Taxation is Coercion

[Sungai Pusat]

-snip-

Not helping!

Actually, I’m absolutely convinced that monopolies and cartels are inevitable under a free market.

To understand why, you need to have another look at the Prisoner’s Dilemma. You see, it actually comes from a field of research called game theory where...

Oh, right... You don’t believe in research that does not produce profit... Oh well, I’ll try anyway...

Look, here’s the payoff matrix, listing the choices of Company A and B in a case where both companies are equal:

	Company A lowers prices, hoping to outcompete Company B	Company A keeps its current prices
Company B lowers prices, hoping to outcompete Company A	Both companies now run at a loss but neither can outcompete each other.	Company B might outcompete Company A, provided that it can survive running at a loss longer than Company A can. Otherwise Company B itself goes out of business.
Company B keeps its current prices	Company A might outcompete Company B, provided that it can survive running at a loss longer than Company B can. Otherwise Company A itself goes out of business.	Both companies keep working as before.

Examining these options it should be obvious why both companies would prefer to keep their prices. It’s the only option that ensure, with absolute certainty, that both companies continue to exists.

Go read my example of why predatory pricing in a free market would not exist. Search WAL-MART in the search bar for this topic and you should find it.

Now, let’s examine the payoff matrix for a case where Company A is much bigger than Company B:

	Company A lowers prices, hoping to outcompete Company B	Company A keeps its current prices
Company B lowers prices, hoping to outcompete Company A	Both Companies now runs at a loss, but Company A can survive this for much longer than Company B. Soon, Company B will out of business.	Company B now runs at a loss which it cannot sustain for long. Soon, Company B will be out of business.
Company B keeps its current prices	Company A now runs at a loss, but Company B will soon be out of business.	Both companies keep working as before.

Examining these options it should be obvious that, for Company B, the only way to survive is to keep the current prices. On the other hand, Company A is much better off lowering its prices in order to drive a competitor out of the market.

In the end, you will either have a single giant company maintaining a crippling monopoly on the market (the case where Company A is much bigger than Company B) or you will have a cartel (the case where Company A and Company B are equal).

Again, go search for the WAL-MART example.

I disaagree with that table too. There are other ways to lower prices and get some profit still. Lower the wages. If you make it too low, though, then the people will go to another compny to buy things from there. But this table also is missing two things: Technology and force or fraud. Add them in and you'd see a very unique pattern. Look, even if there is a monopoly charging terrible prices, in a free market, people can always set up their own companies as well.

[JJ Place]

Most people are blind sheeple who believe the big government MSM. Anarchy is the only viable long-term system. In all others the oppressed will rise and destroy the oppressors, inevitably destroying the system in the process.

Unfortunately, if they don't know they're being oppressed, how can that happen?

The truth always comes out.

[Sungai Pusat]

Most people are blind sheeple who believe the big government MSM. Anarchy is the only viable long-term system. In all others the oppressed will rise and destroy the oppressors, inevitably destroying the system in the process.

Unfortunately, if they don't know they're being oppressed, how can that happen?

The truth always comes out.

Hmm..... For how long? 100 years? Not even a small group of people can help! We need the group of informed citizens to have a size of several cities before the governments listen!

[Bendira]

Most people are blind sheeple who believe the big government MSM. Anarchy is the only viable long-term system. In all others the oppressed will rise and destroy the oppressors, inevitably destroying the system in the process.

Unfortunately, if they don't know they're being oppressed, how can that happen?

The truth always comes out.

Hmm..... For how long? 100 years? Not even a small group of people can help! We need the group of informed citizens to have a size of several cities before the governments listen!

Free Keene! Google it.

[Sungai Pusat]

Most people are blind sheeple who believe the big government MSM. Anarchy is the only viable long-term system. In all others the oppressed will rise and destroy the oppressors, inevitably destroying the system in the process.

Unfortunately, if they don't know they're being oppressed, how can that happen?

The truth always comes out.

