4 ms·

99% of the time we all successfully exercise disobedience in our personal life. We meet with people we like and then do not meet when we don't like them. It inc

99% of the time we all successfully exercise disobedience in our personal life. We meet with people we like and then do not meet when we don't like them. It includes relatives, friends, coworkers, small shops, big shops etc. 99% of the time you voluntarily decide when to devote your time, money and attention to someone and when to stop doing it. 99% of your life is a wonderful peaceful anarchy. Now there is state. You cannot decide not to provide funds to the state when it behaves the way you dislike. Even if you hide your taxes, the state controls all your currency and prints it for itself without asking you. You cannot simply choose another currency. You can move out — to another state just like yours or worse. You are only allowed to make a humble limited input every 4 years in a form of choosing who will tax you. There is nothing strange or bad in disobedience. You do it everyday in your life. It's only state propaganda which starts from the early age at school that keeps people terrified at the idea that they are simply bullied to give money for wars, police, spying and terrorising people around them. Under the premise of "social good", of course.

mpyne 13y ago
> 99% of your life is a wonderful peaceful anarchy. Even the time I spend in traffic has already exceeded your timeframe of "wonderful anarchy". Not to mention all the other personal matters that I could theoretically choose to do, if I were a douchebag. What if I choose not to spend time with my children? Or to say 'Hello' to my wife? Am I sticking it to The Man with my rugged individualism? > You cannot simply choose another currency Sure you can. Just make sure to convert enough of it to legal tender when it comes time to pay the taxes that paid for your schooling (and the schooling of those idiots you interact with everyday), the environmental inspectors and regulators, medical researchers, Peace Corps works, USAID, etc.
- oleganza 13y ago
  Do you want to say that you say "hello" to your wife because of some law enforcement? I think, no amount of enforcement will make your children or wife happy if you decide to leave them. Voluntarism and peace does not mean everyone must be happy. It means everyone has ability to seek happiness without violent barricades. And there is a difference between "we take your money, then educate you" vs. "you pay voluntarily and then we educate you". If my parents were forced to pay for my school, I'm not obliged to be thankful for my education. Otherwise, how can I then be really thankful when I learned voluntarily with people I chose?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > And there is a difference between "we take your money, then educate you" vs. "you pay voluntarily and then we educate you". By remaining a citizen and staying in the country you agree to do these things though. The "social safety net" does not pay for itself, whether you're a liberal or a libertarian or an anarchist. i.e. by being here you have caused the state to have to provide for you in some regard, whether it's delivering mail to you, accounting for you in a census, medical emergency services, protection from the other citizens, military defense, safe transit from one spot to the next, and far, far more. The exchange to that is that you contribute some fair share to pay that back. If you end up paying more today then that's OK, because the state paid more when you were a child and will likely pay much more when you're elderly. If that's something you personally don't like then I would recommend renouncing your citizenship and moving somewhere where taxes cannot be enforced. That or working to fix the government you're in to magically provide no services and therefore require no taxes. > If my parents were forced to pay for my school, I'm not obliged to be thankful for my education. I might at least thank my parents, but perhaps that's just me.
    - oleganza 13y ago
      You are describing a relationship with the state as a contractual agreement. Then I guess you have some theory of property rights (btw, I myself don't have any such theory, I only advocate not using violence while resolving issues). That is, according to your theory, state has made something useful belonging to it and then provided it to me on condition that I play by its rules. Am I right? Now the question to you is how do you define property rights and how exactly state legitimately acquires property? You cannot use the same argument shifted one generation back ("it was paid by previous users of the state") because it'll be circular argument. There must be some valid legitimate source of good produced by the state (who exactly, btw?) before anyone was taxed. I believe there never was any legitimate source of state income which then can be "traded" with you for taxes. It was always violent extraction first, then questionable "service" after that. Because logically, if there were no violence in the first place, it would never be called "tax", but "payment". No one would ever talk about "giving fair share" and "contributing to society". If there was a private gathering of individuals who voluntarily raised money and made some service, they wouldn't need to make any propaganda about how good it is to pay. Because there wouldn't be any violence to justify with moral commandments.
adaml_623 13y ago
"You can move out — to another state just like yours or worse." That's a bit pessimistic. You can move to a state is like yours, or worse, or better. Let's keep aiming for better
PavlovsCat 13y ago
There is nothing strange or bad in disobedience. You do it everyday in your life. Consider birds, dogs, cats, whatever! It seems that just about any "advanced" (for lack of a better word, don't mean a value judgement) animal is rather picky about whom with and how they interact. When they become quiet and passive, they are either sick, poisoned or dying, or domesticated and broken.... or domesticated and with friends they know they can trust. Voluntary co-operation is awesome, accepting legitimate authority in a given circumstance is smart and necessary (like trusting parents one shouldn't run into the streets just because they say so), but blind submission, unless it's roleplay or whatever, what is that good for? Honest question, because from what I can tell, not even any "owners" win anything. A leash, any violence or trickery always transforms the people on both ends into slaves. So, what gives? (oh, and if someone were to say that not driving over other people with your car is a leash, I think that would say more about them, than about leashes)

