8 ms·

I tried but failed to follow what you're arguing for, since you're mixing too many concepts. To respond on your main question though, I simply can't see a worl

by mihaic 2y ago

I tried but failed to follow what you're arguing for, since you're mixing too many concepts. To respond on your main question though, I simply can't see a world where states that don't collect taxes to raise an army don't simply get dominated by those that do.

kkfx 2y ago
I see them, simply: who makes the money? If it's the State than the State made the money it's economy need period. Money are just units of measure of a substrate. An army is not made with money but with humans, foods, buildings, vehicles, ... they are in turn built by the country people, industries, agriculture and via commerce. The fact you can't understand (beside my poor English, sorry) is a proof you live so much in a society POISONED by the current economical cleptocracy that you can't imaging something else, but actually most countries in the world in the past and various in the present do own their own money. China is an example, Russia is another. Why they are so powerful and remain powerful and gain ground against the west? Because of that. Because they run on industries, natural resources, etc not on finance. We was the most powerful when we have done the very same. It's not a matter of pseudo-democracies, it's a matter of who rule the State. Bankers who rule the west are very effective in PRs, but fails in the real world. They flourish out of a functional industrial system, then they demolish it and they can't recover because themselves fails to distinguish the unit of measure and the things they measure with. BTW it's an old adage "a State try to resolve a crisis with taxes is like a man putting his feet in a bucket try to lift himself lifting the handle".
- mihaic 2y ago
  I'm trying to give honest feedback here: it's not that I can't understand your English, the structure of your comment is confusing. You seem to mix your main points with your arguments in a way where it's not clear which is which for instance. And just to make it clear, I also think the economy is absurdly out of touch with reality, and we do seem to live in a plutocracy, but what can we do with "taxes are an invention"? I agree with many of the things you said, but it's honestly too abstract to be of any use.

by mihaic 2y ago

kkfx 2y ago

I see them, simply: who makes the money? If it's the State than the State made the money it's economy need period. Money are just units of measure of a substrate. An army is not made with money but with humans, foods, buildings, vehicles, ... they are in turn built by the country people, industries, agriculture and via commerce. The fact you can't understand (beside my poor English, sorry) is a proof you live so much in a society POISONED by the current economical cleptocracy that you can't imaging something else, but actually most countries in the world in the past and various in the present do own their own money. China is an example, Russia is another. Why they are so powerful and remain powerful and gain ground against the west? Because of that. Because they run on industries, natural resources, etc not on finance. We was the most powerful when we have done the very same. It's not a matter of pseudo-democracies, it's a matter of who rule the State. Bankers who rule the west are very effective in PRs, but fails in the real world. They flourish out of a functional industrial system, then they demolish it and they can't recover because themselves fails to distinguish the unit of measure and the things they measure with. BTW it's an old adage "a State try to resolve a crisis with taxes is like a man putting his feet in a bucket try to lift himself lifting the handle".

mihaic 2y ago
I'm trying to give honest feedback here: it's not that I can't understand your English, the structure of your comment is confusing. You seem to mix your main points with your arguments in a way where it's not clear which is which for instance. And just to make it clear, I also think the economy is absurdly out of touch with reality, and we do seem to live in a plutocracy, but what can we do with "taxes are an invention"? I agree with many of the things you said, but it's honestly too abstract to be of any use.