Is The Pope A Commie?

[Joel]

Do you think that individuals owe anything to society, to their fellow man, at large? Do we have a responsability to create and maintain a larger community in which we and others can live? As we grow old and approach death, do we still have responsibility toward the younger generations? To teach values and skills, as others have done for us? Do you believe there is anything that can rightly be called the common good?

As I wrote in post 126, "there are other aspects to morality besides justice. There may be other aspects of morality, such as charity, that might say that Alice ought to give her hammer to Bob (or to the "common good" or whatever). But that doesn't justify Bob taking it without Alice's consent. That is, Alice might sin by being uncharitable (thus retaining the hammer when she ought to give it), but that doesn't justify Bob being unjust (stealing the hammer). Thus it doesn't annul or limit property rights."

Likewise neither would it justify "the majority" or some such group taking it without Alice's consent.

Thus these other aspects of morality are to be fulfilled via voluntary human interaction. You shouldn't think that just because we rule out one means (coercion by the threat of force) that that rules out all other means of doing a thing. The use of force is the worst (at best, last resort) means of doing things, and entails a low view of morality. Voluntary means are innumerable and far nobler, and arguably more effective.

Things like creating and maintaining "a larger community" and educating the younger generations can be and are achieved through voluntary means. You said we should assume common sense and "sense of shared values and social & individual conscience for most people." Great, so let us strive to achieve these great things through peaceful and voluntary means. Yes?


The other aspects of morality, such as charity, are not in conflict with the Justice that says no one but God may justly take Alice's hammer. Rather justice is a prerequisite to charity. One is not loving if one is unjust.

[robrecht]

As I wrote in post 126, "there are other aspects to morality besides justice. There may be other aspects of morality, such as charity, that might say that Alice ought to give her hammer to Bob (or to the "common good" or whatever). But that doesn't justify Bob taking it without Alice's consent. That is, Alice might sin by being uncharitable (thus retaining the hammer when she ought to give it), but that doesn't justify Bob being unjust (stealing the hammer). Thus it doesn't annul or limit property rights."

Likewise neither would it justify "the majority" or some such group taking it without Alice's consent.

Thus these other aspects of morality are to be fulfilled via voluntary human interaction. You shouldn't think that just because we rule out one means (coercion by the threat of force) that that rules out all other means of doing a thing. The use of force is the worst (at best, last resort) means of doing things, and entails a low view of morality. Voluntary means are innumerable and far nobler, and arguably more effective.

Things like creating and maintaining "a larger community" and educating the younger generations can be and are achieved through voluntary means. You said we should assume common sense and "sense of shared values and social & individual conscience for most people." Great, so let us strive to achieve these great things through peaceful and voluntary means. Yes?

The other aspects of morality, such as charity, are not in conflict with the Justice that says no one but God may justly take Alice's hammer. Rather justice is a prerequisite to charity. One is not loving if one is unjust.

I have not forgotten, but I was still trying to get your opinion on matters of justice, social debt and the common good without appealing to charity. I agree that voluntary efforts are far superior, but I am not convinced that is practical. For example, education in this country is largely supported through taxes, and much moreso in social democracies, where I would argue that there is a system that allows for a higher education that is based more on a meritocracy and less on inherited wealth. Would you argue that education should be entirely voluntary, that public schools are inherently evil?

[robrecht]

Pardon my intrusion ...

No intrusion, John, I always appreciate your insights. I think home schooling is great, when the family has the means to do it well, but it is not practical for many people who need two incomes or single-parent families. But, I was speaking about higher education, ie, university level and beyond. I did not make that very clear, but I admired the public higher education in Western Europe, where practically anyone can afford to attend at some of the finest universities in the world and study to the level of a doctorate if they have the ability and the initiative. That is what I meant by a public higher education based more on a meritocracy than inherited wealth. How many poor or middle class students can afford to go to Yale or Princeton or Harvard? A few get scholarships and many more get varrying degrees of financial aid, but it is still way too expensive for the vast majority of people. Not so in Western Europe, where a poor kid who is super smart can become a doctor or lawyer or world-class exegete or classics professor at universities that are, in some ways, much more prestigious than practically any university in this country where private tuition can be $50k per year and up.

[Joel]

I have not forgotten, but I was still trying to get your opinion on matters of justice, social debt and the common good without appealing to charity. I agree that voluntary efforts are far superior, but I am not convinced that is practical. For example, education in this country is largely supported through taxes, and much moreso in social democracies, where I would argue that there is a system that allows for a higher education that is based more on a meritocracy and less on inherited wealth. Would you argue that education should be entirely voluntary, that public schools are inherently evil?

