I will admit something...

[FreeMoney]

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

If the slaves feel fulfilled and by all means happy, sure.

So it only works if it is voluntary?

If the majority of sentient organisms must experience the illusion/or actually the freedom of association and freedom as individuals in order to be happy, so be it.

So you'll let me be free if you think I need to be free to be happy or if I think I need to be free?

Well, my permission isn't relevant. Think of societal structures.

Maybe it doesn't matter about your permission/condoning, but you did start a thread about it.

Let me rephrase, is it NOT okay with you if I am NOT free when I want to be? Or do you only desire me to be free when some other entity (a societal structure?) thinks I need to be free to be happy?

[1715314678]

1715314678

[1715314678]

1715314678

[1715314678]

1715314678

[BombaUcigasa]

What is this communism theme going on around the forum?!

Would there be an incentive for you to work all your life to improve the life of both you and your children, if the state would confiscate your assets when you die and you couldn't leave anything behind?

[kokjo]

What is this communism theme going on around the forum?!

Would there be an incentive for you to work all your life to improve the life of both you and your children, if the state would confiscate your assets when you die and you couldn't leave anything behind?

no one is talking about confiscate anything here... we are just talking freedom vs. happiness.
keep to the topic, and stop the troll communism-is-evil crap.

[Anonymous]

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

If the slaves feel fulfilled and by all means happy, sure.

So it only works if it is voluntary?

If the majority of sentient organisms must experience the illusion/or actually the freedom of association and freedom as individuals in order to be happy, so be it.

So you'll let me be free if you think I need to be free to be happy or if I think I need to be free?

Well, my permission isn't relevant. Think of societal structures.

Maybe it doesn't matter about your permission/condoning, but you did start a thread about it.

Let me rephrase, is it NOT okay with you if I am NOT free when I want to be? Or do you only desire me to be free when some other entity (a societal structure?) thinks I need to be free to be happy?

I desire that you are sustained happily and if it requires that you thrive on being able to sustain yourself, so be it. Try to see the meaning in what I am trying to do here.

[K_Man_Alpha]

Back on topic ......my take is: if you don't like taxes... then put out your own fires, fight crime yourself, get off the paved roads and teach yourself and your kids what we learn in school.

That ignores the voluntary division of labor. I don't have to make my own shoes but I do have to provide something to someone that does so they will voluntarily make me a pair. If I want cable TV or food, I will pay for it. I don't need to government to provide me those things. If I want fire protection, security, roads or my kids taught, I will pay for it. Again, the government isn't required for any of that.

That makes sense. I guess I'm at a loss for at what point a group of people co-existing with structure would be called a government.


If I have my way, everyone will get to have a vote on everything that is up for debate and some who do not wish to participate as much may wish relinquish their vote to an selected representitive of theirs. Is that a government? The internet may just be the key to this scenario 

[FreeMoney]

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

If the slaves feel fulfilled and by all means happy, sure.

So it only works if it is voluntary?

If the majority of sentient organisms must experience the illusion/or actually the freedom of association and freedom as individuals in order to be happy, so be it.

So you'll let me be free if you think I need to be free to be happy or if I think I need to be free?

Well, my permission isn't relevant. Think of societal structures.

Maybe it doesn't matter about your permission/condoning, but you did start a thread about it.

Let me rephrase, is it NOT okay with you if I am NOT free when I want to be? Or do you only desire me to be free when some other entity (a societal structure?) thinks I need to be free to be happy?

I desire that you are sustained happily and if it requires that you thrive on being able to sustain yourself, so be it. Try to see the meaning in what I am trying to do here.

I'm trying, you seem clever, but we have some communication problem I think, and I don't know what you mean here. It seems like you are saying that nonconsensual interactions are fine with you if ____________ . But I can't understand the criteria.

[NghtRppr]

That makes sense. I guess I'm at a loss for at what point a group of people co-existing with structure would be called a government.

It becomes a government, or more specifically, a state, when it becomes involuntary, for example, if I don't want to pay for welfare but have no choice in the matter because I'll be thrown in jail or killed if I resist arrest.

