3 ms·

If no one paid taxes, then the governments capacity to do bad things would certainly go down. However, then there also probably would be no government and every

If no one paid taxes, then the governments capacity to do bad things would certainly go down. However, then there also probably would be no government and everyone would be worse off. I'm sure lots of tax money is wasted, or used for bad things, but also a lot of good as well. Roads, police (that keep the peace), firefighters, education, foreign aid, etc.

blotter_paper 7y ago
Given all those other countries we've been bombing based on false pretenses I'd say a lack of US government funding would be a net positive. I'll take lawless anarchy over a relatively well organized state that bombs children to secure foreign oil production facilities and prop up the petro-dollar.
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  Children dying is always a tragedy, or any civilians really. Here's a question for you: If the US were to collapse into anarchy, and there was suddenly a void in the world where the US military used to exist, do you think would there be more or fewer civilian/child deaths (in total, from other forces) and why?
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    I betting more short term but fewer long term. The immediate bloodbaths would be in America's client states that Russia and China move in on, but some of those would probably manage independence. Long term, one less bully dropping bombs on children should result in fewer deaths. The power vacuum is real, but I don't think it be entirely filled with other international bullies. A collapse of the military would probably result in some pretty dope weapon systems switching hands, as it did during the collapse of the Soviet Union. This would cause bloodshed, sure, but it also means some of those prior client states might have a better shot at independence than one might first imagine. I'll also point out that those power vacuum dynamics exhibit themselves at multiple levels of supervenience, and the US is often responsible for their disruption on smaller scales.
- danans 7y ago
  > I'll take lawless anarchy over a relatively well organized state that bombs children to secure foreign oil production facilities and prop up the petro-dollar. Those are hardly the only two options.

blotter_paper 7y ago

Given all those other countries we've been bombing based on false pretenses I'd say a lack of US government funding would be a net positive. I'll take lawless anarchy over a relatively well organized state that bombs children to secure foreign oil production facilities and prop up the petro-dollar.

kuzimoto 7y ago
Children dying is always a tragedy, or any civilians really. Here's a question for you: If the US were to collapse into anarchy, and there was suddenly a void in the world where the US military used to exist, do you think would there be more or fewer civilian/child deaths (in total, from other forces) and why?
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  I betting more short term but fewer long term. The immediate bloodbaths would be in America's client states that Russia and China move in on, but some of those would probably manage independence. Long term, one less bully dropping bombs on children should result in fewer deaths. The power vacuum is real, but I don't think it be entirely filled with other international bullies. A collapse of the military would probably result in some pretty dope weapon systems switching hands, as it did during the collapse of the Soviet Union. This would cause bloodshed, sure, but it also means some of those prior client states might have a better shot at independence than one might first imagine. I'll also point out that those power vacuum dynamics exhibit themselves at multiple levels of supervenience, and the US is often responsible for their disruption on smaller scales.
danans 7y ago
> I'll take lawless anarchy over a relatively well organized state that bombs children to secure foreign oil production facilities and prop up the petro-dollar. Those are hardly the only two options.