Are we "parasites"?

[memenode]

There are quite a few people which would readily associate everyone who resists the government imposed obligations, such as the paying of taxes, as parasites of the society. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that by not paying and instead maximizing their wealth somebody else ends up being forced to pay for them and that those who could be helped by the government welfare are therefore deprived.

IMHO those are really quite ridiculous points, but bear with me. What makes the whole thing worse is that ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism are therefore seen as justifications for this selfish behaviour, as clout invented in an attempt to justify the "parasitic" behaviour.

What do you say to that? Would you call tax evading anarcho capitalists as parasites of the society as it is today? What is the line you draw between "parasitic" anarcho-capitalists and the rest? Perhaps in that the parasitic ones are adopting the idea only because it suits their power and wealth maximization agenda? Can such a thing even be called as real adoption of anarcho-capitalism (considering that we are against power maximization over others, just wealth maximization without necessarily parallel increase of power over other people)?

Thoughts welcome.

[dalebert]

Honestly, it doesn't matter what their justifications are. Someone who's maximizing their wealth by being productive is not harming anyone and needs no justification. Someone who's paying taxes is helping to harm people. I feel guilty for the taxes that I pay; not the taxes that I manage to avoid, which frankly isn't much. Justifications are something I embarrassingly contrive in order to feel less guilty about the taxes I pay. I'll be filing my 2007 returns shortly and I don't want to look anyone in the eye when I'm doing it. It's shameful. I look at those who have the courage to refuse paying at great personal risk, risking losing much more, sometimes spending time in jail for it, and I admire them for having courage that I don't have. It's clearly not selfish. However, even if it is selfish motivation for some people, I don't care. If you're respecting the rights of others and not harming people, you need no justification for your actions. It's the aggressive actions of government that call for justifications, something they've failed to produce.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

There are quite a few people which would readily associate everyone who resists the government imposed obligations, such as the paying of taxes, as parasites of the society. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that by not paying and instead maximizing their wealth somebody else ends up being forced to pay for them

It's almost impossible to answer that because it assumes that there is a such thing as "society". Society does not exist, it is a collectivist term (or if you want something less loaded, logical fallacy) designed to confuse people. I've said before, half seriously, "government is what atheists believe in when they can't grasp God". Society can't create or destroy anything. It can't be destroyed or leeched off of. There are only individuals. You may even argue that "but you can group individuals based on certain traits" which is true but society is even a grouping based on values (evident by the term "the good of society") and no two people, let alone a group of many of them, hold the same values. The same thing that "makes the market work" bars the possibility of "society" as it's tossed around by socialists and statists.

That said, what do you say to a thief who calls you a parasite for not giving him your money? By keeping your money you're robbing him of his ability to have wealth, right?

[T]hose who could be helped by the government welfare are therefore deprived.

I've heard this arguement before, and perhaps in my earlier years argued it myself. To fairly argue a point, you have to understand it. Do you understand that this point is bolstered by the assumption that there are "rights" inherent to people? The socialist argues "without your tax money, the hungry would starve, you're depriving them of food" or "without your taxes people won't get medical care, you're depriving them of it".

There is no "right to have food" or "right to have medical care". I personally believe that the list of true rights is pretty small. The right to be free of uninitiated force. The right to own property.  Even "the right to conduct business" can't exist, since that requires other people agree to do so and they are free (by virtue of making their own decisions) NOT to conduct business if they so choose.

Now, a different topic would be exactly "what rights actually exist" and at THAT point things get hairy.

Perhaps in that the parasitic ones are adopting the idea only because it suits their power and wealth maximization agenda

I consider this the only "real" reason to adopt the ideas, honestly. I see nothing wrong with the pursuit of profit, even the obsessive pursuit of profit as long as it doesn't involve the use of force. Nobody who wanted to pursue profit through the use of force would adopt, or even pretend to support, the ideas of a voluntaryist because it would make them compete without force and eliminate the ways in which they could use that force.

[memenode]

Well, in all honesty I'm quite sold on those ideas, just loosely playing devils advocate.. and probably failing even at that! I was just curious of what others think of this particular accusation..

I look at those who have the courage to refuse paying at great personal risk, risking losing much more, sometimes spending time in jail for it, and I admire them for having courage that I don't have.

This may or may not make you feel somewhat better, but given the circumstances we have to individually assess our situation, risks and benefits, and act in a way we believe would expand our personal power and allow us to spread the message of liberty as far and wide as possible. If opting to pay and stay safe is the best way you believe you can contribute this cause than it is the best way and nobody can tell you otherwise. It's in a sense about applying our own ideals to a situation which is not ideal. No matter what we do it'll be a suboptimal situation, but given two evils you choose the lesser one.