Hmm..... For how long? 100 years? Not even a small group of people can help! We need the group of informed citizens to have a size of several cities before the governments listen!

Free Keene! Google it.

Free Keene?

[Xomic]

Go read my example of why predatory pricing in a free market would not exist. Search WAL-MART in the search bar for this topic and you should find it.

Bendira, your 'solution' like your solution to the free rider problem, is crap. Corporations like Wal-mart, Sony (PS3 was underpriced), and microsoft (So's the Xbox 360 (and the original Xbox)) regularly absorb the loss of underpricing certain products to help themselves.

[JJ Place]

Most people are blind sheeple who believe the big government MSM. Anarchy is the only viable long-term system. In all others the oppressed will rise and destroy the oppressors, inevitably destroying the system in the process.

Unfortunately, if they don't know they're being oppressed, how can that happen?

The truth always comes out.

Hmm..... For how long? 100 years? Not even a small group of people can help! We need the group of informed citizens to have a size of several cities before the governments listen!

Free Keene! Google it.

Free Keene?

Free Keene.

Anyhow, to answer your question, Sungai Pusat, the truth will always come out eventually; we're still uncovering information and clearing up history from the Egyptians, dated thousands of years ago. In a modern soceity, with modern technology, the truth will come out even quicker, a few decades, a few years, a few months, a few weeks, ... a few days. But we still always need people looking out for society:

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance. ~Thomas Jefferson

[JJ Place]

It happens to a lot of threads; to get back to the point for a second, taxation is theft, and you can argue nothing else and still be honest with yourself.

[Lelouche]

It appears to me, that the arguments for taxation not being theft, is the services taxes provide, and your use of them
But this is begging the question
Does the ends truly justify the means?

I don't think that logic is valid ever.

To quote myself from earlier

You can argue the need for taxes all you want, and you'll have a point
You cannot argue the ethics of violent coercion, such an effort is pointless.

[DaWoad]

It happens to a lot of threads; to get back to the point for a second, taxation is theft, and you can argue nothing else and still be honest with yourself.

taxation isn't theft, and you can argue nothing else and still be honest with yourself.

see I can do it too

[Sungai Pusat]

Free Keene.

Anyhow, to answer your question, Sungai Pusat, the truth will always come out eventually; we're still uncovering information and clearing up history from the Egyptians, dated thousands of years ago. In a modern soceity, with modern technology, the truth will come out even quicker, a few decades, a few years, a few months, a few weeks, ... a few days. But we still always need people looking out for society:

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance. ~Thomas Jefferson

Alright, then.

[JJ Place]

Taxation is theft in much the same way that family is oppressive collectivist dictatorship (except that a much more rational case can be made for the latter).

No response?

I'm not saying they'rs nothing wrong with me; but your a bit impatient, Cat-Tribe.

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Tax money isn't someone's rightful thing.

Tell us, why is that, Jello?

Because the social contract says that it isn't.
If you wish to argue that one ought to have the right to not pay taxes, then that's a separate argument. Appealing to rights in making your argument would be circular and therefore pointless, so I'd advise you against it.

Do you honestly think any of this is true, or are you joking with every single point? We've proven the Social Contract is a lie, and the massive problems with the Social Contract, and the reasoning why the Social Contract is never legitimate; and you still stick with it as to never to try to see that your wrong on the subject. If there's one more circular argument on the planet greater and abused more than than the Creationist's Argument about the Bible and God:

*snip*
it's your argument about the Social Contract. Let me question you, if you believe the Social Contract to be a Divine un-written, Holiest Document ever written, let me ask you, where does it originate from?

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

I could deem all of Jello Biafra's funds "tax money" to myself... then he doesn't have a right to it?

If you are the one who enforces the social contract...yes.

Now all we have to do is re-write the 'Social Contract' to state that Jello is now to have all his family killed, his house torched in front of him, he shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while be forced to be as miserable as possible all the time.

