There has been no true democracy since ancient Athens as far I know, nothing but varying degrees of republicanism.

Taxes aren't actually theft as you get services for them. They are more akin to organized crime's protection racket. You have to pay but at least the fire department comes to your house if it catches on fire.

We haven't had conscription in the US in about 40 years, so that is just an epoc fail.

Finally war... Not murder when done in self defense (ala WWII) or in defense of the innocent. Now Iran? That may well be classified as murder or at least homicide as the reasons turned out to be lies. But not all war is murder.

Sicarius recently told me he had a baseball bat for people like me, because I proposed that transgendered people should have the same rights as the people of their chosen gender if they possess legal documents that prove they have in fact adopted the other gender.
Everything he says on moral issues can be safely ignored, he is of no value to this forum. Another thread muted.

I wish I wouldn't right nonsensical forum posts hammered.

But I think Draug is pretty on point here, conscription as slavery is also a pretty spot on description of it, which is why most democracies have moved away from it and I doubt any would return to it unless the continued existence of the state was in danger. although whether or not states, especially democracies should have the right to conscript is an interesting argument.

write*

If a robber steals money from you, that's still theft, Draugnar, even if he turns around later and gives you something for the money he stole. Theft is the act of taking property from someone without consent; whether there is compensation (and to what extent) is irrelevant to the question. And no, taxation isn't something to which true consent can be given, because there is no noncoercive option for rejecting taxation.

Sicarius didn't specify whether he was referencing the US, so conscription is still a relevant question for democracy in general. (For the record, it is slavery, and at least in my view, not justifiable in any circumstance.) That said, since the income tax is effectively the government claiming a right to part of your labor without a contractual agreement to it, there's a relevant analogy to the US. That is to say, yes, you are compensated for your labor via access to government services, but because (a) you didn't actually sign a work contract stipulating these terms and (b) again, you have no noncoercive means of opting out, it's not a contract that holds up under scrutiny. (It's incomplete because some people pay no income tax.)

As for war = murder, perhaps strictly speaking it is not always so. (Actually, as a matter of fact, it's not murder in the legal sense, as such an act is definitionally unlawful, whereas there exist lawful means of conducting war.) But the point is still made. States engage in warfare for reasons that would not be permissible for individuals. In fact, *every* war involves at least one side, and frequently both sides, engaging in acts of organized killing of other individuals that individual actors alone would not be morally permitted to do. If neither side of a conflict engaged in unjustifiable killing of others, then there would not be war. So the overarching point is the same.

@ puddle
Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. The percentage of the population (of males) that actually participated in the government was about 20%. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics (resident foreigners).The women had limited rights and privileges and were not really considered citizens. They had restricted movement in public and were very segregated from the men. It was a direct democracy which citizens voted directly on the legislation rather than representatives, But overall I don't think its an example we should try to emulate.

I suppose I didnt actually ask a question ion the OP, but what I'm most interested in exploring is the delegation of rights you do not have.

You should retitle this thread 'rage against the social contract'

The answer is to seek peace, refom prison laws, and, well, taxation is essential so not much you can do there. The answer is not to destroy the concept of the Social Contract which would cause human civilization to crumble

Not sure I understand santa can you re-phrase

You stated that you can delegate rights to murder (war), steal (taxes), enslave (incarcerate), through your representative in a democracy. The obvious point you are making is that representative democracy is evil and should be done away with. But, as you know, these rights we give to our representatives but do not reserve for ourselves is intended in Social Contract philosophy, in which we give up rights for security. The point that you add is that in modern society, government takes many of these rights itself. The system, you therefore argue is hypocritical.

Unlike you I do not believe that human civilization can exist without a belief in the social contract. Therefor the issue here is not the voters in democracy, but the government that the voters emplace. I think it would be more useful to push for reform than to tear the whole sombitch down. But then again I am not an anarchist.

Whether or not representative democracy is "evil" (as if such a thing as evil exists) is a whole other conversation. I just wanted to point out that a government is just a collection of people, who do not have these rights, but when they are labeled "government" they suddenly are granted rights that no one has the power to grant them. Its a double standard. How do you give something you do not have away?

Also, while I am not specifically talking about the US that is where I live so that is the perspective I come from. Was meant to be general though i wont deny that I have the US in mind most of the time.

PS @draugnar US doesnt have conscription? Sorry to inform you but it in fact does, its called selective service, and all male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays. Failure to register is a violation of the Military Selective Service Act. Conviction for such a violation may result in imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $250,000.

I have the right ot defend myself. I give my government the right to defend me. I don't support wars where my government is the agressor and I have actively protested them in the past.

Conscription is not now nor should ever have been legal. As far as incarceration is concerned, that falls into the self defense category. If an individual shows they can't be trusted to protect their fellow citizens and chooses to prey upon the weak, it is a matter of self defense and defense of others that the predator be restrained.

