Can’t We Work Together Without Threatening Violence?

I posted the above images to our Facebook page yesterday. This conversation on twitter started with me tweeting the following at Bernie Sanders:



He didn’t like that and said that, as a producer creating value, he is being taken advantage of by those that profit off his labor. “Why should a CEO make a thousand times more than me?” he asked. Well the answer is simple. The CEO/business owner/entrepreneur forwards money to you to pay for your labor in the form of wages (wages you voluntarily agreed to). He or she also pays for the machinery you use and the work space as well. They, on the other hand, do not get paid or reap real rewards until profits are made. So if a laborer want’s a lions share of the rewards, they need to bear the lions share of the risk and responsibility as well. After sharing this on the Facebook page, someone commented with the following counter argument:

“While I agree. There are some things that everyone benefits from that everyone should pay for like roads(despite their disrepair) and emergency services”

I responded with “All of those things can be privatized.”

The response back was, in my opinion, a cop out by them. They said “I don’t think I dare ask a good business model for a fire department… Who handles natural disasters? The blazes we get raging accross California on a semi regular basis?” To me this is just saying “I don’t want to think about any other alternative beyond what we already have right now even though I admit with roads that they don’t really work.”

I then responded with this longer line of reasoning:

“Can I ask you question? Are you for socialized medicine? If you are against it, why? Or a better question, would you be for government being the sole provider of food?

Most everyone (that is sane) is against government monopolizing food because 1) it is a necessary and important thing that keeps society and life going and 2) government could abuse its privilege.

You see, people through common sense, understand the economics behind this. The government is a monopoly on force within a territory so it can use force to stamp out any and all competition that would compete for food production. While it uses force to enforce its monopoly, it can thrive off of inefficiency and high prices for the food since there is no competition to underbid them. This hurts the consumer since the government can offer poor quality food or nothing at all and still make money by forcing people to subsidize its monopoly through taxation (which is theft). This means that everyone not part of the government racket is forced to pay high prices for a terrible food product (or nothing at all) and they lack the ability to purchase food from anyone else because, as we can see, government is a monopoly on force and has eliminated (as best as it could) competitive market forces in food production.

People seem to understand that with food, a vital resource for survival, but not with anything else that government monopolizes. We are talking about principles here so if this economic principle is true with food, it must also be true with law, fire protection, life and property protection and so on. As a solution, defense and fire protection are essentially insurances with the price you pay the premium. This means that those services can be bought and sold privately on the market like any other insurance. Competition means that providers of these services best serve their interests when they provide these services adequately (and reasonably priced) to their clients.

So if it is true with food, it should be true with any other resource or service we value highly.

We can also see how government controlling a single valuable resource or service like food can lead to instantaneous control of the population. How much more so when it monopolizes law, police, defense, and anything else? If controlling just one is disastrous, how have we let so many things fall under it’s thumb?”

This person responded by answering my questions with statements that were not backed up by much, if any, logic.

“As for your first question. On socialized medicine. My short answer is yes, I feel like medicine and healthcare should be available to everyone. For your second question as the government being the sole source of food. Certainly not. I feel like growing food is something a community can handle just fine. The answer to what seems to be your underlying question is I want a well trimmed government. But there are some things I feel people shouldn’t have to tackle alone. And that’s where I want my tax dollars to go.”

This is where the conversation ends as of writing this right now. If it continues, I’ll update it here as well. I responded to his above statements by pointing out that what he is advocating for is both logically inconsistent and morally reprehensible.

” If you apply those economic principles to food and not anything else, you are being logically inconsistent.

You seem like a nice sane guy (I’m not being sarcastic here, you do) so I think it’s safe for me to assume that you do not think that initiating violence against others is justified right?

We can agree that, as individuals, initiating violence against other people and their property is not a right any of us posses as individuals? If this is true, how does ‘voting’ or any other mystical statist ritual allow us to bestow rights we do not posses to other individuals with the label ‘government’ that likewise, on their own, do not possess that right as well? It would be like me understanding that I cannot use your car when I please and with out your permission. I lack that right. But, I can delegate the right to use your care whenever and without your permission to someone else. It’s all smoke and mirrors to trick you into being ok with violence against peaceful people.

Lastly, taxation is immoral. It is claiming the fruit of another’s labor (labor you did not do). If you claim the labor of someone else, you are claiming what created that labor; their bodies. If you are claiming ownership of another persons body you are advocating for slavery.

If it is slavery to steal 100% of someone’s labor at what percent is it no longer slavery but a ‘tax’? 90%? 60%? 40%? If I threaten you with violence and tell you that you have to work for me on Monday, Wednesday and Friday without pay, are you not a slave because I’m giving you your own time on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday? Or would I just be a ‘nicer’ slave master for doing so.”

This person seems like a nice person. They are open to discussing ideas rather than name calling. I don’t like name calling and I only engage in it if someone initiates it (and even then, I don’t always reciprocate the rudeness). I do, however, think that people are statists because they never take ideas to their logical conclusion or analyse the underlying logic they are subscribing to. I know that was my problem when I was a statist. I think it is really important to connect these ideas and universalize principles. The case for freedom, I think, is attractive and ironclad. It’s just a matter of getting other people to connect those dots for themselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *