rocking-dave, problems will always exist in any society. It doesn't mean we should force others to solve them for us. If you believe in the concept of government and authority, you believe politicians have the right to coerce others using threats of force if they don't comply with the politicians' laws.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
None of this is what I'm saying.
When did I say a society without problems is possible? What I'm saying is that even mediocre democratic government provides more solutions to problems than anarchy.
I love it when somebody else tells me what I believe ;) But nope.
I understand why people find voluntarism morally desirable. What I don't understand is why they think it's feasible or why would you expect to have more real freedom under that than under contemporary democracy. I mentioned at least crucial benefits that having some form of organization allows. I keep asking how those would emerge from a free market, but my questions keep falling on deaf ears.
Instead I get explanations how one of its basic principles is supposedly moral. That by no means demonstrates that the idea is not utopian. To show that something is not utopian you need to somehow demonstrate or at least hint at a mechanism that could make it happen well in practice. That's the piece of the puzzle that has me unconvinced.
This is patently false: "even mediocre democratic government provides more solutions to problems than anarchy." Democratic governments--in fact, democratically-elected constitutional republics--commit more oppression, robbery and murder than any other institution in the history of the world. Right NOW you are robbed far more by the state than by anyone else. You have been taught to believe that "government" keeps people civilized, but that is absolutely 100% bullshit. The ONLY thing the belief in "authority" adds to society is more IMMORAL violence, and the legitimization of that violence.
I hope you didn't really mean that literally. I'm sure feudal societies offered so much more freedom to peasants than today's world. Or societies where most people were slaves. Or the human-sacrificing crazy religious ones. Or North Korea. How can you even say that?
The assertion that taxation is violence is almost as large of an exaggeration as what you wrote above.
Taxation is theft under threat of violence. The more you resist it the higher the violence becomes.
If you don't believe that stop paying "your" taxes and guess what happens:
Outcome 2 is the most likely.
As to the quoted bit I'd be inclined to agree with it. Feudal regimes that became too over bearing were overthrown. Modern people are so conditioned that they don't believe taxation is theft under threat of violence... and so the oppression will get a lot worse before enough people decide that enough is enough.
Taxation can be theft or violence if you claim that all the government-issued paper you manage to get your hands on in the context of said government is legitimately and naturally yours. That's not that easy of a case to make decisively I think.
When living in a society, you are indeed forced to cooperate and that's inevitable. Taxation in the context of democracy is the best practical model we have so far. If we get a better one, I would love to get rid of it. I don't like my taxes going into the pockets of corrupt politicians either. Just explain to me how we get rid of it all and end up with something better.
If you claim that modern people are less free and more oppressed than feudal peasants, I really don't know what to say. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but that's ridiculous.