Each individual example (such as education) can create a lengthy discussion on its own.

There are two ways to discuss it. One is from a moral point of view: is it unjust? is it morally imperitive? or somewhere in between?
The other is the question of "practical", like whether X can be done at all via voluntary means.

However, the two are not necessarily independent. Great thinkers have held that the moral is always expedient.

As for the 'practical', I do think education can be achieved through voluntary means. Quality education can be had for quite low cost. And (voluntary) charity can provide for those who cannot afford it. There is some historical precedent for this. In the U.S. around 1840 and before, education at least elementary was virtually universal, and government schools were rare. Census data shows this. De Tocqueville commented on it. Charity was sufficient to provide education for the poor. And we can look at the reasons why people pushed for the creation of government schools. It wasn't because people were going without education. It was for various other reasons, usually involving the desire to force everyone into the same school (which of course the advocators would want to control according to their own desires/values/religion).

As for the moral, I think government schools are unjust, for reasons I have given before. We could consider additional reasons more specific to education. For example, as economist Murray Rothbard wrote,

http://mises.org/daily/2226/Educatio...and-Compulsory

And here's another way to consider the issue in general. In 1867, Lysander Spooner put it this way. Suppose that some (not all, as you have stipulated) of the people in a certain town write up a contract saying, "We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children." In that case:

"Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

"Neither the conduct nor the rights of these signers would be improved at all by their saying to the dissenters: We offer you equal rights with ourselves, in the benefits of the church, school, hospital, or theatre, which we propose to establish, and equal voice in the control of it. It would be a sufficient answer for the others to say: We want no share in the benefits, and no voice in the control, of your institution; and will do nothing to support it."
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/63

And it might be that the dissenters in saying so are sinning, if some aspect of morality were to say that they ought to contribute to the project. But, I don't think that morally justifies the others in forcing the dissenters.

Moreover, it's not necessarily the case that the dissenters are sinning at all. They might dissent for all kinds of reasons. Perhaps they disagree with the educational philosophy of the writers of the contract, and think the contractors' plan is inferior or will even harm children, and the dissenters wish to establish their own school (perhaps drafting a separate contract of their own). Also different people are in different situations, and everyone has to make tradeoffs. Perhaps a particular dissenting individual/household has something else that is more morally compelling for them, on which to expend their resources. To compel them to divert their resources would be to force them to violate their conscience. Thus it is imperative that we defend the freedom of individual conscience in such matters.

[robrecht]

Each individual example (such as education) can create a lengthy discussion on its own. ...

It doesn't have to be such a long discussion, unless you want it to be. I think your answer to my question is 'yes'. Correct?

[Joel]

It doesn't have to be such a long discussion, unless you want it to be. I think your answer to my question is 'yes'. Correct?

Yes.

[Teallaura]

Yes.

A one word answer from Joel?!?!?!


It's the end of the world!!!!!
























































Sorry, couldn't resist!

[robrecht]

... Keep in mind, what I said, that the limits in question are not a limitation of property rights per se, but are implied by property rights. E.g., "Bob does not own Alice's hammer/body." is not a limitation imposed from without, but is due to "Alice owns her hammer/body." That limit as a negative concept does not have existence on its own, but is an implication of the positive concept of Alice's ownership. My anti-slavery argument is not essentially a negative claim (that people don't have the right to own other people); rather that negative statement is merely a corollary to the positive claim that Alice owns her own body. The essence is not a denial of property rights but an affirmation of property rights. ...

Would you agree with prochoice advocates who make a distinction between a baby that is able to be taken care of by others after birth, but which/who is dependent upon and part of the biological mother's body prior to birth? It would seem to me that any absolute right to private property based upon ownership of one's own body fails to recognize the conflicts of such rights that can occur. From a moral or legal perspective, should Alice recognize the right of the government to intervene in her decisions regarding her own body? Even after birth, a child has rights that can conflict with the rights of biological and legal parents. Is it ever necessary for a child to become a temporary ward of the state? Would it be appropriate only for charitable institutions to intervene in such situations? Taxes to provide for judges and police and foster homes and prisons are all a form of theft that cannot be justified by an appeal to the common good? Do not members of society have an obligation to ensure that children are not abused? Or is that only an obligation for those who choose to do so out of charitable motivations? And how would those who are thus charitably motivated presume to intervene in situations involving the rights of parents, families, and children?

