I know the thought process because I've processed it with thought. I think it's flawed reasoning. If that offends you it's cuz I'm blaspheming your religion. If not you wouldn't be.
What is your counter to the idea that taxation is theft?
So if I dropped you naked in the middle of a forrest a thousand miles from any civilization - you wouldn't be able to clothe yourself, let alone make a gun. Learn to be more thankful!
Let's say you live in a rapist's house, and that rapist was excused to rape you because that's just how things go.
Now, imagine you were in the middle of a forest. Be grateful!
I'm extremely grateful that I eat better than any king could 200 years ago every day, I'm safe, I can move around freely, I can access information freely, I get a day off once a week..
I am too :)
And things could be so much better with consistency applied morality, too :)
In fact, our collective existence depends on it. We will go extinct otherwise.
How much would this service cost? It sounds desirable...
It'll cost you everything!
My lucky day: that's *exactly* what I have.
That'll take a minute. I gotta work! I'll hit you up later.
Pareto principle guarantees that a tiny percentage of the population will end up "owning" most of the land in a free-for-all anarchist society. Maybe ancaps think it'll be them?
Could you explain what a free-for-all anarchist society is?
It would probably look a lot like “Burning Man” if I were to guess 🤔
That's not very helpful.
I haven't been to burning man.
Google and YouTube can be an excellent resource to learn more about places and experiences you haven’t had but are interested in ;)
Yes, and you could also tell me what you mean by "free for all anarchist society".
I don't care about burning man.
I'm asking you what You mean.
Found the words "law enforcement" on there. This is not anarchy.
Isolate them with no food and see what happens next.
They would probably just go find food. Hunt/gather and share as a community because that is the philosophy that Burning Man brings.
lol I thought it was in the desert. I'm saying introduce actual scarcity so people have to start deciding between altruism and personal survival. You'll get a few "criminals", then...
Obviously if you put people in a situation where they have no food or water they are going to start fighting. Law enforcement or anarchy doesn’t matter. Survival can become savage.
Not necessarily starvation level famine, just enough scarcity that there are winners and losers in food production which means inequality. You'll have a government in no time.
I've heard a shepherd does wonders in such a situation.
I have no clue what your meaning by this. Care to elaborate?
People with no resources in the desert are animals, which a shepherd can lead and care for.
“free for all anarchist society” wasn’t a term I used. Sorry I kinda jumped in on your conversation with someone else because when I read that I immediately thought burning man
no no no, please jump in! It's a fascinating topic, I'm still thinking through it.
So... what do you mean by it?
Watch Princess Mononoke, pretty much that. No different than straight up feudalism. If you amass any wealth there'll be raiding parties of samurai at your door every damn day.
And why do you think if you amass wealth they'll be raiding parties of samurai every day?
Why do you think there wouldn't be?
It depends on if people defend taxation, the blind obedience to authority.
That is what enables that.
So what do you think should happen to people who "defend taxation in blind obedience to authority"?
That, if they are so open, they talk with me or someone else who advocates for anarchy, a society where none hold the blind belief in authority?
And how do you propose to achieve that?
By talking with them, as I am currently doing with you.
Perhaps you're right. However, the statement isn't useful in the least because the alternative(feudalism) is much much worse.
What statement?
What do you mean that feudalism is the only alternative?
The statement "taxation is theft" is like a child complaining that it's not fair he has to do chores to get an allowance. As the parent I'd say 'don't let the door hit you in the ass!'
How is "Taxation is theft" like that?
The kid wants the benifits of living in the household he was born in without any obligations. You want the benifits of the society you were born into with none of the trade-offs.
Being born into a society that organizes using theft validates that theft?
Is the taxation repealed when child matures?
Aren't families communistic?
Is everyone a perpetual child?
It's a limited analogy. You know that demanding perfect solutions is a socialist tactic? Gotta say I'm disappointed. I thought I'd learn from you but it seems you're just an NPC.
How am I demanding perfect solutions?
By taking an analogy farther than it was clearly meant to illustrate the point I was making.
What point were you illustrating?
Read it again. If you can't understand that I doubt you understand Murray Rothbard either.
So, you don't want to reiterate fit clarification.
Well, it was nice talking with you.
Have a good day.
Anarchism becomes feudalism because of the Pareto principle. A small amount of people will own most/all of the land. A monopoly on land ownership is feudalism by definition.
Why would a small amount of people in anarchy own most/all the land?
Haven't convinced me of anything other than that you blindly, dogmatically, definitionally believe to the idea that a tax is necessarily a violent violation of your property rights.
I don't expect to convince you of anything in one conversation. I don't understand how you're concluding that I'm dogmatic about taxation. Could you explain that?
One big problem with "taxation is theft" is that you assume entitlement of all society's structure that you benefit from every damn day. Not saying it's perfect or even very efficient.
How does "taxation is theft" assume entitlement of all society's structure?