[Tawsix]

If forcing people to give a cut of their labor to a central authority and using it to provide 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all, I would happily condone it.

And what if it only provided happiness and prosperity for 80% of the population?  Piss on the 20% of malcontents?

[kokjo]

If forcing people to give a cut of their labor to a central authority and using it to provide 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all, I would happily condone it.

And what if it only provided happiness and prosperity for 80% of the population?  Piss on the 20% of malcontents?

no try to resolve it.

[JA37]

It becomes a government, or more specifically, a state, when it becomes involuntary, for example, if I don't want to pay for welfare but have no choice in the matter because I'll be thrown in jail or killed if I resist arrest.

That's a very broad definition.
So you and your friends have a club with a membership fee. A majority of them want to raise this fee and you don't. You lose the vote and the fee is raised. You have no choice (other than leaving the club), but to comply. Are they now a state?

How about the taliban rule of force in the Swat valley. Are they a state? "Do as we say or we kill you". Is that also a state?

And as was said in another thread, you always have the option of leaving. Don't like the rules of my house? GTFO!

[Anonymous]

It becomes a government, or more specifically, a state, when it becomes involuntary, for example, if I don't want to pay for welfare but have no choice in the matter because I'll be thrown in jail or killed if I resist arrest.

And as was said in another thread, you always have the option of leaving. Don't like the rules of my house? GTFO!

Not when the whole world denies the right to your life and the ability to voluntarily interact with other people.

[NghtRppr]

So you and your friends have a club with a membership fee. A majority of them want to raise this fee and you don't. You lose the vote and the fee is raised. You have no choice (other than leaving the club), but to comply.

Notice you said, "other than leaving the club". That's why it's not a state. You can leave the club and simply stay on your own private property and not go on their private property anymore. I can't leave the "USA" club without abandoning my private property.

And as was said in another thread, you always have the option of leaving. Don't like the rules of my house? GTFO!

The entire USA isn't your "house", nor is it society's "house". Oddly enough, my house is an actual "house". So, I should be able to live in it under my own rules without statists like yourself kicking my door in, demanding I submit to their rules or empty my pockets.

[speeder]

And as was said in another thread, you always have the option of leaving. Don't like the rules of my house? GTFO!

I really wish that was possible.

I live in Brazil, but I dislike Brazillian culture, I dislike the average Brazillian, and I really hate the government.

Yet, I cannot leave, all other (non-waste) lands of the world are claimed by a state, and most of the states are right now tightening control on immigrants.

For example, to get to Japan, I need a job, or a japanese wife.
The same applies to USA, Canada, nordic countries, all european countries that I checked (maybe one that I do not checked is a exception...).
A notable exeption is for example Bahamas, except they demand you to have 300.000 in a bank, before you get a house permit... (I do not have that).

So, where I go? To the moon? GTFO to where? I really want to know, because I am really tired of Brazil and its extreme violence and ruralist authoritarian government (although it is a "democracy" most of the voters just keep putting back the ruralists, that keep using bribes, coercion and other methods to perpetuate that... And the ones that know better cannot rebel because guns are forbidden... oh, that also means you cannot defend yourself from bandits too).

[JA37]

So you and your friends have a club with a membership fee. A majority of them want to raise this fee and you don't. You lose the vote and the fee is raised. You have no choice (other than leaving the club), but to comply.

Notice you said, "other than leaving the club". That's why it's not a state. You can leave the club and simply stay on your own private property and not go on their private property anymore. I can't leave the "USA" club without abandoning my private property.

And as was said in another thread, you always have the option of leaving. Don't like the rules of my house? GTFO!

The entire USA isn't your "house", nor is it society's "house". Oddly enough, my house is an actual "house". So, I should be able to live in it under my own rules without statists like yourself kicking my door in, demanding I submit to their rules or empty my pockets.

1) You can leave the US. There's nothing stopping you. Other than your will to live there. So you choose to live under the current rules. And you acquired property under the current rules. You knew them.

