Subnostr

POV: you are arguing with an ancap on why some minimum amount of taxes might be necessary (and actually good 😮)

Taxation itself is evil. It is acquisition by coercion. That, is by definition, theft.

So stop supporting other people threatening me and my stuff. That's really what it comes down you. You want other people with guns to use force or the threat of force to take what is rightfully mine so you don't have to take as much responsibility for your own self. You want to use the coercive power of the state to take from others for things you decide are right and proper. But, if you have any morals in you, you will HAVE to eventually see that as being wrong.

Coercive action taken by the state is evil. And you are supporting it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Dakota 2y ago

Yeah, it might actually the other way around. By not paying taxes, you are trying to reap the benefits of a society that you didn’t help pay for. You are in effect stealing from everyone else. Why are you trying to steal from me bro? You can’t enjoy the protection of a border from a standing army that you did not help pay for.

And currently, I am of the opinion that there are certain goods and services that are best provided by the collective action of cooperating individuals. We call those cooperating individuals the state, and we call the money payed for those goods and services taxes. I consider military, police, and courts to be examples of such goods and services.

The Beave 2y ago

Nope. It's not the other way around. You are not entitled to anything I earn, make, produce, or consentually acquire.

None of it.

I don't need your coercive "society" or state. I don't need boarder protection. I just need to be left alone on my own land, which I could acquire faster if I wasn't forced to pay into the gubment ponzi schemes every time I get paid.

I don't need police. I don't need the fire department. I don't need the really terrible indoctrination centers called schools. I don't need someone telling me what I can and can't do building a shop and a home. I don't need someone telling me what I can and can't do on my own land. I don't need to be told what I should and shouldn't eat. I don't need to be told to ship out and die in a foreign war. I don't need anything that your petty little statist heart says I need. I just want land and a good woman, if I'm blessed to have that happen.

I can work well with others to build a community. I can build pretty much anything and fix most stuff, too. But I will not be forced to pay money by that of force to "live in" society. I may consider joining a community via a clear contract that stipulates any requirements and may not be changed without free consent of both parties. None of this requires taxes or the state. Stop being evil. Just stop.

Dakota 2y ago

I’m not entitled to anything that you make or earn just as you are not entitled to the goods and services for which others payed.

I agree with most of the things that you said you don’t need, except:

I think you do need border protection, otherwise the neighborhood (state) next door will ransack your village and rape your woman. I doubt you want that.

I think you do need the fire department. Do you have a fire truck? Do you have a firehose? Do you have a fire hydrant? I doubt it.

I think you do need courts. Who is going to judge over all of your contracts when the terms are broken?

I agree that schools can be private or homeschooling is a viable option.

Please provide me with clear examples of how those goods and services could be offered with a private company.

The Beave 2y ago

Without a state, who defines "boarders?" if you don't have boarders, you have the limits of your own property. If a bigger threat emerges, voluntary militias can handle nearly everything.

Courts can be replaced with binding arbitration that is included in any contracts signed. If the other party still violates the contract, you have two options: give up or resort to violence.

My buildings will be mostly fire-resistant. I still do the wiring so it's not likely to catch on fire. If it does, let it burn and I'll rebuild.

I do not need the state to live well. I only need the state of I wish to live a much impoverished, less free life.

Dakota 2y ago

Voluntary militias will not handle nearly everything. Voluntary militias would not be able to afford the engineering and maintenance of nuclear missiles, jets, or tanks. And this will be necessary to defend yourself against the neighboring group of people that are cooperating to achieve these things. I’m sorry but it is a reality that this technology already exists and cannot be done away with, so your militia needs this technology if it is to stand a chance. Also, your voluntary militia will be less well trained than the trained soldiers of a standing military. So, sorry, you and you your non coercive neighbors just got taken over.

But let’s say that you don’t get taken over. You said courts will be replaced by binding arbitration. Who enforces this arbitration? So day 1 of ancapistan, someone breaks your contract. You challenge them to a duel and get shot and die. Well, that was a nice attempt at ancapistan. If only there was a way for a third party to rule judgement over a contract that didn’t involve violence. That’s what judges are.

The Beave 2y ago

Yes, they will. Geez, you're pretty ignorant of how effective militias are. You don't need nukes, tanks, or jets to defend a few homesteads. Most of those are easy enough to defeat with training and some good prep. I'm more concerned about quiet hive-mind drone swarms...