If you have your money stolen from you, but they buy you something, that makes their theft ok?
The roads, sewers, electricity, infrastructure to keep it all running etc. etc. - all stuff you used to make that money *in the first place*. Could you have made that money w/o it?
Are you saying that these things cannot be done in a voluntary fashion?
I just watched Princess Mononoke - great film for thinking about this stuff. One takeaway- force multipliers(like guns) require specialization. You don't get steel without society.
I don't know what you mean by force multipliers, nor how society or specialization require government, whatever you mean by those terms.
So like trains - what needs to exist societally to turn iron ore into a functioning train system? How much cheaper is it to transport goods via rail than carrying it on foot to market?
What does this have to do with a voluntary society vs an involuntary society?
That's why pay tribute to Caesar - YOU USED HIS SYSTEM OF COMMERCE TO MAKE THAT MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE <---- Make your money outside that system, then you can say taxation is theft.
What do you mean by "his system of commerce"?
Do you create the money system you use every day? Didi you build the highways and the rails? Why do you think you get to use them for free?
Why do you think that stealing money (taxation) is how things are built in a sustainable fashion, supposing that this is what you think?
Not taxation =/= free.
Some taxes are theft for sure, that's an inevitability of having any centralized power structure. That doesn't mean the alternative is going to be any more efficient.
You have no evidence that privatized everything is more efficient. Hong Kong was a great example of good balance between public and private. Sorry but cities need utilities and police.
You mean that cities need utilities and defense?
I'm not against that. I'm only against systematically involuntary interactions, which the police are based upon, per funded with taxes.
Could you link me to what you're talking about in regard to Hong Kong?
Do you think I'm against cities having utilities? I advocate for utilities being funded voluntarily.
I think you'll hit a point where there's too many takers and the people actually paying will start feeling like they're being taken for a ride. You know, like socialism.
Too many takers of what? Utilities?
This is what I don't get about the ancap belief system. Does a completely unregulated market suddenly turn people into altruists who just let you use their infrastructure for free??
What do you mean by "unregulated market"?
The market, when free (no gov interference), is regulated by customers.
Do shitty stuff, go bankrupt, or be unable to buy stuff. Deadly.
I suppose you also believe in the tooth fairy and santa clause? Have you ever observed this thing that you think exists in the real world?
I myself? In general, no, I have not witnessed a free market where there is no government interference.
I find that question curious. Does an answer of "no" imply impossibility? Why?
This is how ancap is essentially the same as socialism, just with the words replaced. They hate "capitalists" you hate "governments" 😩😩😩😩 ITS THE SAME FREAKING PEOPLE😑
With the way people talk about capitalists and what they mean, you're quite right.
Capitalists, in common colloquial, means corporatists. Welcome to our current Orwellian reality :)
You have to go back to the 19th century. To see something close to a libertarian state.
Perhaps you could be more specific than that?
This is exactly how ancap belief is like socialism - "true free market has never been tried!" lol. Have you not considered that the biggest winners in the market BECOME the government?
Yes. My lack of witnessing a "true free market" means one has never existed?
I answered your question directly; did you not turn it into a generalization about all human societies?
Here's a fairly simple question you'll probably have no idea how to answer - If a truly free market has ever existed, why does it no longer exist?
Murder, democide, genocide, and so forth, is my guess.
Also, you're being very condescending and I don't like that.
But hey - you already know how you're going to dismiss me, right?
You're not actually coming up with any cogent arguments. You're dismissing yourself. Try thinking ahead?
Question: which came first, the murder & genocide, or the government?
I wasn't aware that directly answering your question was supposed to be an argument.
I don't know. Do you? Based on what?
Simple logical deduction.
You say the government is bad because they do *X*.
SO - to eliminate *X* simply eliminate the government!
But *X* obviously exists in spite of government.
A monopoly on force exists without government?
Go read Lord of The Flies. I'll wait.
Read it years ago. Nice dodge.
But yeah, let's just say that you've won this because responding to you is incredibly annoying.
You win. Rejoice. Bye.
Not a dodge, that book is famous because it's TRUE. The last ancap I tried to reason with stormed off in a triggered fit too. Just like a socialist. All emotion, zero logic.
You call what I'm doing storming off?
Geez. Enjoy your strange world.
This isn't worth my time.
It's absolutely a generalization about human societies. Like I said earlier, we're talking about human nature here. Ancaps don't understand basic human nature, just like socialists.
And how do you know you're generalization of human societies is accurate?
How do you know you understand human nature?
Republican democracy is the only defense against whales. What do you think the 1st and 2nd amendment are for? Shakespeare and hunting? NO - they're for when a whale gets in to office!
"Republican democracy is the only defense against whales."
Based on what?
Historically you get people who win big in some revolution(e.g. The industrial revolution etc.) in crypto we call them "whales". They're the real monopoly on force.
That's very vague. I'm not even sure what you're saying.
