Wayne Fincher/Trial by Jury

[Doug]

All three premises fail when applied to the State.

1) The legitimacy of the State's ownership over "everything" (their turf) is contested.

No one, not even the "state" (whatever that is) claims ownership over everything. Taxes are paid on property not because the state owns it but because this is a way to gauge wealth and allocate tax payment accordingly.

You, Hogeye, are like the guy who goes into Kinko's, acknowledges that Kinko's bought the copying machines, built the store, hired the people, etc., uses the copiers, and then refuses to pay by claiming that Kinko's cannot prove that they are the "real" owners of the property.

And you never did explain how YOU can claim to be the owner of land. You seem to think that only by being the first person on some land or by getting land from someone who was (or who got the land from the first person, etc.) can one claim to be the rightful owner of some land. I don't see any reaon to think that this is true.

Could Neil Armstrong have claimed moon property for himself simply by virtue of being the first person there?

[Dardedar]

You, Hogeye, are like the guy who goes into Kinko's, acknowledges that Kinko's bought the copying machines, built the store, hired the people, etc., uses the copiers, and then refuses to pay by claiming that Kinko's cannot prove that they are the "real" owners of the property.

DAR
I think it is a little worse than that. He also claims, no "pronounces," to not recognize any participation in this process of using the copiers. It's like a kid totally caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and stuff all around his mouth, pathetically pretending to not be eating cookies, as he eats more cookies. It's completely delusional.

Edited by Savonarola 20070308 1623: enough is enough

[Hogeye]

No one, not even the "state" (whatever that is) claims ownership over everything. Taxes are paid on property not because the state owns it but because this is a way to gauge wealth and allocate tax payment accordingly.

A state is an organization with an effective monopoly on the legal use of force in a given geographic area. I generally capitalize it for USAmericans to avoid confusion with their provinces, which they term "states."

The State claims a right to extract compulsory fees for using land, and to confiscate it if such fees are not paid. There can be no such right unless the State owns the land, and individuals/groups are simply renting the land. In legal parlance, there is no freehold (unconditional ownership by people), but only leasehold. It is also true that, as you say, this is "a way to gauge wealth" for the State's plunder operation, it's raison d'etre.

You, Hogeye, are like the guy who goes into Kinko's, acknowledges that Kinko's bought the copying machines, built the store, hired the people, etc., uses the copiers, and then refuses to pay by claiming that Kinko's cannot prove that they are the "real" owners of the property.

No; please read more carefully. I specifically deny that the State legitimately bought or homesteaded the land - people did. I deny that the machines and buildings the State bought with loot plundered from productive people is legitimate property of the State. I deny that, by simply using this stolen property or the product of plunder, that I agree to be ruled by the State. A better analogy would be about walking into a fence's warehouse of stolen goods, and not respecting the fence's unilateral claim to legitimately own the stolen goods.

And you never did explain how YOU can claim to be the owner of land. ... Could Neil Armstrong have claimed moon property for himself simply by virtue of being the first person there?

It was explained in some detail in an earlier thread, with extensive quotes by Nozick and others about the entitlement theory of distributive justice. (Here: Land and Entitlement Theory.) As you may recall, there are three criteria for just ownership. Original ownership involves use - "mixing one's labor" with something as Locke put it; being there first is not sufficient. So Armstrong cannot claim the moon, nor Columbus the Western Hemisphere.

[Doug]

No one, not even the "state" (whatever that is) claims ownership over everything. Taxes are paid on property not because the state owns it but because this is a way to gauge wealth and allocate tax payment accordingly.

A state is an organization with an effective monopoly on the legal use of force in a given geographic area. I generally capitalize it for USAmericans to avoid confusion with their provinces, which they term "states."

The state is the people, pure and simple. We have GW Bush in office because our country has millions of stupid redneck voters who put him in and did not monitor his evil. The "state" does not have a monopoly. The federal government's power is mitigated by state power, and vice versa. We give them this power, they don't illegitimately take it.

[Hogeye]

The state is the people, pure and simple.

It is amazing to me that a freethinker would say such a thing. That is no different from "God is Lord, pure and simple" or some such. How can someone reject the authority of God over man's mind, yet so abjectly accept the authority of State?

Of course, it is silly to argue about definitions. If you want to define "God" as "Lord of all" and "State" as "the people," that's your perogative. But be aware that when I use the term "State," I use it in the sociological manner attributed to Max Weber - "A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." I.e. the State, is an organization, not the vague mystical collective entity "the people." If you wish to understand my assertions and my point of view, then of course you have to understand the definition I use.

