4 ms·

But it is nothing compared to the reality without taxes, where ANYONE (who can afford more men with guns than you can) can come and shoot you dead right away an

by dagss 11y ago

But it is nothing compared to the reality without taxes, where ANYONE (who can afford more men with guns than you can) can come and shoot you dead right away and take your property, not even giving you a chance to pay taxes (or vote) first.

msandford 11y ago
> But it is nothing compared to the reality without taxes Technology has come a long way in the last 1000 or so years. I suspect that there are new solutions to the problem that you describe. But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. Most of the time that's a good thing as it means that things get screwed up only very slowly. But it also tends to prevent things from getting better, too. Only the most egregious problems get solved.
- Retra 11y ago
  Who would you rather be allowed to do violence other than an organization with a legal mandate to?
- krapp 11y ago
  > But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. Also, because most people consider the State and its monopoly on violence to be a perfectly adequate solution to the problem.
- xg15 11y ago
  > Technology has come a long way in the last 1000 or so years. I suspect that there are new solutions to the problem that you describe. Then give a concrete example of such a solution. The current system (having a state actor) works more or less well in preventing power abuse by private entities. But shouldn't we wait with abolishing it until we have actually found a better solution?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. No, wrong. Alternatives get explored all the time, and radical changes in the dominant role of social organization have happened over the 1000 year time period you discuss. You've anthropomorphized the abstract concept of the State improperly: the state is whatever entity or collection of entities taken together have a monopoly on legitimate violence, but the entities or collections which do that over time have changed quite rapidly -- the modern nation-state system is only a few hundred years old -- it is a fairly new model -- and there has been considerable evolution within that model (and its one that has been widely perceived as weakening in the face of evolving, powerful, non-nation-state actors of various types.)
  - msandford 11y ago
    You're right of course that the organization of the state has changed greatly over the course of the last 1000 years. But in the last 50 years we've seen tremendous improvement in various technological capabilities and very little adoption of these by the states. When there's a technological revolution every 20 years or so, but a political revolution only every 200 years or so, I think it's fair to argue that the state is very resistant to change. I might see several technological revolutions in my lifetime, and no political ones.

by dagss 11y ago

msandford 11y ago

> But it is nothing compared to the reality without taxes Technology has come a long way in the last 1000 or so years. I suspect that there are new solutions to the problem that you describe. But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. Most of the time that's a good thing as it means that things get screwed up only very slowly. But it also tends to prevent things from getting better, too. Only the most egregious problems get solved.

Retra 11y ago
Who would you rather be allowed to do violence other than an organization with a legal mandate to?
krapp 11y ago
> But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. Also, because most people consider the State and its monopoly on violence to be a perfectly adequate solution to the problem.
xg15 11y ago
> Technology has come a long way in the last 1000 or so years. I suspect that there are new solutions to the problem that you describe. Then give a concrete example of such a solution. The current system (having a state actor) works more or less well in preventing power abuse by private entities. But shouldn't we wait with abolishing it until we have actually found a better solution?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. No, wrong. Alternatives get explored all the time, and radical changes in the dominant role of social organization have happened over the 1000 year time period you discuss. You've anthropomorphized the abstract concept of the State improperly: the state is whatever entity or collection of entities taken together have a monopoly on legitimate violence, but the entities or collections which do that over time have changed quite rapidly -- the modern nation-state system is only a few hundred years old -- it is a fairly new model -- and there has been considerable evolution within that model (and its one that has been widely perceived as weakening in the face of evolving, powerful, non-nation-state actors of various types.)
- msandford 11y ago
  You're right of course that the organization of the state has changed greatly over the course of the last 1000 years. But in the last 50 years we've seen tremendous improvement in various technological capabilities and very little adoption of these by the states. When there's a technological revolution every 20 years or so, but a political revolution only every 200 years or so, I think it's fair to argue that the state is very resistant to change. I might see several technological revolutions in my lifetime, and no political ones.