8 ms·

Keeping the peace means enforcing nonviolent interaction and providing due process for conflict resolution. Liberty isn't the same thing as prosperity/economic

Keeping the peace means enforcing nonviolent interaction and providing due process for conflict resolution. Liberty isn't the same thing as prosperity/economic power. They are different words for a reason. You can be very poor and very free, or very comfortably enslaved. Liberty is fundamentally your relationship with those who can use legitimate force against you.

wbsss4412 5y ago
Your definition of liberty here is getting really tangled. If liberty is “fundamentally your relationship with those who can use legitimate force against you” then how is having a set monetary policy incompatible with liberty as long as it comes from a “legitimate” source of power?
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Because compliance with that monetary policy is enforced with.. force? You must pay taxes in USD, and if you don't you go to jail. The government also conveniently controls the USD supply, which allows the to debase it as they see fit, forcing you to obtain a set amount of USD per year to pay taxes. If the government accepted tax revenue in gold or bitcoin or anything else they don't totally control, you'd be absolutely right.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    But we all agree that the government is legitimate, and so it's use of force is legitimate. Additionally, if the government forced you to pay it $1000 a year, even if you could deposit that in gold, you would still be forced to pay. The currency seems irrelevant. It seems like what your saying is you believe taxation is legitimate, but requiring taxes to be pain in USD is illegitimate. Which, like, is just your opinion man (and makes the whole argument circular) I don't see any generic argument that makes taxation compatible with your definition of liberty but taxation in USD incompatible". I don't see really any generic definition of liberty that would distinguish between those two actions. I'm rate limited, but to your example below of a currency no one could obtain, the government could equivalently apply a greater than 100% wealth tax. Or the government could define all speech as force or any number of other things. A capricious government can do bad things yes, but requiring taxes to be paid in a particular currency doesn't give them any more powerful ways to be capricious.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      The currency seems irrelevant, but it's not. Imagine my government in Tyrannia only accepted taxes in a currency which was impossible to obtain except by stealing it (also illegal). The government would then hold every citizen in a catch-22, allowing it to arbitrarily decide whom to imprison for not paying taxes and who to imprison for stealing the currency required to pay them.
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        It seems like the government issuing their own currency still isn’t really the issue in this thought experiment…
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        It is though, since they can debase that self same currency as they see fit. This fundamentally changes the playing field when negotiating your taxes with the government. The only reason USD has any value at all is because it's what everyone has to pay taxes to the US government in, and what US bonds are paid in.
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        What you’re saying is essentially “imagine a government with the power to create laws that allow arbitrary imprisonment with no recourse, that would be tyrannical”, which, yes, but that only has to do with the currency because that’s what you chose for your example. Said government could pass a law stating that all citizens must be in two places at once, and achieve the same effect.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        As mentioned in a previous comment, I'm saying "Imagine a government without broad power over general welfare". This was the US government until 1936 with United States v. Butler. I don't think it would be a catastrophe to reverse this decision again. It seems that in spite of best efforts, the US has failed to preserve the very meaning of liberty, as it was initially envisioned, from total deterioration even in its very definition.