Minimum Wage

and my question (or at least if not express, implicit) was why should I have to do something like that? I live here, the government restarted itself in 2010 (e.g. because if everybody voted anarchy, which of course is very unlikely but still possible, or nobody voted at all perhaps, we wouldn't have the government, so the new government "begins" on 2010 due to this "does it exist still or not?" de facto vote), I lived here before that, and I and my family privately own this house whereas they don't so why should they have the right to force me/us to pay taxes on this house when we didn't do anything wrong and they have no moral authority here simply because they have a mob behind them? saying "you can always leave"

if I consent to live in a country, I am simply suggesting that I prefer this country over other statist countries - that's it. I never signed anything saying "I consent to the existence of a state".

that wasn't the point - I was saying if I am born somewhere that isn't consent to staying there

I'm not talking about legal definitions from the state, I'm talking about what taxation actually is

the government is nothing but the historic monopoly on the ability to exercise violence without punishment (in a given area); an uncoerced coercer; it has gone from monarch(ies) (e.g. so the government in and of itself is not a collective expression of the common will) into quasi-democratic states (where only the "majority" get what they want and there, in this country, is no constitutional limit upon that against the minority)

so the minority here can be virtual legal-slaves here if a majority vote to victimise them, and they have no power to resist. and that's what I'm talking about

- the theft then begins, and "community" becomes "majority will" and "majority will being the basis of theft" doesn't make it any less theft because the victim of that theft isn't consenting

So basically, might makes right. If you are wealthy and powerful, you will be able to force other people to do things. And of course, you seem to be ignoring the question of what happens to a poor person who could not afford to opt in to a police force?

And why does this private police force have any right to compel an individual outside their system to do anything? If I'm happily minding my own business on my property, with my slaves, what right does a police force I have nothing to do with to come and try to take away my slaves?

This still leaves the question of what will happen to someone who is unemployed and without assets? If they are enslaved by a wealthy landowner, then there is no recourse whatsoever. That is a very unjust system, and appears to involve far more coercion than the existing system we have

That's all well and good, except that this private police force will have no right to enforce any particular law. If I am on my vast estate, and I have decided not to have a police force but I employ a private army, no outside police force will have any right to take away my slave, or even to stop me from murdering my slaves. I have not consented to any anti-slavery law

what if I wanted to hire someone that wasn't worth the price of the minimum wage? what if they were evidently more expensive to hire than not hiring them? wouldn't I have to hire less people and make my workers have to work much harder to keep their jobs on a minimum wage if that's possible? and what if I wanted to pay someone to work less than an hour's work (I assume there is a minimum wage for an hour's work)? what if it was work that they consent personally to being paid for under a minimum wage (e.g. if it was really easy work that most people would do for free e.g. video game testing, sofa testing, etc)?

I'd just like to point out that video game testing really isn't particularly easy, fun, or something anyone would do for free lol... My brother is in the industry.

It's expensive due to the amount people would receive and number of people entitled (more so than administering all the benefits we have now) and as non-means tested i could not possibly support it. Not to mention that i don't like the idea of people getting 'something for nothing' and it seems a libertarian notion that people should be free not to work.

It would be ludicrously expensive, I did some quick calculations for how much it would cost Switzerland (they're currently considering a guaranteed income) and they would need to triple their federal budget.

It would also distort incentives to work. As it is, we already have a system that, whilst not perfect, generally provides for the unemployed, the aged and disabled. Why mess with a system that has created a society that is the best educated, best housed, best clothed, longest lived and freest in the history of these isles? The society we have today is a paradise compared to 150 years ago

The basic income is enough to survive, but not enough to live. Everybody would still have to work, but as they already receive a small income, unskilled workers would be more willing to accept low salaries (as a complement). So it means less unemployment and spending cuts for companies.