[Doug]

The state is the people, pure and simple.

It is amazing to me that a freethinker would say such a thing. That is no different from "God is Lord, pure and simple" or some such. How can someone reject the authority of God over man's mind, yet so abjectly accept the authority of State?

DOUG
My claim about the state is not based on authority, tradition, or blind faith. It is based on observation and reason. The state is constituted and empowered by the people. We the people can vote and change the state.

"A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." I.e. the State, is an organization, not the vague mystical collective entity "the people." If you wish to understand my assertions and my point of view, then of course you have to understand the definition I use.

"Organization" is just as vague as "the people." The governments we have in the United States include both local, state and federal institutions that the people have GIVEN authority to. When such institutions overstep the bounds of what the people want to allow, the voters can change that.

WE the people have said that members of our community must pay taxes to support the services our governments provide. If you refuse to help support those services, you are a freeloader illegitimately using those services.

[Hogeye]

"Organization" is just as vague as "the people."

No, "organization" is a group of people (a particular specific group, as opposed to the vague general everyone of "the people" as you use it) associating for specific purposes.

The state is constituted and empowered by the people.

There you go again. When you use "the people" it reminds me of a preacher using "the Holy Spirit."

... institutions that the people have GIVEN authority to.

Of course, when you unravel "the people" here, you really mean a subset of people, generally a small minority, who vote. But how do you justify authority over those who refuse to play the voting game, or were outvoted. Or are voting in resignation to a lesser of evils. These people don't count in your "the people?" You are using "the people" as a mystical holy rationalization of State servitude, elections as a thinly-disguised theist ritual of submission to authority. Such Holy Communion rituals mean nothing to non-believers like me.

If you refuse to help support those services, you are a freeloader illegitimately using those services.

I, like other anarchists, will gladly pay for services we voluntarily contract for. As soon as we can set up our own legal systems, courts, police services, schools, build or roads etc. without your institution of monopoly violence stopping us and plundering us, we anarchists and you archists will both be happier. In the mean time, I refuse to pay your "protection money," nor abide by the edicts of your masters. Or more accurately, I have no moral reason to submit: Your thugs with guns may kill me or imprison me, so I may submit for tactical reasons, in the same way I may submit to an armed robber. Cf: Wolff's discussion on moral authority vs power.

[Doug]

"Organization" is just as vague as "the people."

No, "organization" is a group of people (a particular specific group, as opposed to the vague general everyone of "the people" as you use it) associating for specific purposes.

OK, so the government is an organization. But so is an anarchist's "personal security force" or highway construction crew. So what is your beef?

The state is constituted and empowered by the people.

There you go again. When you use "the people" it reminds me of a preacher using "the Holy Spirit."

DOUG
And this is a rebuttal? I explained how my view of the government is not based on faith, and I was correct.

... institutions that the people have GIVEN authority to.

Of course, when you unravel "the people" here, you really mean a subset of people, generally a small minority, who vote. But how do you justify authority over those who refuse to play the voting game, or were outvoted.

DOUG
The "voting game"? And as an anarchist you would allow people to freeload on the system? I don't think so. As Socrates explained, anyone who stays in the U.S. knowing its laws (in general) is tacitly accepting the rule of its laws.

Or are voting in resignation to a lesser of evils. These people don't count in your "the people?" You are using "the people" as a mystical holy rationalization of State servitude, elections as a thinly-disguised theist ritual of submission to authority. Such Holy Communion rituals mean nothing to non-believers like me.

DOUG
I am using "the people" as an explanation of how the government gets its power. People give power to the government. The government can't just "get" power.

If you refuse to help support those services, you are a freeloader illegitimately using those services.

I, like other anarchists, will gladly pay for services we voluntarily contract for. As soon as we can set up our own legal systems, courts, police services, schools, build or roads etc. without your institution of monopoly violence stopping us and plundering us, we anarchists and you archists will both be happier. In the mean time, I refuse to pay your "protection money," nor abide by the edicts of your masters. Or more accurately, I have no moral reason to submit: Your thugs with guns may kill me or imprison me, so I may submit for tactical reasons, in the same way I may submit to an armed robber. Cf: Wolff's discussion on moral authority vs power.

So what would you do in your anarchist society if someone stole your property but did not believe in paying for a legal system, so the thief declared that he did not recognize the legitimacy of your judge or jury?

[Hogeye]

OK, so the government is an organization. But so is an anarchist's "personal security force" or highway construction crew. So what is your beef?