The notion of a contract indicates consent. Of course, most social contracts do not require unanimity, so you could probably get that through without my consent.
Of course, it's doubtful that most people would agree to this, since they could easily be next.

No, you have no consent in the Social Contract; the consent is given by you existing in society. So you've agreed to have all your family killed, your house torched in front of yourself, you shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while you are being forced to be as miserable as possible all the time. And we have all 'democratically' voted to do all of these things to you, so it's all completely legitimate, correct?

Jello, that doesn't make sense. "Tax money" isn't some magical object that you're paid so you can send it to the government. "Tax money" is 50% of YOUR PROPERTY that the government holds a gun up to your head for.

No, it's the government's property that it collects via legal channels.

Ha!; no, it's not the Mafia's, not by a long-shot.

True. The government is not the mafia.

Noting that, our friend Jello here is an avid supporter of mob rule, even if, say, it involves destroying the environment, I can't see why he'd try to argue that the government is in fact different from the Mafia; perplexing arguments.

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Because it's part of being a citizen. You also have the right to work toward changes that would bring the country into line with your vision of how it should work. Are you doing that, or are you just coming here and playing the Internet "You're Not The Boss Of Me" Libertarian Tough Guy?

What?

Why does my being a citizen because I was born in the United States mean that the government has the right to steal my lunch money, and, if I don't pay, shove me in a locker for the rest of my life?

because they give you services, services that they have to pay with tax money. You can, of course, decide not to pay but that means 1 of three things. 1) stop using the services they provide, 2)change the system or 3)Don't pay and accept the consequences

Argument fail on the grounds of a lack of a mutually agreed to transaction.

No, it really doesn't. By living in the society you are agreeing to it.

There is no other choice though.

Move to a deserted island somewhere where there are no other people.

Let me sum up and correct everything in this: You don't give consent by living in society; you where born in society. Neither can you justify any point by saying : "Move to a Desert Island" because I am a Libertarian, and

I must point out that "if you don't like it, then get the fuck out" has never seriously been a good argument.

The only difference between Hyde and myself in this scenario is that I am a Libertarian.

True, it is a bad argument. Kind of like when one complains about one's employer, it's a bad argument to say "you should find another job."

I must have precognition, because I knew I would have to answer this question: Different entirely; while the employer perhaps 'should' not use this as an argument; they can use this argument, as the decision to be employed is a consensual decision; the decision to be governed is not a consensual argument between people and leaders; thus that in and of itself is a reasoning against the argument that "If you don't like the country, you should just leave", while it is a legitimate argument to saying that if you do not like your employment; the fact that business is legitimate and government is not is just the cherry on the top of the cake.

Could you please point out for where and when exactly you (and whomever) proved (1) the Social Contract is a lie, (2) the massive problems with the Social Contract, and (3) why the Social Contract is never legitimate?

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

Waiting, waiting, waiting ... rawhide!

You seem to be a tad more impatient than most, Cat Tribe.

Other than Bendira, no response?

You might to think about that impatient comment, Cat-Tribe.


Anyhow, to address your arguments:

Could you please point out for where and when exactly you (and whomever) proved (1)

Whomever proved my points? Are you insulting my intelligence? Anyone who argues for something might have proved it by themselves, and I have proved this by myself in this case; here's my proof.

the Social Contract is a lie,

To answer that question, one must first ask this question: Where does the Social Contract come from? The answer is either society or the government, or a combination of the two. The response to this question, the question we must first ask ourselves before we can prove if the Social Contract or if Social Contracts are lies is this question: Why is the Social Contract legitimate, and how? The question we must ask before this, even is: "Why are government's legitimate"?

(2) the massive problems with the Social Contract,

Exhibit A: Jello Biafra on slavery:

If society decides that the state is the best method of accomplishing this, then that is society's prerogative.

No, if 'society decides' that slavery is legal, that doesn't make slavery legal.

Yes, it does.

Exhibit B: Jello Biafra on the environment:

And what if we democratically voted to use every single resource possible, destroying every single inch of the environment possible, and thus, where we be after that?

