Considering my stance is that all taxation is theft under threat of lethal force, you can take your pick on that one. Even the "good" uses of taxation is supplied through immoral means.
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
I swear, it seems more and more like far too many people ARE in fact reactionaries, not actually standing for any meaningful principles, but merely against change. And then when change does happen, you do nothing to even suggest the course be reversed!
Correct. This is a major problem.
We keep losing because you have nothing to win. When all you're looking to gain is the current status quo, in a world of compromise you will always lose. Every. Single. Time.
OK, but what is your proposal? Argue that there should be no taxation because <insert abstract principle> and that there should be Somalia-like anarchy? You think that is a winner?
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation
Yes.
or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
OK, but what is your proposal?
Figure it out yourself. And no, this isn't a sassy "I'm not telling you", that's literally the solution. You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems for you that you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there? Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery. And you blindly defend it, solely because......
Somalia-like anarchy
"Muh SoMaLiA"
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government. You fear the idea of standing on your own, so you choose a comfortable jail cell over a potentially dangerous freedom.
Your arguments hold no meaningful difference between gun grabbers and censors that utilise fear to convince you to relinquish freedoms, and to that I suggest why stop there? If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety, why stop there? Why not go all the way?
You think that is a winner?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
What's more is that your entire "argument" isn't even trying to take on my points. You know that ultimately they're not wrong. But because an ideology that is fundamentally against centralised systems doesn't offer a centralised solution to be applied to every single person, you're going to imply it's anarchists that are the utopians with these kinds of dismissals? It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
You'd have no 'fruits of your labor'.
You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems
Excuse me? Based on what?
you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
If you think you would be able to 'opt out' of taxes before 100 years ago, you have quite another thing coming. The most brutal treatment was always reserved for people who refused to pay taxes. And property taxes are way older than 100 years. E.g. see the taille in France.
But by all means. Please refer me to the jurisdiction that was run in the matter that you prefer. I'm fascinated.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there?
Well, it would mean no roads, no police, no army. Although at this point they've taken things to such extremes, that I honestly do prefer anarchy to their misrule.
Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery.
This is your worst argument. Slavery doesn't just mean that your labor is confiscated, it's human ownership. Taxes aren't just 'more steps' towards your owner raping you, whipping you and selling your wife and children away from you.
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government.
Good argument! It is not clear that Somalia's current state is for lack of government. But I would point you that the lack of strong states has resulted in slave raiding, mass banditry across roads, and all sorts of similar pathologies in places that were not shitholes, like England. No Leviathan means that it is a war of all against all.
If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety,
Do you mean to suggest that we would be equally safe with no police, no army, no roads, no law, just pure chaos?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
I might agree were it not for the fact that this will probably further shrink our chances of victory, where by 'us' I mean opponents of the regime. It's far better to seize control of the government apparatus, as fanciful as that seems, and use it for our ends.
You know that ultimately they're not wrong.
Government may be indistinguishable from piracy, as Augustine pointed out, but my argument is that the necessity for it lessens its evil.
It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.
And what if my problem is armed gangs of 30 men coming in, stealing everything I have and doing worse? How exactly am I to solve that? Now, I'm sure you'll come with some 'brilliant' suggestions like, well recruit the rest of your city and fight a pitched battle.
Do you think the average person is remotely equipped to do something like that? Or that he would consider it desirable to move a state where personal safety is no concern to one where you're never sure of your life?
Based on you determining that I, or any other person, needs to provide solutions to your problems, when again, the entire fucking premise is AGAINST a centralised model to force proposed solutions upon people. Shocking, I know. When the whole fucking point is that YOU should solve YOUR problems, turning to literally anyone else and saying "why aren't THEY solving MY problems?!" isn't a critique. It's literally saying it's not mine, or anyone else's place, to solve your problems for you.
If you think you would be able to 'opt out' of taxes before 100 years ago, you have quite another thing coming. The most brutal treatment was always reserved for people who refused to pay taxes. And property taxes are way older than 100 years. E.g. see the taille in France.
