11 ms·

I know you don't follow my thought - that's fine. The issue, imo, is something of a lack of imagination. People in general see the government as a good thing,

I know you don't follow my thought - that's fine. The issue, imo, is something of a lack of imagination. People in general see the government as a good thing, rather than a wealth extraction method that people buy into. It has no right to do what it does. Think about it. Can I give you my right to tax someone? Can you give me a right to tax another? If we 2 get together, do our rights to tax someone else increase? The whole idea is nonsense - no one has a right to coerce money from another. I don't care if you call it mafia or government - there is no such right. So once an entity forcibly extracts wealth from people, and then sets up schools with those illicit gains and educates young people that what it does is right, does this now make it right? No. It does make it confusing for those people that have been "educated" though. If it then places itself as arbiter of 'good' and 'bad' and decides that cars are 'good' and it uses some of the illicit, forcibly extracted gains to create roads, is that right? If later it uses more illicit, forcibly extracted gains to tax the cars on roads, is that right? No - its still not right. The only thing it shows, is how incompetent the thing is, how useless for people, how arbitrary.

taeric 3y ago
I think this is an odd perspective, though? Yes, you absolutely have a right to "tax" people. Consider, if you have a building or other property that someone wants to use, you can totally setup a charge so that they can do so. Have a piece of farm/yard equipment that a neighbor could use? Feel free to charge them for that use. (Edit to add: you don't even have to charge them in local currency. Could be favors or good will. Those have the property that they are not fungible, of course, and that is part of what the tax on using fungible currency use supports.) Now, I can somewhat understand the discomfort on having an "entity" that has a monopoly on violence. But thinking that people only believe this is good because of forced education feels dishonest. There are tangible benefits to consolidating things. Just as their are benefits to having a "what comes after failure" plan for a lot of plans and efforts. If anything, I wish people could see failures in government is as normal as failures in a corporation. The big difference should only be that the government has a contract to pick up the pieces and either try again, or adjust future plans accordingly. Corporations are allowed to just flat out die.
- verisimi 3y ago
  If you have a piece of equipment or property that someone else wants to use, this is called rent - you can rent it to another, or not. It is not tax, which is forcibly extracted. What you call consolidation is perfectly natural. It occurs without government. Have you ever been to a large family gathering? No government required, but people work together naturally. However, if you want a whole class of people, living parasitically of the work of others, you need government. If you want to subsidise banks, the military, police, teachers, Elon, special pensions for government workers (bribes), etc, you can't do that without forcibly extracting the expense from everyone else. It's unlikely that anyone is volunteering to pay extra for these 'services'. The trick is to make everyone else things this is 'right', even though there is no moral basis for stealing, so they don't even question things. I daresay you wouldn't think it is ok to forcibly steal from your neighbours to provide a common good (eg repairing a private road). Why is is ok to do so, if you call yourself 'government'? There is no basis, except force. So, if you work things from a position of right and wrong, mine is not an odd perspective. I'm simply not advocating everyday use of force on everyone else. No one has the right to steal from another; if it is done, it is not right, it is wrong. I understand that this seems highly bizarre if you have accepted all the self-serving government nonsense you were taught at school.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Large families are often their own form of government. Complete with tons and tons of rather mixed fungible debts and obligations to each other. Is it exactly the same thing? Of course not. But to think that consolidation at all on the same level as our government happens all of the time is equally different. You are invested in the idea that people only think this through some form of indoctrination. Sadly, you are yourself using loaded language that is very typical of indoctrination to criticize the idea.
    - verisimi 3y ago
      > Sadly, you are yourself using loaded language that is very typical of indoctrination to criticize the idea. Can you give an example?

taeric 3y ago

I think this is an odd perspective, though? Yes, you absolutely have a right to "tax" people. Consider, if you have a building or other property that someone wants to use, you can totally setup a charge so that they can do so. Have a piece of farm/yard equipment that a neighbor could use? Feel free to charge them for that use. (Edit to add: you don't even have to charge them in local currency. Could be favors or good will. Those have the property that they are not fungible, of course, and that is part of what the tax on using fungible currency use supports.) Now, I can somewhat understand the discomfort on having an "entity" that has a monopoly on violence. But thinking that people only believe this is good because of forced education feels dishonest. There are tangible benefits to consolidating things. Just as their are benefits to having a "what comes after failure" plan for a lot of plans and efforts. If anything, I wish people could see failures in government is as normal as failures in a corporation. The big difference should only be that the government has a contract to pick up the pieces and either try again, or adjust future plans accordingly. Corporations are allowed to just flat out die.

verisimi 3y ago
If you have a piece of equipment or property that someone else wants to use, this is called rent - you can rent it to another, or not. It is not tax, which is forcibly extracted. What you call consolidation is perfectly natural. It occurs without government. Have you ever been to a large family gathering? No government required, but people work together naturally. However, if you want a whole class of people, living parasitically of the work of others, you need government. If you want to subsidise banks, the military, police, teachers, Elon, special pensions for government workers (bribes), etc, you can't do that without forcibly extracting the expense from everyone else. It's unlikely that anyone is volunteering to pay extra for these 'services'. The trick is to make everyone else things this is 'right', even though there is no moral basis for stealing, so they don't even question things. I daresay you wouldn't think it is ok to forcibly steal from your neighbours to provide a common good (eg repairing a private road). Why is is ok to do so, if you call yourself 'government'? There is no basis, except force. So, if you work things from a position of right and wrong, mine is not an odd perspective. I'm simply not advocating everyday use of force on everyone else. No one has the right to steal from another; if it is done, it is not right, it is wrong. I understand that this seems highly bizarre if you have accepted all the self-serving government nonsense you were taught at school.
- taeric 3y ago
  Large families are often their own form of government. Complete with tons and tons of rather mixed fungible debts and obligations to each other. Is it exactly the same thing? Of course not. But to think that consolidation at all on the same level as our government happens all of the time is equally different. You are invested in the idea that people only think this through some form of indoctrination. Sadly, you are yourself using loaded language that is very typical of indoctrination to criticize the idea.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    > Sadly, you are yourself using loaded language that is very typical of indoctrination to criticize the idea. Can you give an example?