The state is an institution of government that receives wide-spread support among all sorts of political philosophies. The difference, however, is that different political philosophies support different sizes and scopes of the state. A few examples: your typical “conservative” favors using the state for military and national defense, as well as enforcing morality among the people; your typical “liberal” (in the modern sense) favors using the state to regulate the economy and provide social services; even your typical “libertarian” who is generally opposed to the state in favor of liberty will support using the state in a limited, defense and crime prevention capacity. As I will argue here, so long as the state can collect funds by force to pay for national defense and crime prevention, it can collect funds by force to pay for anything, and so long as the state can legitimately enforce it’s monopoly of the defense and justice services, so too can it enforce a monopoly of any service.
Taxes
One of the primary characteristics, though not a required characteristic, of the state is its ability to tax. Taxes are necessarily collected by force, for if force were unneeded for the collection of such funds, they would not be taxes, but voluntary fees. Why must taxes be collected by force? Because not everyone consents to the government taking their money. Again, if they did, the funds would merely be voluntarily-paid fees. The various political philosophies I briefly outlined above all support the state’s ability to tax. They just disagree on how those taxes are to be used. The flaw in their arguments, however, is that if the state can tax to pay for national defense, then it can tax to pay for social services, such as food stamps and medical-care. Why?
Funded by Coercion
The typical argument in favor of using taxes for national defense (to pay for an army) is that the people have the inherent right to defend themselves and others. Therefore, they can delegate that authority to others. What is overlooked is that the people also have the inherent right to “feed” and “fix” themselves and others. Using the same logic that justifies using taxes for national defense, the people can legitimately delegate the authority to feed and fix themselves to others. In other words, if funds can be collected by the state by force to provide national defense, then it can also collect funds by force to provide food stamps and medical-care. An argument for using taxes for national defense is also an argument for using taxes for social services. Let us now turn to my second point.
Monopolized Services
Another primary characteristic of the state, this one required to qualify as a state, is its monopoly of the services of defense and justice. Defense and justice are the only legitimate uses of force according to the non-aggression principle. Within the state’s territory, it only permits itself to provide defense and administer justice for the people. If enforcing this monopoly of the services of defense and justice is justified, then the state is justified in enforcing a monopoly of any service. These services could include anything that the people can provide themselves (see my first point), such as grocery and medical-care services. In other words, if the state’s enforcement of it’s monopoly on the services of defense and justice is justified, and if it were to enforce a monopoly of the grocery and medical-care services, then that too would be justified.
Defending Socialism
Let me put this in other, more offensive terms. Socialism is a political philosophy whose goal is the equal distribution of wealth, and its vehicle the state. It seeks to accomplish this by having the state own the means of production. (This usually includes monopolizing the means of production.) Any good or service produced by the state is a “socialized” good or service. Education produced by the state is socialized education. Roads produced by the state are socialized roads. Likewise, defense and justice provided by the state are socialized defense and justice. If the state is justified in socializing education, roads, and defense and justice, then it is justified in socializing the production of any good or service.
Conclusion
Before anyone thinks I’m defending the state, let it be known that I am not. In fact, I am attacking it. I have used the foregoing logical deduction to demonstrate the fallacy in the various arguments in favor of the state, of any size and scope. It is a matter of logical consistency that in defending the supposed justified actions of the state, one is defending all actions of the state under the two characteristics explored: using taxation to do what the people already have the right do (defend, feed, and fix themselves), and/or monopolizing those services. It is my political philosophy that the state is not justified in either collecting funds by force, taxation, nor in monopolizing the services of defense and justice within it’s territory. Socialism in any degree is unjust and always fails. To allow any good or service to be socialized is a concession that Socialism is justified. This must be fought against if we are to have genuine liberty.
Of course, your considered a quack if you remind a ‘conservative’ that his favorite programs, namely the military, police, fire etc… are indeed socialist programs.
Great article.
So I don’t get the point- the article is supporting anarchy? Isn’t the Constitution a compact among “We the People” authorizing some national defense for the benefit of all? It allows for Congress to pass laws for national defense but nowhere authorizes it to create social welfare programs. Doesn’t all government have to be able to enforce its laws? To be technical, there is no government that is not “socialist.” But we must have a minimal amount of government to protect individuals from infringing on each others’ rights – it is a catch 22 because the very government you must have to protect individuals must tax and spend in order to do it, and this itself can be an infringement.
My article is about principle, not the Constitution. If parts of the Constitution violate what can be shown as true principle, should those parts be supported?
I’m in agreement with the anonymous MC. We do need to change things in our local and State governments to reflect the meanings and assertions of the Constitution of the United States and the Founding Fathers. But completely over-through the government, even of the State, all at once would lead to Anarchy, mostly because of individual and collective wickedness of the people. We need to roll back government by abolishing a few programs at a time, beginning by having the State Legislature Charter a State Bank so as to avoid the need for a continued dependence on Federal Funding.
