1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:
No. Because, consent cannot be given for the unknown or bad faith, those fall outside of what has been consented to and that is fraud. If consent is given for particular action the trade is voluntary and does not constitute initiation of force.
I consider taxation to be theft, because taxation serves altruism; others get to dispose of the wealth I produced, and I do not get a say in it. So we are agreed in the conclusion. Playing devil’s advocate, someone could say “ah but you do get a say in it - you get a vote. If enough people felt that tax was theft, then we would stop taxing people!”
If you do voluntarily accept to be ruled democratically - the argument goes - then you voluntarily accept the consequences which is to pay tax should “the people” vote for it. If you don’t give consent - if you refuse to pay tax then you are in breach of contract as a citizen of a democracy. This supposedly justifies the use of force against you.
I think we need to explore Rand’s concept of inalienable rights here - don’t you? Her argument was there are some rights which cannot justly be voted away by others - such as the right to life, the right to property. (An idea of mine would be a citizen’s veto - a constitutional right to veto any policy that infringes their inalienable rights). If we accept these rights cannot be voted away, (or taxed away), then it comes back to consent, and how it is given.
Does choosing to live in a democracy mean that we are consenting to tax, when that is what the majority rule in favour of?
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:
Although force is force regardless of how the parties “parse” it conceptually, force objectively requires some element of the non-voluntary, so the mental content of the parties cannot be wholly ignored. People fight in rings for sport, the distinguishing factor for the “first punch” being sport, is the consent of the “receiver” of an action which otherwise would be a crime.
Good example - In the case of ring fighters, the whole point is to initiate force on the other but that is understood and accepted by all parties so it is voluntary - it takes on the form of a trade where the use of force is the currency. Do citizens in a democracy, who know that being taxed is a likelihood, voluntarily sign up to it via a “social contract” when they choose to be a citizen? It is customary in all Western democracies to pay tax (as you know I disagree with establishing rights premised on customs - but I make the point for the sake of exploring the issues)
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:
People are fallible, and conceptually may be oblivious to the their own rights, their own lack of consent or even the threat of force. An oppressive government bureaucrat and his hapless victim of a citizen may both be oblivious to the implicit threat of “treason to the state” always hanging over a relationship that “feels” like glorious service to the state, through performance of an action, in the name of duty. Force here is omnipresent whether or not the citizen has chosen to recognize they are NOT free to choose or act otherwise, instead zealously holding onto the evasion, the self-delusion, that they don’t “want to be free to choose”. The fact IS, although man has free will, IF you choose otherwise you will be arrested, incarcerated, possibly killed. The insanity in such societies does not negate the objective presence of force, which would immediately prevent free action, should anyone awake from the insanity and attempt to deviate.
I agree with your conclusions; do you think that both the citizen and the bureaucrat are being defrauded then - i.e. they cannot truly be said to be giving their consent because they are ignorant of the involuntary nature of the interaction?
Rand wrote:
"Representative Government
The theory of representative government rests on the principle that man is a rational being, i.e., that he is able to perceive the facts of reality, to evaluate them, to form rational judgments, to make his own choices, and to bear responsibility for the course of his life.
Politically, this principle is implemented by a man’s right to choose his own agents, i.e., those whom he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. To represent him, in this context, means to represent his views in terms of political principles. Thus the government of a free country derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”…
As a corroboration of the link between man’s rational faculty and a representative form of government, observe that those who are demonstrably (or physiologically) incapable of rational judgment cannot exercise the right to vote. (Voting is a derivative, not a fundamental, right; it is derived from the right to life, as a political implementation of the requirements of a rational being’s survival.) Children do not vote, because they have not acquired the knowledge necessary to form a rational judgment on political issues; neither do the feeble-minded or the insane, who have lost or never developed their rational faculty. (The possession of a rational faculty does not guarantee that a man will use it, only that he is able to use it and is, therefore, responsible for his actions.)"
The power of the government to tax could, by our oponents, be argued to be something that we have consented to as I wrote above. I would like to further explore the nature of consent in relation to the initiation of physical force to get to the bottom of this. I think it is a fact that inalienable rights are not fully respected by any democratic regime in currently in existence. So does that mean no rationally acting Objectivist truly consents to being governed in this manner, or if we do is it because we are being defrauded?
I don’t think you (meaning - any Objectivist) could argue it is OK to accept our form of government knowing that it does not fundamentally protect our inalienable rights, and in fact knowing full well it would initiate force against you if you were to try to protect them yourself. You could exploit such a regime to your benefit (a kind of depravity perhaps), or keep a low profile and tolerate low level infringement for an easier life (sanction of the victim), but either action would be self-defeating. Surely we should be saying No.
What are your thoughts - to what extent does a citizen of a representative democracy consent to being subjected to force initiation? Going back to the cage fighter example - let’s face it even a fighter who likes a scrap doesn’t want to lose the ability to defend himself, he doesn’t want to have his shin snapped in half or suffer a major brain injury. But he has voluntarily waived his rights to a degree. What do you think are the differences?
