Moral question for anarcho-capitalists

I agree with Rothbard that the state is a vast criminal organization, and it would not be immoral to take property from the state.  But doesn’t this lead to a kind of moral Catch-22?  What if someone who receives welfare say that they dislike the State as much as I do, but only receive money from the government because they need it and besides they wish to get as much as possible from the state which continues to rob them in taxes.  I don’t support any type of welfare that is funded by taxes, so what should I say to such a person?

I think Rothbard himself said that there is nothing wrong with accepting money from the state. The thing is that modern governements also receive income from various enterprises and one can never know whether the money received from the government comes from robbing people (taxes) or earned on the market. If governments only income was from taxes then I think it would be immoral accepting the money.

Ramone:

What if someone who receives welfare say that they dislike the State as much as I do, but only receive money from the government because they need it and besides they wish to get as much as possible from the state which continues to rob them in taxes.

Accepting payments from the State is merely a partial return of stolen property.

For example, I invest in the stock market and options market, receiving a government subsidy in the process.  Is that immoral?  No.

If I try to avoid paying income taxes, does that mean it's immoral for me to use State-funded roads?  No.

Just because a slave accepts a meal from his master doesn't mean he accepts his slavery.

fsk:

Just because a slave accepts a meal from his master doesn't mean he accepts his slavery.

Very good metaphor. :-)

The worst argument you can get into is to debate how the state should spend its money, because that is a conflict over appropriation of public property, and the idea of private property is to avoid these conflicts.

Don't bother saying welfare shouldn't exist. Say that you don't care what other people do with their money. Say that you are only against taxes.

Walter Block says in one of his works that it's ok to accept money and services from the state if they corresponded to similar institutions that would exist in a free market.  For instance, he is a professor at a publicly-funded university.  If the state were eliminated, would teachers still exist?

So...in the absence of government welfare, would private charity exist?  Most definitely.

I don't think you could say the same about CIA agents.  FBI maybe.  IRS agents...Fock NO!

Subsidies are ok...so long as you are just getting back your taxes (although one could argue this creates inequalities in the market that wouldn't exist in a free market).

If you find your position bettered by government than worsened, you are probably in contradiction of libertarian morality in accepting state benefits.

It may be a matter of context. It's certainly complicated. If I see someone actively lobbying the government for handouts, I hardly see how this is a harmless act and would view such a person as an active participant in the plunder. But a more passive or indirect (as opposed to direct or active) way of recieving of government money or using government services definitely isn't the same thing. I can emphasize somewhat with people on welfare because they tend to be in a passive position and their interaction with the government isn't really direct, not to mention that the welfare tends to actually make them worse off in the long run. But I hardly see how something along the lines of directly patronizing the government for subsidies and the like is not active participation in the plunder.

Okay. So 'anarchists' see nothing wrong with accepting money from the state. Maybe I should start looking for a new online hobby because this political thing is going to hell in a handcart.

edit :

"Walter Block says in one of his works that it's ok to accept money and services from the state if they corresponded to similar institutions that would exist in a free market. For instance, he is a professor at a publicly-funded university."

Now, that's a curious coincidence, is it not ? Besides, if Mr Block said something's OK, that definitely settles the matter.

Juan:

Okay. So 'anarchists' see nothing wrong with accepting money from the state. Maybe I should start looking for a new online hobby because this political thing is going to hell in a handcart.

The problem is that, in the present, there's no way to completely sever all ties with the State.  If there was someplace I could go where the State couldn't tax me and I received no benefits from the State, I'd do that.

All government property is, technically, unowned property.  If you claim a share of that property for yourself, what's wrong with that?

The immoral part is if I use violence, coercion, trickery, or bribery/lobbying to extract favors from the State.  I'm accepting a benefit that's available to everyone, such as options trading or futures trading, that's not immoral.

Juan:

So 'anarchists' see nothing wrong with accepting money from the state.

If it's less than or equal to the ammount they've stolen from you, I see nothing wrong with it. If it's more, you're essentially complicit with state theft.

As far as offered goods by the state go, I see nothing wrong with utilizing them. There is no price on the service. It's just there to be used. Using them isn't contracting to anything. It doesn't belong to the state anyways. They've stolen everything they used to fund it with.

fsk:

The problem is that, in the present, there's no way to completely sever all ties with the State.