Anyone interested in this principle can learn more at: thesecretofoz.com.
What? Are you saying you don’t support the Constitution for the United States of America? Let us give Mr. Collins’ ideas a constitutional test:
US Constitution says:
Article 1, section 8 “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Collins says:
“It is my political philosophy that the state is not justified in either collecting funds by force, taxation, nor in monopolizing the services of defense and justice within it’s territory.”
Is Collins’ opinion constitutional? NO! Collins disagrees with the US Constitution on matters of common defense AND taxation.
Mr. Collins, before you write another article deriding the US Constitution, you may consider that the US Constitution is a document that provides specific exemptions to the basic liberal philosophy (taxes, regulate foreign commerce, money, defense, etc). Without these specific exemptions society would not function well at all and there would be little practical aspect of justice. Anarchy is worse than tyranny. D&C 134: 6 says “We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.”
This article is an offense to the Citizens of the United States of America.
Mr. Jeremy, my article concerns only principle. I’d appreciate feedback on the points I’ve made and the logic I’ve employed. If it is flawed, please dissect it for me.
I’d be happy to if you first answer my question: “Are you saying you don’t support the Constitution for the United States of America?” If you answer no to this, and if you follow Benson’s guidance to support it’s original intent, then you will need to retract your constitution denigrating ideas. If you answer yes to this question then I don’t see the point in discussing your personal issues regarding the constitution on an LDS theology based website.
To be frank, I consider your points above to be rather rough and primitive to political thought. Boiled down, you’re passing along a basic IF-THEN logical deduction. Your IF-THEN analogy could be passed on to anything of your choosing, which would necessarily “logically exclude” all government powers using your consistent reasoning rule. Our society and law isn’t built entirely on a deductive logic puzzle. We use quite a bit of inductive reasoning as well as inspiration from above.
To counter your point, I recommend reading the Federalist Papers as a good starting point to grasp why some powers are granted to the state where others are not.
Jeremy. Those parts of the Constitution based on true principles, I support. For only those are we justified in supporting (not commanded, mind you), according to D&C 98:5. If you can show me where my logic is flawed, rather than ad-hominem attacking it, great! I’ll consider your argument. I’m glad you’ve managed to understand my point regarding government powers.
This article is in harmony with the site owner’s intent. I am LDS, and am writing about liberty. That meets his qualifications. He is also very interested in publishing articles that are responses to each other, *hint hint*.
As far as I am concerned, prophet’s of the Lord have said the constitution was inspired by God. They didn’t tell us parts were and parts weren’t, or to pick and chose what we like and what we don’t. They told us to support it in it’s entirety and as it was originally intended.
I’ve showed the flaws in your arguments and have offered authoritative sources. You seem content avoiding or ignoring the idea, so what’s the use going on? And what’s the use in reinventing the wheel? These arguments are centuries old. I don’t see the point in battling it out when better authors have opined. Again, read the Federalist Papers and you’ll get the response you’re asking for.
As far as “ad-hominem attacking it” goes—I think you may be being a little thin skinned and may be taking offense where none was intended. Why author an article if you aren’t willing to accept honest scrutiny? Labeling something as primitive is relativistic terminology. It’s not an offense unless you make it one.
I suppose that once the prophet has spoken, the thinking’s been done.
There’s nothing wrong with examining and trying to understand (and even debating) what it is about the Constitution that’s inspired.
The “flaws” you pointed out had to do with the Constitution, of which my article is silent. I’m addressing principles, not a specific application of them.
I never took offense. The last part you said didn’t contain anything to respond to, just that my points are “rough” and “primitive”. That’s ad hominem.
Skyler-
I definitely appreciate a principled approach, and will acknowledge that while the Constitution is inspired, it was written by men and has some imperfections. I am just trying to understand your position. Could you read the first response I posted and address it so I can better understand the purpose of the article? Thanks.
Sure MC. The point of the article is to demonstrate that the “proper role of government” principle (the principle that says the people can only delegate powers to government that they already possess), if used to support socialized defense, can also be used to support socialized anything, such as medical-care.
Unless a government has the full consent of “we the people”, not just a majority, then it isn’t justified in taxing those that haven’t consented. There are those that justify this and say it’s okay sense defense is a proper role of government. While I agree that defense is a proper role of government, coercing the minority to subsidize the cost of defense for everyone is not. And if it is, then coercing the minority to subsidize the cost of medical-care for everyone is just as much a proper role of government.
Further, my point is that even limited-government supporters (called minarchists) concede too much to Socialists. There really is only anarchy (which included full consent private government), or Socialism (in all it’s flavors). To defend the state, unless it has full consent (in which case it’s not a state), is to defend Socialism.
