State Exercising It Monopoly on Coercion
Much of the content on this site deals with how the state use my tax money. Since the whole process of tax collection is generally amicable some become forgetful that tax collection at it’s core is coercive act. This story should serve as a reminder that the state is the only entity capable of explicitly forcing you to do what it wants. These people refuse to pay and state comes to force them to pay their taxes.
Missing from show down between the state and the couple refusing to pay:
-
Wal-Mart
Enron
Oil Companies
Music Recording Companies
June 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
….Excpet for all the coercive legislation that lobbyists for those companies have gotten passed.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Coercive legislation must go through the state. We agree, the state is the neccesary component for coercion.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 am
Not really; without the state stopping them, corporations would just hire mercenaries to coerce people directly.
I sounds like we agree that GUNS are the neccessary component for coercion.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Jeusus, we just did this. Mercenaries would become the de facto government of that region.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Lol, so you’re defining any coercive force as ‘a government,’ and then saying that the problem with governments is that they’re coercive?
Man, talking to you sure is productive.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
See abortion for some real productivity.
My issues is atributing coercive power to a corporation when the more obvious agent of coercion is the state.
Do you take issue with my definition of government?
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 am
You guys are off on a tangent. Governments exist because of their coercive force, yes, but there’s this thing called legitimacy, where the governed accept the government (for whatever reason) and generally don’t have to be forced to do what the members of the government want, at gunpoint.
Darwin is taking the, uh, ‘unique’, position that without government intervention Wal-Mart would just conscript, equip and feed an army just to force us to turn over our $5 for ill-fitting, Chinese-sewn underwear. Which probably looks better in the business plan than it would work out in real life.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Steve-
True or false: given your definition, a mugger qulaifies as an extremely local, temporary government?
June 25th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Mitch,
Illegitmate government can exist with enough coercion. Unless you would argue that Saddam’s government was considered legitmate by the majority of the people.
Darwin,
True.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Then yeah, I take issue with your definition of government.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Please put forward your defintion. Thnx.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Main Entry: gov·ern·ment
Pronunciation: ‘g&-v&r(n)-m&nt, -v&-m&nt; ‘g&-b&m-&nt, -v&m-
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
The organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it
June 26th, 2007 at 11:05 am
So i guess that means you don’t have a defintion. Got it.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Yeah, I don’t make up new definitions for common words in the middle of an argument to make something I’ve said correct. I prefer to use definitions for words that are shared with other people, so that it’s possible to accurately communicate ideas with them.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Lame.