It does only have one meaning. And there is no "social contract." Please stop using this term as if it denotes a real thing. Why do you assert that just being born into an area grants the group authority over the newly born individual? There is no logical basis for that line of thought.

Ah...but those are "rights" that NO ONE has under Natural Law. We don't have the right to kill other individuals regardless of any "social contract." We can logically deduce this because we live - therefore we have a right to life. We do not live to be killed by others, therefore we must respect their right to life as well. Nor do we have the right to "take whatever we wish." We have a right to our property and labor by its creation. We have a right to what we create. We do not have the right to take by force from others, as we would not want to allow others to take by force from us.

Wrong. Stealing is taking money or property by force or threat of force, period. Ultimately, you are responsible for your own self-protection. The police can't save you, they can only catch a criminal after the crime has been committed. That's why we all have the right to own a weapon for self-defense. If you're confronted by a rapist on the street, and he pulls a knife on you, do you think the police will arrive in time to save you? No. Which is why I carry a gun. I'll give that rapist something to think about when he pulls out his knife.

As for law enforcement, a private system would be possible, but as Thomas Jefferson proved, you can repeal all taxes and still have plenty of money from tariff revenue to fund law enforcement and the court system.

You're the one with the fallacious reasoning, my friend - you just said above "governments benefit and protect us" - blanket statement - I just disproved it.

Refute the following:

IS GOVERNMENT A SOLUTION TO ANYTHING?

People often debate or argue about the "role of government." But there is a basic argument that is almost always overlooked. It is a very simple argument:

* If you examine anything being "done by government," you will find human beings doing whatever is being done. They may also use equipment and machinery, but the most important work is done by individual human beings. If you go to a school, you will not find any "government" that runs the school. You will find a principal, a number of administrative people, and several teachers - all individual human beings. No matter what government monopoly you examine, for example a police station, you will find that the important work is done by individual human beings. If you visit a military installation, or a court, or a jail, or a veterans hospital, or a road being built, you will find individual human beings doing the work.
* The fact that these human beings call themselves "government," does not imbue them with magical powers to do their jobs better than those individuals who do not call themselves "government."
* Furthermore, the fact that certain individuals organize themselves into an institution called "government," does not imbue them with magical powers to do their jobs better than those individuals who do not so organize themselves.
* In general, people who don't call themselves "government," can do anything humans can do, at least as well as people who call themselves "government."

Is there any evidence that just because people call themselves "government," or they organize themselves into an institution called "government," they can do their jobs better?

IDOLATRY

In Man and Superman George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Government is the organization of idolatry." The dictionary defines "idol" as:

* A representation or symbol of worship;
* A false god;
* A pretender or impostor;
* An object of passionate devotion;
* A false conception or fallacy.

An idolater is a worshipper of idols. Idolatry is the phenomenon of worshipping idols. What do we call the belief in the "magical power" of government? What about the belief that because people call themselves "government" - or they organize themselves into an institution called "government" - therefore they have "magical powers" to perform miracles? Superstition, perhaps?

WE NEED PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND MANAGING

Certain "communal" activities need to be performed. For example, in a city certain things need to planned, coordinated, and managed. If you go to any city, you will find some human beings doing just this. They may use computers and other equipment, but the essential planning, coordination, and managing is always done by human beings. If you visit a large company, you will find the same thing. We absolutely do need planning, coordination, and managing. We have it. People do it.

DO WE ALSO NEED COERCION, VIOLENCE, AND MONOPOLIES?

Generally, the people who call themselves "government" operate on a different basis from that of the people who don't call themselves "government." The following assumptions seem to underlie the behavior of the people who call themselves "government":

* We are the only ones qualified to do the things we do; therefore we must have a monopoly to do the things we do and no one else may do them.
* In particular, we must be the only ones who have a monopoly on legalized violence.
* Because we are so highly qualified, we can't persuade people to do what we want; therefore we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force them to follow our orders.
* Because we are so highly qualified, we can't persuade people to pay for our wonderful services; therefore we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force them to pay.
* Because we do our jobs so well, we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force people to not compete with us.
* Some of our friends (who don't call themselves "government") are uniquely qualified to do the things they do (like doctors and other special-interest groups); therefore we grant them monopolies (licences), so they don't have to compete with unqualified quacks in a free market. Guess what this will do to medical costs - and the licence fees and campaign contributions we'll be able to collect!

Governments utilize coercive power, the power of violence, the power that stems from the barrel of a gun, power over or against people, government power at the expense of individual power. Government is organized violence. Governments, over time, tend to do their utmost to eliminate individual power. With a few exceptions, governments do not solve problems, they create them.

THE WEAKEST ARGUMENT FOR GOVERNMENT

If we don't have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

The people who call themselves "government" need such problems in order to justify their jobs. It is in their interest to create such problems and make them worse. The worse the problems, the bigger the bureaucratic empires they create, the more money they get, the more power they obtain, the more people they control.

The bigger the government, the greater the problems. A politician like Bush may say that he will reduce government and lower taxes because he thinks it will help him get re-elected. In practice Bush has greatly increased his own bureaucratic empire. His administration has expanded government regulation with abandon. He promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then raised taxes. Under Bush, deficit spending has ballooned out of control.

PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED BY PEOPLE, NOT BY GOVERNMENTS.

Once you realize that governments consist of people, and that whatever is being done is done by individual human beings - even though they may use machines and equipment - then it becomes embarrassingly obvious that only people can solve problems. The entire notion that government can or should do anything becomes quite absurd.

In their book Breakthrough Thinking, Gerald Nadler and Shozo Hibino write that "an organization, as a collective body, can't approach a problem." They have a section on "political and governmental horrors." They indicate that politics and government "are the graveyards of misbegotten problem solving." Politicians and bureaucrats have three basic types of "solutions":

* Pass a law.
* Throw money at the problem.
* Appoint a committee to study the problem.

In terms of problem-solving methodology, all three types are at best inefficient.

I would go further and suggest that as soon as people call themselves "government," there is a considerable probability that they acquire some kind of "magical power in reverse" - they somehow become less able to solve problems. Nadler and Hibino say that, "Government is operated mainly by bureaucrats, and bureaucrats' classic criterion in decision making is not fulfillment of project purposes but protection of their jobs."

Some people say government is a fecal alchemist - everything they touch turns into feces.

GOOD PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT

There are good people in government who produce worthwhile results. These valuable results are produced, not because the good people call themselves "government," but because they are good, competent, skillful people. If these people were to leave government - stop calling themselves "government" - I expect they would be able to produce even better results.

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua9.shtml

It is special, as it is a uniquely possessed by government.

A corporation can't put anyone out of business in a free market without the assistance of the government. This is why Standard Oil had to go to the government to reduce it's competition - because new oil suppliers sprang up and started offering cheaper prices and took a greater market share away from Rockefeller. It's all here:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap7.html

That wasn't my point. My point is that you're going to see more corporate crime if you have more corruption in government. And you will not be able to pursue corporate crime as well if you have corruption in government.

In which case it would be the fault of the corporation...

Were governments involved in large part by providing weapons and soldiers and money? Yes. They were a huge part of all these conflicts. The Jews were killed in WW2 because of their ethnicity, but they were killed by a GOVERNMENT.

How did their "social contract" become invalid???? I thought you said the social contract wasn't a contract, therefore how can it become invalid?

Key word there is "except" - therefore that statement doesn't refute anything.

You have full knowledge of a government's policies before you're 18????? I don't know anyone that well-informed. I'm still learning about my government's policies. And the more I learn, the more I don't like. You don't receive an education in the public fool system - you receive indoctrination for the most part.

Sorry, but majority rule cannot be the logical basis of political action. If everyone in your neighborhood votes that you should be the neighborhood slave, is that acceptable to you? Of course not, BECAUSE YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. The majority does not have the right to deprive a minority of rights, and the smallest minority is the individual.

Well, I guess it's good we can agree on something.


Well, if you're uncertain about a precious metals standard, but you agree with my military views, then you should definitely read the following:

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...ein103104.html

Happy to oblige.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

[/quote]

I understood perfectly well what you meant by "social contract." According to the link, it basically means that every individual making up a society (at least by implication) becomes part of it, and cedes to it a certain amount of authority. But, for the purposes of this thread, I'll use my definition of a society---the individuals who make it up as seperate entities.

The first problem with this "social contract" begins with the authority it claims. None of the individuals have the power to "cede" to society (or it's alleged instrument, government) any authority they do not themselves have individually. If someone hires a hit-man to kill his/her spouse, does that absolve them from blame? Not by a loooooong shot. The hit-man was just the scoundrel who did his/her dirty work. Just like the contract between the hit-man and his conspirator, the contract is invalid---the spouse didn't have the right to kill the other, and couldn't cede such a right. Any contract that says so is not only invalid, it's criminal.

The next problem is the fact that the contract provides no recourse to abuses to members of a society by the rest of the membership. "Society" is not only the lawmaker, but also final arbiter of it's own actions. Perhaps now you begin to see the folly, not just of the "social contract," but the fact that society is not an entity.

On topic of this thread, you complain that the rich should be willing to pay more in taxes because they "benefit the most" from it. I say not true. They've provided more to society than society ever gave them. These "evil rich" started and invested in businesses, which gave society products, services and jobs. They gave that "educated work force" a reason for being. It made those roads necessary. They provided the primary reason we have a stable society. Society never "provided" anything on it's own, it had to use the money taken from it's members, and their labor, to "provide" anything you claim it does.

As for your friend Hubens quote, the contract he talks of "enforcing" would be declared criminal if presented in a civil court, as well as being null and void. He mis-represents the Libertarian idea on the use of force---our position is that the only justifiable use of force is defensive, or (and only if that fails) retaliatory. No Libertarian ever bemoaned the use of force, just the agressive use of force. This matter of taxation is, indeed, agressive. It is indistinguishable from theft.

__________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely----Lord Acton

Truth-bringer, 4Liberty: I am in a hurry, so I will only respond to one point right now.

