# Taxation is no different than extortion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704 "2013-05-07T15:08:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/422 "2013-05-22T04:51:37Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I’m aware that bad people will exist. That’s why I have mentioned private protection services. Does the video address why the state must have a monopoly over protection services? The video may or may not, but the classic answer is that if private protection services and private court systems exist, they will likely fall into competition, and the competition itself is not refereed. The worst case of this will be a state of war. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I do. As I’ve demonstrated, government merely applies the veneer of legitimacy to otherwise immoral acts. . . . Er…demonstrated to your satisfaction, perhaps, but I persist in exercising my right to disagree. > [@](#): > > . . . These same advantages exist in a government controlled society. What about our society today makes it superior at curtailing any advantage immoral people have in our mostly moral society? Our current system of hierarchical government (nation, province/state, county, city, community) allows for consistency of laws at appropriate levels of influence. The national government handles national defense and such things as regulating the radio frequencies. States handle big water projects. Cities handle slum clean-up. etc. A system that operates entirely at a local level will likely have problems that overlap boundaries. If Delaware limits radio broadcasts to 20KW and New Jersey permits 100KW transmissions, there is a problem. Same with water pollution. Kansas might have strict clean-water laws, but Indiana, upstream, might not, leaving Kansas to drink Indiana’s filth. > [@](#): > > Again you must show why a stateless society would be worse at curtailing evildoers. By being able to hire their own protective forces (militias or whatever) they can take the place of governments. It is the opinion of many that a stateless society will decay into the control of warlords and ganglords. You certainly may disagree, but it is a view held by no few, and is not going to be easily rebutted. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > There’s a lot of talk about how an anarchist society is vulnerable to some sort of infiltration by bad guys. Is it too much to ask for some specific examples of how a stateless society could be undermined in a way a democratic republic could not? > > For example, I see a democratic republic vulnerable to executive overreach. An executive could, oh I don’t know, have dissenters incarcerated. This has happened many times in history as far as I can tell, even if I’m not as up on my history as others would like. I will certainly admit that the democratic system is no guarantee against corruption and criminality. The hell of it all is that there is no such thing as a perfect system of human self-governance. The standard answer is to point to regions in the world where governments have broken down – parts of Sudan, parts of Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, various areas on the Arabian peninsula, various areas in Central America – and suggest that the problems there – local warlords, violence, criminality, tribalism are the natural outcome of too little government. I know I’m just playing P-K4, but, well, it’s an argument I happen to believe is true. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/423 "2013-05-22T05:01:09Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > Yeah, pretty much. Non-initiation of force is quite different from “non-aggression”. You can be quite aggressive in self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/424 "2013-05-22T05:35:24Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Again you must show why a stateless society would be worse at curtailing evildoers. Because it would be a murderocracy, for lack of a better word. All power and wealth would be in the hands of whomever was the most willing and able to kill to get it. What’s known as The Law Of The Jungle. Not that this would last long; modern people have the _idea_ of government, so they’d rapidly organize themselves around gangs and warlords that promised at least some safety in return for allegiance. So you’d be right back at that state-based society you consider to be so awful, just a lot more impoverished, tyrannical and brutal. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > There’s a lot of talk about how an anarchist society is vulnerable to some sort of infiltration by bad guys. Is it too much to ask for some specific examples of how a stateless society could be undermined in a way a democratic republic could not? By collapsing instantly the moment someone is willing to use force or cooperate with someone else to enforce their will. A stateless society would collapse within a day or two into a sea of bloodshed. The War of All Against All. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/425 "2013-05-22T05:42:55Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Non-initiation of force is quite different from “non-aggression”. You can be quite aggressive in self-defense. See post 414. It’s merely a semantic issue. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/426 "2013-05-22T05:56:24Z")
In life, you need three things to succeed at any endeavor. Structure, Vision, and Drive. Structure = government. It sets our foundation to work upon. It accomplishes the tasks that are necessary for all people. Vision = the people and their vote. Each person has a vote and sets the vision for government. Drive = inherent survival drive of all people. It’s not a perfect system but it’s the best we got. It’s certainly better than the alternative being suggested here. Libertarianism is far too chaotic to ever actually work. People need structure and they need to be treated like equals. That’s what government provides. Furthermore, once the basic needs are provided for such as food, shelter, clothing, protection, justice, healthcare, education, etc… then you can actually free the market up more than you would otherwise. Once people have security in knowing these basic survival needs will be met, they are more able to explore advances that will benefit society as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/427 "2013-05-22T05:58:20Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > See post 414. It’s merely a semantic issue. I don’t think it is. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/428 "2013-05-22T06:02:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I don’t think it is. Care to explain the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/429 "2013-05-22T06:03:31Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > Care to explain the difference? As I said before, you can be quite aggressive in self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/430 "2013-05-22T06:23:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > As I said before, you can be quite aggressive in self-defense. I see. Your definition is a bit more specific. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/431 "2013-05-22T12:17:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Non-initiation of force is quite different from “non-aggression”. You can be quite aggressive in self-defense. “Aggression” [normally refers to](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggression?s=t) unprovoked attacks: > [@](#): > > Aggression > noun > > 1. the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression. > > 2. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one’s rights. > > 3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general. > > 4. _Psychiatry_. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself. “Non-aggression” doesn’t mean no attacks, it means no _unprovoked_ attacks. It’s synonymous with non-initiation of force. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/432 "2013-05-22T14:27:24Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > “Non-aggression” doesn’t mean no attacks, it means no _unprovoked_ attacks. It’s synonymous with non-initiation of force. In common speech it isn’t. In most people’s minds “aggression” is a synonym of “violence”. As you can see from your (2) - “any offensive action, attack, or procedure”. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/433 "2013-05-22T14:34:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In common speech it isn’t. In most people’s minds “aggression” is a synonym of “violence”. As you can see from your (2) - “any offensive action, attack, or procedure”. Right, [_offensive_](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offensive?s=t), as opposed to _defensive_. > [@](#): > > Offensive > > adjective > > 1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials. > > 2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense: an offensive odor. > > 3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting: an offensive remark; an offensive joke. > > 4. **pertaining to offense or attack** : the offensive movements of their troops. > > 5. **characterized by attack; aggressive** : offensive warfare Bolding mine. Note also “inroad or encroachment” above. People may use “aggression” as a synonym for “violence”, but they are incorrect to do so. The non-aggression principle is not pacifism. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/434 "2013-05-22T16:22:17Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Right, [_offensive_](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offensive?s=t), as opposed to _defensive_. “Offensive” is defined as “attack”. You can “attack” in self-defense. Let’s say that “non-initiation of force” is a much better and much more precise description of the principle than “non-aggression”. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/435 "2013-05-22T18:01:00Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Offensive” is defined as “attack”. You can “attack” in self-defense. Can, you, though? [Attack](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attack?s=t) 1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands. 2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy. 3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly. 4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent’s statement. 5. to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor’s reputation. Seems pretty weighted toward _initiating_ hostilities. > [@Terr](#): > > Let’s say that “non-initiation of force” is a much better and much more precise description of the principle than “non-aggression”. Meh, they mean the same thing to my reading, and we both seem to understand what the principle means well enough, so I don’t think it matters much. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/436 "2013-05-25T07:53:11Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > There’s a lot of talk about how an anarchist society is vulnerable to some sort of infiltration by bad guys. Is it too much to ask for some specific examples of how a stateless society could be undermined in a way a democratic republic could not? 😕 😕 :smack: _You_ want _us_ to give examples of anarchist Farnabytopia?? That _is_ rich. Perhaps good examples of Libertarian (with a capital L) experiments would be Pinochet’s Chile, and some of the Eastern European countries immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union. **But far from competing private security forces, these example states had security forces controlled by the same oligarchy (kleptocracy) that imposed other central controls.** (These kleptocracy examples can be used in support of Friedmanism: GDP did improve, despite losses to equality, etc.) But **Farnaby** rejects capital-L Libertarianism in favor of _L_ibertarianism with a super-_L_. It’s hard to argue without a real-world example or near-example to contemplate. Farnaby suggested medieval Ireland but, AFAICT, later rejected his own suggestion. Lawless Somalia seems like a logical example. Let’s work with it as a model, if Farnaby has no counter-suggestion. (And do we really need a cite that Somalia was “infiltrated by bad guys”?) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/437 "2013-05-25T14:25:52Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > There’s a lot of talk about how an anarchist society is vulnerable to some sort of infiltration by bad guys. Is it too much to ask for some specific examples of how a stateless society could be undermined in a way a democratic republic could not? A democratic republic is superior in this respect, as it can collect taxes to raise an army and use coercion against bad guys at the point of a gun. A Libertopian society depends on the kindness of strangers to mount any sort of defense against bad guys that might take away their freedom and impose tyranny on them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/438 "2013-05-25T17:19:06Z")
That’s anarchist. Libertarians, at least US libertarians, desire a government based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another principle common to libertarians is that force should only be used to stop force, not amorphous “crimes” like regulatory violations, drug use, or failure to pay taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/439 "2013-05-25T23:49:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Another principle common to libertarians is that force should only be used to stop force, not amorphous “crimes” like regulatory violations, drug use, or failure to pay taxes. So if I walk into his garden and start eating his tomatoes, an American Libertarian wont use force to stop me? That’s good to know. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/440 "2013-05-26T02:10:22Z")
Theft is force. Property invasion is force. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2013, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704/441 "2013-05-26T02:16:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s anarchist. Libertarians, at least US libertarians, desire a government based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. > > Another principle common to libertarians is that force should only be used to stop force, not amorphous “crimes” like regulatory violations, drug use, or failure to pay taxes. Which means that they don’t believe in such laws at all for all practical purposes. > [@adaher](#): > > Theft is force. Property invasion is force. No, they aren’t. For something to be force, it has to involve, well, _force_. Being philosophically inconvenient to libertarians does not constitute “force”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxation-is-no-different-than-extortion/657704.md?page=23)