Why can't you conceive of people doing things together without force being involved? How poorly have you lived for that to not ebbed be a conceptual option to you?

WTF! Why would I duel someone over a broken contract? You're wild, in a bad way, if that's the first thing you think of. You can't even see how prone to violence and coercion you are. I get it. I used to think like that, too, but thankfully, I've learned to be better than that.

Dakota 2y ago

The fact is nukes and tanks and jets are technology that already exist, today. They don’t just go *poof* and disappear once you and your neighbors decide to band together in a non coercive lifestyle. If Russia (or China, or the Middle East, etc.) exist on the other side of the planet, they will come and take you over. If you say “but why would they do this?” Then look at history. Human history is filled with countless examples of people colonizing far off places, often times not even at the behest of the state, but for their own self interest (glory, money, etc). This will not stop.

If you somehow imagine those states as also disappearing during your ancap revolution, than it will become an arms race to see who can build a state and capture the most territory and resources first. Why? Because they are incentivized to do so, and incentives matter.

The Beave 2y ago

Until all of those things are completely operated by AI, you don't directly attack those things. You attack the people in/using/directing them. You disable them. You hide from them.

No one wants a land war on US soil. It would bankrupt the countries that attempted to do it, both in people and resources. Sure, it would suck, but the world wouldn't end and life, in general, would go on, even if nukes are launched.

I don't want a revolution, I mostly just want to be left to my own devices to do what I want on my own land without paying protection money to the mob, er, government.

Dakota 2y ago

To your other point, you were the one that said you would resort to force or violence if the contract was broken. You said you either eat the loss, or resort to violence. So I was just taking your words man. I am sorry, I did not mean to assume that you would duel someone if they broke a contract. Let me ask you, if there was a contract that if it was broken would put you out of business, how would you go about resolving that without a judicial system and without violence?

The Beave 2y ago

*sighs*

No, I stated options: Giving up or using violence. I would choose to give up. I do not seek violence. I would rather be a peacemaker under most circumstances.

The Beave 2y ago

If society breaks down, there will be no "businesses." there will be people dealing with other people. There will be no corporate structure. There will be no law enforcement or judiciary to attempt to enforce things. If you can't pursuade people peacefully, your ideas are awful and you're a trash human.

Dakota 2y ago

Also did you just say that a nuclear bomb is easy to defeat with training?

The Beave 2y ago

If you can stop the launch/go codes, sure.

Nukes are a problem. You can't put the djini back in the bottle. But, you can disassemble them and trash the "make it go boom" parts. Besides, if one does go off in my vicinity, I don't need to worry about anything anymore. I'll be going home.

Jose Sammut 2y ago

How do you have property rights without a judicial system?

Dakota 2y ago

Yeah, kind of the point. I think you would still have property rights, but without police and a judicial system they become inconvenient to enforce. You can’t just challenge someone to a duel every time they break a contract.

The Beave 2y ago

Do you exist?

If yes, you have rights to own things that are acquired morally. It's up to you to defend your property.

Done. Move along.

Dakota 2y ago

Sorry, thats not an argument against what I’m saying, so it’s not “done.” For the arguments that I am putting forward, taxation is not an infringement of property rights because it is part of a negotiated exchange.

The Beave 2y ago

Again: what negotiation? Where's the contract? What do I explicitly get in return for over a third of my paycheck being taken from me and the other two thirds are being inflated away so quickly it's making my head spin.

What agreement? Don't you dare use "social contract." that doesn't exist and never has.

Jac 2y ago

💯

Jac 2y ago

I wouldn’t mind paying taxes if I received some social services, once upon a time while floating in the Caribbean with a fellow scuba diving Swede, this topic arose….he paid 27% income tax; paid generous birthing leave, paid daycare, paid medical, paid post secondary education, the list of benefits goes on. I get a huge military, and a giant parasitic class who leverages the military for gains above and beyond for the elite parasites, the wealthiest 1%. With all the loopholes in US tax code, only the working class pay meaningful taxes on income, the very people who can least afford it. It’s criminal.

The Beave 2y ago

I can't agree with that. What's mine is mine and no one has a right to it unless I agree to give it to them for some mutual benefit.

Jac 2y ago

Well there are things that are best accomplished with broad taxation for generalized use, roads for example. I’m not opposed to pay for use either, but I think public benefit institutions should be non-profit, and not the bullshit pay every administrator 300k a year type of 501c3 company. It’s difficult to apply principled decision making through regulation. Nigh impossible. People suck man, what can I say?