I am still evaluating what my choice should be.

It's almost impossible to answer that because it assumes that there is a such thing as "society". Society does not exist, it is a collectivist term (or if you want something less loaded, logical fallacy) designed to confuse people. I've said before, half seriously, "government is what atheists believe in when they can't grasp God".

I agree. Although "society" is what critics would use, as it fits their perspective. I suppose actually dispelling the myth of "society" as conceptual oneness is the best first response to such a critique.

I love that saying about God/Government. I guess some people can't live without the concept of a Big "G".

That said, what do you say to a thief who calls you a parasite for not giving him your money? By keeping your money you're robbing him of his ability to have wealth, right?

If you are a comedian on stage, right.

Do you understand that this point is bolstered by the assumption that there are "rights" inherent to people?

I might not had it on my mind in the original post, but yes... when you mention it. That's perhaps the only way their argument could hold.

There is no "right to have food" or "right to have medical care". I personally believe that the list of true rights is pretty small. The right to be free of uninitiated force. The right to own property.  Even "the right to conduct business" can't exist, since that requires other people agree to do so and they are free (by virtue of making their own decisions) NOT to conduct business if they so choose.

True enough.. Rights to life, liberty and property, based on the self ownership principle are fundamental. All other rights follow, unless they infringe on any of these fundamental rights of others.

But it's a hard thing for a socialist (or socio democrat) to grasp and I can, to a point, understand that. It's that altruistic mentality. It induces the argument that by saying these rights aren't inherent is akin to saying they should starve, suffer etc. Truth, of course, is that we want better chances for those unfortunate ones just as everyone else, much better in fact than any government can provide.

This does inspire an idea though. A successful voluntaryst free marketeer who lives beneath the government radar could make it a practice to voluntarily give to a private charities of some sort. This way, nobody can even argue that by pursuing this, let's say far out, anarchistic society while not paying for "government charity" we are putting the poor and hungry in a nowhere land (neither is our better society there yet nor are we giving to whatever, however wrong and inefficient, "solution" exists).

[PattyLee loves dogs]

The reasoning, as I understand it, is that by not paying and instead maximizing their wealth somebody else ends up being forced to pay for them

But if they do pay their taxes, the money ends up sponsoring wars in the Balkans... those Armbrusts weren't free, you know (But they were a lot cheaper than the bombs our own forces dropped in order to destroy a total of 17 Serbian military vehicles  )

given the circumstances we have to individually assess our situation, risks and benefits, and act in a way we believe would expand our personal power and allow us to spread the message of liberty as far and wide as possible. If opting to pay and stay safe is the best way you believe you can contribute this cause than it is the best way and nobody can tell you otherwise. It's in a sense about applying our own ideals to a situation which is not ideal. No matter what we do it'll be a suboptimal situation, but given two evils you choose the lesser one.

I am still evaluating what my choice should be.

Just look at it from the viewpoint of the totalitarians, and do whatever is least convenient for them.

For most of us, staying out of jail and spreading libertarian ideas is more effective.

[kola]

this seems like a "trolling" kinda question.

freedom lovers are parasites? for wanting to get rid of big gov?

the parasites want big gov so they can milk off them.

kola

[Vitruvian]

Someone who's paying taxes [willingly] is helping to harm people [willingly].

Slightly modified, the gentleman's statement is admitted.

[David]

I don't ask gov't to help me, or to give me anything.  If they choose to, that is their choice.  The roads are a great example.  I don't ask for them.  I use them.  I have paid for them.  But I believe it is perfectly moral to evade and resist every tax possible. 
The parrallel is this:  If I bought a dumptruck for you, (my choice), then gave it to you weather you wanted it to or not, (again my choice) would it then be right for me to send you a bill for the truck that I choose to buy without your agreement?  Would it be right for me to initiate violence against you for not paying 'your' bill?  Even if from time to time you choose to use this gift. 

[memenode]

But if they do pay their taxes, the money ends up sponsoring wars in the Balkans...

True. Not just balkans (say a "peace" mission to Kosovo might be up on the table now that we're to enter NATO), but our soldiers in Afghanistan too (there is up to 100 iirc).

Just look at it from the viewpoint of the totalitarians, and do whatever is least convenient for them.

That's actually quite a good advice.

this seems like a "trolling" kinda question.

