Would you rather have all your taxes waived or all of everyone else’s taxes waived?
everyone elses. Then the state doesn’t exist. Wait a week until the cop’s paychecks bounce and then I too needn’t pay.
Exactly. Or even if the state still somehow existed, the economy would take off like a rocket and I would almost immediately get to enjoy vastly cheaper, vastly better products and services, plus less crime, happier people, etc. Even if all the other trappings of the state were magically held intact.
If so, why do people harp on about personal freedom, “don’t tread on me,” etc.?
Because people are fundamentally self-interested?
Because absract, illusory, groupings of individuals like, “society”, “humanity”, “nation”, “family”, “tribe”, etc. got us into this mess in the first place!
… If I waived everyone else’s taxes then mine would soon follow because the state cannot survive with just me paying taxes…
Similar, old thread, if anyone is interested.
The best working definition I can come up with for freedom is:
The recognition that people act on their own authority at all times - all appeal of outside authority is a con game to assert it’s own authority and “comparitive advantage” over us (ex: the intellectual’s comparative advantage is words and ideas, vs the candle stick makers - which is making candles)… i.e. subsidy. We don’t care about negative liberty (what the hell is that?) - we want to be free “to do”, as that is all we can do anyway - as an existential fact.
This is why subsidies “don’t work” and why human beings prove by the fact that we exist - we are “social beings” who are social because it is “mutually beneficial” and “utilitarian”. Any attempt to throw society, freedom, etc which is a consequence of action - as the action/ “thing in itself” is pulling the dupe on you.
Because absract, illusory, groupings of individuals like, “society”, “humanity”, “nation”, “family”, “tribe”, etc. got us into this mess in the first place!
How are indviduals not just abstract illusory groupings as well? You don’t think addiction is real; meaning a substance that can make you think things you otherwise wouldn’t have thought. Social conditioning doesn’t exist? Are you not in reality a collective system of cells and organisms?
Laotzu,
I do think individuals are just as illusory. The rest of your questions can ultimately be answered by that position, I think!
If so, why do people harp on about personal freedom, “don’t tread on me,” etc.?
I don’t understand the nature of the question. They are part of society, and they would tend to agree that this principle should apply to their fellow humans.
Wow, I posted almost the same thing there in my responses. Memory lapse I guess.
I agree on the one hand, but on the other we do have tribal instincts. So I would call it a problem of “human scale” as Tom Woods does. Or an “indicator problem,” where our instincts indicate the best course of action to do one thing (“SUPPORT THE TRIBE, BIGGER THE BETTER”) but the tribe is now way (way way wayyyyy) too big. Our instinctive indicators - evolution - have not caught up with modern states. Without any guidance, people will just naturally think of the entire US of A as their tribe.
I think “freedom” is a statist concept. Fully generalized outside the statist context, it just means power or choice. Instead of calling it libertarianism, I see no particular reason not to call it prosperitism (other than for PR reasons). If the benefits of not having a central government could be ranked, I don’t think not being messed with directly by the state would top most people’s (or even most libertarians’) lists. I’d much rather have the higher living standards, technology, etc. before I’d choose not getting bugged by cops or the IRS or the TSA.
“Give me liberty or give me death” was a great slogan, but I’d much rather have my own taxes increased 10% and everyone else’s decreased 10% than vice versa. “Let other people have their liberty so I can enjoy the benefits of a free market, or give me death” just doesn’t sound as good.
Good post , but 1 thing I queston:
The “prosperitism” seems like a Reisman thing where he calls economics the “science of wealth”. This is a tempting proposition, which helps show the nature of currency - but the Misean definition of “Human Action” - which appeals to primitive relevant forces, seems to be a better starting point…at the very least if not for econ specifically, for social sciences as a whole.
AJ,
I tend to agree with you, in that I think “Anarchism” is a rather tall order, due to sociological instincts, ignorance, etc.
That being said, there must be some sort of “economy of scale” involved in the size of our social organizations.
There is an interesting calssification system Jared Diamond uses in “Guns, Germs, and Steel”. Here’s a brief explanation.
The “tribe” level seems pretty ideal to me.
Because it is intuitive, even to the general public, that you shouldn’t be treaded on if you don’t want to be, but it isn’t intuitive that it would be a good thing if people didn’t pay taxes.