That would be a bad decision to make, but still our decision to make.

Exhibit C1 and C2: Jello Biafra on His Own Rights(at least he's consistent):

If I make it a crime to believe what you do, is it actually a crime?

No. However, if Congress does, then it is.

If I make it legal to violently kill and rape anyone who supports you, is it legal?

No. However, if Congress does, then it is.

Exhibit D1 and D2: Jello Biafra on Genocide:

First and only person I've argued with who both argues for slavery and genocide, all in the same breath to keep up a sadistic hatred of 'property', and all in the name of a sickening loathing of 'ownership'.

I don't hate property, and your appeals to emotion are beside the point, not only because they don't follow logically from my arguments.

Exhibit F: Need a continue onward?

and (3) why the Social Contract is never legitimate?

Why are governments legitimate?

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

Sure, I'm more than happy to speak about my theory of property rights, and why it's correct and proven.

where they come from

They're simply naturally there, such as nature is simply there, without much of a current explanation for it's existence.

why they should be respected in modern society

Here would be a good time to give an example. Suppose you are transported to a far away planet. This planet is devoid of all intelligent life, except for you. You have nothing from your old society with you; not even clothes. You construct a shelter for yourself on land you have claimed, and you go a step further by securing your property. You now have property; outside of even society. Thus, society needs to respect property rights because property is able to be owned, and is legitimately held by individuals and organizations; respecting property rights is necessary in society, and property rights fall under the category of inalienable rights; refusing to respect property rights breaks true law; the only crime against true law is any type of theft.

without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory

Not a single reference of this theory.

Taxation is theft in much the same way that family is oppressive collectivist dictatorship (except that a much more rational case can be made for the latter).

Oh, right, time to go back in time a bit: Might this prove that, say, children are not the same as adults? Or, that parents for Children ≠ The Government for Adults Or something in that light?


Good Night, everyone; Cat-Tribe, I might have procrastinated a bit; but you still got your wish. Night all, I will continue on my quest to make all of your hearts beat just a little faster, and, perhaps, give you another viewpoint tomorrow. Night everyone!

[DaWoad]

It appears to me, that the arguments for taxation not being theft, is the services taxes provide, and your use of them
But this is begging the question
Does the ends truly justify the means?

I don't think that logic is valid ever.

To quote myself from earlier

You can argue the need for taxes all you want, and you'll have a point
You cannot argue the ethics of violent coercion, such an effort is pointless.

Strawman
and
just because you say something doesn't make it true

[Lelouche]

It appears to me, that the arguments for taxation not being theft, is the services taxes provide, and your use of them
But this is begging the question
Does the ends truly justify the means?

I don't think that logic is valid ever.

To quote myself from earlier

You can argue the need for taxes all you want, and you'll have a point
You cannot argue the ethics of violent coercion, such an effort is pointless.

Strawman
and
just because you say something doesn't make it true

Of course
It's true, because of all the corpses piled at the feet of the state, for non-compliance with the state.

[DaWoad]

It appears to me, that the arguments for taxation not being theft, is the services taxes provide, and your use of them
But this is begging the question
Does the ends truly justify the means?

I don't think that logic is valid ever.

To quote myself from earlier

You can argue the need for taxes all you want, and you'll have a point
You cannot argue the ethics of violent coercion, such an effort is pointless.

Strawman
and
just because you say something doesn't make it true

Of course
It's true, because of all the corpses piled at the feet of the state, for non-compliance with the state.

which state, when? how do you measure those corpses against the corpses of those who would have died san-state? Where is you're proof. Actually, scratch that, where is your argument?

[Lelouche]

It appears to me, that the arguments for taxation not being theft, is the services taxes provide, and your use of them
But this is begging the question
Does the ends truly justify the means?

I don't think that logic is valid ever.

To quote myself from earlier

You can argue the need for taxes all you want, and you'll have a point
You cannot argue the ethics of violent coercion, such an effort is pointless.

