0 votes

Is The Judge an anarchist??

I just saw him on Stossel. He said ALL taxation was theft and opposes all taxation. Someone in the audience asked him how the military would be funded. He replied, who says we need a military? Then he added, and who says it has to be funded by taxes?

Background knowledge:
Belief in "natural rights" sometimes leads people to extremes like this, because if you believe all initiation of force is immoral and that it should never be done then you can't support the existence of the State (note that "government" is not necessarily the same thing as the state. An anarchist can support "government" but not the State which is a monopoly government). The reason you can't be an anarchist and support the State is because even if the State didn't tax, it would still be the initiator of force because it initiates force to prevent competing police, jail, and court systems. That is, it estalishes a coercive monopoly on force. This is the most fundamental definition of the State, a monopoly on force. This is why Lew Rockwell is an anarchist, for example. The very existence of the State violates natural law, if initiation of force is against natural law. It's also called "anarcho-capitalism," the view that there should be no monopoly in force but a competitive free market in force (some would call this "competing governments"). Anarcho-capitalists believe in no taxes and no State. I'm wondering if this is The Judge's view as well, since he's such a staunch proponent of natural rights and because of this very radical statement by him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT2NpPpNZE8 The question starts at 1:17

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If it's not forced upon everyone, it's not government. ;-)

I'm all for voluntary interactions between people.

Farmer: You are right, in the sense that I too believe we

need a transition (so does Ron Paul and so did Mises).

A Consumer-Minarchism would give us a nice transtion and logically (without further force) lead into a Consumer-Sovereignty (or free-market); which is an anarchy.

Minimal Statism can only exist with a Contractual Meritocracy.

Read my links below!!

the Judge's co-host

on his XM FOX news morning show is a huge pro-war guy. Brian Kill-me-de. (typical FOX name)

I don't understand why the judge plays along with the war BS, in this 3 hour program.

Personal TAXES to fund the military???

Hello all!

First: Obviously we need some kind of taxes to finance certain aspects of the responsibilities of both state and federal governments. HOWEVER:

I am a native Norwegian, (although taxes were one of several reasons why I left) but back in my home country the PERSONAL income tax represents slightly less then 20% of the total income from all taxes paid in the country. If you deduct the actual COST of managing this system, which I am sure is MORE than 50% of the 20%, you end up with a net income of LESS than 10% of the total!

This insignificant 8 - 10% is EASY to replace with a few other tax adjustments here and there. Conclusion: The personal tax system is NOT there because it is needed to fund things for common good, - but for an entirely different reason: CONTROL of the individual taxpayer!

As for the situation in the US, I have on several occasions heard and been told, that the personal income tax in fact almost to 100% goes to pay for the interest the government pays to the FEDERAL Reserve for the money produced and then paid to the government! If THAT is what the US taxpayer gets for paying his or her income tax, I would say you are all totally screwed! Which also means that the military is paid from very different sources of funding!

I agree with the Judge: Taxing me as a private person on my personal income, is theft! Pure and simple! In fact, it is even worst: It is THEFT from me for the purpose of gaining MORE control over me!!

Taxes not necessary.

In a free society people donate money to government. Of course in this case local government would probably receive move from local residents followed by State, Federal and World.

I also saw that tonight...

There will come a time in the distant future when technology will replace ALL government services and functions at a cheap price and easy to acquire.

Basically, there will be a creative destruction of government...

We will eventually create technology that prevents fires (end of fire departments), protects people and property (end of police and military), cars, planes, boats and trains pilot themselves (end of road rules and of the FAA etc.), homes and roads will be built by robotic machines etc...

Also, technology will allow all people to easily access the bare necessities of life such as food, water, clothing, and shelter at extremely low prices... Practically free.

Only then will we have true freedom, when people realize that government isn't able to keep up with the times.

(Personally, I think we've already reached the point where we no longer need government, but unfortunately most people don't see it.)

What about the "Controllers"?

What will become of them?

...highly influenced by the life long work of Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project. -from Zeitgeistmovie .com

I sure hope he is

Limited-statism is a delusion--power corrupts...the State cannot stay limited.

Can anarchy stay anarchy?


Yes, if the conditions are right

For example, a-narchy is not going to work if the majority of the populace are statists and clamor for government. This is what we have now...a-narchy is will be achieved sometime a ways ahead in the future I would say.

Maybe both are a delusion.

Maybe perpetual anarchy is just as impossible as perpetually limited government. And for that matter, perpetual totalitarianism is impossible too. Maybe no matter what system you put in place, it's going to evolve or devolve into another, then another, then another..

Well, what's your argument for that claim?


It's not a claim.

I said "maybe." I'm speculating. Maybe the only thing that can be perpetual is the ebb and flow of freedom. Maybe nothing's permanent. I don't see any evidence of anything ever having stayed the same. I don't see why an anarchist society would be an exception.