[Joel]

Would you agree with prochoice advocates who make a distinction between a baby that is able to be taken care of by others after birth, but which/who is dependent upon and part of the biological mother's body prior to birth? It would seem to me that any absolute right to private property based upon ownership of one's own body fails to recognize the conflicts of such rights that can occur. From a moral or legal perspective, should Alice recognize the right of the government to intervene in her decisions regarding her own body? Even after birth, a child has rights that can conflict with the rights of biological and legal parents. Is it ever necessary for a child to become a temporary ward of the state? Would it be appropriate only for charitable institutions to intervene in such situations? Taxes to provide for judges and police and foster homes and prisons are all a form of theft that cannot be justified by an appeal to the common good? Do not members of society have an obligation to ensure that children are not abused? Or is that only an obligation for those who choose to do so out of charitable motivations? And how would those who are thus charitably motivated presume to intervene in situations involving the rights of parents, families, and children?

All good questions.

I don't agree with the prochoice argument. The baby in the womb is not part of the mother's body. It seems that is established biological fact. Thus it is not a "decision regarding her own body", but a decision that harms someone else's body to the point of intentionally killing them.

As for rights of children to provision from their parents, it is true that some libertarians do argue that parents should have no legally enforceable obligation to their offspring. I disagree with them on the grounds that the parents caused there to be an offspring dependent upon them. Thus they acquire a legal obligation in the same way that if you injure someone (perhaps making them dependent) you are usually liable for restoring them and supporting them in the meantime.

As for ward of the state, I'm not very knowledgeable about family law, but it seems that the relevant situations would be (1) if the parents die without a will or next of kin, or some such incapacitation, or (2) the parents are guilty of abuse or criminal neglect. In the latter case, I should think the parents should be made to pay the intermediate cost of supporting the child. In the former, I think it would be appropriate for the child to be turned over to a voluntarily-funded orphanage or adoption agency or foster program, until adopted.

Judges, police, and prisons have been a more difficult subject. First note that if government is reduced to the small scope I advocate it will not cost that much. Furthermore, as much as possible, convicted criminals should be made to pay the costs of their making it necessary to have police, judges, etc. Prisons certainly should not consist of the innocent (including victims) being forced to support the incarcerated criminals. So any remaining cost is likely to be rather small. I think that if voluntary means are possible (which I think likely), then compelling third parties to fund it is simply theft (just as it would be theft for me to start my own school and force others to fund it). If it turns out it is not possible by voluntary means, then at best it becomes a necessary evil.

No government ever has ensured that children are not abused. More generally it is a case of one person doing violence to another. (We might set aside the controversial discussion of what is and is not included in child abuse.) Of course that should be illegal (being a violation of self-ownership). Intervention might sometimes, in an emergency, require an individual to use force in 'self defense' (which usually is defined to include defense of others), but normally should be via courts.

[robrecht]

All good questions.

I don't agree with the prochoice argument. The baby in the womb is not part of the mother's body. It seems that is established biological fact. Thus it is not a "decision regarding her own body", but a decision that harms someone else's body to the point of intentionally killing them.

As for rights of children to provision from their parents, it is true that some libertarians do argue that parents should have no legally enforceable obligation to their offspring. I disagree with them on the grounds that the parents caused there to be an offspring dependent upon them. Thus they acquire a legal obligation in the same way that if you injure someone (perhaps making them dependent) you are usually liable for restoring them and supporting them in the meantime.

As for ward of the state, I'm not very knowledgeable about family law, but it seems that the relevant situations would be (1) if the parents die without a will or next of kin, or some such incapacitation, or (2) the parents are guilty of abuse or criminal neglect. In the latter case, I should think the parents should be made to pay the intermediate cost of supporting the child. In the former, I think it would be appropriate for the child to be turned over to a voluntarily-funded orphanage or adoption agency or foster program, until adopted.

Judges, police, and prisons have been a more difficult subject. First note that if government is reduced to the small scope I advocate it will not cost that much. Furthermore, as much as possible, convicted criminals should be made to pay the costs of their making it necessary to have police, judges, etc. Prisons certainly should not consist of the innocent (including victims) being forced to support the incarcerated criminals. So any remaining cost is likely to be rather small. I think that if voluntary means are possible (which I think likely), then compelling third parties to fund it is simply theft (just as it would be theft for me to start my own school and force others to fund it). If it turns out it is not possible by voluntary means, then at best it becomes a necessary evil.

No government ever has ensured that children are not abused. More generally it is a case of one person doing violence to another. (We might set aside the controversial discussion of what is and is not included in child abuse.) Of course that should be illegal (being a violation of self-ownership). Intervention might sometimes, in an emergency, require an individual to use force in 'self defense' (which usually is defined to include defense of others), but normally should be via courts.

You ignored the idea that an unborn child is dependent upon the pregnant mother's body. Does the pregnant mother have an absolute right to ownership of her body, or is it appropriate for society to limit that particular individual right to private property?

