JKJ So now paying your taxes is in the same boat as rape?

What was 'not clear cut' is the question of exploitation versus return investment for small investors. That's all I meant there.

I accept there is a level of coercion. Without this there would be no roads, schools or hospitals. How would you provide for these things if we did away with tax because it is 'coercive'?

As for 'the ruling class', that would be the capitalist class. And no I'm not in favour of exploitation of workers by that class. But I can see that capitalism has changed to the point where the seeds of a new (socialist) society are not necessarily still present within the old society as clearly as before. That said - I choose the best approximation to 'the good society' that I can get given the current social and economic dynamics and balance of class forces. Again: much politics is about 'the art of the possible'.

If you don't like that pls tell me what your ideal society would look like and how you think you would get there.

BTW you're quite right on most that you say, Emperor Julian. SO thankyou for your comments. Its edifying that there are some people here who actually agree with me on some important points. :)

Though I think small investors are different. The capital they invest is gained through their labours - in a limited quantity. And when they invest it they have to defer or forsake consumption. That probably warrants a return. But at the same time technically it involves an expropriation of a surplus.

Tristan

So far you have not made any attempt to engage with the issues under discussion.

I started this discussion by pointing out that you are contradicting yourself, and you denied it. But now you have just admitted - after multiple failed attempts at evasion - that you are contradicting yourself.

On the one hand you want to fashion yourself as concerned about social justice, but on the other hand you stand for NOTHING BUT a small elite ruling class having the unequal privilege of forcing the weak, the vulnerable and the marginalised to obey and submit to the expropriation of their labour value.

The ruling class are those who make the rules and back them up with force, not people who don't make the rules, don't enforce them, and are entirely subject to the former class, so stop talking nonsense.

Given that it was so easy for me to point out, with your agreement, that not even you agree with the foundations of your own political ideology it will be very easy for me to prove that not even you agree with your own economics. I have already done so. I asked you on what *principle* (not arbitrary opinion or facile expedient) state power should be limited and people should be free. And you have no answer because you *don't believe* in either.

It is premature to ask me about better alternatives, while ever you can't bring yourself to admit you're advocating what you don't even agree with.

So admit it. You stand for a small elite of the most powerful having the legal privilege - inequality - of using force and threats against peaceable subjects - oppression - specifically so they can extract their labour value against their will - expropriation - so the ruling class can live at their expense.

Either admit it, or renounce the foundations of your ideology that depend on it.

"The truth will set you free". THEN we will be in a position to discussion why voluntary relations are superior, both ethically and pragmatically.

JKJ if you think the 'political class' in Australia is the 'ruling class' you're kidding yourself. At the end of the day all politicians capitulate to 'the markets'. ie: the big corporation and finance capital.

Now you could say that taxation is another form of expropriation. Ok - it is at some level. But there is a difference. Much tax goes in the form of 'collective consumption' and 'social insurance'. So workers are mostly better off for having paid their taxes. On the other hand when capitalists expropriate surplus value it goes to profits, dividends etc - where the workers don't get that value back in any form... (except indirectly re: corporate tax) On the other hand when workers collectively consume - or partake of social insurance, services and infrastructure - they are getting a lot in return for their taxes depending on the government's priorities...

Also you talk of 'the vulnerable and the marginalised'. But if you really cared then surely you could see that the most vulnerable stand to gain from social insurance, social services, welfare etc. If you want to talk about what hurts the vulnerable - think about labour market deregulation, attacks on welfare, Abbott getting rid of superannuation subsidies for the poor, and privatisations which lead to consumers being fleeced. (both Labor and Liberals do it)

Finally yes state power should be limited. But you take that principle so far as to make it unworkable. I am a liberal when it comes to civil rights and liberties. I am a socialist and a democrat when it comes to the economy. And BTW having a repressive state apparatus ENFORCING property relations and exploitation through violence really is no better than a robust welfare state supported by taxes. That's the weakness in your argument. IN the society we actually live in capitalists have most power - and that is enforced through violence. 'Smaller govt' re: the public sector does not have to mean a 'non-interventionist' or 'non-violent' state. See: Pinochet for example.

So you agree that you're in favour of exploitation and violence, at the same time as you deny that it's exploitation and violence, at the same time as you equivocate and contradict yourself on literally every single tenet you put forward.

I rest my case. You're talking crap and you know you are.

So why do you keep writing these stupid articles when not even you agree with what you're saying and you don't care that you're wrong?

JKJ You just can't seem to grasp a nuanced argument.

All state power rests in the final instance on violence. What Lenin called the 'special bodies of armed men'. So In the end so much rides on who controls the state, and what they use it for.

Now you may think it is a paradox: but at the same time the state has multiple functions. It polices private property and the processes of capitalist exploitation. At the same time it has a more valid role in preserving the peace at least so much as that comprises our civilised treatment of each other. eg: Murder is a crime, and if you are caught committing such a crime then you will be held to account.

The communist notion is that eventually we can all live in peace with each other without the need for a state at all. Anarchists believe the same - but don't believe in a transitional phase of 'socialism'. (this time accepting the Marxist definition)

So - if you do not believe in the state under any circumstances - does that make you a communist or an anarchist? Or are you a right-wing libertarian who can't grasp the fact that 'exceptionalism' when it comes to policing private property can result in just as much violence, repression and injustice as the 'traditional authoritarians'? (Stalinism, Fascism)

That is - when it comes to the crunch the right-libertarian state will still try to smash picket lines; will still protect the 'property rights' of billionaires; and will imprison or fine the poor and exploited if they try and interfere with the property rights of the privileged.

I'm assuming you're a right-wing libertarian.