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    Any centralized authority with a monopoly on force is going to have to levy taxes. Otherwise you’d end up with people just refusing to pay because they didn’t get the judgements they desire. If there is a state _at all_ there is force involved. I don’t really understand what you believe is possible here. What you’re discussing is tantamount to assuming that American traditions of due process just exist in a state of nature when they absolutely do not.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      I believe it's possible to have a state whose powers and authority are fundamentally limited. I also believe that was the original intention of US. I agree taxes must be levied. I just disagree it's legitimate to levy them for most of what they are spent on today. If I ask myself "what should the state be allowed to do?", it's basically answered by "what would I be comfortable holding a gun to someone's head for?". To take a popular example: If it's wrong to hold a gun to a doctor's head in order to force them to treat a patient (which I think it is), and it's wrong to hold a gun to a bystander's head to force them to pay the doctor, then it's wrong to fund healthcare with taxation.
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        You would hold a gun to someone’s head over petty theft or the violation of a contractual agreement?
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        > over petty theft Yes, I'd have no problem shooting a thief, especially in defence of my primary food supply. > violation of a contractual agreement I'd have no problem holding a gun to someone's head in order to extract what compensation is due to me under a lawful agreement.
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        Stealing from your primary food supply isn’t really what I had in mind when I was referring to petty theft. If anything I meant stealing a small amount from a significant excess. > I'd have no problem holding a gun to someone's head in order to extract what compensation is due to me under a lawful agreement. So if a doctor enters into a contractual agreement with the state to provide healthcare, then it’s ok?
joshuamorton 5y ago
> enforcing nonviolent interaction By ultimately using force or the threat thereof to prevent people from using force in disallowed ways, right? > Liberty isn't the same thing as prosperity/economic power. I didn't say they were synonyms. I said prosperity was a prerequisite to liberty[1]. A poor person isn't free to inhabit a house, and if they try to do so the state will use force to prevent or remove them. [1]: actually I said all else equal, more prosperity means more liberty. To use your example (which I don't really buy, a rich slave is sort of not a thing), a "rich" slave is able to purchase better food for themselves than a poor slave whereas a poor slave would need to resort to theft, and risk force as a consequence.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  A homeless person can be more free than a person confined in a mansion, can they not? > By ultimately using force or the threat thereof to prevent people from using force in disallowed ways Yes, since using force to compel action is basically the definition of slavery and decidedly un-free.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > A homeless person can be more free than a person confined in a mansion, can they not? Sure. But a rich homeless person is no longer homeless, and a poor person confined in their home is less free than a rich person confined on their home. You haven't addressed my point. > Yes, since using force to compel action is basically the definition of slavery and decidedly un-free. Right, so when I said > You sort of admit as much, what is keeping the piece but ultimately deciding which things are good things or not I was correct. The government decides which things are good or not (using force in disallowed ways) and prevents those. Generally governments high in libetry also do things like punish fraud, because fraud is bad and misleading people and stealing their money...reduces liberty? Or is fraud prevention unrelated to liberty, and should the government even do it?
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      > a poor person confined in their home is less free than a rich person confined on their home I disagree. The rich person may be more comfortable, but they are no more free. Confinement is confinement. > Or is fraud prevention unrelated to liberty Fraud is related to securing of property rights, which are a part of liberty. How free are you if people can remove the food from your pantry? Fraud as a criminal offense has been derived from "theft by false pretense". But I'm pretty sure we'd be fine if we decriminalized it and relegated it to a tort.

