Subnostr

No, the point is that you have to make the exchange at some point, or else you die. You have to pay to live, it’s not an argument about whether you have a choice or not. You said “I shouldn’t have to pay to exist” but you do. At some point you have to pay to live; you have to pay for the food at some point or else you die. Whether you have a choice regarding who you buy the food from is a mute point.

There are other examples like land/property. You exist in physical meat space, and you must exist in a location. Land is not free. In order for you to exist, you have to either buy land, or rent land from someone else. That means you have to pay to exist.

If you want to talk about having freedom to make exchange, that’s what democracy and voting is. In a perfect world, you can vote and control the terms of the exchange; how much you pay and what you get in return. In a perfect world you would get the same optionality as you would from buying groceries. But at some point, the exchange must occur, just like groceries.

The Beave 2y ago

The point is that I'm making the exchange with other people, directly. No government or taxation is needed or wanted. I could also beg or panhandle. I could trespass and forage if I don't have my own property. (Though I'd rather not have to do that.)

Let me clarify: I should not have to pay taxes to live freely. There are many costs associated with living, and at the bare minimum: food, water, clothing, and shelter. There's no reason for any government to be involved in any of those, as that only increases costs and diminishes quality.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Voting is directing where the guns are pointed. Both are bad, at best, and downright evil in practice.

Voting does not control terms of exchange, especially not now. Voting has been co-opted into a game of diminishing liberty and extracting more and more value from more and more people.

Yes, exchanges must occur, but, taxation and the government are not at all needed to live well on one's own.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Dakota 2y ago

What if I told you taxation is an exchange with other people, directly. You pay money to people, directly, and in exchange, you are given access to certain good and services. At what point are people not involved with taxation? And how is it not direct? And if it were indirect (which I don’t know if it is isn’t and whether it has to be that way or not) what is your disagreement with the indirectness of it?

The Beave 2y ago

I think your definition is incorrect if you think that a middleman or ten in between my money and some effect is "direct."

In my definition, I directly give money to a person and receive expected goods/services.

My issue with taxation is that it is immoral. It is wrong to steal. How is taxation NOT theft? I am coerced to pay taxes or face penalties up to and including death if I (rightfully) resist. I have never once signed a contract guaranteeing that my taxes go towards anything that I might consider useful. Which, even it things are useful, it's still wrong since others wouldn't and NO ONE should have heave their earned money taken from them without permission.

Nobody 2y ago

Don't forget all the in effective middle men get paid for being leaches 🙄