Abusive parents, like convicted criminals, may be poor and unable to pay for upkeep of necessary societal institutions. It is all too easy to say that a child should be turned over to a voluntarily funded orphanage, but turned over by whom? And what if there are not enough voluntarily funded adoption agencies or foster programs? You say your preferred form of government "will not cost that much", but, be realistic, it will never be free. Thus, you seem to accept taxes as a necessary evil.

A common thief or gangs of violent criminals and invading armies might also justify their theft as necessary. So, rather than devolving into total anarchy, perhaps it would actually be good to set up and improve upon some institutional protections and guidelnes that are actually in and of themselves good insofar as they reduce the magnitude of the necessary evil that cannot be avoided in society. Can you not imagine such a common good of society that necessitates an obligation on the part of its members? Some kind of obligatory commitment to support that which is for the good of society as a whole and for those who are not yet able to support or protect themselves, perhaps?

[Joel]

You ignored the idea that an unborn child is dependent upon the pregnant mother's body. Does the pregnant mother have an absolute right to ownership of her body, or is it appropriate for society to limit that particular individual right to private property?

I did address that. I pointed out that the parents caused that state of affairs (of this other person being dependent on them, including biologically on the mother during pregnancy.). "Thus they acquire a legal obligation in the same way that if you injure someone (perhaps making them dependent) you are usually liable for restoring them and supporting them in the meantime."

Abusive parents, like convicted criminals, may be poor and unable to pay for upkeep of necessary societal institutions.

In some cases forced labor to pay for their costs may be appropriate (e.g. for the incarcerated instead of forcing the innocent to support them). But there will likely be cases where costs cannot be recaptured from the criminals. That's what I was referring to when I said there would be some small remaining cost.

It is all too easy to say that a child should be turned over to a voluntarily funded orphanage, but turned over by whom? And what if there are not enough voluntarily funded adoption agencies or foster programs?

Couldn't anyone who discovers an orphan take them to an orphanage? I don't understand what the problem is there.

As for lack of funding, presumably the orphanage(s) and/or other concerned parties would go around informing people of this emergency, urging people to donate more or else orphans will die.

But I guess you ask what if, after all such attempts, funding still falls short? The only alternative to voluntary means is coercion. The alternative would be for the orphanage(s) or others to form a gang to go around holding people up at gunpoint taking the money (or some equivalent thing). But that's morally questionable at best. It may be a moral dilemma or a "hard case", and hard cases make for bad law.

It's a sad state of society if such a case arises. We should not start out presuming that the people will not fund it voluntarily. And if they, as a whole, are unwilling (or unable) to save the orphans' lives, then a government solution is unlikely as well.

You say your preferred form of government "will not cost that much", but, be realistic, it will never be free. Thus, you seem to accept taxes as a necessary evil.

I said there would likely be some small remaining cost. But that doesn't imply that taxation is necessary. A small cost is likely to be able to be paid by voluntary means.

A common thief or gangs of violent criminals and invading armies might also justify their theft as necessary.

Yes, and that creates an interesting dilemma. If a "necessary evil" justifies the state taking a particular action, I see no reason why it would not justify everyone and anyone in taking the same action. While on the other hand, if it does not justify state force, then I don't see any other moral justification for it.

So, rather than devolving into total anarchy, perhaps it would actually be good to set up and improve upon some institutional protections and guidelnes that are actually in and of themselves good insofar as they reduce the magnitude of the necessary evil that cannot be avoided in society. Can you not imagine such a common good of society that necessitates an obligation on the part of its members? Some kind of obligatory commitment to support that which is for the good of society as a whole and for those who are not yet able to support or protect themselves, perhaps?

Of course there needs to be government, for the protection of human rights.

The first thing I was arguing is that we should seek to minimize such things as taxation to what is necessary. Sure protections and guidelines for this would be good. Modern states on the other hand have expanded the use of taxation and other coercion far, far beyond what necessity could justify.
In seeking to achieve this minimization we may just find that the necessity is in fact zero--that these goals can be achieved through voluntary interaction. I think this is likely. There is a growing body of writing by libertarians exploring how this might be done.

Note however that voluntary efforts falling short does not necessarily justify coercive means (state intervention). In most cases, government intervention has at least a good chance of making things even worse (or being morally worse). Just because voluntary efforts fall short does not mean we should switch to something even worse.

Things that are good for "society as a whole" are presumably desirable (and considered worth the cost) by the vast majority. In which case it is quite likely that they will be willing and able to achieve such things voluntarily.