But hey, you know stuff better than I do.
Shan't I just blindly take your word on it?
You're quite the authority, huh?
Sometimes being concise in Twitter format harms coherency of information:
*Yes, I have considered that.
No, I don't, though I do believe in the spirit of the christmas holiday, and am quite appreciative to see the opposite effects from corporatism. It shows the possibilities to me.
Huh. Friedman thinks there's a proper role of gov.
Unsurprisingly, that "freedom" is slowly eroding with inevitably more and increasing gov involvement: systematically involuntary.
You're either ruled by an elected government or by a mafia. One you have some semblance of choice, the other you have no choice but to submit or join. Perpetual power vacuum is a myth.
Just to clarify here, you want no enforcement whatsoever. No regulation, no government, no police, no judges, no mayors or city councils, etc etc.. Is this correct?
What do you mean by "no enforcement whatsoever"? I'm in favor of enforcement by the customer, for instance.
I'm not in favor of enforcement by a monopoly on force that steals to exist.
It's not a monopoly on force if it's given to them via fair and free elections. The alternative is being ruled by a mafia. I believe the neither realm you desire can not exist.
It's not a monopoly on force if the money taken from me without my consent is given via elections?
How is that free or fair? How is the other alternative being ruled by a mafia?
I can't tell if you're a troll or just completely delusional. There's plenty of countries you can move to that have anarchy. Try Somalia! Great weather I hear.
How do you define anarchy?
The power vacuum that exists temporarily after an established authority is suddenly taken out. Maybe Somalia is a theocratic dictatorship now? Hard to tell at any given moment I guess.
Sounds like these little towns instantly established governments! Great argument for why you need one! Protects you from the tyranny of an unelected foreign super state. Perfect.
*le sigh* Mkay. Have a good day.
How do you differentiate between someone who is writing for just emotional reaction (troll) vs someone who believes what they think (according to you, delusional, here)?
What do you think it's either rule by elected government or by mafia?
"You have no evidence that privatized everything is more efficient."
We just start the discussion and you head in with that I have no evidence? Jumping the gun much?
It's not a question of sustainability(good job busting out the socialist rhetoric btw), it's that you've able to amass wealth partially due to society existing before you.
The idea of sustainability is socialist rhetoric? How? Socialism is unsustainable.
How does amassing wealth based on previously-existant society validate theft?
Illustrate to me how the money you pay to a local, elected authority to build and maintain roads and sewers, pay police and fire fighters etc. is theft? If you don't like it, move!
When those things are maintained by taxation, which is involuntary.
If I were paying them and could stop, then you'd be right - it wouldn't be theft.
All taxes are theft. Theft for sustainability is nonsense bullshit.
I need to be able to trade widgets for potatoes or socks, even if the farmer or seamstress don't need widgets. Money is the greatest force multiplier cuz it allows specialization.
I'm not against money.
I'm against fiat.
What is money?
Money is that which is "fungible, portable, durable, and divisible", as Mike Maloney has said, which is why he advises buying gold. I think BCH is better.
I think this is a bad definition though - things that have those characteristics can *become* money. But that doesn't tell me what money *is*.
Ok. Money is what people trade their energy and time in to get stuff.
Does USD work for this purpose? Does gold? Bitcoin?
BCH yes. BTC no.
Ok I'll race you. Go buy a banana with BCH, I'll buy one with Japanese Yen - Winner is using the superior money(at least in the short term). I'll go when you say go.
You want to just talk about short term?
No game. I'm here for sustainability.
Short-term, yes. It eventually won't.
To a limited degree.
BTC or BCH?
Gold isn't portable or divisible. Dollars aren't especially durable and are becoming less fungible. I think portability and divisibility is more important. You can always convert out.
Well, you can't use memo unless you do.
You need ppl in a society to specialize into certain professions or you'll never have enough scale to produce steel - but that doesn't happen without a functioning money system.
Are you saying that the only kind of functioning money system, is a fiat one?
gun vs. sword = women can defend home
asphalt vs. dirt road = shipping is faster and cheaper
trains vs. dirt road = same
telephone vs. carrier pigeon(?) = you get the point
Also I'll make the case that "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" is a vastly superior statement to "Taxation is theft". If you don't want to pay taxes, you shouldn't be using dollars.
That's fine. How is other people's money Caesars? According to that logic, Caesar stole lots of money and needed to return it.
I don't WANT to use dollars. It's required. I prefer BCH.
I'll explain why having a government is a necessary trade off if you want to have civilization. It's not a simple thing because we're discussing human nature. Ancap's view is flawed.
How is ancap's view flawed?
What is it, according to you?
What is:
1. Civilization?
2. Government?
3. Human nature?
I've been mulling over what angle I'm going to take all day and now I gotta sleep. I'll leave you with some random thoughts and see if anyone can answer without using tired maxims.
Ok. Hopefully you won't use any yourself.
