Nostr Web Client

Dakota, all the good things you mentioned can be provided by collective action outside the state. And have been, in many different societies. Just not under the (historically unproven and experimental) modern Western nation state.

For a brief overview of what we're talking about, maybe read over: https://archive.org/details/TheEthicsOfLiberty0

Dakota 2y ago

That may or may not be true, I’m not sure. Even if it is true, it does not make the statements that “taxation is theft” nor “taxation is slavery” true statements. The fact that things can be provided by collective action is not an argument that proves taxation is theft or slavery. They are not mutually exclusive; both things can be true.

I also question the ethical and moral implications of some services being provided by the private sector. For example, I don’t want private companies funding standing militaries. I don’t want to pay a subscription fee to a private company for military protection. I think that is worse than a state funded military.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The Beave 2y ago

It's not worse since you can define terms of service and then you're done. Geez, dude, you're so far into the BS you can't even think of a way to not puppet propoganda. It's gross listening to you.

Dakota 2y ago

1) pretending like the goal of government is to not give people control of the services provided is fallacious. Just because you currently can’t “define the terms of service” for the US military (which I think in itself is up for debate) is a critique of the currently establishment, but not of the idea as a whole (state and taxation).

2) even if the terms of service could be defined, that matters very little. If all of your neighbors pay a private company for military protection, you now no longer have to pay for it, because you get de facto protection from your neighbors. That is a very bad incentive that you should not be arguing for.

deeznuts 2y ago

It’s truly horrifying how religious Statists are

Dakota 2y ago

Dude I’m not even religious about it lol. I don’t have any blind faith in anything. I’m not worshiping anything 😂 like just give me a good reason to believe what you are saying. Give me an argument that I can’t counter. And just dropping a book on me and telling me to read it isn’t an argument. I’ve read a LOT of Austrian economic books. Ludwig von mises and Rothbard mostly. I’m willing to change my mind, you just haven’t convinced me yet. You on the other hand haven’t countered anything I have said, but you are not willing to change you’re mind, so who is the religious one 🤔

deeznuts 2y ago

The good news is I don’t need to

Dakota 2y ago

Cope

Dakota 2y ago

Let me put this in the most Austrian Economic way possible, so that maybe you, and the others that will see this repost, can understand. I am of the belief that there are certain goods and services that satisfy the preferences of all people which are best provided by cooperative action between individuals. We call the cooperative individuals “the state” and we call the money that they pay for these goods and services “taxes.” This is not an argument for big government. This is not an argument for exorbitant taxes. This is a true statement even down to the tiniest most decentralized state you can imagine. The state could be the size of a neighborhood, and this would still be true. Thoughts? Willing to hear your side. I’m so close to being an ancap, please get me there daddy 😩

Bitcoiner or Bolshevik? 2y ago

The revolutionary generation, who experienced coercive taxation, will be able to distinguish that from voluntary payment to a collective caretaker. However, after a few generations, the distinction between voluntary taxation, which has now become rote, and traditional “government” taxation will be gone. Many people will be living under a government they call by another name. I see the ancap future as very important clearing of underbrush, but a totally new way of being. We do tend towards at least a little government.

Dakota 2y ago

So I think you are arguing in favor of taxation then? The critique is “how much” and “what it’s spent on” but not whether it should exist, no?

Bitcoiner or Bolshevik? 2y ago

I’m taking the approach of what is, less what should be. Historically, we always tend towards some taxation. I’m not convinced we will avoid this pitfall through competition, so sadly we must put some work into what and how much

Dakota 2y ago

deeznuts 2y ago

ANCAPS don’t make anyone do anything, ever

Dakota 2y ago

Yeah, that’s kind of the point though. You would voluntarily pay money to have goods and services that benefit you. Some of these goods and services are best provided by the cooperative actions of all the people who would benefit from these goods and services. We call the cooperatively acting individuals “the state” and we call the money that they pay “taxes.”

Autumn Sun ☀️🌘☯️ 2y ago

It's a bit humourous that Dakota is merely providing meticulous and rational feedback to the slogans thrown at him, and for that he is branded 'religious'. 🤔

Dakota 2y ago

Thanks my guy! Just trying to have some good faith conversations over here!