Create account

replied 2146d
anarchovegan
A representative body that governs issues for the people.
The answer changes at the level of government. I think it is needed municipal through to global though.
1 / 98
anarchovegan
replied 2146d
Is that representation voluntary or involuntary?
If I don't want to be included in the supposed representation, do I have that option?
replied 2146d
If one wants to live without government one can leave society. Most of the world is free for that.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
Why do I need to leave society instead of simply not being stolen from?
How does that follow?

1
552
replied 2145d
Living in an area that is taxed means to receive the services of those taxes. If you dont contribute that makes you a leech on society. It isn't morally horrible, but it is wrong.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
Are you receiving a service if you cannot cancel the service?

replied 2145d
Part of the service is the stability of the area. This is why canceling the service requires leaving the area. Taxes are part of the community agreement. One can change that agreement.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
How does systematic theft make any area stable? How does the government own land/area without any homesteading? How is being stolen from part of any agreement?
replied 2145d
Also people could work collectively to change taxation. I've said elsewhere that I prefer a sales tax over an income tax.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
I am. I'm working to eliminate it by eliminating the defense of taxation, such as what you're exemplifying. I prefer zero systematic theft.
replied 2145d
People elect representatives who makes these rules. People continue to elect the representatives, which is a type of communal agreement.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
Aren't those who do not wish to participate in being represented in the systematic theft included against their will?
replied 2145d
It is just a higher level of small community order. People tend to reject those who dont contribute to the group.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
Yes; that's why I and many others reject government, which provides nothing, and only exists by theft.
replied 2145d
Except it is payment for services rendered, not theft.
anarchovegan
replied 2144d
I can cancel my Netflix subscription.
I can't cancel my government "subscription".
I can't fire them.
How is it a service if I can't fire them?
That's why I call it theft.
2
546
replied 2144d
The stable area is a significant part of the service. This is why canceling the service requires you leaving. Staying is opting in. You must opt out.
replied 2134d
"stable area" is so far removed from the myriad of entitlements the gov redistributes. many people would be happy paying just for that. dont want all the crap gov dreams up.
anarchovegan
replied 2142d
I don't think running away from the cancer of people advocating systematic theft is moral.
So I don't. How does my staying here validate my being stolen from?
replied 2145d
It's a grey area at best. You can leave. People want to stay and benefit from society without anyone paying for the public systems that give the area stability.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
I don't see why I should leave and let the bullying and systematic theft that I find morally reprehensible continue.
Why shouldn't the government leave? Public systems are stable?
1
replied 2145d
The people want the government. So the few who dont should leave and create their own communities.
anarchovegan
replied 2144d
https://www.fsp.org/
https://www.freesociety.com
replied 2144d
There you go.
anarchovegan
replied 2142d
Think we need gov? Support freesociety.com
https://honest.cash/anarchovegan/think-we-need-gov-support-freesocietycom-1480/
anarchovegan
replied 2144d
Could you define "the people"? If I and others who do not want government are part of "the people", then that statement is false.
replied 2144d
The people is a collective average of the population. You are part of the people. Your wishes make up a small proportion of the wishes of the population.
anarchovegan
replied 2142d
Especially without regard for consent, using a collective average of the population, lack of consensus becomes not only inevitable, but systematic; it will never go away - it can't.
replied 2141d
This isn't always true though. Some refuse to vote out of anger. Sadly they dont know the way their apathy is viewed.
1
567
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
How isn't it always true? Isn't consensus 100%? I clarify that that's what I mean.
You don't? You're advocating rule of majority over minority?
replied 2140d
Consensus isn't 100%. I do believe in the majority ruling over the minority, with some rules protecting that minority. As we have now.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
Why do you believe in the majority ruling over the minority?
You're actually advocating a form of slavery?
replied 2140d
No, I am advocating a form of consensus. Also, as I said with rules protecting the minority. This is why we have rights and protections for minority groups.
anarchovegan
replied 2139d
What form of consensus? What does it look like?
If the minority is included without their consent, what do the rules "protecting" them matter?
How isn't that baseless lip-service?
replied 2139d
Majority consensus. The minority has their say, and isn't revealed to be the minority until after. The protections are real and significant. Ut has allowed the minority to grow.
anarchovegan
replied 2134d
Except that the minority can't dissassociate. Right?
Can't just not be stolen from. Correct?
replied 2141d
In democracy no vote is seen as a vote. A vote for the status quo. Most people vote when they are unhappy with the system. So theoretically low voter turn out is approval of the system
replied 2134d
I see no vote as vote of no confidence. imagine starting a gov, you & 1000 ppl go off into a room & vote for a gov then tell the 100M other ppl you now rule them bc they didnt vote no.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
You're going to ignore my and others' overt disapproval of the system and not voting that we are openly and loudly saying?
Nothing theoretical here. I don't approve.
replied 2145d
The services provided create the stability. Law enforcement, justice system, military. They provide stability, most obvious during an emergency. Water and waste and such help as well.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
Same answer as here
https://memo.cash/post/1f10cb8d4105ab92d1c6a87e0d35b1f5ea4ee30a48807e15f6b97335cf7451e2
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
While I disagree with him about the 1st amendment, as it is a creation of Gov, he makes the point that you can't "just leave":
replied 2145d
You can just leave though. There are even means to leave a taxable area, but stay within some nations borders. These people pull mental gymnastics because they like living in society.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
Why should I leave? Why shouldn't the theft just not occur? Why is the theft the default for you? How aren't you pulling mental gymnastics to defend a morally indefensible position?
replied 2145d
Technically one doesnt yave to leave. People only contribute if they work. You could not work for an income. Leaving is the way to not be morally obligated to contribute to society.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