Taxes aren't theft in that I can choose not to pay them. There are consequences for choosing not to and I'd rather pay the taxes and get my services, but I can technically choose not to.

I dont think the US has been in any war in the last 60 or so years that could even come close to being called defensive. When was the last time there was war on US soil?

Draugnar, conscription is legal, the government forces all males to register under threat of years in prison. Sorry but you are just flat out wrong on this. Now I dont think anyone has actually been conscripted since the vietnam war (could be wrong on that) but the government maintains its right to do so, and let me say this again FAILING TO REGISTER FOR UNITED STATES MILITARY CONSCRIPTION IS A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY YEARS IN PRISON AND FINES IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

Also paying taxes is not a choice, you can be imprisoned for this as well, its called tax evasion. They can also put liens on your property.

Regarding Athens, I never said it was a fully enfranchised democracy, just a pure one

As far as taxes, while not explicitly stated, it is part of the contract of working that you pay taxes, you are aware before you take the job and it is a condition of being paid. Non-coercive way of avoiding taxation? You could not work. Or at least not for money, if you found a plot of land no one was using or which someone was willing to let you use, you could grow enough food to feed yourself, make a basic shelter and live, without paying taxes. Its not an equivalent lifestyle to that of a working taxpayer, but one could live that way.

As far as the right to collect taxes, government is the expression of society, society provides the environment in which one can work and make money, and taxes are how that is supported. So since society provides some of the necessary implements to work and generate wealth, it has some claim to some of the money made.

Sic - Conscription is illegal and would require an act of congress to reverse. So you are just plain wrong. Also, the selective service registration has an opt out for "moral or religious" reasons any one can use and it no longer carries any threat of incarceration. So your are doubly just plain wrong. See some of us actually research this shit *before* we open our mouths.

And taxes are a choice. As I said, there are consequences to choosing not to, but it is still an option. Commiting a crime is always a choice you can make. It just has consequences.

"Taxes aren't theft in that I can choose not to pay them. There are consequences for choosing not to and I'd rather pay the taxes and get my services, but I can technically choose not to."

Consequences imposed by the state for failing to pay them what they say you owe. That's called coercion. It fails the "noncoercive option for refusal to accept contract" condition. It's theft if I threaten to lock you in a basement dungeon under my cabin out in the woods if you don't give me money; that doesn't change if a bunch of guys in costumes proclaim themselves "government" and do the same.

Whether taxation (and subsequently government) is a NECESSARY wrong is another question, one that SC and Puddle touched on earlier, and there's far more room to discuss it. But it's not really questionable as to whether it's a wrong.

"As far as taxes, while not explicitly stated, it is part of the contract of working that you pay taxes, you are aware before you take the job and it is a condition of being paid. Non-coercive way of avoiding taxation? You could not work. Or at least not for money, if you found a plot of land no one was using or which someone was willing to let you use, you could grow enough food to feed yourself, make a basic shelter and live, without paying taxes. Its not an equivalent lifestyle to that of a working taxpayer, but one could live that way."

That's faulty, though, because I can certainly consent to work and not consent to being paid taxes. You can't just implicitly assume terms in a contract. That's not how contracts work. As for the "you could change your lifestyle" argument - since that would come at the threat of government force if you chose the lifestyle you would prefer, that is in fact coercion and fails the aforementioned "noncoercive means of opting out" litmus test. A person being forced to opt out of his/her preferred lifestyle because of the threat of imprisonment for not paying taxes is a person coerced into leaving a preferred lifestyle.

Conscription is not "illegal" it is just not currently active. Though you're right it would require an act of congress to reinstate the draft (as well as the signature of the president) The 'opt out' may get you out of combat but not military service in a non-combat role. Failure to register does in fact carry the threat of incarcertion, though no one has been tried for failure to register since the mid 80's.
Anyway my point is that the government maintains the right to conscript military forces from the civilian populace.

Ah yes thanks PE I forgot to touch on puddles post, you dont really have the choice to just go live in a cabin somewhere, I have tried. Thats how we got the unabomber after all

No, that's a logical fallacy PE, just because your preferred lifestyle requires paying taxes doesn't make it "coercive" under these terms. Its a part of that lifestyle, just like not killing people. If you want to live within society and enjoy the benefits of it (technology, restaurants, cars, a precise medium of exchange, protection of the law, etc) you have to pay taxes. It would be like me saying having to take exams in order to get my degree is coercive, if I want the degree I have to take the exams. I can choose not to take the exams (pay taxes) but the alternative (non-coercive) option is highly distasteful to me. So I consent to take the exams (pay taxes).

Just because the non-coercive alternative is not to my liking doesn't make it non-existent or irrelevant.

Nothing to say President Eden?

