Agreed, but how do you make that happen?
That is called a business.
If it’s all voluntary pay for services than there is no government.
Ok, when the anarchist revolution comes, you can be charitable and give to Israel. Until then I hope that you are against taxation?
Ofcourse I am.
Or even when there still is a government, why not give money to Israel directly? Why do you need a 3rd party government to give money to someone?
Ideally, this is how it would happen. But I think that there are lots of Pro-Israel people out there who understand, as I do, that as long as the government is going to be handing out goodies, we may as well fight to have the goodies handed out to the things we are in favor of. That being said, you’re right. It should all be done privately. But I don’t blame people for seeking aid from the government nor do I blame countries for seeking aid from the US. If it isn’t done privately, then it should be done voluntarily. Where the government can only collect the money from people who are willing to give it. And why might some people want the government to do this for them? Some people trust the government. I don’t but some people do.
Really? You have evidence of this “agreement”?
And since slaves chose to live, they consented to being slaves, right? This is the most absurd statement, I think, in human history, that humans make. It is my property.
Let me ask you this. Do your property rights extend over my property? If not, then do you and your neighbors property rights extend over my rights? If not, then it does not matter how many of you get together and vote in people, your property rights still don’t extend over my property rights. I worked for the property, not you. Not your children. Not your parents. I woke up in the morning, got my lazy ass out of bed, and went to work. You have absolutely no rights to my property.
That’s tyranny, theft, extortion, murder, and slavery.
There can’t be. Because otherwise it would not be taxes. Taxes imply being involuntary. Think about it. What other organization in the world works like the government, mafia or a private sector business. What does a grocery store do if you don’t buy the groceries? They kick you out and don’t let you have the groceries. What does the government do if you don’t buy their product? They throw you in prison and/or take your all of your property!!! What does the mafia do if you don’t pay them? They beat you to pulp or kill you. Seems to be a lot more like the mafia then the private sector, wouldn’t you say?
So, you don’t think the world could function without a mafia like organization?
Stop paying, make sure the politicians pay a dear price if they try to force you.
Would you be willing to die or kill for them or would you just rather pay our brethren to?
A simple way to deincentivize the hunt for political power would be to allow for the hunting of politicians.
I’d prefer to pay other people to do it for me.
Lol, that’s an interesting idea, who would you hunt first?
Spidey, you know that you win philosophically. No question.
I’m not saying that the way our democracy works is 100 percent moral I’m simply saying that it works like a game where everyone agrees to abide by the rules the people in power make. They can fight them, but only through the legal process or by electing people who will change the rules to favor their ideas. The government uses force and coercion to get everyone to play along by making laws that are enforced both locally and at a national level. The lawbreakers, if found and convicted are then punished according to the law.
Am I in favor of this? Not exactly. But until I find something better, I’m not personally going to try and see it dissolved. I will instead make a concerted effort to win the game by playing the game. That means finding candidates who match my ideology. It might not work. We shall see.
Or we can just stop obeying them.
You mean finding master’s that match your ideology. I myself don’t want a master.
And let me explain the game a little better. It used to be that the slave master’s claimed to own not only the products of the slave’s labor, but to own the slave himself. Now the master’s say that the slave’s own themselves, and the master’s own the products of the slave’s labor. Not only that, they let the slave’s vote for the master’s! Just so wonderful! Oh yeah, and if the slave’s try to claim their property, then the slave owner’s renege on their promise that the slave owns himself and will take him and throw him in a prison and run his life. Be good slave!
A risky proposal.
There’s no question that the government acts as a quasi slave master. The question is: how much slavery are people willing to put up with?
I could stand 10 percent slavery. 40-50 percent is too much for me. Maybe 1 percent is too much for you. We all have different tolerance levels.
There is only 100% or 0%. There is no partial slavery. Either you own your property, or you do not. Either you own yourself, or you do not. Currently, the state claims you do not. It will take away your life and your property on a whim, if the masters feel you have disobeyed. And that is all they really claim, that you disobeyed. A guy the other day was SHOT in the BACK, because he did not OBEY a police officer and turn around and put his hands on a car. He just wanted to continue the conversation he was having with him is all. He ran because the policeman shot him with a taser. Then he shot him with a gun when he ran away. What happened to the police officer for shooting a non-violent, peaceful slave? A few days suspended with pay, I believe.
You live in a fantasy world if you think that it is possible to make an entity small that is OK with extortion, theft, and slavery. That is the biggest joke of the human race, to believe we can control such a beast.
Do you think that your “it’s either 0 or 100” thing falls into the false dichotomy or slippery slope logical fallacy arena?
Do you own yourself or do you not? Do you think you can just partially own yourself and be partially owned by someone else at the same time?
I think I’d like to own myself fully but I don’t. I think I own myself partially and would like to get more of myself under my own control. So yes, I can be partially owned by myself and something else at the same time. To me, they’re not mutually exclusive. However, there are levels of external ownership that I find unacceptable which is basically anything more than 10 percent. And right now, the government gets about 40 percent of everything I make and 20 percent of everything my investments make. This is unacceptable.
Oh really? Try selling some cocaine and let’s see how that works out with the government “partially” owning you.
Pretty tough to discuss things with someone that does not understand that it is an impossibility to partially own someone. Either someone owns his or her self or s/he does not. There is no “partially”.
See, two people can own a piece of land, because if there is a dispute, they can just split it. Two people cannot own one person, because there is no way to resolve a dispute. One has to win over the other. And the one that wins, is the owner, in full. Not only that, but you obviously do not understand the idea of property. Property belongs to the person with the best claim. How can someone have a better claim over yourself, than yourself?
Doesn’t owning of property depend on the ability of the owner to protect said property?
Not in a civilized society that understands property rights.