Actually, I was just trying to play "devil's advocate" and doing a bad job at it I suppose. The reason I thought it might be a useful question to ask is to see which arguments would you or anyone here provide to refute such misconceptions that people have. I don't hold those misconceptions myself though and I am in full agreement with the philosophy of liberty that is based on self ownership rather than sacrifice to the government for the illusion that is "common good" and "society" etc.

So, just to make it clear. We're on the same team and I'm not trying to be disruptive.

the parasites want big gov so they can milk off them.

I agree. It's interesting how propaganda and culture of ignorance twisted that on its head.. People who actually create some value are called parasites for not wanting part of that value stolen from them, yet people who don't create value and "live on welfware" are people we're supposed to reward... I guess that's their "logic". It may be true that some of the people on welfware never really had a real opportunity to be producers of value, but perpetuating their dependence (and hence their lack of freedom/responsibility) is not the solution.

So I absolutely agree.

If I bought a dumptruck for you, (my choice), then gave it to you weather you wanted it to or not, (again my choice) would it then be right for me to send you a bill for the truck that I choose to buy without your agreement?  Would it be right for me to initiate violence against you for not paying 'your' bill?  Even if from time to time you choose to use this gift.

Man, that's an excellent point. I've been wrestling with that issue a short while ago.. wondering "ok, so if I don't pay taxes, how do I justify using roads and other "public property" that I essentially can't escape using when I have to". I ended up justifying it by the tax I can't avoid paying (Value Added Tax, popular in Europe, which is added to the price of every product you buy). But your point above makes much more sense. Thanks!

[John Edward Mercier]

I don't ask gov't to help me, or to give me anything.  If they choose to, that is their choice.  The roads are a great example.  I don't ask for them.  I use them.  I have paid for them.  But I believe it is perfectly moral to evade and resist every tax possible. 
The parrallel is this:  If I bought a dumptruck for you, (my choice), then gave it to you weather you wanted it to or not, (again my choice) would it then be right for me to send you a bill for the truck that I choose to buy without your agreement?  Would it be right for me to initiate violence against you for not paying 'your' bill?  Even if from time to time you choose to use this gift. 

The government gave you a road? And here I was under the impression that the government expected payment for this 'service'.

[memenode]

Well they didn't quite "give" it to you I suppose, but they are selling it to you by force, and it being a situation you can't really escape from you have to use it regardless of whether you want to pay for it or not, but should an alternative choice exist you'd jump to it. Force is what makes it wrong and combined with lack of choice, not paying for it is justified.

Edit: Not paying for it is actually the best way you can ensure that you do get a choice. You're not allowed nor it may be practical to start building your own roads so all that's left is to withdraw monetary support from government so that competition can arise in building new and/or further maintanance of existing roads.

Cheers

[John Edward Mercier]

Selling something to me by force wouldn't make much sense. You could just take what you want and give me nothing. 

Who forced me to drive?

And I can petition the government to transfer any road to me privately, just as private road owners offer the road to the government.

Few roads existed prior to the State of NH, and none were public. The King's Highway was annexed. And most municipal roads were deeded from private owners. Even today, private owners petition the town for acceptance of their roads as public.

[Free libertarian]

 Are we parasites?  Parasite - "one depending on another and not making adequate return"

A good argument could be made that "the government" is parasitic of the people.  Sucking the blood (money? freedom? et al) from it's host it could not exist if there were no more blood to be had.
Our society has done a good job of conditioning us to be willing blood donors...
  Maybe we  need to wear government "flea collars" and see if that helps get rid of the parasites?   
 

[John Edward Mercier]

The 'government' is a non-corporal entity. It provides services. Some that are paid for by the user, others that are not paid for by the user. The user of government services can therefore be 'parasitic'... but not the non-corporal entity.

Its like a corporation can not be a liar or thief, but its officers can.

[srqrebel]

The only parasites are those who usurp ownership and/or authority, so the real question is, "Who can own property, and where does actual authority reside?" The short answer is "the individual". Thus, anyone who usurps or helps usurp the property and/or authority of another individual is a parasite -- and no one else.

this seems like a "trolling" kinda question.

freedom lovers are parasites? for wanting to get rid of big gov?

the parasites want big gov so they can milk off them.

kola

I don't see it as a trolling kind of question at all. It is just highlighting the most common objection of the classic sheeple to those who refuse to submit to theft by taxation.

I think gu3st is just asking how to best handle this common objection. Nothing wrong with that -- the better we learn to handle objections, the more effectively we deliver our message.