Thanks for stipulating the Weber definition of "State" - an organization that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. To answer your question: Our beef is with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. We don't mind voluntary organizations, where you can opt out, where there is no coercive monopoly. We see a significant moral difference between a security force where you pay whether you consent or not, and are not allowed to form a competing organization (without moving), or switch to another org, and one where you can do these things per your judgement.

The state is constituted and empowered by the people. ... And this is a rebuttal?

Yes - I explained how you were using "the people" to imply that everyone consented, when in reality many don't consent at all. You have given no rational reason why "the people" consent when many of the real human being people do not. And of course there is no rational explanation - saying "the people" consent when many actual people do not is contradictory, unless you mean "the people" as some supernatural force "beyond logic." It seems to me that you are using the term "the people" in a mystic non-rational sense, much like Rousseau uses "the general will" or Hegel uses "the State." I remind you of this mysticism to underline the inconsistency of this with your usual solid freethinking regarding other subjects. I want to embarrass you into rethinking and demystifying your notion of "the people."

I am using "the people" as an explanation of how the government gets its power.

But this is totally insufficient to explain or justify why the State should have authority or should be obeyed. If you switch to this brute force explanation, you are (as Darrel did earlier) begging the question under discussion. I have agreed all along that the State has power; what I disagree with is that it has (moral) authority.

So what would you do in your anarchist society if someone stole your property but did not believe in paying for a legal system, so the thief declared that he did not recognize the legitimacy of your judge or jury?

I (or my PDA - private defense agency) would of course take compensation, by force if necessary. A perhaps more interesting case would be if he did have a PDA, but had different property conventions, e.g. I am a propertarian and he is a socialist who doesn't recognize profit from labor as legitimate, or a geoist who doesn't recognize property in land and natural resources. A lot has been written on resolution of conflicts between PDAs, but the nutshell solution is that our respective PDAs would come to a negotiated solution, or if necessary use a mutually agreed-upon "appeals" court/arbiter. (Actually, in principle this is no different than when citizens from two different States have a dispute.)

The point is, as already stated, that there is no monopoly of force, unlike the statist system. In other ways (which perhaps was your point in asking this question) it is not so different from statist law. Which should be no surprise - much statist law is descended from polycentric law, e.g. US law is derived from Anglo-Saxon Common Law and Law Merchant.

[Doug]

So what would you do in your anarchist society if someone stole your property but did not believe in paying for a legal system, so the thief declared that he did not recognize the legitimacy of your judge or jury?

I (or my PDA - private defense agency) would of course take compensation, by force if necessary.

You just lost. You are advocating the exact same thing that you accuse the government of doing--imposing its will on someone who does not want to participate in the system.

[Hogeye]

But that is not my objection to the State. I stated my objection twice already, so I thought I'd made it clear. Let me state it a third time - it's the monopoly of force that I object to.

(It's rather silly of you to think I object to any system whatsoever. Did you think I objected to e.g. the convention against murder? That I would respect the choices of criminally insane psychopaths? I fully support a "system" imposing force against such.)

Thus, your declaration of victory is frivolous. Not only that, it still begs the question of whether the State has authority (or equivalently whether one has a duty to obey the State.) Even the thief in your example, who doesn't recognize the legitimacy of my judge or jury, has no moral obligation to recognize them as legitimate authority. Like Darrel, you still don't seem to grok the difference between power and authority. You only want to address the power issue, which is not in contention. I've repeatedly agreed that brute force can be effective in compelling obedience. Our question, the interesting one, is ethical: Does the State have authority? (aka moral authority, aka legitimacy.)

[Doug]

But that is not my objection to the State. I stated my objection twice already, so I thought I'd made it clear. Let me state it a third time - it's the monopoly of force that I object to.

Existing private security agencies may use force too, so there is no monopoly. So either you have a false issue or you were objecting to the State allegedly using force on nonparticipants in the state system.

And you were objecting to the State allegedly using force on nonparticipants in the state system. Yet you would use force on someone who did not participate in your system.

AND, what would you do with someone who agreed to participate in your system and then reneged? If you can "opt out" of the system, why can't someone avoid your taxes or punishments by simply leaving after they've made some gain?

[Hogeye]

Hogeye> It's the monopoly of force that I object to.

Doug> Existing private security agencies may use force too, so there is no monopoly.

??? Non sequitur. A monopoly means that competition is disallowed; it has nothing to do with using force (other than force being one way to prevent competition.) PDAs compete with other PDAs and with do-it-yourselfers. The State, however, eliminates competition (or at least subordinates, and controls or licenses competition.) Ergo, the State has a monopoly (on "its" turf), but a PDA does not. If I switch PDAs, my land switches to the jurisdiction of my new PDA - no territorial monopoly exists. Do you understand now?