And that justifies it how?
Well, it would mean no roads, no police, no army. Although at this point they've taken things to such extremes, that I honestly do prefer anarchy to their misrule
Oh no! Not MUH ROADS argument. What an utterly boring and overdone argument. As to the police and army, yes, that is the idea. And it's funny because you imply that they're ultimately evil and yet you're still advocating that this evil needs to exist for no other reason that that's what's always existed.
This is your worst argument. Slavery doesn't just mean that your labor is confiscated, it's human ownership. Taxes aren't just 'more steps' towards your owner raping you, whipping you and selling your wife and children away from you.
A benevolent ruler is no less a ruler, slave. And what's more is that under actual freedom, you'd still be entirely free to band together and pay whatever levies and fees you wish. That's entirely your prerogative. You just can't force people to. And ultimately, that is what you're objecting it. It's not voluntary co-operation, you're outright advocating for INvoluntary "co-operation".
Do you mean to suggest that we would be equally safe with no police, no army, no roads, no law, just pure chaos?
Do you truly believe yourself safe right now? Because if you do, then perhaps you, personally, deserve the servitude you so eagerly seek. Also I see you there MUH ROADS. Fuck, statists really look at the failing infrastructure and say "yeah, THIS is my defence", all while ignoring that in any other discussion you would eagerly and rightfully condemn the shameful state of infrastructure in nearly every society out there, with MAYBE exception to Japan (and then ignore every other failure of Japan's government, like their rampant corruption).
It's far better to seize control of the government apparatus, as fanciful as that seems, and use it for our ends.
Not once in your life have you even voted for a member of government that you whole-heartedly and truly supported. You can lie to me any way you like about that, but ultimately you know that every single vote you have ever cast has been a lesser of, ultimately, two choices. You imply me delusional and utopian, yet here you are dreaming up the most fanciable tale imaginable all to justify utilising force against innocent people who disagree with you on how they should run their own lives.
Government may be indistinguishable from piracy, as Augustine pointed out, but my argument is that the necessity for it lessens its evil.
Again, there is no such thing as a "necessary" evil. It's a lie you tell yourself to ignore your own support of evil measures that you otherwise couldn't reconcile, by pretending that you never had any choice in the matter as you wilfully and ultimately gleefully comply.
And what if my problem is armed gangs of 30 men coming in, stealing everything I have and doing worse? How exactly am I to solve that? Now, I'm sure you'll come with some 'brilliant' suggestions like, well recruit the rest of your city and fight a pitched battle.
You balk and mock, but you pretend like that it's a viable solution. Why do you need to achieve this de facto militia via force? Why do you need to maintain what is ultimately a protection racket. Seriously, it's "pay up, or we'll wreck your shit". And you're unironically defending that.
Do you think the average person is remotely equipped to do something like that?
As an individual? Nope. But this is the problem with you fucking statists. You're so fucking broken that you don't even see how your arguments so often mirror unironic rape apologists. Seriously, is there any difference between the people who use arguments like "I'll only have to get violent if you don't comply" and "You complied so the threat of violence is irrelevant and it was consensual"? You're both ultimately abusing people for your own benefit.
Had I gone back and approached this as "voluntarism" rather than the anarchy angle (a distinction that holds virtually no difference between the two, mind you), and presented it as a flowery utopia of people helping people because most people are inclined to help one another in mutual benefit, you'd have been far more receptive to the idea. But because I pegged the reality of the state being one that operates upon the very real, ever present "do what I say or else" model, you've gotten defensive of "necessary" evil. You didn't have to. You don't even want to. But you did. You went to bat for evil of what little free will you ultimately have. And you don't see anything wrong with it either. You don't even want to second guess yourself. Because it's so uncomfortable having to come to the reality that for all your life you went along with it all because it benefitted you. You were fine with every single negative your collectivist methodology brought about, because you got yours.