I don’t think that government must tax. If a service is demanded, it will be paid for voluntarily. This is the anarcho-capitalist and voluntaryist argument.
Skyler,
So in the case of national defense would you say let those who care to have it pay for it and the rest who don’t care to pitch in will also enjoy the benefit because they live within the borders, and at a time of invasion it would be impossible to determine which individuals you are defending and which you are not?
Would you say the topic of your article is purely theoretical, given that in a country of millions of people or even in a small town of a few thousand you would never have “full consent”?
MC, I am saying I see no reason why insurance companies and their private defense agencies are incapable of providing security. Hans Hoppe had a great essay on this here: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf
I will read it, thanks.
Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood your analogy. Aren’t principles able to be applied in many aspects? Therefore if I apply your socialistic argument to the use of fire wouldn’t the following be true?
If fire has the capacity to burn out of control then fire is too dangerous and cannot be trusted, therefore we shouldn’t use fire despite its benefit for the common good. therefore we shouldn’t use fire. Satan uses fire therefore God has no use for it??
Is this what you’re attempting to say??
I must not understand you. As far as the constitution goes, I feel Jeremy has a better grasp on this than you do. sorry bud.
BowNarrow,
I don’t believe you’ve understood my argument. It centers on the “proper role of government” principle, that the only roles government can properly perform are those delegated to it by the people. This principle is used (not by me) to justify taxing both consenting and dissenting persons (the people) to provide defense services. People have the right to defend themselves, so they are justified in delegating that role to others. Well, people also have the right to feed and fix themselves, so they would be justified in delegating that role to others under this principle as well. The problem is that what’s ignored is that although defense services are a justified role of government (as would be food stamps and medical-care), what is not justified is coercing dissenters to pay for it. Those defending government defense services don’t seem to recognize that. Basically, to defend any government service paid for by “the people” which includes dissenters (unjustified under Jefferson’s “consent of the governed” principle) is to defend all government services paid for by “the people”, which includes dissenters.
I have presented a philosophical argument, not a Constitutional one. If my argument is sound, then it must be understood that certain applications of government that do this, ie. The Constitution (among others), contain some elements of Socialism. And to defend these elements, is to defend Socialism.
Skyler.
This article has flawed premises and therefore flawed conclusions. There are couple logical fallacies in here as well. Here is a quick run down…
Incorrectly assumes that the state and liberty have an either/or relationship with one another (logical fallacy: false dichotomy).
Correctly observes that when people have the right to do something for themselves that they may delegate that authority. (Bravo! no argument here)
Overlooks the requirement for citizens to specifically delegate their powers on a power by power basis in order to confer legitimacy on the state excersizing the delegated powers.
Incorrectly asserts that a state to which a people have delegated any power at all would be justified in taking all powers (logical fallacy: slippery slope, the reality is that what the people don’t delegate the people retain. if the people choose to delegate it all thats a different story).
It seems to reject the whole notion of social contract by delegitimizing of any form of government which has even a single dissenter (logical fallacy: Nirvana fallacy – when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect).
Incorreclty conflates all forms of social contract (ie all forms of the state including consensual government) with socialism. (logical fallacy: guilt by association)
Incorrectly grants uncritical acceptance to a dangerously incomplete description of the purposes of socialism, and uses the word socialism in a manner stated openly as intended to give offense (logical fallacy: appeal to emotion)
Fails to take account of the differences between “public goods” (like national defense, where excluding non-payers is relatively difficult) and “private goods” (like food, where excluding non-payers is relatively easy) also seems oblivious to the “free-rider” problem.
(for a more complete description of “public goods” as a term in economics see wikipedia or http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html)
This article may inspire me to become a contributor.
Jeff,
I appreciate your comments. Once again you have me considering the ways in which my article could have been written better. My point, however, remains unchanged.
Considering my previous work on “the state”, it is not a false dichotomy to make the foundational contrast between the state and liberty. The state, according to it’s definition as a “criminal organization” is a violation of liberty. I’m happy to provide you resources on this.
On the delegation of powers, my article took the assumption that this is what’s being done. It’s a philosophical look that if national defense services can be specifically delegated to a central state based on majority vote, so can health-care services. There’s no difference in this since the people have a right to perform both themselves. The point is on what we can force dissenters to pay for through the power of the state.
On the social contract, you’ve made the logical fallacy that if the majority desire one solution to a problem, that it’s the right solution. The social contract doesn’t make it right, it only makes it legal. The entire idea of the social contract should be questioned. I’ve linked before to an article deconstructing it on mathematical grounds.
It should also be understood that I don’t believe that socialism is necessarily coercive. Socialism is well and good if it’s established voluntarily. I have no quarrels with it, but it’s still socialism and still fails on economic-calculational grounds. Many will contrast these two types of socialism by designating the state-coerced form as big-s Socialism, and the concept in general as little-s socialism. It is the former that I use in this article.