Strawman
and
just because you say something doesn't make it true

Of course
It's true, because of all the corpses piled at the feet of the state, for non-compliance with the state.

which state, when? how do you measure those corpses against the corpses of those who would have died san-state? Where is you're proof. Actually, scratch that, where is your argument?

Simple, name any individual, who was capable by himself of killing millions in a war?
Can't be done
The state is responsible for more loss of life then any individual, even more so, if you totaled all the murders every committed by individuals, it wouldn't equal 1/10th of 1% of the loss of life in the names of states everywhere.

If your looking for a direct argument about the oppressive nature of taxes, ask any in prison for tax evasion, and ask yourself if they strike you as "Enemies of the state"
I'm sure Wesley Snipes was an incredible danger to Americans everywhere.
And Willy Nelson, was a terrorist.

[Grave_n_idle]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

Don't want to use the services? Don't live in that country, otherwise you're eating the food without intending to pay.

the GTFO argument fails.

It's your argument. You're being forced to use the military, the police, etc. Against your will. And then they make you pay.

Turns out, you're NOT actually being forced. You can opt out. Buh-bye now.

You want socialism so much, get the fuck out.

I'm not the one complaining that I'm being forced to conform to some set of rules that I could easily avoid by simply relocating.

*shrugs*

Relocating is not simple, not by a longshot
Further more, I should not have to move, because other people want to oppress me via proxy of the state.
I have as much right to be here as anyone else.

Relocating isn't impossible, either. Speaking as someone who has relocated.

It can be expensive. You might have to jump through hoops - depending where you go, and what sort of status you want when you get there. But that's about your personal choices, not about relocating, per se.

And you missed the point. If you're complaining that the paradigm of the state in which you live 'demands' you invest in things against your will... you do have the option to leave the paradigm. I think it's nonsensical to complain about being forced to pay for national defence, personally... but you're free to make your own choices.

[Grave_n_idle]

It appears to me, that the arguments for taxation not being theft, is the services taxes provide, and your use of them
But this is begging the question
Does the ends truly justify the means?

Yes.

If you use the product, you should pay for it, no?

[Lelouche]

It appears to me, that the arguments for taxation not being theft, is the services taxes provide, and your use of them
But this is begging the question
Does the ends truly justify the means?

Yes.

If you use the product, you should pay for it, no?

This implies a few things
A. I asked to be born
B. I asked to be born into a society with taxes
C. I consented to use these services that were "Given" to me, regardless of whether I actually wanted them or not.
D. I consented before hand to pay for these unrequested services.

None of these things are true
The first two are accidents of biology and geography, as well as history
The third is coercion. "You live in my neighborhood, my "Enforcers" don't wreck your shop on a regular basis, therefore you owe me money". Now you have men with guns, coming to my door, and demanding compensation for services not requested, or even wanted. Again, how is this not Violent Coercion?

The only answer that has been given, to suggest this isn't violent coercion, is the assertion that one can opt out, but as I and other's have pointed out, Opting out is both difficult, and futile, as it's difficult to relocate, (family, friends, culture, resources) and you just end up in another territory under control of another government, who will send armed men, in different uniforms to come to your door, to demand compensation for services not requested or even wanted. Again, how is this not Violent Coercion?

Plus this opting out answer is false dichotomy anyway, because it implies That Government is the rightful dictator of the land, that Government owns the land, and has a right to exist. Rather then the individual.
I don't recognize any of that to be true, and frankly I find those to be fighting words, to be protest, arson and rebellion words.

This land is my land, This land is your land, but this land is not the Government lands, regardless of it's insistence that it is

So no, if given a choice, between Taxes/Death/Imprisonment/Exile, which the statist in this thread think is a valid option set, that is not violent or coercive, I will instead choose hidden option 5

Rebellion against the state, and it's destruction as a vehicle of collectivist oppression.

