So of course, AnCaps believe the state is illegitimate. In the name. But we don't believe this arbitrarily or vibes based.
To be clear, AnCaps believe in 4 fundamental rights:
which are covered under the Non-Aggression principle. now to prove that the government violates the NAP.
In the modern day, government violates the right to self ownership via conscription, government mandated vaccines, evictionism bans, and bans on drugs.
The government violates property ownership via eminent domain laws, bans on certain goods, disallowing homesteading of unused land, and of course, taxation.
if you want to debate taxation is theft at the same time, am i allowed to say no to taxes? why do have to do this with the state threatening me with violence for this?
now to violations of voluntary exchange. think how we are disallowed from selling certain goods, for example, we can't sell milk without a license. We need to pay the government if we want to sell goods to people, because of licensing laws.
and for self defense. tell me, does the government let you resist any of these?
I need to pull up debate music rq
tip: use notepad to avoid accidentally sending it
my message is too long for discord.
can I send it in separate messages but count as one response
i am trying to limit the length of this
so can we limit this to 1 message per response?
you do know this gives you an advantage because your style is based on short responses. Mine is based on a large argument bru
For the first principle, vaccines are a good thing necessary for people's health, some people however decide to choose to not and possibly get sick, and since the state is responsible for the health of the people this goes against one of the states principles (most countries are welfare state so I count it as a principle of the state)
evictionism is a problem mainly derived in religion and the politics of lobbying against it, most people agree on allowing abortions on the left so this is a problem related to the politics of a nation and not inherently derived from the state
bans on drugs are necessary to prevent the government into turning into a narco state, as without them cartels become legal entities and become part of the monopolies within the nation which weakens the nation as a whole due to cartels inherent nature.
The government violates property ownership. The government promotes private property ownership within the elite bourgeoisie class, so disallowing these things are necessary in order to allow bourgeoisie capitalism to thrive, homesteading to prevent their monopoly on land to be touched, bans on certain goods to enhance monopolies of companies, and taxes so the companies are not responsible in taking care of the people
Taxes are a necessary tool of the state to function, so it is unavoidable in any government, the reason you do not get to opt out is because you live in the nation with taxes, if you were excempt from taxes then you do not get the benefits of living in that state, because everyone else is paying taxes to get those benefits so you not paying taxes is a slap in the face for those who do.
Licenses exist to have a certain amount of quality control within what you sell or not,
But I will shift this to a Marxist perspective, the government is only legitimate due to the consent of the people, the people consent to the government and grants it the power of coercion to use legally against those the people view as enemies.
The state is a tool to serve class interests, so it's legitimacy is derived from how well it surpresses the proletarian class and serves bourgeoisie interests.
The state’s illegitimacy isn’t about violating abstract rights but about its fundamental role in sustaining an exploitative system. And so the state is illegitimate because it is a capitalist state meant to exploit, if the government serves people then it is legitimate because the people will it to be legitimate. This argument is why Marxists justify revolution as it is a tool of the people to challenge the state and legitimize it once more in the interests of the people
Ok, and? a slave is fed, clothed, and housed. That doesn't make him less of a slave. and if people choose not to be vaccinated, it's their choice. There are clear incentives to be vaccinated, most anti-vaxxers are people whom oppose it on the fact that you are forced to take it.
Let's say a women is pregnant and she will die if she doesn't abort. Are we allowed to force her to abort her child even if she says no?
Same goes for bans on drugs. The main reason states ban it is because they have to pay for the health issues, but if we abolish the state, the problem is localized to the person taking drugs, instead of everyone paying for the healthcare that they might never use.
And we differ on property ownership. By property ownership, I do not make an arbitrary private vs personal property, and if you homestead the property, it is yours. Let me illustrate an example. Say we have a small business that produces clothing. The owner doesn't really work there, but he set it up and grew it by himself, and is hiring to take the work off his shoulders. would it be moral to steal this business from him? Within your framework, it would be just to seize it from him because he owns what you call private property.
Yes, of course taxes are a necessary tool of the state to function. Without funding extracted via violent coercion, then the state wouldn't exist. And don't even try to hit me with "the reason you can't opt out because you benefit." Tell me, if I own a charity, am I just if I go house to house, put a gun to people's heads, and say "Guess what! You voluntary donation is now compulsory. Give me the money or I will murder you." Obviously, no.