Didn't see this earlier. My preferred lifestyle doesn't involve paying taxes - in this example, contracting with an employer to work for pay without having X% of it garnished by the feds and state government. It is definitionally coercive if the taxes compel me to choose a far less desirable lifestyle (sustenance agriculture, in the example here) to avoid them. Your analogy to the exam is flawed because passing an exam is a necessary requirement set by the person/institution handing out the degree, not a third party forcing you to take the exam whether you want the degree or not. The exam analogy is comparable to being required, as part of a job you voluntarily signed on to do, to work X hours/week to receive pay from an employer; obviously this is perfectly acceptable, as you entered into the contract entirely of your own will. With taxation, there is no contract.

" I just wanted to point out that a government is just a collection of people, who do not have these rights, but when they are labeled "government" they suddenly are granted rights that no one has the power to grant them. Its a double standard."

No, the double standard is you having a rose-colored view of private acts of violence whereas public acts of violence are given this adolescent criticism. The difference between the two is obvious: with private acts of violence or coercion there is no review process, there is no public inquiry, there is no mandate of having to justify what took place, there is no public good provided, there is just murder & theft. Every act of taxation is justified by debate, investigation, hearing, and vote. The acts of taxation are justified because the very people who it coerces gave their assent through their voting representatives to implement it. Much like how you libertarians and anarchists always claim that contracts are "non-coercive" because people "voluntarily" sign them, the same thing applies with democracy.

The larger point here is that most people recognize that individuals have limits to what they can do, that being part of society is necessary for individual survival, and that ensuring survival involves certain costs. But petulant "libertarians" and "anarchists" want all the benefits from living in society without paying a dime in costs (like bitching on the internet, a government creation). I think people have had enough of this irresponsible demagoguery. Time to grow up.

"With taxation, there is no contract."

Yes, actually, there is. It's called being a Citizen. This concept is lost because citizenship is now automatically granted instead of earned. Don't want to sign the contract? There's the door. Stop being a citizen. Stop demanding protection for your rights as a citizen. Let somebody else who actually wants to participate in the community have those rights and go find yourself a nice banana republic. And if you claim it's too expensive to leave, well the same can be said about it being too expensive to find alternatives to your private contracts which you find somehow perfectly acceptable and non-coercive.

"It is definitionally coercive if the taxes compel me to choose a far less desirable lifestyle (sustenance agriculture, in the example here) to avoid them."

This happens with private contracts all the time, with nary a complaint. "Work or starving is a choice" is the refrain I always hear from libertarians when I hear them prattle on about the "voluntary" nature of contracts which employ people for miserable wages and working conditions.

"Your analogy to the exam is flawed because passing an exam is a necessary requirement set by the person/institution handing out the degree"

Paying taxes is a necessary requirement in order to gain the benefits of being a citizen protected and provided services by the US, state, and local governments. There is no "third party", no matter how much you want to pretend you're some kind of island that isn't aided by the government you hate so much.

Again, the very notion that I must choose to abandon all the people I know and love and go live in a hut in the middle of nowhere just because your beloved goons with more guns and resources than me say I must is undeniably coercive.

What are you even talking about by "private acts of violence?" Those are wrong too and there exist private means of preventing and resolving them that don't involve Somalia or the state. At least as I understand them to mean (those being non-governmental acts of violence) - I've never heard the term before, because I don't discriminate between private and public acts of violence. Both are wrong. You're peddling some kind of dichotomy that doesn't exist.

Democracy/republicanism and contracts are pretty obviously not analogous. I didn't voluntarily sign on to the drug war, the Patriot Act, one could go on. Yet all of these passed in our democratic republic. If the Patriot Act were actually analogous to a contract then every single American citizen would have been given the chance to sign onto it. That's not what happened, obviously, nor is it a practical thing to demand government do. So unless you're advocating for that, and have an answer to the impracticality of what you're advocating, then your analogy is invalid and your response to that criticism fails.

I'm going to leave the rest of that alone as it's a mess of a combination of never having seriously examined any sort of anarchist literature and a shitload of ad hominems and other rhetorical fallacies. That was a pretty bad post.

"This happens with private contracts all the time, with nary a complaint. "Work or starving is a choice" is the refrain I always hear from libertarians when I hear them prattle on about the "voluntary" nature of contracts which employ people for miserable wages and working conditions."

Work or starving isn't a choice in any realistic sense, no. But it's not like there's a third option here. Even if you're a sustenance agriculture farmer contracting with no one, you're still working. I'm not following your line of argument here. Yes, nature inherently involves restraints on one's ability to do what one wants. Morality involves further restraints. That doesn't mean it's okay to add even further artificial restraints (per se). There are other defenses for a state, sure, but this isn't one of them.

"Paying taxes is a necessary requirement in order to gain the benefits of being a citizen protected and provided services by the US, state, and local governments. There is no "third party", no matter how much you want to pretend you're some kind of island that isn't aided by the government you hate so much."

And... again, unlike the other things suggested to this point, government services and taxation are both compulsory. That's coercive. Your point is lost on me.