[DaWoad]

It appears to me, that the arguments for taxation not being theft, is the services taxes provide, and your use of them
But this is begging the question
Does the ends truly justify the means?

I don't think that logic is valid ever.

To quote myself from earlier

You can argue the need for taxes all you want, and you'll have a point
You cannot argue the ethics of violent coercion, such an effort is pointless.

Strawman
and
just because you say something doesn't make it true

Of course
It's true, because of all the corpses piled at the feet of the state, for non-compliance with the state.

which state, when? how do you measure those corpses against the corpses of those who would have died san-state? Where is you're proof. Actually, scratch that, where is your argument?

Simple, name any individual, who was capable by himself of killing millions in a war?
Can't be done
The state is responsible for more loss of life then any individual, even more so, if you totaled all the murders every committed by individuals, it wouldn't equal 1/10th of 1% of the loss of life in the names of states everywhere.

If your looking for a direct argument about the oppressive nature of taxes, ask any in prison for tax evasion, and ask yourself if they strike you as "Enemies of the state"
I'm sure Wesley Snipes was an incredible danger to Americans everywhere.
And Willy Nelson, was a terrorist.

That argument is specious in so many ways it's not even funny.
1)it doesn't take governments to do bad things just a group of people sometimes with a charismatic leader. (take, for example, the mongols or Alexander the great)
2)if you're going to get really technical and call any group of people a government then the state has a tiny death toll because without it those thousands who died in wars would never have been born in the first place. Unless, of course, you can show me a single person who could have made any of the medical advances of really any century AD. (yes single people had the ideas but it took hundreds if not more working together to implement refine etc)
3)People who steal or defraud aren't "enemies of the state" but they damn well deserve to be in jail.

[Lelouche]

your argument about medical advances doesn't apply, because people existed before the practical applications of science, and will continue to do so, even if society collapses tomorrow

We are animals, first and foremost
You make it sound as if it is impossible for us to live outside of modern society.

In the course of human history, Government and taxes is a relatively new concept, comparatively

And all those deaths were never necessary, and without those warmongering collectivists, we could have a peaceful world.

[DaWoad]

It appears to me, that the arguments for taxation not being theft, is the services taxes provide, and your use of them
But this is begging the question
Does the ends truly justify the means?

Yes.

If you use the product, you should pay for it, no?

This implies a few things
A. I asked to be born
B. I asked to be born into a society with taxes
C. I consented to use these services that were "Given" to me, regardless of whether I actually wanted them or not.
D. I consented before hand to pay for these unrequested services.

None of these things are true
The first two are accidents of biology and geography, as well as history
The third is coercion. "You live in my neighborhood, my "Enforcers" don't wreck your shop on a regular basis, therefore you owe me money". Now you have men with guns, coming to my door, and demanding compensation for services not requested, or even wanted. Again, how is this not Violent Coercion?

The only answer that has been given, to suggest this isn't violent coercion, is the assertion that one can opt out, but as I and other's have pointed out, Opting out is both difficult, and futile, as it's difficult to relocate, (family, friends, culture, resources) and you just end up in another territory under control of another government, who will send armed men, in different uniforms to come to your door, to demand compensation for services not requested or even wanted. Again, how is this not Violent Coercion?

Plus this opting out answer is false dichotomy anyway, because it implies That Government is the rightful dictator of the land, that Government owns the land, and has a right to exist. Rather then the individual.
I don't recognize any of that to be true, and frankly I find those to be fighting words, to be protest, arson and rebellion words.

This land is my land, This land is your land, but this land is not the Government lands, regardless of it's insistence that it is

So no, if given a choice, between Taxes/Death/Imprisonment/Exile, which the statist in this thread think is a valid option set, that is not violent or coercive, I will instead choose hidden option 5

Rebellion against the state, and it's destruction as a vehicle of collectivist oppression.