Obviously, it would also mean to get rid of the welfare state and use private insurances and pensions only. I made a rough calculation for France and a basic income of 700€/month benefiting to all the French from birth to death would cost €500 billion per year. Currently, the French social expenditure is about €680b (33% of the GDP). So basic income would represent a cut of €180 billion.
I hope my calculation is correct. If yes, how much would it cost for the UK?

then go with my example of sofa testing

I'd make two points. The first is that, at root, you do not own the land outright. You have a (presumable) freehold estate in land, held from the crown, which is the ultimate owner of all land in this kingdom. By purchasing this estate in land, your parents consented to the rules under which land is owned. The crown holds the "allodial" title, which is sovereign title to land without any constraints. Ordinary people do not have allodial title, they have freehold title held from the crown's allodial title

Say there was a little urban garden, with plots that had different owners, but also a body corporate made up of all the owners of the plots, and the body corporate would charge a fee from all the owners of the plots for the upkeep of watering systems, the external fence, and so on. In exchange, each plot owner would be a member of the ruling council of the garden. This had been agreed as a system when the garden was set up.

Say an outsider buys a plot from one of the existing owners, but then decides he doesn't want to pay the charges owed to the body corporate for fence upkeep and irrigation. Well, he can't do that. By buying the plot from the existing owner, he is consenting to the body corporate system, and if he doesn't like it he shouldn't buy a plot in that urban garden. That is analagous to your parents' decision to buy the freehold of your property. They can't buy the freehold and then choose to opt out of the body corporate system (i.e. our governmental system).

The second is that your estate is not some independent island, whenever you leave your house you are using infrastructure that has been paid for by the community. You are receiving the benefits of the collective activities (like road building, water systems, electricity systems) of the community, and you also have a say in making the rules of the community.

The law does not require a signature, consent can be inferred by behaviour or actions, or lack of actions.

When you are a baby, your parents are your guardian so they consent on your behalf. When you turn 18, you are entitled to make your own decisions about whether you continue to consent to live here and be part of this community, or to buy a yacht and live in international waters as your own king.

Taxation is an arrangement that is analogous to a contract; there is a social contract between the citizenry as a whole and the government which is the body the community has charged with the execution of their collective activities.

Historically, that was certainly the case. But it is quite obvious that the system we live under now is undeniably quite civilised compared to what we had in the past. It is undeniable that the citizenry as a whole chooses the laws through our elected parliament, and thus gives its consent to the laws under which we live and the taxes that we pay.

True in theory, and even true in fact. There have been examples of the majority oppressing the minority. But we are certainly better in that respect in 2014 than we have been in the past, and it's hardly an improvement to simply hand over the power of the government to private wealthy individuals so that they can oppress anyone they like with impunity and without the oversight of general public opinion and the community-at-large

We have checks and balances in our system to mitigate the tendency to majoritarianism. Whilst it's not perfect, it is improving and it's a whole lot better than handing over the "monopoly on violence" (also known as the "policing power" in civilised realms) to private magnates and plutocrats.

Really? Imagine the paperwork. Unless it's full of setting up testing equipment and filling out SSR37s (Sofa Softness Report version thirty seven) like, well, pretty much most other jobs: the best it could be is sitting on sofas?

8-9 hours, five days a week of... sitting. Imagine how soul destroyingly boring it would be.... I'd rather serve fast-food, which is generally considered a menial job.

My parents are on £8k in welfare now and you can survive so don't need to work. The assumption that people would more willing to accept lower wages is also flawed, humans are a very greedy species and want to be paid for the type of job they do, we don't set a mark at £20k and accept smaller pay rises once we get there). Further, the current system already forces people into work so any gains from people accepting a lower wage would be very minimal. A basic income represents rampant inefficiency on the part of the welfare system and simply encourages welfare dependency.

The UK welfare system costs around £200bn per year, we are not all that generous so it would cost more to throw money at the middle and upper classes who morally should be receiving nothing.

no they don't - they never even consent to being ruled themselves, and what if I personally say no when I turn 18 assuming they did consent to being ruled (which they didn't)?

I only said that because people seem to have no idea of what Marx actually put forward.

I'm a lefty and I'm quite fond of Adam Smith. This is my favourite quote about him: "He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits." Noam Chomsky

Then you leave the country? If you don't want to live under these laws... bugger off I guess.

8k would probably get you a one bedroom flat where I live, and it's not London or anything fancy. That's rent, and *just* rent. So unless you outright own property (very few people) you're never going to be able to live on that kind of money...