OK. Well,

in a stable anarchist society, where the majority of the populace are anarchists and thus reject statism and archism, why would there be an ebb and flow of freedom? I don't see why there would be.

It seems to me that ebbs and flows in freedom only occur because of statism...and thus if the people widely rejected statism, it is highly unlikely I think that a new State would be able to be formed.

But, this point where the majority of people are anarchists is I think a ways ahead in the future. How far I'm not sure exactly. 10 years? 20 years? 30? 50? 100?

Never?Capitalism is


Capitalism is complicated. People are stupid. The third-grade level anarchist platitudes are not enough. College-level understanding of capitalism en masse is required.

Ventura 2012

Anarchism: a principle

or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups.

Considering this definition, I'm a bit confused by your use of 'extreme' and 'radical' in regards to anarchy.
Surely you just mean extreme and radical relative to what we are putting up with now.

Or do you consider living by such principles to be a crazy idea?

I don't mean "radical" as a pejorative.

Nothing wrong with radical per se. I just mean radical libertarian. Extreme libertarian. Purist. Anarchism is a radical political philosophy.

Link posted.


I think the Judge is a Minarchist as is Ron Paul.

But if he said "all taxes" are immoral / theft, logically this would suggest "anarchism."

Great Thread

i think he believes in the

i think he believes in the rule of law so no. just a minarchist probably

Anarcho-capitalists believe

in law.

Anarcho-Capitalists are not Anarchists

Anarchism has two main tenents: "No Authority" and "Voluntarism"

Anarcho-Capitalism fails on both counts.
---An-Cap allows for Courts and Force agents to "rectify" property dispute (and property is not just land, it's all forms of property, so this is a big court system).
---An-Cap gives "someone" full or partial monopoly control over "self-defense" -- yet another reason.

The reason why the latter is oxy-moronic is that if An-Cap were truly "voluntary" then one can perpetually disagree on which "voluntary court" their case would be tried in.

Also, An-Cap (according to it's author - Rothbard) requires 100% compliance/agreeance for it to work.

Mises, although he advocated a Minarchist Transition, found the ONLY true form of Anarchism (and there can only be one form of individualist - logically); he coined it Consumer-Sovereingty.

When Owners and Workers have ZERO Rights (laws - protectionism) and Currency in 100% Un-Regulated; then the Consumer is "free"

Since everyone is a consumer -- everyone is thus free.

100% compliance

Do you have any reference where Rothbard says that an-cap requires 100% compliance to work?

Lime: A Rothbardian told me that -- I accepted it because it

is constant with "left-libertarianism" that for it to work everyone must agree (it's part of the voluntarism thing).

I hope that helps.

he doesnt, but he does say

he doesnt, but he does say vast majority. If you think a vast majority have the capacity to be educated in free market capitalism, think again. At the first sign of Wal Mart coming into a town and unemploying it, enter stage left GOVERNMENT.

Ventura 2012

not only capitalism

But rejection of the state/anarchism doesn’t imply capitalism. There are many other types of organizations that people could voluntarily form such as socialist communes or even governments that people could opt in and out of. As long as it’s done through consent, then there is no initiation of violence. Of course, those who choose capitalism would fare much better, and as others see the results, they would opt out of their system and join the anarcho-capitalists.

Initially, people don’t necessarily need to understand that free markets get the best results. They just need to understand that statism fails miserably and is immoral, and embrace the non-aggression principle.

An-Cap - An-Com - An-Syn all wind up as Tiny States

You must form a defense network around each to make it work and the "in-between" land must remain in true "anarchy" otherwise you have war.

I've always said that all those "An's" up there result into Tribal Anarchism.

Which is Anarchism between the tribes, but "communalism" (rule-based and law-based societies) within.

I hope that makes sense.

Marxism teaches that

Marxism teaches that socialism must spread to the whole earth and that Capitalism cannot be allowed to survive. Marxists and socialists view private property to be intolerable and exploitative. It is much more common for people to resent outsourcing and Wal Mart than it is for them to accept these capitalist results as "good". Consent is not a relevant factor.

Moral arguments don't work in America, I'd think that would be evident by now.

Ventura 2012

If you're opposed ot the existence of the State

then by definition you're an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalists call THEMSELVES anarchists. Murray Rothbard certainly did.

What do you think the "anarcho" stands for? Come on. When you call yourself an anarcho-capitalist you're calling yourself an anarchist capitalist.

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." Murray Rothbard in Society and State

"Now, as an anarchist, I think..." Lew Rockwell http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021028.html

Calling yourself a horse does not make you one!

I believe you, that you are an anarchist.

But I don't think you've read enough Rothbard, Spooner, Bachunin, or Mises to understand that there can only be ONE VERSION of anarchism.

After all it means "Individualism" -- you can't have multiple kinds of individualism, by definition only one can get it right; everything else harbors benefit for either "workers" - "unionists" - or "owners" and since not everyone in a soicety can be all of those; we must investigate further.

Mises (Rothbard's mentor) had it right.