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.
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.