office and croaked but ....let's not get too much into horror fiction.