1) so if I steal from someone's bank account through threats/application of violence, pay most of it on "serving them" in unknown and bureaucratic ways, wasting some of it and then giving some for myself for doing "such a great day's work", is that okay? do I have a right to do that from robbery?
2) how does the government even have a right to establish itself, though? if I was born here and I established my home somewhere in the south west, why does the government have a right to tax me to even possess it via council tax? it's a question of "who has the right to steal from whom and why", not "you can always leave", if stealing is wrong; I didn't choose to live here, I was born here either way, and I was here before any tax man of the current government found me

with the government they enforce laws that individual people don't like or have much choice over

in terms of if someone gets kidnapped, I see no reason why individuals who have an interest in that person kidnapped would hire out their own services to get that person back

and even better if multiple people instrutcted their police services to detect the missing person (with the payment/full payment being made upon success).

if the town you were in found out about keeping slaves and, as this is my personal prediction in an anarchist society, if they had such an issue with this that they all came together in some kind of club, e.g. the "anti-enslaves society" and got all their policemen out to get all those that committed slavery, then that would stop you

you might negotiate to not enslave those people any more so long as our society didn't cause you any further trouble.

by "police force" I mean that flexibly; calling it an army isn't going to make it categorically any more effective than other people's services

And that's precisely what could happen in an anarchistic society. If the wealthy magnate next door uses his private army to take you into slavery, and you have not opted into a police force, the general community might well decide it's more trouble than it's worth to declare war on the magnate to get you back.

That's presuming they have sufficient resources to challenge the wealthy magnate's private army. In more remote areas like the Caithness, you could have one very wealthy landowner being the largest employer and richest man in the area, few people would dare to cross him.

By what right do these private police forces enter the wealthy magnate's estate? Under the anarchist system, they have absolutely no right to compel the wealthy magnate to allow them into his estate to rescue the slave.

What right do they have to enter my private lands, and take my slaves, who under my law are my personal property?

Or I might tell them to go **** themselves, given I am the largest landowner in the region, I am the largest trading partner of the town and many of the town's citizens are employed on my estates, and my daughter is married to the son of the richest merchant in the town. My influence in the town far exceeds the influence of some random newcomer to the town.

If they try to come and take my slaves, there will be violence as my estate is well fortified and as I don't have any tax to pay, my private army is well-paid and armed to the teeth. When the board of the town's police service considers what action to take, they come to the conclusion that it's not worth starting a war to get back one person, who is a newcomer anyway and doesn't have any family or much wealth

I'm calling it a private army to distinguish it from a police force which would involve opting into certain rules or laws. They are my private army because they follow my commands, rather than enforcing rules.

where did my parents ever sign a form saying they consented to the rules of the kingdom?

they live here because it is the preferred place to live, not that they personally like it

if a slave prefers one slave master over another than doesn't mean they prefer being enslaved to not being enslaved and as I've implied, the government shouldn't claim a right to land without purchasing it at least or something similar, even though that's immoral if it's done with other people's money

if you privately contract to own pieces of a garden, sure, but that's not like happening to be born in a place with guns in your face to "pay up"

you mean if he buys one piece he has to pay for all the pieces of garden? if thats what his contract said, I guess that's fine

again, just because the government owns the roads, that doesn't mean it didn't steal the money to pay for them from people like me

- if I had a say, assuming I was an anarchist, I'd say I'd rather have my money back, and the government deregulated the industry of roads to private contractors

yeah, maybe the law doesn't, because the law protects the interests of the state

no they don't - they never even consent to being ruled themselves, and what if I personally say no when I turn 18 assuming they did consent to being ruled (which they didn't)?

again:
1) politics isn't legal; if a politician makes a promise, it can't be enforced, unlike for contractors

2) I never signed this invisible contract - contracts exist as writing on a piece of paper

not as a whole, so the anarchists' rights are being violated, and how do you think about those richer individuals who had to pay huge amounts of taxes in the past? even the middle~ class today are having to pay almost half their income

what do you mean private individuals oppressing people? are you talking about corporatism/cronyism, a lack of equality in the rule of law or anarchy?

(long list of replies)

maybe we can cut a deal and say that it's "subjective necessary theft", but still theft