Have fun Tony. Make whatever comment you want. I know anarchy isn't palatable to everyone, but it doesn't have to be. The idea that it should be palatable is ultimately just to appease delicate sensibilities that don't want to think about just how unsafe the world actually is. And I've spent my days arguing about anarchism in the past. So make unfair comparisons, turn to shitholes that have been explicitly fucked by government and tyrants, and then pretend like it's because there actually wasn't enough government. You embrace that "necessary" evil. Whatever it takes so you can have "MUH ROADS". Because remember, for every Somalia you bring up, we can just as easily point to the fucked courts of Japan, the drug lords of Mexico, the tyranny of China. Each and every single one is an explicit failure of government that, supposedly, took on the duty to protect its citizens and either failed or abused them themselves. That's the team you're going to bat for. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to say "well, I only support abusing people when there are benefits". You get it all. Anarchists acknowledge the truth of anarchy. And you refuse to rightfully credit government for all of their eternal failures.
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
Correct. This is a major problem.
OK, but what is your proposal? Argue that there should be no taxation because <insert abstract principle> and that there should be Somalia-like anarchy? You think that is a winner?
Yes.
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
Figure it out yourself. And no, this isn't a sassy "I'm not telling you", that's literally the solution. You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems for you that you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there? Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery. And you blindly defend it, solely because......
"Muh SoMaLiA"
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government. You fear the idea of standing on your own, so you choose a comfortable jail cell over a potentially dangerous freedom.
Your arguments hold no meaningful difference between gun grabbers and censors that utilise fear to convince you to relinquish freedoms, and to that I suggest why stop there? If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety, why stop there? Why not go all the way?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
What's more is that your entire "argument" isn't even trying to take on my points. You know that ultimately they're not wrong. But because an ideology that is fundamentally against centralised systems doesn't offer a centralised solution to be applied to every single person, you're going to imply it's anarchists that are the utopians with these kinds of dismissals? It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.
You'd have no 'fruits of your labor'.
Excuse me? Based on what?
If you think you would be able to 'opt out' of taxes before 100 years ago, you have quite another thing coming. The most brutal treatment was always reserved for people who refused to pay taxes. And property taxes are way older than 100 years. E.g. see the taille in France.
But by all means. Please refer me to the jurisdiction that was run in the matter that you prefer. I'm fascinated.
Well, it would mean no roads, no police, no army. Although at this point they've taken things to such extremes, that I honestly do prefer anarchy to their misrule.
This is your worst argument. Slavery doesn't just mean that your labor is confiscated, it's human ownership. Taxes aren't just 'more steps' towards your owner raping you, whipping you and selling your wife and children away from you.
Good argument! It is not clear that Somalia's current state is for lack of government. But I would point you that the lack of strong states has resulted in slave raiding, mass banditry across roads, and all sorts of similar pathologies in places that were not shitholes, like England. No Leviathan means that it is a war of all against all.
Do you mean to suggest that we would be equally safe with no police, no army, no roads, no law, just pure chaos?
I might agree were it not for the fact that this will probably further shrink our chances of victory, where by 'us' I mean opponents of the regime. It's far better to seize control of the government apparatus, as fanciful as that seems, and use it for our ends.
Government may be indistinguishable from piracy, as Augustine pointed out, but my argument is that the necessity for it lessens its evil.
And what if my problem is armed gangs of 30 men coming in, stealing everything I have and doing worse? How exactly am I to solve that? Now, I'm sure you'll come with some 'brilliant' suggestions like, well recruit the rest of your city and fight a pitched battle.
Do you think the average person is remotely equipped to do something like that? Or that he would consider it desirable to move a state where personal safety is no concern to one where you're never sure of your life?
Based on you determining that I, or any other person, needs to provide solutions to your problems, when again, the entire fucking premise is AGAINST a centralised model to force proposed solutions upon people. Shocking, I know. When the whole fucking point is that YOU should solve YOUR problems, turning to literally anyone else and saying "why aren't THEY solving MY problems?!" isn't a critique. It's literally saying it's not mine, or anyone else's place, to solve your problems for you.
