[simonh]

All laws are coercive. Why are you picking out specific ones, what are the criteria?

For example public parks have bipartisan support and are funded by taxes. So why will the US tax people to care for wildlife, but not its own citizens?

At one time the US instituted a military draft, requiring citizens to carry out military service. Citizens are required to obey the law, pay taxes and serve the interests of society, as determined by the government. I believe that this places a responsibility on that government to care for and protect citizens. It must offer them the protection of the law, defend them in times of war and, I believe, provide basic health care. It should do so not just for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of society.

There's no point drafting people into the military if the health of the population isnt up to it. This was a major issue for the UK in WWI and a key factor in getting cross-party support for a national health service, because a shocking number of young men were unfit for duty. Currently not being in a time of war doesn't change the relationship though. The duties and responsibilities are still there.

[mempko]

At the federal level, taxes don't fund anything. Federal government spends first and the collects taxes. This is a common misconception about how government financing works. You don't to raise taxes to fund any program. Taxes one serve to bring legitimacy and demand for US dollar. They don't pay for anything.

[simonh]

If they don't pay for anything where does the money go? Where does the money the US Govt does pay to it's employees, contractors, suppliers and in benefits come from? This really is nonsense on stilts.

I know governments are in a unique position to be able to print money, but that is not how the US government routinely funds it's budget, and certainly not how it mainly or exclusively does so or inflation would skyrocket.

[mempko]

When federal government wants to pay for something, it tells the federal reserve to credit a bank account. The federal reserve then goes through the banking system and credits the account. The money comes from a key stroke. When the government collects taxes, the money is destroyed. It's just accounting. Inflation happens when government prints money beyond capacity of economy to produce. Too many dollars to too few resources.

The government can increase deficit to put more money into private sector, which boosts profits and savings, it can choose to take money out by taxing more or spending less. Which creates fewer savings and smaller profits, and more private debt.

[simonh]

You could just as well say that when I pay a bill the money is 'destroyed' in my bank account and 'created' in theirs, it's just accounting.

[mempko]

It IS just accounting! Difference is you need an income or debt to deposit. Gov can get money from thin air.

[bduerst]

>All laws are coercive

Locke would disagree with your premise. You're an individual with the freedom to move to any society that you agree with the most. Unless your freedom has been alienated, you are tacitly consenting to a government's laws by remaining where you are.

[soVeryTired]

So why does the typical American live within 18 miles of home? [0]

Do they just happen to agree with the society they're born into, or is it possible there are stronger forces than political preference that constrain their movement?

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f...

[bduerst]

Choosing to live close to family isn't alienation of freedom. Those are economic choices, not coercive constraints.

[soVeryTired]

Sure, but I don't think that amounts to a tacit agreement with a government's laws. Sometimes people are just stuck where they are.

[bduerst]

That's definitively what tacit agreement is, especially when someone claims that all laws are coercive.

[simonh]

It depends what you mean by constrain. What constraints are they under that are not voluntary?

[soVeryTired]

Family ties? Caring obligations?

These are extremely powerful forces, despite the fact that they don't fit into the economics-101 thinking that libertarians are so fond of.

[arcbyte]

Those forces fit exactly into economics 101. The first day is always "What is economics" and the answer is always that is the study of human behavior and choice. The supply/demand curve that makes up most of the class beings with the introduction that choice is variable, but assuming for the sake of argument that we consider them equal, what interesting effects do we observe?

Have you ever taken that class?

[raesene6]

I'd suggest that the reality for most people is that they're not "free to move to any society that you agree with most".

Many countries have strict immigration and citizenship requirements, many of which revolved around wealth.

So whilst it may be true that very rich people have complete freedom to choose their favourite society, that's not the reality for the majority of people.

[simonh]

That's entirely fair enough, but that's not the point we're arguing on. Objecting to a specific law on the basis that you are being coerced into following it is not a basis for picking and choosing which laws you're prepared to accept, because that is a general feature of laws.