Right… that’s why I didn’t see any disagreements in this discussion, but as you say here, “The very fact that he’s asking that proves he misses the point entirely.” If so, then there are disagreements and I did miss something.
It’s not so stupid, I’ve made my position very clear. You seem to think that the state “might makes is” implies I mean that people will be constant at each others throat, stealing each others property or whatever else, which seems to suggest that your literacy skills are somewhat to be desired.
I know it’s missing the point. I should have said I was joking. My fault. [:P]
And yes, it might be terrible of me to joke this way about dead people so hope I didn’t offend anybody, but the way I see it Mises and Rothbard would have laughed too.
no, i did not misunderstand you in quite that way. if i did misunderstand you (which i dont think i did) then it must be some other way.
You do, since you seem to think my views only hold in a statist society. Which, by the way, proves the very opposite of your point. The state exists because of might, not right.
you just meant it would happen in a statist society…
when you originally gave you ‘might makes is’ argument, you let it range over all societies. i suggested qualifiactions that you ridiculed, and then began to adopt, whilst still ridiculing me.
I wouldn’t take someone else’s insecurity as serious ridicule.
Their is a great irony when one who promotes the idea of natural elites behaves like a cad.
Actually, that was a typing mistake, ask for clarification before you rush to conclusions that are obviously false.
It’s like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.
yessum boss.
You don’t necessarily need might. You can also use persuasion and incentives. Look at the US government. It doesn’t rule over people primarily through force. It rules them by providing incentives like social programs and the illusion of security. In an anarcho capitalist society you don’t have to offer social programs, just jobs and benefits of joining a free market society that outweighs the use of force. I think most people would prefer doing a safe job than risking their lives raiding and getting killed by ever advancing weapons.
And this matters, how?
No, it rules by ideology. By controlling the choices, by controlling education, the media, the debate. The ideology is never challenged, and thus people accept it, unaware, or even afraid of an alternative.
This is precisely how Co2 AGW is being sold. We’re supposed to be afraid of what we exhale and plants require to produce Oxygen. But most people are so dumbed down and uninformed, they go along with it. It’s not a rational chocie to believe government, it’s the outcome of any number of false choices presented.
There are a lot of people who would rather live on their knees than die on their feet.
That is control through other means other than pure force which is the point I was trying to make. Whether you want to call it persuasion, ideology or brain washing it isn’t force.
You keep saying might which is force is all that matters unless you include influence in that definition which doesn’t necessarily mean force.
Now, I’m curious, do you actually believe that people would pay taxes without the threat of force?
Yes, many people pay taxes because they believe it will help others because they hold altruistic beliefs. Many people in the Us and other countries look down on tax dodgers and think that they are morally wrong. Some people just pay taxes because it is what you are supposed to do without even thinking about what force maybe used against them if they don’t. If it were not this way it would be a lot easier to persuade millions to stop paying taxes at the same time instead of looking at you like you are crazy if you suggest doing so.
I’d also like to add. What power do politicians hold over the military? What is stopping the a general of an army from just taking over everything? They have the most force. What is it that gives a leader authority without having any power of force himself? Do politicians have power of force? Is Barney Frank a physical threat to you. Everything is held together with ideology and persuasion not just force.
No. They pay taxes because they think they get more than they pay, because the state is very good at obfuscating the real debt, the real inflation of the monetary supply, the real income and expenditures, etc.
No, they think that someone is trying to get out of the system they are mooching off.
All those reasons may be true for some individuals but that doesn’t mean people don’t also give reasons of altruism or morality for paying taxes. You can’t claim to know what everyone’s intentions are. I’ve argued with statist that says we should have social programs because if we don’t poor people will suffer. In this case are they saying they will get more from the state than they pay in? Unless they themselves are poor this won’t hold true.