wbsss4412 5y ago

Your definition of liberty here is getting really tangled. If liberty is “fundamentally your relationship with those who can use legitimate force against you” then how is having a set monetary policy incompatible with liberty as long as it comes from a “legitimate” source of power?

thegrimmest 5y ago
Because compliance with that monetary policy is enforced with.. force? You must pay taxes in USD, and if you don't you go to jail. The government also conveniently controls the USD supply, which allows the to debase it as they see fit, forcing you to obtain a set amount of USD per year to pay taxes. If the government accepted tax revenue in gold or bitcoin or anything else they don't totally control, you'd be absolutely right.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  But we all agree that the government is legitimate, and so it's use of force is legitimate. Additionally, if the government forced you to pay it $1000 a year, even if you could deposit that in gold, you would still be forced to pay. The currency seems irrelevant. It seems like what your saying is you believe taxation is legitimate, but requiring taxes to be pain in USD is illegitimate. Which, like, is just your opinion man (and makes the whole argument circular) I don't see any generic argument that makes taxation compatible with your definition of liberty but taxation in USD incompatible". I don't see really any generic definition of liberty that would distinguish between those two actions. I'm rate limited, but to your example below of a currency no one could obtain, the government could equivalently apply a greater than 100% wealth tax. Or the government could define all speech as force or any number of other things. A capricious government can do bad things yes, but requiring taxes to be paid in a particular currency doesn't give them any more powerful ways to be capricious.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    The currency seems irrelevant, but it's not. Imagine my government in Tyrannia only accepted taxes in a currency which was impossible to obtain except by stealing it (also illegal). The government would then hold every citizen in a catch-22, allowing it to arbitrarily decide whom to imprison for not paying taxes and who to imprison for stealing the currency required to pay them.
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      It seems like the government issuing their own currency still isn’t really the issue in this thought experiment…
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        It is though, since they can debase that self same currency as they see fit. This fundamentally changes the playing field when negotiating your taxes with the government. The only reason USD has any value at all is because it's what everyone has to pay taxes to the US government in, and what US bonds are paid in.
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        What you’re saying is essentially “imagine a government with the power to create laws that allow arbitrary imprisonment with no recourse, that would be tyrannical”, which, yes, but that only has to do with the currency because that’s what you chose for your example. Said government could pass a law stating that all citizens must be in two places at once, and achieve the same effect.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        As mentioned in a previous comment, I'm saying "Imagine a government without broad power over general welfare". This was the US government until 1936 with United States v. Butler. I don't think it would be a catastrophe to reverse this decision again. It seems that in spite of best efforts, the US has failed to preserve the very meaning of liberty, as it was initially envisioned, from total deterioration even in its very definition.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  Any centralized authority with a monopoly on force is going to have to levy taxes. Otherwise you’d end up with people just refusing to pay because they didn’t get the judgements they desire. If there is a state _at all_ there is force involved. I don’t really understand what you believe is possible here. What you’re discussing is tantamount to assuming that American traditions of due process just exist in a state of nature when they absolutely do not.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    I believe it's possible to have a state whose powers and authority are fundamentally limited. I also believe that was the original intention of US. I agree taxes must be levied. I just disagree it's legitimate to levy them for most of what they are spent on today. If I ask myself "what should the state be allowed to do?", it's basically answered by "what would I be comfortable holding a gun to someone's head for?". To take a popular example: If it's wrong to hold a gun to a doctor's head in order to force them to treat a patient (which I think it is), and it's wrong to hold a gun to a bystander's head to force them to pay the doctor, then it's wrong to fund healthcare with taxation.
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      You would hold a gun to someone’s head over petty theft or the violation of a contractual agreement?
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        > over petty theft Yes, I'd have no problem shooting a thief, especially in defence of my primary food supply. > violation of a contractual agreement I'd have no problem holding a gun to someone's head in order to extract what compensation is due to me under a lawful agreement.
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        Stealing from your primary food supply isn’t really what I had in mind when I was referring to petty theft. If anything I meant stealing a small amount from a significant excess. > I'd have no problem holding a gun to someone's head in order to extract what compensation is due to me under a lawful agreement. So if a doctor enters into a contractual agreement with the state to provide healthcare, then it’s ok?

joshuamorton 5y ago

> enforcing nonviolent interaction By ultimately using force or the threat thereof to prevent people from using force in disallowed ways, right? > Liberty isn't the same thing as prosperity/economic power. I didn't say they were synonyms. I said prosperity was a prerequisite to liberty[1]. A poor person isn't free to inhabit a house, and if they try to do so the state will use force to prevent or remove them. [1]: actually I said all else equal, more prosperity means more liberty. To use your example (which I don't really buy, a rich slave is sort of not a thing), a "rich" slave is able to purchase better food for themselves than a poor slave whereas a poor slave would need to resort to theft, and risk force as a consequence.

thegrimmest 5y ago
A homeless person can be more free than a person confined in a mansion, can they not? > By ultimately using force or the threat thereof to prevent people from using force in disallowed ways Yes, since using force to compel action is basically the definition of slavery and decidedly un-free.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > A homeless person can be more free than a person confined in a mansion, can they not? Sure. But a rich homeless person is no longer homeless, and a poor person confined in their home is less free than a rich person confined on their home. You haven't addressed my point. > Yes, since using force to compel action is basically the definition of slavery and decidedly un-free. Right, so when I said > You sort of admit as much, what is keeping the piece but ultimately deciding which things are good things or not I was correct. The government decides which things are good or not (using force in disallowed ways) and prevents those. Generally governments high in libetry also do things like punish fraud, because fraud is bad and misleading people and stealing their money...reduces liberty? Or is fraud prevention unrelated to liberty, and should the government even do it?
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    > a poor person confined in their home is less free than a rich person confined on their home I disagree. The rich person may be more comfortable, but they are no more free. Confinement is confinement. > Or is fraud prevention unrelated to liberty Fraud is related to securing of property rights, which are a part of liberty. How free are you if people can remove the food from your pantry? Fraud as a criminal offense has been derived from "theft by false pretense". But I'm pretty sure we'd be fine if we decriminalized it and relegated it to a tort.