As for people who are not able to support or protect themselves (and have no obligatory support, such as children from their parents), that is a matter for charity (private/voluntary). A voluntary society I think is also best for reducing the need. Relatively free markets, for instance, have done more than anything to lift the vast majority of people out of poverty. Voluntary interaction in markets has vastly reduced poverty, disease, death, etc. It has enabled many to be productive who would have been utterly helpless/dependent in ages past due to disability. It is the option that will do the most to minimize the number of helpless people and maximize the means people have to help them. It is not at all clear that coercive intervention in this area won't make this very problem worse than otherwise, rather than better.

[robrecht]

I did address that. I pointed out that the parents caused that state of affairs (of this other person being dependent on them, including biologically on the mother during pregnancy.). "Thus they acquire a legal obligation in the same way that if you injure someone (perhaps making them dependent) you are usually liable for restoring them and supporting them in the meantime."

So do you agree that the right to individual private property, in this case a woman's ownership of her body, is not absolute?

In some cases forced labor to pay for their costs may be appropriate (e.g. for the incarcerated instead of forcing the innocent to support them). But there will likely be cases where costs cannot be recaptured from the criminals. That's what I was referring to when I said there would be some small remaining cost.

What do you mean by small? How much do you think it will cost to maintain federal, state and local goverment in these United States?

Couldn't anyone who discovers an orphan take them to an orphanage? I don't understand what the problem is there.

I suppose if you happen to see a child playing in the street, one could choose to be generous with their time and haul them off to an orphanage. But, how do they know if the child is an orphan or abused or just dumb. Shouldn't there be someone that people can call when they suspect abuse so that an investigation can be done to try and protect the rights of both the child and the parents? A certain amount of structure seems advisable if we want a minimum level of responsible activity rather than chaos.

As for lack of funding, presumably the orphanage(s) and/or other concerned parties would go around informing people of this emergency, urging people to donate more or else orphans will die.

Sure they could. Or not. Is there no obligation to do so? Just hope someone takes care of this if they want to?

But I guess you ask what if, after all such attempts, funding still falls short? The only alternative to voluntary means is coercion. The alternative would be for the orphanage(s) or others to form a gang to go around holding people up at gunpoint taking the money (or some equivalent thing). But that's morally questionable at best. It may be a moral dilemma or a "hard case", and hard cases make for bad law.

It's a sad state of society if such a case arises. We should not start out presuming that the people will not fund it voluntarily. And if they, as a whole, are unwilling (or unable) to save the orphans' lives, then a government solution is unlikely as well.

It seems like you have a very naive and unrealistic view of human nature.

I said there would likely be some small remaining cost. But that doesn't imply that taxation is necessary. A small cost is likely to be able to be paid by voluntary means.

Have you found this to be the case anywhere on this planet among modern 'civilized' societies?

Yes, and that creates an interesting dilemma. If a "necessary evil" justifies the state taking a particular action, I see no reason why it would not justify everyone and anyone in taking the same action. While on the other hand, if it does not justify state force, then I don't see any other moral justification for it.

So do we just sit on our butts and ponder such interesting dilemmas while our lands are taken, our young men killed, our women and children enslaved? Or do we create and continually strive to improve upon a manner of government that keeps the magnitude of necessary at some minimally acceptable level? If the latter, how do we pay for such an experimental and evolving government.

Of course there needs to be government, for the protection of human rights.

Do you know of any modern governements that are even minimally effective without some form of taxation and coerced service?

The first thing I was arguing is that we should seek to minimize such things as taxation to what is necessary. Sure protections and guidelines for this would be good. Modern states on the other hand have expanded the use of taxation and other coercion far, far beyond what necessity could justify.
In seeking to achieve this minimization we may just find that the necessity is in fact zero--that these goals can be achieved through voluntary interaction. I think this is likely. There is a growing body of writing by libertarians exploring how this might be done.

Utopian writings do not seem to produce utopian societies very often. In fact, are you aware of any successful utopian societies?

Note however that voluntary efforts falling short does not necessarily justify coercive means (state intervention). In most cases, government intervention has at least a good chance of making things even worse (or being morally worse). Just because voluntary efforts fall short does not mean we should switch to something even worse.

Things that are good for "society as a whole" are presumably desirable (and considered worth the cost) by the vast majority. In which case it is quite likely that they will be willing and able to achieve such things voluntarily.

Your estimation of the probability of achieving a voluntary utopia is based on what exactly? Reading utopian literature?

As for people who are not able to support or protect themselves (and have no obligatory support, such as children from their parents), that is a matter for charity (private/voluntary). A voluntary society I think is also best for reducing the need. Relatively free markets, for instance, have done more than anything to lift the vast majority of people out of poverty. Voluntary interaction in markets has vastly reduced poverty, disease, death, etc. It has enabled many to be productive who would have been utterly helpless/dependent in ages past due to disability. It is the option that will do the most to minimize the number of helpless people and maximize the means people have to help them. It is not at all clear that coercive intervention in this area won't make this very problem worse than otherwise, rather than better.

