Why are people scared of taxes?

[Severian]

I see less trustworthy people than I see people who look malicious.

I agree with you. No one deserves trust unless they've earned it. My default mode is neutral until someone proves themselves to be trustworthy or a crook. But I can trust that the majority of people I've run across in this life aren't out to commit force or fraud upon my, or anyone else's, person.

The small minority that are criminals will always show themselves if one knows what to look for. That takes time and experience to learn, mostly by getting burned by one or two.

[1714545854]

1714545854

[1714545854]

1714545854

[Arto]

I'm saying that EVERYONE is a potential criminal. What s crime but a list of definitions provided by authority?

By such a definition of 'crime', it would indeed be hard to disagree with you. As in:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

To challenge your view of human nature and your consequent acceptance of the legitimacy of the state's definition of what constitutes a 'crime', you might wish to familiarize yourself with Steven Pinker's rather seminal book The Blank Slate.

It turns out that humans do have a nature, and that therefore human universals do exist. Such universals include understanding, at all times and all places, what constitute actual crimes: murder, rape, theft, etc. Any other 'crimes' are merely decrees of some state or another.

Further, reading up on some of the many stateless societies of the past (good examples would be ancient Ireland, ancient Iceland, and the not-so-wild Wild West) will vividly demonstrate that civil society is an emergent phenomenon that does not require a coercive government to 'run' it. From such a biological and historical perspective, it is then not a large leap to arrive at viewing the state as a cancer rather than a necessary evil.

[dank]

It's humanity's ego.  The cause of greed and coercion will always relate back to the ego.  As more people become self-aware of their ego and how their actions directly affect their lives and people around them, more people will chose to act out of love rather than ego.

People only act malicious or greedy because they think it'll help them get somewhere in life.  It's a big misconception that the best way to help yourself is to help yourself, when in reality, the best way to help yourself is to help others.  More people are catching on and we will soon reach a point when humanity disbands ego, entirely.

[Severian]

you might wish to familiarize yourself with Steven Pinker's rather seminal book The Blank Slate.

Spooner and Pinker. I like this Arto guy.

[Kontakt]

I see less trustworthy people than I see people who look malicious.

I agree with you. No one deserves trust unless they've earned it. My default mode is neutral until someone proves themselves to be trustworthy or a crook. But I can trust that the majority of people I've run across in this life aren't out to commit force or fraud upon my, or anyone else's, person.

The small minority that are criminals will always show themselves if one knows what to look for. That takes time and experience to learn, mostly by getting burned by one or two.

I've been burned enough to know the signs. I know the majority of people right now aren't out for my blood, but I can't attribute that simply to human nature. I've watched far too many apocalypse movies for that.

I'm saying that EVERYONE is a potential criminal. What s crime but a list of definitions provided by authority?

By such a definition of 'crime', it would indeed be hard to disagree with you. As in:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

To challenge your view of human nature and your consequent acceptance of the legitimacy of the state's definition of what constitutes a 'crime', you might wish to familiarize yourself with Steven Pinker's rather seminal book The Blank Slate.

It turns out that humans do have a nature, and that therefore human universals do exist. Such universals include understanding, at all times and all places, what constitute actual crimes: murder, rape, theft, etc. Any other 'crimes' are merely decrees of some state or another.

Further, reading up on some of the many stateless societies of the past (good examples would be ancient Ireland, ancient Iceland, and the not-so-wild Wild West) will vividly demonstrate that civil society is an emergent phenomenon that does not require a coercive government to 'run' it. From such a biological and historical perspective, it is then not a large leap to arrive at viewing the state as a cancer rather than a necessary evil.

I'll have to see if my library  has that book. The problem comes in enforcing crimes. Without any sort of registry, I say john stole my car. John says it has always been his car. How can anyone know what side to be on, or even who to go to for arbitration?

[dank]

That's why crimes must be enforced before they happen, at the conscious level.

[Richy_T]

I'll have to see if my library  has that book. The problem comes in enforcing crimes. Without any sort of registry, I say john stole my car. John says it has always been his car. How can anyone know what side to be on, or even who to go to for arbitration?

This is why anything anyone could possibly own is registered in a government controlled database.

[Kontakt]

I'll have to see if my library  has that book. The problem comes in enforcing crimes. Without any sort of registry, I say john stole my car. John says it has always been his car. How can anyone know what side to be on, or even who to go to for arbitration?

This is why anything anyone could possibly own is registered in a government controlled database.

Right, that was my point. This example was in a situation without government and that database.

[Arto]

I'm saying that EVERYONE is a potential criminal. What s crime but a list of definitions provided by authority?