And that justifies it how?
Oh no! Not MUH ROADS argument. What an utterly boring and overdone argument. As to the police and army, yes, that is the idea. And it's funny because you imply that they're ultimately evil and yet you're still advocating that this evil needs to exist for no other reason that that's what's always existed.
A benevolent ruler is no less a ruler, slave. And what's more is that under actual freedom, you'd still be entirely free to band together and pay whatever levies and fees you wish. That's entirely your prerogative. You just can't force people to. And ultimately, that is what you're objecting it. It's not voluntary co-operation, you're outright advocating for INvoluntary "co-operation".
Do you truly believe yourself safe right now? Because if you do, then perhaps you, personally, deserve the servitude you so eagerly seek. Also I see you there MUH ROADS. Fuck, statists really look at the failing infrastructure and say "yeah, THIS is my defence", all while ignoring that in any other discussion you would eagerly and rightfully condemn the shameful state of infrastructure in nearly every society out there, with MAYBE exception to Japan (and then ignore every other failure of Japan's government, like their rampant corruption).
Not once in your life have you even voted for a member of government that you whole-heartedly and truly supported. You can lie to me any way you like about that, but ultimately you know that every single vote you have ever cast has been a lesser of, ultimately, two choices. You imply me delusional and utopian, yet here you are dreaming up the most fanciable tale imaginable all to justify utilising force against innocent people who disagree with you on how they should run their own lives.
Again, there is no such thing as a "necessary" evil. It's a lie you tell yourself to ignore your own support of evil measures that you otherwise couldn't reconcile, by pretending that you never had any choice in the matter as you wilfully and ultimately gleefully comply.
You balk and mock, but you pretend like that it's a viable solution. Why do you need to achieve this de facto militia via force? Why do you need to maintain what is ultimately a protection racket. Seriously, it's "pay up, or we'll wreck your shit". And you're unironically defending that.
As an individual? Nope. But this is the problem with you fucking statists. You're so fucking broken that you don't even see how your arguments so often mirror unironic rape apologists. Seriously, is there any difference between the people who use arguments like "I'll only have to get violent if you don't comply" and "You complied so the threat of violence is irrelevant and it was consensual"? You're both ultimately abusing people for your own benefit.
Had I gone back and approached this as "voluntarism" rather than the anarchy angle (a distinction that holds virtually no difference between the two, mind you), and presented it as a flowery utopia of people helping people because most people are inclined to help one another in mutual benefit, you'd have been far more receptive to the idea. But because I pegged the reality of the state being one that operates upon the very real, ever present "do what I say or else" model, you've gotten defensive of "necessary" evil. You didn't have to. You don't even want to. But you did. You went to bat for evil of what little free will you ultimately have. And you don't see anything wrong with it either. You don't even want to second guess yourself. Because it's so uncomfortable having to come to the reality that for all your life you went along with it all because it benefitted you. You were fine with every single negative your collectivist methodology brought about, because you got yours.
Have fun Tony. Make whatever comment you want. I know anarchy isn't palatable to everyone, but it doesn't have to be. The idea that it should be palatable is ultimately just to appease delicate sensibilities that don't want to think about just how unsafe the world actually is. And I've spent my days arguing about anarchism in the past. So make unfair comparisons, turn to shitholes that have been explicitly fucked by government and tyrants, and then pretend like it's because there actually wasn't enough government. You embrace that "necessary" evil. Whatever it takes so you can have "MUH ROADS". Because remember, for every Somalia you bring up, we can just as easily point to the fucked courts of Japan, the drug lords of Mexico, the tyranny of China. Each and every single one is an explicit failure of government that, supposedly, took on the duty to protect its citizens and either failed or abused them themselves. That's the team you're going to bat for. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to say "well, I only support abusing people when there are benefits". You get it all. Anarchists acknowledge the truth of anarchy. And you refuse to rightfully credit government for all of their eternal failures.