What is "contribute to society"? How does working "morally oblige" "contribut[ing] to society"? Isn't being productive and providing services, contribution, directly to those serviced?
replied 2145d
I would think working is itself contributing to society. Part of the reason I prefer a high sales tax to replace income tax. It can be changed. People dont like change much though.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
If working itself is contributing to society, then systematic theft is not? I thought you were defending taxation, not trading one's effort for money via doing a service for others?
replied 2145d
I am defending taxation as a whole, but each form of taxation has pros and cons. How taxes are collected is another issue. I dont like income tax, and see sales taxes as better.
1
567
anarchovegan
replied 2144d
Why are you defending it as a whole?
Of course there are more and less painful ways of doing it.
The entire problem, is the how:
Systematic theft is immoral, unsustainable, and wrong.
replied 2144d
I have yet to see a reason why taxation is theft. I have explained why it is moral, so I have yet to see how it is immoral. There is no evidence it is unsustainable. Quite the opposite
anarchovegan
replied 2142d
How isn't taxation theft?
Could you explain again how it's moral?
What is the evidence that taxation is sustainable?
replied 2141d
I have participated in representative democracy myself, and cant help but see the pros outweigh the cons.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
If I and others had the choice to not be included, there would be no problem.
The entire problem is that we are included involuntarily.
Kind of a huge con... game.
replied 2140d
I can see that point of view, but it is due to the way the society has built up over time. It gives the society ownership over that area. Almost like leaving to not pay rent.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
Could you define "society" and explain what you mean by "built over time", that justifies systematic theft, "or leave"?
replied 2140d
Let's use city as society. Construction and establishment of systems take time and effort and money. If you dont like that established system then you should leave the system.
1
546
anarchovegan
replied 2139d
The system of theft/taxation is worldwide.
Anywhere I go there will be the same system.
So that's beside the point.
But again: Why do the bullies get precedence?
replied 2139d
It isn't worldwide, just found all over the world. If you leave civilised areas no one bugs you about taxes. The precedence is due to a type of ownership. Property rights.
anarchovegan
replied 2134d
Property rights?
Oh come on now.
What homesteading does the state do?
anarchovegan
replied 2134d
What a misnomer.
Civilized like the indoctrination centers (schools) are called "education".
anarchovegan
replied 2139d
Could you define city? Are you saying city is people?
"It gives the society [city] ownership over that area."
How does a concept, city, have ownership over an area?
replied 2139d
Those representing the citizens of that city have control over the city, granted by the citizens. Telling the people and organizations and businesses to leave so you can stay is wrong.
anarchovegan
replied 2134d
I completely agree, which is why I am defending them against the state, a completely unnecessary parasite middleman that only contributes anti-life self-destructive brainwashing.
replied 2140d
It's harder to move the city than for a person to leave. So the person who doesnt want to pay should leave. That city didnt appear overnight.
1
546
replied 2141d
To be clear I am not counting it high on the morality scale. It is just a general "hey, we are all paying our share. You should too." I cant help but think we benefit from government.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
Where is the should?
I don't have a choice. If I did, then we could talk "should".
I'm stolen from regardless.
That's the problem to begin with.
replied 2140d
You kind of do have a choice. Black market incomes are not taxable. Some choose that route. Often just undocumented work, and pay under the table.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
Yes, and why should I hide and be forced to go through hoops to be free, to act or feel like I'm guilty, when the entire system that you're advocating, is immoral?
replied 2140d
If people require the transit system to travel they realise they must pay. You then have riders asking why they should be stolen from simply to ride. The paying riders are stolen from.
anarchovegan
replied 2139d
If people require a transit system, then unless there's a monopoly on violence, there will be competing services/businesses to meet that demand.
replied 2140d
The system is moral. The only theft is from those not paying into the system. Like some public transit, paying is on the honor system. If no one paid the transit wouldnt work.
anarchovegan
replied 2139d
The system is immoral. The theft is from those who do not consent and are included anyway.
If payment was on the honor system, people would not be included without consent.
replied 2139d
The theft from the system is immoral. The theft is from those who contribute, while one decided to not contribute. It is leeching off others.
anarchovegan
replied 2134d
I wish I could "steal" by not contributing.
If I could I would not be talking about anarchism. It would be pointless.
replied 2141d
Taxation supports our system of government, and society. Every person receives the benefit of society when within society. Not paying your share while receiving the benefits is immoral
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
That was poorly phrased.
How is it immoral to resist the process of getting benefits when they are at the behest of theft, kidnapping, or murder?
replied 2140d
Resisting getting benefits means leaving the benefitted area. That isn't immoral. I feel like I am not fully getting the question.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
Why do thieves and bullies get to lay claim to any area by providing something after theft? To justify that thieves and bullies stay while the abused leaves is morally abject.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
The benefit of being stolen from under threat of kidnapping and if you resist, death?
How is resisting theft/kidnapping/murder immoral?
Can there be benefit if there is lack of choice?
replied 2140d
Those are quite the false equivalencies. The issue of jail itself is only for the most extreme cases. Often it is more like getting a bad credit rating, and debt collectors after you.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
Could you explain this and give examples of "more like getting a bad credit rating" and "debt collectors after you" in regard to taxes? I haven't heard that before.
replied 2140d
That is the normal experience. I think the IRS is harsher than the Canadian CRA, but often they work as debt collectors instead as well.
replied 2145d
If the taxation didnt occur than many of the services would disapear. The people want these services, and objecticely do better with them. We ask everyone who can to contribute.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
You think that the only way to provide services is through involuntary means? Services cannot be provided on a voluntary basis?
If people want the service, won't they pay for it?
replied 2145d
Some services do not work by market dynamics. These services are best provided by a public entity. Military, law enforcement, fire protection of all levels, healthcare, sanitation, etc
anarchovegan
replied 2145d