And you were objecting to the State allegedly using force on nonparticipants in the state system.

Close, but not quite correct. I object to the State using unjust force. Your analogy begs the question on unjust force. Your analogy was, if a thief steals your property, then you are justified in using force to get compensation. The point of the analogy is to assume that the tax-resister is the thief and the State the victim. But this begs the question on whether the thief is analogous to the tax-resister. You could just as easily assume that the State is the thief and the tax-payer the victim. Thus, your analogy could just as easily "prove" that one is justified in using force to get your stolen money back from the State and its IRS thugs. Similarly, I could ask you the dual question: What would you do if a protection racket extorted money from you? Would you be justified in using retaliatory force? (Yes.) If I then claimed that this proves tax-resistance is justified, I would be similarly begging the question. (This is an interesting conjoining of analogy and begging the question, which makes the petito principii harder to spot. No actual question-begging assertion is made - it is "merely" implied by the analogy.)

What would you do with someone who agreed to participate in your system and then reneged? If you can "opt out" of the system, why can't someone avoid your taxes or punishments by simply leaving after they've made some gain?

Such cases would be handled like any other contract; if someone breaks the contract and opts out, they would pay damages. In effect, you wouldn't be able to avoid contracted payments by opting out simply to avoid them. In practice (yes, various cultures and organizations have such arrangements) there is some kind of surety or performance bond that someone forfeits. E.g. Music performers known for getting drunk and missing gigs are generally required to pay a performance bond which is forfeited if they dont show up. In Anglo-Saxon Common Law (and many other customary law systems) people would form a surety group to guarantee compliance among its members. For the Xeer of Somalia, it is a kinship thing - the kinship group pays fines for members who cannot pay. American Indians had e.g. sweat lodge groups that also functioned as surety groups. In modern times, it would be insurance. Most PDAs would likely require insurance, money held in escrow, or someone to vouch for financial responsibility.

Here's a piece on polycentric law, surety groups, etc. you might like to read:
PRIVATELY PRODUCED LAW

[Doug]

Hogeye> It's the monopoly of force that I object to.

Doug> Existing private security agencies may use force too, so there is no monopoly.

??? Non sequitur. A monopoly means that competition is disallowed; it has nothing to do with using force (other than force being one way to prevent competition.)

DOUG
You just said it DID have something to do with force. YOU said that you objected to the monopoly of force by the state. So I point out by rebuttal that there is no monopoly. That is relevant.

And you were objecting to the State allegedly using force on nonparticipants in the state system.

Close, but not quite correct. I object to the State using unjust force.

DOUG
Then you are arguing in a circle, begging the question. You assume that the state uses unjust force and then object to the fact that it is unjust.

Your analogy begs the question on unjust force. Your analogy was, if a thief steals your property, then you are justified in using force to get compensation. The point of the analogy is to assume that the tax-resister is the thief and the State the victim. But this begs the question on whether the thief is analogous to the tax-resister. You could just as easily assume that the State is the thief and the tax-payer the victim.

DOUG
That was not the point of my example. My example was just that, an example. It was not intended as an analogy.

So do not duck the question again:

You have said that if a thief steals your property, then you are justified in using force to get compensation. Isn't the use of force on someone who does not participate in your "system" exactly what you complain about with regard to the state?

What would you do with someone who agreed to participate in your system and then reneged? If you can "opt out" of the system, why can't someone avoid your taxes or punishments by simply leaving after they've made some gain?

Such cases would be handled like any other contract; if someone breaks the contract and opts out, they would pay damages. In effect, you wouldn't be able to avoid contracted payments by opting out simply to avoid them.

DOUG
OK, but you beg the question that they are still subject to your laws even when they opt out. Can't the state say the same thing NOW about YOU, after you have used roads, schools, etc? You were in the system, you used it, you benefited from it, and now you want to opt out.

Same thing. Pay your taxes and quit whining.

[Dardedar]

Pay your taxes and quit whining.

DAR
Wouldn't paying income taxes require some kind of job/income? What kind of tax bracket does teaching anarcho-capism and playing chess get a person into these days? Fortunately, the system is set up so that many taxes are built in (sales tax, gas tax, phone taxes etc.) and don't allow one to use the service or product without paying their fair share on the spot.

[Hogeye]

YOU said that you objected to the monopoly of force by the state. So I point out by rebuttal that there is no monopoly. That is relevant.

