Nostr Web Client

And to make it clear, I'm not advocating for monarchy. I'm trying to say the even monarchy is better then democracy.

capitalism/anarchy/natural order > monarchy > democracy

I think you are very convinced with this idea. I leave you this idea. I defnitly prefer to live in a democracy, where the individual is seen as this. Not as a means to something more than just being.

Tax as a system, I am not against. I am against abuse of tax money through individuals deciding what happens with the taxes or companies and individuals, which steal tax funds to enrich themself personally.

I put Monarchs defnitly in this category of people who enrich themself illegitimatelly. For me legitimate use of tax funds is to fullfill needs, which benefit the individual in the end.

Like a public school system, to make sure everyone can read the laws, argue for or against them and discuss based on logic.

Police to enforce the written laws and the infrastructure for those institutions.

I think all other needs can be locally organised on a county level. And I as a swiss person defnitly defend direct democracy above all other forms of democracy.

Every new law can be negated from the people directly. And new constitutional articles can be enforced by the people directly too. I could even imagine a system without cohstant representatives at all.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Diacone Frost 3mo ago

There is no legitimate use of tax. That's where we diverge. The state doesn't have ecomic calculation, it can't say what opportunity cost is. That leads to misallocation of capital, market disruption and erosion of wealthm. Not to mention corruption because, by definition, most populistic promises (and usually lies) will be elected, represented by the worst or at least most opportunistic people in the society.

Anyways, I appreciate your desire and passion for peace and freedom. You chose wrong tools to achive it.

🤟

freemymind 🇨🇭 3mo ago

Maby also read into direct democracy. I am also against representatives. But only because today democracies have representatives, does not mean that democracy needs to have representatives.

I would also prefer a direct democracy mostly depending on freely chosen subscriptions.

But I also see, that there is some things, which inherently need taxing in order to ensure some basic level. Since I see that nobody chooses their parents, I see a need of minimal standards for everyone.

Because in the end in every possible reality society will pay for people which are unable to gain enough to ensure their basic needs. Eighter society pays for those with money to give food, housing and opportunity to get independent again. Or society invests in always increasing saveguards and security to defend from people without opportunity.

Defnitly there can be other opportunities than only taxes. But I think whatever solution needs to proof to have some kind of plan that really solves a problem. Not just the symptoms.

Diacone Frost 3mo ago 💬 3

You can't justify wrong by doing "good".

What if, personaly, I don't want to? The majority put me in the cage, kidnap my kids and take my property.

If you believe some government program should be funded by everyone, even when they don't agree, you are an agressor (no offense).

Nobody can stop you to fund whatever you want.

Want to provide free schools? Do it.

Want to provide free housing? Do it.

Just don't steel from me.

(again no offense)

StackSats.IO 3mo ago

“(no offense)”

Why are you apologising? You’re right, of the other person doesnt get that, it’s on them.

Diacone Frost 3mo ago 💬 3

because I would like him to understand.

It wasn't meant as an attack.

Diacone Frost 3mo ago

* personal attack

StackSats.IO 3mo ago

The truth is not an attack.

Anyone who deems it so is not worth engaging with.

Diacone Frost 3mo ago

Idk, I just see a potential in this npub 🤷🏻‍♂️

Nobody knows everything and making things personal is not my style.

Diacone Frost 3mo ago

Also /sns would have been better, I agree

freemymind 🇨🇭 3mo ago

Yes I agree with voluntarism very much. I see myself on onse side as voluntarist. On the other side as pragmatist.

I accept, that human are generally more conservative. And I am talking about progressives too.

So lets say we would figure out the most fair approach on how people interact with eachother. I see this truth as something that exists in an objective way. So the system, which allows the most people on the world to live in harmony without exploitation.

But we have to accept that even, when this model is found. There is no social laboratory to proof that our system is this perfect one. So in the end it is only important, if many people can understand this perfect system and therefore act in a way, that allows this system to form in reality.

So I mean it does not matter if you or someone tells that Tax are illegitimate or not, until you and enough others are as convinced to not pay these taxes. Not even at force. Before this it is an illusion that can never be proofen right or wrong.

An economic system can not be tested in theory. Eighter there is a place where people create this place without taxes. And if not it can not be proofen that it even works. Because reality does not depend on our understanding. It is the other way around. So to explain reality based on theory without real documented examples is nothing but a illusion.