A bunch of other good related ones too:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spontaneous+order
replied 2145d
I watched the first video here. I think all their cases ignore the higher level of order at play in those cases. I like those cases thogh, and think the system should make use of them.
anarchovegan
replied 2145d
Too abstract to be able to reply to. Perhaps you'd be inclined to be more specific about what you mean.
replied 2145d
For example, the intersection without traffic lights works within a system of other traffic laws, and rules for right of way.
anarchovegan
replied 2144d
I'm sorry; I don't understand what you're saying.
Going back: "Some services do not work by market dynamics." Explain?
How does involuntary interaction work better than voluntary?
replied 2144d
Some systems work best when funded by q public entity. Military being an obvious example, healthcare as well. Healthcare doesnt follow supply and demand. You cant compete with life.
anarchovegan
replied 2142d
What do you mean by "work best"?
https://www.yours.org/content/is-public--systematic-theft--better-than-private--personal-funding--ab24fa9ccf23
replied 2141d
By work best I mean work most efficiently in terms of cost benefit analysis.
anarchovegan
replied 2140d
Systematic theft is more efficient than voluntary interaction and trade?
Could you share with me your cost-benefit analysis system?
replied 2142d
Means, works in best interests of the majority of the people, which is good for society and its health in general, also works better for people that work in these public businesses
anarchovegan
replied 2142d
Based on what do you claim that, Ed?
How is systematic theft good for society?
replied 2136d
Systematic theft happens right there in Capitalism itself
replied 2146d
I would think a global government would have very little say about individuals, and would be more for governing other nations, and international organizations.
replied 2146d
If you dont like the municiple government you can move to a different city. If you dont like the provincial government you can more to a different province. Same with national level.


About Privacy Terms Stats