Statist framing: Restaurant analogy


Using the instance of a restaurant as an implicit contract implying that all implicit contracts are valid, even one-sided ones assumed by the state, without agreement of any sort.


The restaurant example is void. It is clearly private property; private individuals that have obtained it voluntarily own the food you eat; its price is on the menu; and to walk out without paying is merely stealing, so it is obvious that the owner must be compensated in some fashion. On the other hand, the state owns nothing legitimately, so is owed no money for anything. (DBR)

Do you even know how to make an analogy? Going in to a restaurant and requesting their services is an explicit acceptance that you will pay for those services. Your analogy might work if there was one restaurant that used violence to force all other restaurants out of business and then required me to eat there for dinner every night. (JG)

Some statists will make an analogy with a restaurant, saying that, just as one implicitly agrees to pay by ordering food, one agrees to pay taxes by remaining in the State's turf. But there is a flaw in this analogy: It's strength comes from the agreement that the restaurant owner owns the restaurant. However, anarchists do not agree that the State owns all the land. Two replies to this analogy are possible. 1) Ask the statist if they are a communist who thinks the State owns all the land. Or 2) offer a better analogy: You go into a restaurant and tell the waiter-owner, "I would really like a steak and a glass of red wine, but if you bring them to me I will not pay." If the owner brings you the food and drink, you are not obliged to pay. As philosopher Michael Huemer points out, explicit dissent trumps any claim of implicit consent. Thus, anarchists, who openly deny political authority, are not obliged to pay taxes or obey rulers. [HB]