I suppose you think that child labor laws, for example, caused more harm than good? Minimal mining safety standards? Were modern weapons of war, used for offensive and defensive purposes, developed with voluntary resources? Utilities and power grids? Where are the modern utopian societies that you imagine?

[Joel]

So do you agree that the right to individual private property, in this case a woman's ownership of her body, is not absolute?

No, I don't. First of all because it's like the "limitation" I permitted before, where Bob does not own the hammer because Alice does. The mother may not kill her offspring, because it isn't hers. The child is a self-owner. Just as Alice may not hit Bob on the head with her hammer, because it's Bob's head. As before, If you want to call this a "limitation", fine but then it's one that is implied by property rights taken to the logical conclusion, not something external to property rights that is overriding property rights.

Some try to argue for an "eviction" theory. That for the above reason it should be illegal to kill, but legal to "evict" the child. Existing abortion procedures don't do that however. Moreover the child is not like a trespasser on the woman's property, because the parents themselves acted to cause the situation. And acquiring an obligation through your voluntary actions (also including injuring someone, entering a contract) doesn't mean property ownership is not absolute. Just as voluntarily giving away ownership as a gift does not mean property ownership is not absolute.

(As a side note, my argument implies that the father has an equal obligation toward the child and thus to the pregnant mother.)

What do you mean by small? How much do you think it will cost to maintain federal, state and local goverment in these United States?

By small I mean a small fraction of what modern states spend.

I suppose you want numbers?
If we reduced federal, state, and local to just the categories of defense, protection, and running the 3 branches (executive, legislative, courts), that reduces spending to 20% of its current level.
But then "defense" spending I think contains mostly inappropriate military spending that doesn't defend us and can make us less safe.
And those other categories would also have much less to do, and thus need a small fraction of their spending.

I'd guess that with that the total would easily be 1% or less of current total spending. For reference, 1% would be about $63 billion per year (an average of about $200 per person, as compared to the $20,000 per person today).

As a comparison, federal, state, and local spending in 1900, adjusted for inflation, is 0.6% of today's. And they surely were not anarchy. And about half of that spending was in categories I've already eliminated above, so the remainder would be about 0.3% of today's spending.

And then we could reduce further by making criminals pay as much as possible of their costs. And perhaps losers in lawsuits paying the costs incurred.
We could go even further by encouraging the use of alternatives (private arbitrators, private security, even some private defense measures can be taken).
Who knows how small we can go. And we won't really know what the level of "necessity" is unless we do our best to reduce down to it.

My numbers come from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

I suppose if you happen to see a child playing in the street, one could choose to be generous with their time and haul them off to an orphanage. But, how do they know if the child is an orphan or abused or just dumb. Shouldn't there be someone that people can call when they suspect abuse so that an investigation can be done to try and protect the rights of both the child and the parents? A certain amount of structure seems advisable if we want a minimum level of responsible activity rather than chaos.

Of course, but that's not unique to children. It's the same if, say, you suspect your neighbor is injuring his wife.

Sure they could. Or not. Is there no obligation to do so? Just hope someone takes care of this if they want to?

If there's not enough people caring, then political action is unlikely too. (Though political action can be selfish too. e.g., "If I get the state to force all my neighbors to pay, then I can contribute less myself.")
After all, your hypothetical here is that nobody is motivated enough to go out and do fund raising. So for the same reason nobody would be motivated to push for or create a government program either (except out of ulterior motives). So that's not a fix for this particular problem.

It seems like you have a very naive and unrealistic view of human nature.

How so?

Have you found this to be the case anywhere on this planet among modern 'civilized' societies?

Not a reasonable question. I'm sure early abolitionists were asked for examples of modern civilized societies functioning without slavery, in an attempt to suggest that a society without slavery is utopian/impossible. It's not my fault that all modern 'civilized' states are unjustly, unreasonably enormous behemoths. (doing things I would call downright uncivilized)

On the other hand we can find particular times and places where the various aspects have been successfully voluntarily funded. For example, Pennsylvania Colony, as I recall, at one time went 20 years just fine with zero taxation. And during that period, it had the fastest growing population and economy of any of the colonies. This period was ended not by necessity nor by choice, but by force, ultimately by the British Crown.

