4 ms·

I don't think he was arguing against paying taxes, I think he was arguing that there are _some_ transactions which it is reasonable to expect both a level of pr

I don't think he was arguing against paying taxes, I think he was arguing that there are _some_ transactions which it is reasonable to expect both a level of privacy, as well as obscurity to the government for purposes of dissent or lack of relevant jurisdiction (private, ad-hoc transactions are still a thing). e.g. purchasing large amount of print materials / equipment or other distribution tools that are then flagged / targeted by a less than agreeable local political group to repress participation While federal laws "sound" nice, enforcement and targeting of most laws are still done by local, less arguably democratic practices

kevviiinn 3y ago
I was commenting on the absurdity that I perceive in the preceding comments. One person spoke about the "safe, invasion-proof" geography being stolen and the next person says that democracy is more than having a big stick. I'm agreeing with the person who said that it was stolen and that stealing had nothing to do with democracy I can add to this though that in a capitalist and supposed democratic state the majority theoretically has the stick but in reality the money has the stick, it was the same when colonists arrived in the US All laws in the end are enforced by the threat of violence. But in reality the laws don't matter a whole lot of you storm in with enough gunpower, hence the genocide
- selecsosi 3y ago
  Hear, hear