Sure, licenses give SOME quality control, but say you were selling bread from home, but then I went up to you and said "Pay me or I will shut down your business." And sure, while they have requirements to get one, you still are forced into paying them or you can't sell your bread.
And I agree to you, only consent is the only way for a government to be legitimate. But if it required consent, we wouldn't have the modern state. We would have Anarcho-Capitalism. And how come I consent to this? Is it because of some social contract? NO, I don't see any contract, nor it's terms. Is it because I was born in the country? But if a slave is born into slavery, does this mean he consented to slavery? Anyone would say no to this. What about democracy you might say? I don't care how many representatives you elect, I don't consent. Anarchists are people who would never consent. Even worse if your chosen party LOST in the election. If it is unjust for the minority to oppress the majority, same goes for the majority to oppress the minority.
But now to proving that my rights are not abstract, but derived from logical principles.
The right to self ownership is derived because well, the alternatives are all forms of slavery, which means UNEQUAL rights.
Self ownership leads to the homestead principle. If I take a piece of land, fence it off, and do something with it, I should logically own the land.The alternative you might propose is collective ownership of all property. But then I would need to consent of 8 billion other people to write down the letter A in a notebook.
And voluntary exchange is self-explanatory. If I am not allowed to trade with another willingly, then I don't really own the property that i should be owning.
I'm pretty sure self defense is pretty self-explanatory. If you can't defend your rights you don't have them.
For the first point, saying that giving people healthcare or preventing pandemics is "slavery" is just not a good comparison. A slave has no choice or freedom, while a person living in a society that manages health for public benefit still has rights and access to things a slave never had. Vaccines aren’t forced for the sake of control—they are part of protecting the public. If you don't want public health measures, you're not against the state, you're just against society. You're ignoring that we all live collectively.
Your point is not relevant to Marxist idea, Marxists support bodily autonomy and the right to choose. Banning abortion is a state decision that reflects who is in power, not the nature of the state itself.
About drugs, you do not solve it you instead legitimize it, drugs are a problem because capitalism makes profit from it, private actors would just replace the state and keep doing the same thing
Homesteading. Yeah no, The issue is, this idea only makes sense in a vacuum where land and resources are infinite and unclaimed. In the real world, especially under capitalism, most people can’t homestead anything. The land, tools, and capital are already owned, so your right to own something because you touched it first doesn’t apply in a system where access is already locked behind wealth and inherited advantage.
He doesn't work? He is bourgeoisie, he worked to make the business fine that's labor, but you don't cross the line of becoming a bourgeoisie class by utilizing this to live without work, every man must work according to ability. once he starts hiring people to do the actual work and still profits without contributing labor, he’s not “taking the work off his shoulders,” he’s just stepping out of the labor process and making money, or the principle of Surplus value
If the workers run the business, manage it, and do the labor, why shouldn’t they own it? Why should the owner still have a stake when he does nothing anymore. The workers own it and it is their just right.
A charity is not directly helping you, the state is responsible for it's citizens so the taxes ofc go to healthcare and other means that directly affect the citizens,
Even if you didn’t explicitly sign a contract, living in a society means participating in a system of mutual obligations. You benefit from roads, police, emergency services, clean water, public schooling, and more even if you don’t use every service directly. Taxes are the collective price we pay for those things. It is not voluntary, and voluntary payment is not enough to pay for these goods that benefit the collective.
Consent differs in what terms, Consent of what class? The bourgeoisie class consents to this system and holding all the wealth and power the system remains, the proletarian must revolt and take this government and make it serve the class of the workers who are the majority, so the government will now serve the proletarian and now gain it's consent.
Democracy right now is a small minority (capitalists) rules over the majority (workers) by controlling production, wealth, and political influence. We want those who work and have labor power to have a democratic say not mob rule.
OK yes you weren't born here with consent but to change that there must be a revolution to change the system, no opting out, Capitalists have already taken the means of opting out of their system of governance.
The right to self ownership in marxist terms is to own your labor power, and for your labor power to be protected against those who want to steal it and exploit you. Not the capitalistic definition of giving the Bourgeoisie freedom to exploit.
Self defense sure, self defense against capitalism, many workers rights came from the movements in Trade Unions.
Voluntary exchange under capitalism isn’t truly free workers sell labor to survive, while capitalists profit from it. That’s coercion, not equality. Ownership and choice are shaped by class
Who won this Debate Cynthia or Bulletjeans