And we can see that quality of life according to all kinds of measures correlate with how 'voluntary' things are in various countries and at different times. The freer people are, the better off they tend to be, statistically. There

So do we just sit on our butts and ponder such interesting dilemmas while our lands are taken, our young men killed, our women and children enslaved? Or do we create and continually strive to improve upon a manner of government that keeps the magnitude of necessary at some minimally acceptable level? If the latter, how do we pay for such an experimental and evolving government.

I'm no opponent to incremental improvement. My suggestion for a first step is to start working to reduce to the current necessity. Then perhaps we can work on reducing that necessity (if any).
I'm not saying taxation will be eliminated in one stroke.

Utopian writings do not seem to produce utopian societies very often. In fact, are you aware of any successful utopian societies?

I do not claim that it would be a perfect world. There will still be petty thieves, murderers, kidnappers, con artists, etc. Accidents and injuries would still occur. etc.
And as I said, voluntary efforts alone may fall short (of whatever goals we happen to have), but that alone doesn't imply that coercive alternatives are any better.

I suppose you think that child labor laws, for example, caused more harm than good? Minimal mining safety standards?

It can be difficult to tell. But some comments:

Such laws are typically a trailing indicator of public opinion. They get passed only after it is not as much of a problem anymore, e.g. because not really needed anymore or because public opinion supports it. That is, as I understand, child labor was already tending toward going away. The law wouldn't have been passed/tolerated otherwise.

And they can indeed cause more harm than good. In societies where child labor is ubiquitous it tends to be because families cannot afford to have the children not work. To ban child labor in such cases is merely to impose greater barriers to climbing out of poverty. On the other hand, families that can afford to have children not work tend to prefer that their children not work and instead focus on education, so the ban for them is superfluous. And then still today the ban harms at least some teens who want to work, who could benefit from job experience, gaining skills, etc.

Minimal safety standards can worsen things too (make us less safe). Note that minimum safety laws tend to aim at eliminating outliers (say the lowest percentile). Eliminating everything from 50th percentile down, for example, would have a large negative impact on the economy and would tend to not be tolerated nor have democratic support. So the bar is set low, as a minimum. The problem is that this creates a perverse incentive. Most people/firms were already well above where the minimum was set. Why were they above that value? For one reason, to avoid the cost of liability for accidents. But now that there is a legal standard, those people have an incentive to lower their safety standards down to the minimum, because they could argue in court that they are not liable for an accident, because they satisfied the government standard.

Likewise people tend to adjust their behavior to compensate for safety measures. I recall reading of a study showing that mandatory seat-belt laws resulted in people driving less safe. It did not reduce driver/passenger injuries, but increased accidents and pedestrian injuries and deaths. Likewise I recall a study showing that cars drivers are less cautious around a bicyclist (e.g., passing them with a smaller gap) if the bicyclist is wearing safety gear. The suggested reasoning is that it makes the bicyclist look more professional/safer and so behavior compensates. Or in general people tend to be less cautious/diligent when they imagine an all-powerful government protecting them from any dangerous foods or products. Tends to create a false sense of security.

Were modern weapons of war, used for offensive and defensive purposes, developed with voluntary resources? Utilities and power grids? Where are the modern utopian societies that you imagine?

I don't think this is a good argument. I've seen the same lame argument used in the other direction, e.g., I saw a photo of an Occupy rally where it labeled a large number of things the protestors had that were produced by corporations (e.g., phones, tablets, video cameras, clothes, makeup, bags, paper/cardboard for signs, aluminum. And commented on their use of such things as wifi, 3G, social networks, transportation, starbucks). Of course it's a bad argument because those opposing giant corporations think these things can be produced without giant corporations, and would prefer them not to be produced by giant corporations. See?

Secondly, I think it likely that people in communist countries, if they had no knowledge of free markets, would tend to suppose that if the state weren't producing bread or the rags they are wearing, that those things wouldn't/couldn't be produced at all. Just as people once thought a functional society without slavery was impossible. For most of the history of the U.S. it was thought by most that postal service could only be done by the state--that it wouldn't be done at all. But the only reason why it wasn't being done in the voluntary sector was because it was illegal. More recently that ban has been relaxed and we have found that private delivery firms have been successful, though even today there are still restrictions and delivering letters along a regular route is still illegal for private carriers. (People should have asked: If it can't be done in the voluntary sector what is the point of the ban?)

Thirdly, in the western world, virtually every kind of product can be and is produced via voluntary means. So I don't see why you think it is utopian. If there are a few remaining goods that the state still enforces a legal monopoly on (or essentially crowds out via tax funding), then I should think the burden of proof would be on those arguing that those things cannot be produced via voluntary means. (and that it's worth paying for. If people won't voluntarily pay for something, it indicates that they think it is not worth the cost. That you have to force them to pay for it may indicate that it's simply not worth the cost.)