Agreed. On the other hand, there's no reason why people must work at a public university and come up with a fallacy to justify their actions ?

banned:

If it's less than or equal to the ammount they've stolen from you, I see nothing wrong with it.

What you say is partially true. We are forced to pay taxes, so if we then are offered 'subsidies', we can accept them ? It's our own money after all ? Two wrongs make a right ?

But that's exactly how the state works! The state robs 'A' and gives part of the money to 'B'. And robs 'B' and gives part of the money to 'A'. So now both A and B are victims but at the same time both are accomplices of the state. It's a moral dilemma!

The only solution is for A and B to resist robbery and to stop accepting stolen goods from the state. The mutual exchange of stolen goods doesn't make things right but causes more moral hazards.

If I a robber comes along and steals money from you, your friends Bob, Charlie, Francis, and Kyle, and then gives you half the sum that was stolen, are you a theif?

 

Do you think the money the thief is giving me is all mine ? It seems to me that except for the part that actually belonged to me (1/5th), I should give the rest back to my friends ?

Juan, I was just offering a name that gets some respect and his opinion.  You don't have to accept it.

Here's a question: do you use fiat money?  If so, does that mean you support the state?  At some point it's unavoidable to accept "benefits" from the state.  I think it's justifiable to accept these "benefits" when they do not privilege you over your peers and would exist in the free market.

meambobbo:

Here's a question: do you use fiat money?  If so, does that mean you support the state?

Fiat money isn't voluntary. It's illegal not to use it.

It's okay to take money from the state if you're not doing anything wrong in exchange for it, just like it's okay to take money from the mafia in exchange for pizza delivery.

I don't think the analogy is valid.

Accepting services from the state is not a good idea, if you are an anarchist that is. Not using public roads or fiat money is certainly not realistic, but I don't see why anarchists need to work for public universities or accept any services as long as they don't become net tax consumers.

Juan:

I don't think the analogy is valid.

Accepting services from the state is not a good idea, if you are an anarchist that is. Not using public roads or fiat money is certainly not realistic, but I don't see why anarchists need to work for public universities or accept any services as long as they don't become net tax consumers.

And I don't see why it's wrong either.

Juan:

I don't think the analogy is valid.

Accepting services from the state is not a good idea, if you are an anarchist that is. Not using public roads or fiat money is certainly not realistic, but I don't see why anarchists need to work for public universities or accept any services as long as they don't become net tax consumers.

The truth is that there are almost no jobs where you aren't benefitting the State or helping the State, unless you're a pure agorist.

The financial industry plays a purely parasitic role on the rest of the economy.  I work as a financial systems programmer.  I produce no useful work, yet I get paid.  Does that mean I should quit my job, even though there's no practical alternative?

Is it immoral to work at a university?  If you weren't working there, someone else would take your place.

Suppose I want to work in a job where I receive *NO* state subsidies.  What are the possiblities?

Doctor?  Lawyer?  Accountant?  No.  State licensing requirements subsidize them.

Teacher?  No.  Their salaries are paid via taxes/theft.

Software engineer?  No.  Intellectual property laws subsidize them.  I work in the financial industry, which is purely parasitic.

Unionized factory work?  No.

If I don't want to receive State subsidies, where can I work?

What you are saying is that when state intervention prevents the possibility of a market alternative, it is acceptable to use state services.  This is nearly the same thing I said.  If I want to teach people Austrian economics and there is no free market alternative, should I do it for free...or in a non-accredited environment for much less pay?  If there is a free market alternative but it pays half as much and has half as many students, is it the moral obligation to take that job over the public job?  Which would actually be better for accomplishing our goals.

To me it seems that we are worrying about the wrong side of things.  It's not what comes out the government; it's what goes in.  This is votes and taxes.  Of course, we can't voluntarily stop paying taxes (without facing coercive consequence).  And voting doesn't really make a difference given the system.

The only choice is to reject the system and stop giving it input and either fight enforcement or suffer the consequences.  If most people did that, the system would break down overnight.  Police men and soldiers don't survive on votes - they do it for the exchange of real goods.  Even if they have some bullshit sense of honor to the system, they can't work without food (and gasoline judging from the size of most pigs).

As far as the output, we might be better off saying screw the morally righteous path.  The more wealth we soak up, while the less input we give back, the harder the strain is on the system.  At the same time, the more wealth we have, the more powerful in terms of the market we become, which is how we wish to ultimate express ourselves anyway.