By such a definition of 'crime', it would indeed be hard to disagree with you. As in:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

To challenge your view of human nature and your consequent acceptance of the legitimacy of the state's definition of what constitutes a 'crime', you might wish to familiarize yourself with Steven Pinker's rather seminal book The Blank Slate.

It turns out that humans do have a nature, and that therefore human universals do exist. Such universals include understanding, at all times and all places, what constitute actual crimes: murder, rape, theft, etc. Any other 'crimes' are merely decrees of some state or another.

Further, reading up on some of the many stateless societies of the past (good examples would be ancient Ireland, ancient Iceland, and the not-so-wild Wild West) will vividly demonstrate that civil society is an emergent phenomenon that does not require a coercive government to 'run' it. From such a biological and historical perspective, it is then not a large leap to arrive at viewing the state as a cancer rather than a necessary evil.

I'll have to see if my library  has that book. The problem comes in enforcing crimes. Without any sort of registry, I say john stole my car. John says it has always been his car. How can anyone know what side to be on, or even who to go to for arbitration?

Since I have never lived in a stateless society, but only state-dominated ones, it's hard to speak from personal experience to all the particulars of how various things might function in a free society. History, however, tells us that they have, and that they would. Useful state functions, from property registries to dispute arbitration to law enforcement, have all in the past been provided by market actors.

For your trip to the library, here are three additional very enlightening books: The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman, The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard, and The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill. (You can probably find them online as well.)

Ignore the political content in the first two books if that's not your cup of tea, just go for the highly educational chapters on the historical examples I mentioned in my previous post. The third book speaks most directly to your concerns, using examples from the American West before the government took over.

In fact, this forum is a good example for how private law and arbitration emerge. Most recently, since he has not stepped forward to defend himself against the charges leveled at him, Nefario has now effectively been declared an outlaw and will be actively ostracized by the community. (In the old days in Iceland, being an outlaw would have meant that he was literally "outside the law" and could e.g. be killed without suffering any legal consequences.)

[Kontakt]

That's pretty neat.

I'll be sure to look those books up.
To be ignorant is bad, but to be willfully so, much worse.

[Richy_T]

I'll have to see if my library  has that book. The problem comes in enforcing crimes. Without any sort of registry, I say john stole my car. John says it has always been his car. How can anyone know what side to be on, or even who to go to for arbitration?

This is why anything anyone could possibly own is registered in a government controlled database.

Right, that was my point. This example was in a situation without government and that database.

But not everything is. Cars are not registered for the purpose of determining ownership in the case of theft (though it provides a handy way for the government to multiple-tax people on the sale of used goods), it is so that they can track people down who might otherwise be hard to identify in the commission of a crime. But I'm not sure where you're going with this anyway.

[dank]

The law of nature is the most pure and balanced law in existence.

[Kontakt]

The law of nature is the most pure and balanced law in existence.

I'd disagree with that one. Survival of the fittest is not pure or balanced. Effective, yes.

[nobbynobbynoob]

you might wish to familiarize yourself with Steven Pinker's rather seminal book The Blank Slate.

Spooner and Pinker. I like this Arto guy.

Yes, do you think he's a - gasp! - anarchist? I'd better put a penny in his tip jar.

[dank]

The law of nature is the most pure and balanced law in existence.

I'd disagree with that one. Survival of the fittest is not pure or balanced. Effective, yes.

I didn't mean survival of the fittest.  Nature is an equilibrium of everything, it corrects itself, always.

[Kontakt]

To an extent. We can totally mess up the planet's biosphere and turn it into a barren rock pretty easily.

[Richy_T]

To an extent. We can totally mess up the planet's biosphere and turn it into a barren rock pretty easily.

Even if you believe in CAGW with all your heart, that's a pretty outre statement.

[dank]

That would only change the planet, temporarily, it would have no real impact on the nature of the universe.

And I would argue, that would not be an easy task, by any means.

[Kontakt]

My internet cut out there. I concede it would not be easy at all, but it could be done. Ironically, it would only be possible through a concerted effort on the part of the world government.

Wiping out humanity is trivial, however. This drives my ambition to create colonies on other planets, moons and solar systems. Even if the earth were destroyed, the colonies may be able to survive if properly designed. That's why I don't particularly bother with taxes or social injustice. If the earth human life on earth were to be destroyed, none of that will matter. So, I focus on my studies so I can make colonies happen. That and spend large amounts of time on forums discussing trivialities.

[dank]

Wouldn't it make a little more sense to confront the problem, rather than running from it?  Nothing against space colonization, but man's corruption must be fixed at a conscious level or those colonies would be subject to the same causatum.