As for utilities/grids, in particular, many (most?) of them are indeed privately owned and funded. Thus it is certainly possible. I don't know why you'd think it would require a utopia. Today, most of those firms have a legal monopoly enforced by the local government. But prior to such laws becoming common, competing utility firms was the norm. And these products/services were first mass produced by private entrepreneurs. The lame argument for imposing monopolies was the worry (of the producers) that the product would be overproduced (and thus the price to the consumers driven down). There was no worry that it wouldn't be produced at all. As is usual for state regulation of the markets, this regulation was pushed for by the big firms in the business and by special deals with the state.

As for weapons of war, it's generally illegal for people to voluntarily possess or make them. So you don't have much argument there that they can't be made via voluntary funding. It's also interesting to note that because they are solely tax funded, we don't really know the true prices of these things. We are talking about a government that has been known to pay $640 per toilet seat, $37 per screw, $387 per flat washer, $7,622 per coffee maker, etc. It's likely the actual market cost of a tank (for example) is/would be far less than what the government currently spends on one.

[robrecht]

No, I don't. First of all because it's like the "limitation" I permitted before, where Bob does not own the hammer because Alice does. The mother may not kill her offspring, because it isn't hers. The child is a self-owner. Just as Alice may not hit Bob on the head with her hammer, because it's Bob's head. As before, If you want to call this a "limitation", fine but then it's one that is implied by property rights taken to the logical conclusion, not something external to property rights that is overriding property rights.

Some try to argue for an "eviction" theory. That for the above reason it should be illegal to kill, but legal to "evict" the child. Existing abortion procedures don't do that however. Moreover the child is not like a trespasser on the woman's property, because the parents themselves acted to cause the situation. And acquiring an obligation through your voluntary actions (also including injuring someone, entering a contract) doesn't mean property ownership is not absolute. Just as voluntarily giving away ownership as a gift does not mean property ownership is not absolute.

So would you accept the 'eviction theory' in the case of rape, where the mother has not entered into the pregnancy voluntarily?

I don't think the hammer analogy works very well here. If Bob crawled up into Mary's uterus, which she owns, she ought to be allowed to protect her absolute individual ownership rights of her own uterus. If an intruder comes into her home, does she have the right to protect her absolute right to private property by shooting the intruder? Or, if she might possibly or certainly be able to dispel the intruder without the use of deadly force, is she obligated to try and use nonlethal force? In which case, her right to private property would apparently not be absolute, but rather limited by the more important right to life of the intruder? Or perhaps the intruder gives up his right to life by the act of entering someone else's private property. But what if the intruder has Alzheimer's disease or is a confused young child and does not knowingly intrude upon the homeowner's private property. Does the homeowner have an obligation to determine if the intruder is a child or demented person?

Regardless of how you answer the above questions pertaining to the eviction theory--you may not (no longer?) want to defend a form of the eviction theory--let's consider the simpler objection: existing abortion procedure do not merely evict and the mother knows that the child growing within her has unintentionally entered her uterus and therefore has not consciously ceded any rights to life or ownership of him- or herself. So she may be obligated to only use nonlethal means to protect her absolute right to private property ownership of her uterine space.

The child's property rights are in conflict with the mother's property rights. Neither can be absolute if there is to be any resolution of the situation. One person's right to private property must be violated in order for the other person's right to private property to be respected. The foolish belief in an absolute right to individual private property has left us unable to resolve this conflict of absolute individual property rights. Would it not make so much more sense to say that the child's right to life must be more important than the mother's individual right to private property? Such manner of reasoning would necessarily entail the higher or superior right to life over the individual right to private property in some cases, would it not. The right to life must be more important to the temporary protection of private property rights. So, yes, there would be a limitation of the individual right to private property, which would thus not be absolute, and this limitation would not be established by taking absolute property rights to their inevitable logical conclusion, but by subordinating this right to a more important right.

Because of length, I will only be able to respond to parts at a time. But, please do not imagine that I believe an ethical system can be grounded merely in an analysis of absolute individual rights. I belive one should not speak of rights without at the same time being aware of responsibilities, ie, our individual and collective responsibility for the common good. In my own view, our responsibility to the common good entails some relativization of a hierarchy of individual rights.

[robrecht]

How so?

I still have not had a chance to read your entire post, but much of it can be dispensed with by our agreeing to disagree on whether or not it is realistic to build a totally voluntary society that effectively protects absolute individual rights without any need for taxation. I welcome your proving me wrong on this point. I hope that the people that believe this is possible will take the idea seriously enough to actually do so. Sounds wonderful; what are they waiting for?