If Taxation is Theft, how much force may one morally use to defend oneself against the tax man?
As much as you can use without physically invading an innocent person's property, for as long as the taxman continues to attempt to invade your property.
So we can bring back tar and feathering and feel morally okay about it?
Have you actually ever encountered a tax man though? I figured in this day and age they'd just try to garnish your wages then send the local police to evict you if they wanted your house.
Stolz2525: So we can bring back tar and feathering and feel morally okay about it?
You can do much, much worse actually. Whether or not you do so is up to you.
Most likely the terrorcrats would use electronic means to destroy you remotely from a safe distance from their prey, so yes. But since this has broader applications on self-defense, we should just assume that they gathered up enough courage to confront you.
You're allowed to use as much force as is being used against you. Reciprocity is the rule.
Stolz2525: So we can bring back tar and feathering and feel morally okay about it? Have you actually ever encountered a tax man though? I figured in this day and age they'd just try to garnish your wages then send the local police to evict you if they wanted your house.
That's because most people never pay taxes. Their employers pay taxes. The stores they buy from pay taxes. The tax payer is the man who writes the check to the government.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
I disagree that reciprocity or equivalence of force should be one's rule, as that may just be setting one up for failure. What if, by using force equal to the amount being used against you, you simply fight to a stalemate because you have not used enough to counteract the attack? Why place this artificial, stifling restraint on yourself and your abilities?
Strictly speaking, there should be no moral constraint on the amount of force one uses to defend one's life and one's property - property being an extension of life itself. Everything is permitted ethically, there are only some practical limitations if you are trying to move in the direction of a market society.
The question should be rephrased thusly: "How much force is it logical for me to use to defend my property against confiscation, given that I want to move society in the direction of a stateless market?"
It is logical for you to use as much force as is possible to defend your property against confiscation, so long as you do not harm the person or property of anyone who has not done violence against your person or property. The reasoning is because the more force you use, the more disincentive there is to confiscate your property. Also, if you were to harm any innocent "bystanders", the cause would be damaged because others would be turned away from your message and would be willing to grant greater power to the state to suppress you.
It is also logical for you to use just as much force as is necessary to defend your property against confiscation, so long as you do not harm the person or property of any innocent "bystanders". This reasoning is that if you use as much force as is possible, you may inspire fear of others such that they are less receptive toward your message and more willing to give the state the power to suppress your actions.
The point is there is no moral difference between these positions, and every position in between. They are only matters of degree and you should not feel "guilty" about anything you do to defend yourself and your property. To feel guilty about that would be extremely unhealthy and, in my opinion, unnatural. Your property is only meaningful to you if it is actually in YOUR possession...
"Nolite confidere in principibus"
~ Psalm 146:3
Taylor:I disagree that reciprocity or equivalence of force should be one's rule, as that may just be setting one up for failure. What if, by using force equal to the amount being used against you, you simply fight to a stalemate because you have not used enough to counteract the attack? Why place this artificial, stifling restraint on yourself and your abilities?
The parity of using force is an often heard argument. The force one uses against an attacke shall be comparable to the force used by the attacker.
I deem this to be nonsense. When attacked one is free to use is much force against the attacker as one likes to, as long as the attack lasts. Politicians, human rights group and equality courts may however differ from this opinion.
commodities
A stalemate is all that is necessary in the protection of property. Only those who have an uncontrollable urge to kill desire to employ more force than is necessary to protect themselves.
I don't think your last statement is true; there are many possible reasons for wanting to employ more than the necessary amount of force. Like I said, the more force you use, the more disincentive there is for others to attack you in the first place. You may do whatever you deem most effective to the ends you desire, which in this case include protection of one's private property and, secondarily, advancement toward statelessness.
Taylor: I don't think your last statement is true; there are many possible reasons for wanting to employ more than the necessary amount of force. Like I said, the more force you use, the more disincentive there is for others to attack you in the first place. You may do whatever you deem most effective to the ends you desire, which in this case include protection of one's private property and, secondarily, advancement toward statelessness.
I agree; the point of self-defense is to end a physical invasion of one's property, and as such any means (so long as they do not infringe on the property of others) are justified in combatting said invasion because one has the right to exclude another from using one's property. It would be foolish to have to wait until they shot or stabbed you first before you would be able to use deadly force against a burglar in the dead of night.
Remnant: If Taxation is Theft, how much force may one morally use to defend oneself against the tax man?
I personally see the killing of a taxman while he is in direct contact with his victim to be perfectly rational.
After all, the taxman carries the very real threat of lethal force if resisted. Opposing force with equal force is perfectly justified under the Non Aggression axiom.
CurtHowland: Remnant: If Taxation is Theft, how much force may one morally use to defend oneself against the tax man? I personally see the killing of a taxman while he is in direct contact with his victim to be perfectly rational. After all, the taxman carries the very real threat of lethal force if resisted. Opposing force with equal force is perfectly justified under the Non Aggression axiom.
Indeed. Saying that one could not use force to stop the taxman is tantamount to saying that the taxman has a right to steal, since one's right of exclusion would be abrogated.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=svD2Jua34dY&feature=related
Indeed; self-defense is not some morality play. It is the concrete enforcement of what you have a claim upon. If we could only use as much force as was used against us, we would only be allowed to counter a threat with another threat. If someone points a gun at you, and you shoot them first, you have used many times the amount of force they used against you. Is this impermissible?
If you kill in a situation in which maiming would have been sufficient to end the invasion, and that "excessive" force deters another potential aggressor, have you done something wrong? It's utterly asinine to say so, in my opinion. But that is just addressing the moral part of the equation. I think in a market society the common rules that develop for purposes of arbitration, insurance, and private defense would likely be in favor of just using enough force to deter the invasion, rather than using more than that to "make an example" for other criminals to heed. But that is a contractual-legal arrangement, not a moral one.
wowdavidp1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=svD2Jua34dY&feature=related
"A good Samaritan came to [the tax collector's] aid..."
Ha! More like "provided aid and comfort to the perpetrator"