Okay, I understand now. We have a discrepancy in interpreting "monopoly." In the Weberian definition of "state" (and in general usage), a "monopoly" doesn't necessarily mean the entity is the only provider, but rather the only ultimate provider. IOW the monopoly entity may "farm out" provision of a good or service, but retains the final say and jurisdiction. E.g. Microsoft has a monopoly on the Windows operating system, but allows Dell, Gateway, etc. to distribute Windows. Similarly, the US State has a monopoly of force, but allows, at its discretion, others to provide some security services. The US can, and does, override private arbitration and police services - the US State has the final say, and can "put down" any service it deems incompatable with its goals, that doesn't satisfy its licensing requirements, doesn't follow its regulations, etc. If a private defense agency, e.g. protected farmers' hemp fields, or a cancer patient's indoor growing operations, the US would override the local provider.

You assume that the state uses unjust force and then object to the fact that it is unjust.

No, I am making a distinction between the initiation of force (aka aggression) and the retaliatory/rectificatory use of force. I am not a pacifist; the former type of force is morally impermissible (in the normal civilized context), while the latter is permissible. Your argument seemed to be that I was being inconsistent in objecting to someone (i.e. a State vs. a PDA) using force, when I was really objecting to the initiation of force. Apprehending a thief is permissible whether it's done by State, PDA, or individual, since it is retaliatory force.

You have said that if a thief steals your property, then you are justified in using force to get compensation. Isn't the use of force on someone who does not participate in your "system" exactly what you complain about with regard to the state?

No. As explained in the preceeding paragraph, I object to the initiation of force, not to participation (or not) in a system.

The issue is whether the State is initiating force when it demands tribute/tax. I say "yes", since I (and many others) do not consent to pay such tribute; you say "no" and appeal to an alleged implicit contract.

Hogeye> Such cases would be handled like any other contract; if someone breaks the contract and opts out, they would pay damages. In effect, you wouldn't be able to avoid contracted payments by opting out simply to avoid them.

Doug> OK, but you beg the question that they are still subject to your laws even when they opt out.

No - it is you who begs the question, since you assume that some contract was made. That is precisely the issue under debate - whether there exists any such valid contract. You seem to be saying that simply living on US/mafia turf and "participating in the system" constitutes a valid contract. I've argued that it does not.

Can't the state say the same thing NOW about YOU, after you have used roads, schools, etc? You were in the system, you used it, you benefited from it, and now you want to opt out.

Your underlying implicit assumption here (also in others' comments about freeloading) is: If one benefits from something, then one may rightfully be forced to pay for those benefits. I dispute this assumption. I think it will only take a few examples to show that it is ridiculous.

1) Wal-Mart has benefitted northwest Arkansas immensely in many ways, such as employment, support of infrastructure (like the airport), support for the arts (WAC), and generally brought prosperity to NWA. If Wal-Mart demands a tribute (property tax, income tax, whatever), by the assumption above, people are obliged to pay.

2) Your neighbor has a beautiful garden in the front yard, which you enjoy as you walk by. Is your neighbor entitled to demand payment for your enjoyment of his garden?

3) A local club does a fireworks display on the 4th of July, and then demands payments from everyone who might have had a view of the display.

The anyone who benefits may be forced to pay assumption is false. "Uncorraled" third-party benefits are gifts, not obligations to pay. If someone wants payment for such, they should arrange for use fees, conditional contingency contracts, or some other voluntary means.

There are additional reasons that the State's demands for tribute are dubious that I had already brought up (paid for by stolen loot, sustained by special privilege or outright monopoly privilege), but perhaps the most basic is the false assumption above.

[Hogeye]

Someone asked in another thread whether Wayne had been sentenced yet. Apparently not. Here is a letter I found on WarOnGuns blog:

Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wayne Fincher Update: March 29
From Wayne Fincher's daughter:

Dad saw the Probation Officer today. Don't know the results yet. The probation officer said that dad would be getting some time. She doesn't know how much as of yet. The lawyer is wanting everyone that wants to, to write letters about dad about his character. All the good things about dad. Please send them to the lawyer so she can review them and present them to the judge during the sentencing. Her address is Shannon L. Blatt 19 Court Street PO BOX 1825 Fort Smith, Ark 72902-1825 If you have already sent please send another one so the lawyer can present it to the judge. Only nice ones please. We thank you for all the help that everyone has done, all the radio programs, phone calls, letters, money,all the internet sites and all the prayers.etc. Everyone keep praying that somehow the judge will give him a light sentence or time served or no time at all. Thanks for everything. Please pass this message on to everyone you know or that knows dad. His sentencing will be 6 to 8 weeks.