For something to be a crime there has to be a victim so you're correct in that jay-walking or speeding in a car is not a crime. That's not to say I advocate putting ones life in danger.
OK, so you're happily jay-walking across the road while I come speeding round the corner in my car. I hit you, there's a terrible mess. Your legs are broken and the front of my car is all bent out of shape. We're both victims. Who's responsible?
Well you're not using it for free, you are paying the cost via taxation and the unseen costs of regulations.
Yes, I know that. Those things are only possible with a state.
Not to mention that taxes goes to fund wars, luxury lifestyle for politicians, crony capitalists and bailouts, etc.
That's true, tax money can be misused. That does not in itself mean taxation should be abolished.
In a free market where these services are open to competition you could paying much less. You get to choose who receives your money.
Or I could be paying much more. Given the land and infrastructure requirements involved, it's virtually impossible to have a free market in public transport. There's also the problems of fare-dodging, anti-social behaviour and theft which are currently dealt with by a legal system that you apparently wish to see abolished.
How best money should be spent is arguing from from effect anyway, similar to the time of slavery when people were afraid of emancipation because slaves couldn't read or write, how would they get jobs, who would pick the cotton and grow the crops. "everyone will starve!".
More importantly the argument from morality is that slavery is immoral, that the initiation of violence is immoral. The practical follows the moral. Once the slaves the slaves were freed there were giant leaps in technological advancements with mechanization and so on. Who knows what the future holds.
You haven't demonstrated that it's immoral for laws to exist and be enforced. You ignore the fact that it's impractical by claiming that the future will somehow solve the problems.
Well, we can fix that. We don't need a state to have order. The community would form its own militia to protect its people, and as long as we have somehow managed to completely eradicate grudges, prejudices, territorialism, stupidity, corruption and poor judgement, everything should be fine.
Agreed. I think ebay and amazon are good examples of what can be achieved based on reputation and feedback. The market can regulate itself without the initiation of violence, and through free association and ostracism (the highest form of non-violence).
I don't think you got my point at all. Let's say I see you in the street and go over, punch you in the face and take your money. I will probably be apprehended by well-meaning passers-by or roving gangs, but then what? Do they lock me up? Force me to compensate you financially or in some other way? Just ostracise me? Do I get to state my case? What if I say you slept with my wife and killed my dog? Does anybody investigate to find out if this is true? If it turns out that I'm just the sort of person who takes what he wants for free, what do you do with me? You can ostracise me but I'll just hop on a train - probably without paying - and move to another town.
What if I don't punch you in the face but instead, pollute your water supply? Or build an incinerator next to your house? Who's going to stop me, and by what right?
The non-aggression principle
- the central tenant of morality.
You mean tenet, not tenant, I'm sure. The video pretty much makes the case that there are some unfair taxes and unjust laws, therefore the state should be abolished. It doesn't deal with any of the issues I've raised. It makes some valid points but the conclusions it reaches do not follow from those points.
Do you agree that the initiation of violence against peaceful individuals is immoral?
I certainly do, and am opposed to all laws that proscribe behaviour that does not harm others. I also favour the right of adults to opt out of society as much as possible. And I think taxes should be ring-fenced as much as possible, so that motorists pay the bulk of road tax, high earners pay the bulk of education costs, etc.
If individuals really do want the services the government provides why is the intiation of violence or threat of violence [via laws and imprisonment] required?
To stop people freeloading. The problem with "every man for himself" philosophies is that this automatically benefits the rich. And the rich aren't rich because they're better people than the poor, or by some divine right. They're rich because of the way the system works. In a free market, money begets money. The rich become richer and the poor become poorer. The richer someone gets, the more they can stack the odds in their favour. The current system of taxing the poor and letting the rich off scot-free is certainly not working, but this is not a problem with the principle of taxation.
What im trying to advocate is for voluntary solutions to complex social problems. I don't have all the answers, but if we can agree on the moral the rest will follow I hope.
Well, so far we haven't. I think it's a moral requirement that all children should have the right to medical care and education. Do you agree?