Wrong, theft is simply the act or instance of stealing. Theft does not require force. If I stole a car from you, and you weren't even there, no force was used. Your definition of theft needs serious review. Under a normal definition of theft, if you use public roads, and don't pay taxes, you are stealing. Straight up. Here are some sources for the definition of theft.

http://www.answers.com/topic/theft
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft


Hmmm, it seems I can't find a definition of theft that fits with yours. Get over your force fetish, please.

Hardly matters. It doesn't change the fact that you're advocating taking the rightful property of someone else under color of law. The social contract dodge didn't hold up under logic. In fact, I'll quote you the law as it exists here in Florida.

Florida Statutes, 812.014 (2)(c)1: To knowingly, and with intent, temporarily or permanently deprive another person of a right to their property or a benefit therefrom, or to appropriate said property for one's own use, or the use of a person not entitled thereto.

Taxation is indistinguishable from theft. Regardless of whether or not force is applied.

__________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely----Lord Acton

Wrong again. But while it's true that theft need not be carried out by force, it is still immoral if done via fraud or deception or implied consent. By the way, government is also committing theft by deception in regards to debauching the fiat currency. The dollar has constantly lost value since the institution of the Federal Reserve.

And 4Liberty is right. It is your definition that needs clarity. Do a little research on crimes committed under color of law.

"To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms." - Citizen's Savings & Loan Assn v. Topeka, 87 U.S. 655, 664

"To take a man's property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent where no consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did not, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man's consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man's property without his consent. The government's pretense of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he does not desire it, or does not bargain for it, the government has no more right, than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it." - Lysander Spooner, "Trial by Jury"

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Niiiiiice, Truth Bringer. Living up to your handle on here. Just for those who don't know, Lysander Spooner was a Boston attorney in the 19th Century; a fiery abolitionist, and a staunch defender of individual rights. He wrote with a clarity of mind and purposeful pen that revealed a vast intellect. Government advocates (for instance, the so-called social contract) really hated hearing such clear-headed thinking such as his. He saw government for what it was---and is.

He was also a business man, he once ran a private postal service between Boston and New York. It ran so efficiently, he undersold the US Postal Service. In fact, he liked to say (with a lot of justification) that he was the target of the government's eventually successful efforts to shut down private postal services. Even today, the stamp placed on letters for his service is so common among collectors of such that it doesn't fetch a huge price.

He practiced law in both Ohio and Massachussetts, where he passed away in 1882. In writing many of his essays, he clearly refuted the claims of numerous justifications for government violation of individual rights. Truth Bringer just quoted one of my favorite works of his, another was "Vices are not crimes." His best known was called, "The Constitution of no authority." It is in this one he refuted your social contract theory, some of those arguments I just used in my prior post, and another Truth Bringer used in hers, Ashideena.

Try hard as you might to justify taxing with no recognized limits, all have failed to come near demonstrating any real justification not based on a myth. There are better ways to finance the real functions of a government, like user fees and perhaps Jefferson's way---tariffs. Uniform ones.

You might read my signature at the bottom, here. That, too, is a sign of clear headed thinking. It's why I believe so fiercely in specifically limited government. It's why I'm a Libertarian.

__________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely----Lord Acton

T-B, you're quoting a case from 1874. Here's the Supreme Court ruling in that case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=87&invol=655

What they're saying is that taxes are legal if they serve a public good, but not if they merely take money from one citizen and give it to another. But the key sticking point was that there was a small number of beneficiaries.

That is not a blanket condemnation of progressive taxation, nor does it rule out welfare programs.

Here's a case study:
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/ncba...dy/brsugar.htm

Still many state courts, concerned that the public interest be protected, identified specific criteria essential to making a determination that a particular subsidy would benefit the people. See Mae Nan Ellingson, Jerry C.D. Mahoney, Public Purpose and Economic Development: The Montana Perspective, 51 Montana L. Rev. 356, 374 (1990) (identifying four factors common to those programs appropriately considered to have a public purpose: the program has traditionally been conducted by government; it cannot be conducted as effectively by the private sector or without government sponsorship; it benefits primarily or directly all citizens or general class of citizens; and the program is reasonably related to the intended benefit).

The problem is giving money to a very narrow constituency with no valid public purpose.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

That being the case, the vast majority of taxation would fail on parts 2, 3, and 4. I've rarely seen anything the government does that couldn't be done as effectively (if not more so) by private entities, almost as rarely seen any government program that primarily benefits all of us or a general class of us (outside of the military, law enforcement, and the courts,) and practically never that the program was reasonably related to the intended benefit.

__________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely----Lord Acton

That wasn't my claim in posting it. Please stop putting words into my mouth. My intent is mainly to show that taxation can be viewed as theft - at least on some level - by the government itself. That's all. You really need to try and get over your obsession with me and get a life.

But they're wrong on both their conclusions from a logical standpoint. However, from a legal standpoint, they're technically right within our system, since they wouldn't have been able to rule on the legality of taxes in general anyway, as the Constitution provided for certain types of taxes.

So, as usual, your "rebuttal" is a moot point.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

*Shrug*. You could certainly make that argument, but that's hardly a matter of objective fact; a lot of it comes down to opinion and judgement calls. And the courts tend to be deferential to the legislative branch in such instances.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.