mpyne 13y ago

> 99% of your life is a wonderful peaceful anarchy. Even the time I spend in traffic has already exceeded your timeframe of "wonderful anarchy". Not to mention all the other personal matters that I could theoretically choose to do, if I were a douchebag. What if I choose not to spend time with my children? Or to say 'Hello' to my wife? Am I sticking it to The Man with my rugged individualism? > You cannot simply choose another currency Sure you can. Just make sure to convert enough of it to legal tender when it comes time to pay the taxes that paid for your schooling (and the schooling of those idiots you interact with everyday), the environmental inspectors and regulators, medical researchers, Peace Corps works, USAID, etc.

oleganza 13y ago
Do you want to say that you say "hello" to your wife because of some law enforcement? I think, no amount of enforcement will make your children or wife happy if you decide to leave them. Voluntarism and peace does not mean everyone must be happy. It means everyone has ability to seek happiness without violent barricades. And there is a difference between "we take your money, then educate you" vs. "you pay voluntarily and then we educate you". If my parents were forced to pay for my school, I'm not obliged to be thankful for my education. Otherwise, how can I then be really thankful when I learned voluntarily with people I chose?
- mpyne 13y ago
  > And there is a difference between "we take your money, then educate you" vs. "you pay voluntarily and then we educate you". By remaining a citizen and staying in the country you agree to do these things though. The "social safety net" does not pay for itself, whether you're a liberal or a libertarian or an anarchist. i.e. by being here you have caused the state to have to provide for you in some regard, whether it's delivering mail to you, accounting for you in a census, medical emergency services, protection from the other citizens, military defense, safe transit from one spot to the next, and far, far more. The exchange to that is that you contribute some fair share to pay that back. If you end up paying more today then that's OK, because the state paid more when you were a child and will likely pay much more when you're elderly. If that's something you personally don't like then I would recommend renouncing your citizenship and moving somewhere where taxes cannot be enforced. That or working to fix the government you're in to magically provide no services and therefore require no taxes. > If my parents were forced to pay for my school, I'm not obliged to be thankful for my education. I might at least thank my parents, but perhaps that's just me.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    You are describing a relationship with the state as a contractual agreement. Then I guess you have some theory of property rights (btw, I myself don't have any such theory, I only advocate not using violence while resolving issues). That is, according to your theory, state has made something useful belonging to it and then provided it to me on condition that I play by its rules. Am I right? Now the question to you is how do you define property rights and how exactly state legitimately acquires property? You cannot use the same argument shifted one generation back ("it was paid by previous users of the state") because it'll be circular argument. There must be some valid legitimate source of good produced by the state (who exactly, btw?) before anyone was taxed. I believe there never was any legitimate source of state income which then can be "traded" with you for taxes. It was always violent extraction first, then questionable "service" after that. Because logically, if there were no violence in the first place, it would never be called "tax", but "payment". No one would ever talk about "giving fair share" and "contributing to society". If there was a private gathering of individuals who voluntarily raised money and made some service, they wouldn't need to make any propaganda about how good it is to pay. Because there wouldn't be any violence to justify with moral commandments.

adaml_623 13y ago

"You can move out — to another state just like yours or worse." That's a bit pessimistic. You can move to a state is like yours, or worse, or better. Let's keep aiming for better

PavlovsCat 13y ago

There is nothing strange or bad in disobedience. You do it everyday in your life. Consider birds, dogs, cats, whatever! It seems that just about any "advanced" (for lack of a better word, don't mean a value judgement) animal is rather picky about whom with and how they interact. When they become quiet and passive, they are either sick, poisoned or dying, or domesticated and broken.... or domesticated and with friends they know they can trust. Voluntary co-operation is awesome, accepting legitimate authority in a given circumstance is smart and necessary (like trusting parents one shouldn't run into the streets just because they say so), but blind submission, unless it's roleplay or whatever, what is that good for? Honest question, because from what I can tell, not even any "owners" win anything. A leash, any violence or trickery always transforms the people on both ends into slaves. So, what gives? (oh, and if someone were to say that not driving over other people with your car is a leash, I think that would say more about them, than about leashes)