2) I was using the word "house" in a figurative way. I understand you're still in college(?) so I'm sure you know what that is. And try this as an experiment. Withdraw from society completely. Give all property away. Build a house in the woods somewhere far from civilization, not telling anyone where, have absolutely no contact with any other humans. Now it's "your house, your rules" and you won't have to pay any taxes.
It's easy. What's hard is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either you're a part, and take part, or you're on your own. Completely.

[Anonymous]

So you and your friends have a club with a membership fee. A majority of them want to raise this fee and you don't. You lose the vote and the fee is raised. You have no choice (other than leaving the club), but to comply.

Notice you said, "other than leaving the club". That's why it's not a state. You can leave the club and simply stay on your own private property and not go on their private property anymore. I can't leave the "USA" club without abandoning my private property.

And as was said in another thread, you always have the option of leaving. Don't like the rules of my house? GTFO!

The entire USA isn't your "house", nor is it society's "house". Oddly enough, my house is an actual "house". So, I should be able to live in it under my own rules without statists like yourself kicking my door in, demanding I submit to their rules or empty my pockets.

Either you're a part, and take part, or you're on your own. Completely.

So, you can either be a slave or resist? Right. Nice.

[speeder]

JA37 a person after leaving its country, go WHERE?

[Anonymous]

You see, he can't imagine society working without taxes. That's his problem.

[JA37]

JA37 a person after leaving its country, go WHERE?

There are several places without any functional state where you can go. Rather crappy places all of them though. Parts of Somalia, Swat valley, parts of Zimbabwe.
And someone brought up Seasteading. Buy a barge, move out to sea. Stay there.

[NghtRppr]

1) You can leave the US. There's nothing stopping you.

That's like saying that I'm free to jump in the ocean and drown if I don't like being on a ship at sea. Even if there were someplace I could go, I have no means to get there or to survive once there.

Build a house in the woods somewhere far from civilization, not telling anyone where, have absolutely no contact with any other humans. Now it's "your house, your rules" and you won't have to pay any taxes.

Why do I need to not have contact with other humans? Are you telling me that just saying "hello" to someone is grounds for being taxed? That's absurd. Also, there's large swaths of land in the USA that are deserted but I would still be subject to taxes there.

Anyways, there's no reasoning with you so I'm just going to ignore you in the future. You're pissing Kool-Aid.

If you have sex with 1,000 people and 999 consent but 1 doesn't, you're a rapist. If you take money from 1,000 people and 999 consent but 1 doesn't, you're a thief. That's all you are, a petty thief and in an ideal world I'd be able to deal with you like any other thief. I wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in your thieving ass.

Justify it all you like so you can sleep at night, thief, but we all know what you are, those of us that aren't self-deluded anyways.

[JA37]

That's like saying that I'm free to jump in the ocean and drown if I don't like being on a ship at sea. Even if there were someplace I could go, I have no means to get there or to survive once there.

That's rather extreme isn't it? Equalling leaving the US with almost certain death? And what are you saying now, that life isn't fair? I agree. I want to make it more fair to more people.

Why do I need to not have contact with other humans? Are you telling me that just saying "hello" to someone is grounds for being taxed? That's absurd. Also, there's large swaths of land in the USA that are deserted but I would still be subject to taxes there.

If you have nothing to tax you will not be taxed. You're taking what I'm writing too literal. What I'm saying is that to participate in society you have to contribute in the way that society has mandated. And society is us.

Anyways, there's no reasoning with you so I'm just going to ignore you in the future. You're pissing Kool-Aid.

That's a shame. I've always enjoyed our discussion. I think you have a very simplistic view of the world, but I've always enjoyed reading your thoughts. I've learned quite a bit, although I admit I draw completely different conclusions from the things you present.

If you have sex with 1,000 people and 999 consent but 1 doesn't, you're a rapist. If you take money from 1,000 people and 999 consent but 1 doesn't, you're a thief. That's all you are, a petty thief and in an ideal world I'd be able to deal with you like any other thief. I wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in your thieving ass.

Justify it all you like so you can sleep at night, thief, but we all know what you are, those of us that aren't self-deluded anyways.

Now this just makes me sad. I've always considered you a level headed and rational person.
And what you consider theft is what I see as payment for services rendered. Agree about the rape part though.