It implies nothing of the sort.
All this argument "implies" is that you are using a service and that you should pay for it.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the government owns the land, doesn't matter, they're not taxing you as "rent" they're taxing you because you use services they provide.
C. and D. as we've gone over before is, yes, you consented to pay taxes. You did so by working in the country in which you work.
C. says nothing about enforcers, it's not "pay us or we'll burn your house down. It's use our services and pay us or don't and leave. Option three is don't and we'll make you pay for them, the same as is true of any shop, any contract, any transaction of any kind. You're last point in this paragraph is even worse. It's like having a theif, who just stole a hamburger, claim that he's innocent 'cause he really wanted a cheese burger. You might not have wanted the service but you used it and therefore must pay for it. Not coercion. Maybe violent but only in the way that any transaction is violent, you don't pay, you get sent to jail for theft.

It's not violent coercion because it's not the fault of the government that there isn't a Utopian libertarianist "pseudo-state" out there. Nor is it even true, there are places you can go where you wouldn't be taxed. They'd be unpleasant and you probably wouldn't survive if you didn't have the right training and equipment but that's your fault not the government's.

Opting out isn't a false dichotomy, if anything it's a trichotomy (use services and pay for em, don't use services and don't pay for em, use services and don't pay for them then jail) and it has absolutely nothing to do with land. Taxation makes no claim about land you might as well say a grocery store is claiming it owns the land it's on because it charges you for the food you buy. No it charges you because it renders you a good or service. That's it, that's all, no inherent land claim.

and that last bit about "rebellion against the state"? it's dumb, the state is the only thing keeping you me and a whole bunch of other people alive. Change things, fine, but make sure that if you're going to do it you do it in a way that will not kill millions.

[DaWoad]

your argument about medical advances doesn't apply, because people existed before the practical applications of science, and will continue to do so, even if society collapses tomorrow

yes but we were talking numbers right? The human population now numbers in the billions that's billions of people who would have been denied a life of any sort without the sanitation, medicine, food, etc. that cannot be provided by an individual . . .ever. (and actually if humans weren't social animals we would not survive against other predators. Humans, would have gone extinct long before we looked anything like homosapiens.

We are animals, first and foremost

sure and animals form groups with leaders. Usually this is herbivores but many carniovres and omnivores too. Also all higher animals that I know of require at the very least a cooperation of two to have children.

You make it sound as if it is impossible for us to live outside of modern society.

for most of us it is. For humanity to survive as it does now, it certainly is.

In the course of human history, Government and taxes is a relatively new concept, comparatively

sure, on the other hand so is writing and the wheel.

And all those deaths were never necessary, and without those warmongering collectivists, we could have a peaceful world.

bullshit. This world isn't peaceful. Nature is brutal and violent and generally a lot nastier than most people think. Animals, plants, bacteria, everything compete over natural resources. Humans are, at worst, just slightly better at competing.

[Lelouche]

and that last bit about "rebellion against the state"? it's dumb, the state is the only thing keeping you me and a whole bunch of other people alive. Change things, fine, but make sure that if you're going to do it you do it in a way that will not kill millions.

It's interesting that you believe that you and millions of other people can't survive without the state
It appears your brainwashing was a complete success

I have nothing more to say to you.

[DaWoad]

and that last bit about "rebellion against the state"? it's dumb, the state is the only thing keeping you me and a whole bunch of other people alive. Change things, fine, but make sure that if you're going to do it you do it in a way that will not kill millions.

It's interesting that you believe that you and millions of other people can't survive without the state
It appears your brainwashing was a complete success

I have nothing more to say to you.

So you have no argument?

'cause if your arguments had even the slightest basis in reality you'd realize exactly how bad it would be if you were to suddenly take away the police, the army, the navy, the firefighters and ambulance drivers, the roads and the sewage treatment facilities, the garbage collectors and the public city workers. Millions in the states alone in a matter of weeks at absolute best. You want to make the 'States a libertarian nation go ahead, I don't care, I'm in canada (we could use the refugees) but do it in a way in which something takes over, and gradually at that. Make sure that someones running the roads before you set fire to the houses of the governmental officials involved.