As for my description of Socialism, please explain how I am wrong. We’ve already discussed in another comment thread the “smokescreen” definition versus the “true” purpose of Socialism. Consider this a use of the “smokescreen” definition. And appealing to emotion adds a little flavor now and then.
As for free-riders, who’s to say there aren’t free-riders of national defense? I’d say there are plenty who don’t pay anything in taxes and still get these protections. This makes them free-riders, does it not? I can appreciate your definitions of public and private goods, but I believe public goods can be provided just as any other good. There isn’t any reason there must be a coercive state to provide “public goods”, and if there is, then the same reasons can be used to justify a coercive state providing private goods.
Again the purpose of the article was to explain that so long as the state is justified in coercing dissenters to pay for one service the people can rightly provide themselves, then it is justified in coercing dissenters to pay for any service the people can rightly provide for themselves. I didn’t even address the question of delegation, I assumed it. Forgive me!
Skyler.
Now we appear to be getting to the meat.
It now becomes clear that you and I define the state differently.
I do not hold the state to be a “criminal organization” by definition.
Instead I subscribe to the notion “That to secure these rights (life, liberty & property), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” this allows for a recognition of both legitimate as well as illigitimate forms of the state.
Also your rejection of the concept of the social contract intrigues me as I am aware of no alternative to it aside from the hobbesian state of nature. I intend to look into this further. I believeit can be argued that atural law provides a valid basis for the legitimacy of the social contract and therefore the legitimacy of the state.
I will write more on these topics later.
I don’t see it as a producive use of time for two people who both reject socialism to argue over the definition. You argued from an incomplete definition of socalism for the sake of expediency… having pointed it out I can now let that go… to pursue this further would border on scatological.
There is a consistent argument which can be made for simultanelusly delegating national defense to the state while NOT delegating health care. An understanding of the difference between “public goods” vs. “private goods” is central to understanding this argument (its not just that whatever the state produces is “public”).
Its more detailed than I can present here but suffice it to say that “public goods” don’t allow a profit motive for their producer (the “free-rider” problem), and therefore “public goods” can potentially go unprodced in the private sector market place. This would be easier to explain if you could at least temporarily separate the words “coercive” and “state” in your mind. I expect that this will be difficult for you… I will see if I can locate my rhetorical crowbar and give you a hand. ;)
Accordingly, I still can’t quite sign off on your conclusion in this piece… largely because the assumption of delegation is flawed. You see when the public vs private goods argument is combined with even a hint of free market economics (which I believe you probably support) the conclusion is that certain things which people have the power to do for themselves can NOT legitimately be delegated to a state (coercive or otherwise).
I would very much like to find time to present this argument in more detail, and my motivation is growing.
Regards
Jeff
Jeff,
I do hope you find time to explain your point of view. We’d love to publish it if you do. In case you missed it, Chris Brown had an interesting article on the state, found here: Following Satan’s Plan: the State as Enemy to God.
Skyler.
Skyler,
I read your linked mathematical deconstruction of the social contract. thanks for providing the link.
Sadly the best thing that i can say about it is that at least it wasn’t too long … the ideas it puts forth alternate between fallacious and irrelevant. I reject this argument in its entirety… from its athiest opening paragraphs, through its faulty assumption that “probability” has any bearing on political legitimacy, and its predictable but meaningless arithmetic dog and pony show, right down to its concluding utopian argument from silence.
It’s simply garbage in my opinion. totally unconvincing to any one that doesn’t already hold the authors views. It gave me nothing new to think about except how far off base the whole thing is.
if you have another link that does a better job of attacking the social contract i would be interested in reading it (provided its of a workable length, like this one was).
I will keep it in mind however as an alternative position that some may hold, and endeavor to provide specific alternatives to some of its more egregious errors as I compose my own thoughts on the subject of social contract.
I read the Chris Brown piece as well. It was much better but still not something that I can whole heartedly agree with. I’m starting to feel some internal pressure to get my own “positive” ideas in to the conversation… I don’t like the feeling I get standing around critiquing other peoples writings all the time.
Thanks for the repartee
Jeff
Jeff,
You can find other critiques of the “social contract” via LibertySearch.info here.
Here’s a short one by Butler Shaffer.
Here’s a longer one by Williamson Evers.
Skyler.
Jeff,
I would also add these two links on “tacit consent” since it’s so closely related to “social contract”:
(super short) Roderick Long via Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Tacit_consent
(short) Mike Rozeff: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff26.html
Skyler.
As LDS, we must remember the constitution leaves most power to the states, and has very limited enumerated powers for the federal government, including the military (although the founders didn’t want foreign entanglements.)