go to bed.
act like it then.
do tell.
opting out of the system means opting out of the system. acquiescence or defiance of laws is a situational proposition. do you pay sales tax?
really ari? really? are you really that threatened by my intellect that you have to lose the plot completely? youre smarter than this. now drop the derogatory remarks and tell me what contradictory positions I have taken.
I already explained how the state doesnt exist. your counterpoint consisted of vague allusions to works you have read outside of the austrian paradigm. wow I guess you showed me.
leaders and rulers are two different roles. leaders have followers, rulers have subjects.
yes, I noticed.
history is full of individuals acting. the rest is smoke and balderdash.
the existence of social constructs is confined to the realm of ideas. anytime someone is forced or coerced into something, there is an acting man doing to force or coercion. thats what exists. this verbal shortcut actually takes the focus off of the criminal.
isnt it voluntary already?
see, youre a collectivist. you need other people to affirm your rejection of the state or it doesnt mean anything to you.
that power consists of the idea that there are necessary (or highly likely) consequences for non-payment of taxes. that idea is not an accurate representation of reality. state power consists of a system of ideas (or doctrine). since we see how it freaks people out to question these ideas, we can apply the label “dogma” here as well. state power is a dogma that is bound to fall because it isnt true.
no, it isnt in question because its just a measure of how deeply people subscribe to the dogma. its subject dependent. for you, state power is so great and ineffable that you brag about your decision to opt out of taxes. for me, it doesnt even exist.
I knew that consumption taxes would get used against me. i refer to income or labor taxes. Consumption taxes are already avoidable if you do not consume (or share things on the net).
This wasn’t “losing the plot,” this was a comparison of one social construct to another; the word to the state. Communication of ideas, in either capacity, is people’s acknowledgement of them. The philosophy of action comment was in regards to the idea of individuals acting versus collectives acting. it is obvious that individuals act, but the words (social constructs) that people affirm by their common use are the same concept as state power which people affirm by their acquiescence to an idea.
Which, to me, is an idiotic thing to even say. Where do Mises or Rothbard say that states do not exist other than euphemistically. Bastiat says something like it, but in an satirical sense, i.e., non literal. ((Do “laws” exist?)) you are trying to take it literally and thus take some super radical extreme “I’m so different” position that I think is nonsensical. States exist because people affirm their existence through their behavior. I am not trying to compare the state to gravity, as a natural force that exists independent of people. Just the same as “God” exists beacuse people affirm it through their thoughts and behavior. In a physical sense it does not, but as far as society goes it does, it does. As you call it…dogmatic…
pish posh.
Says you. and as you say I don’t have good enough counterexamples. your opinion on this is balderdash. Is “cooperation” an extant thing?
And how is power not a social contruct? How is coercion not a social construct? Force, I’ll give you since it is a part of physics (you see? I am not just trying to be difficult).
Not if you ask, 95% of the people who affirm the principle that it is a requirement. And, I’m not sure what the Code says anymore or how judges or lawyers would react to the question. But, I’m going with “no.”
ha. We’re talking about the state which is by its nature collectivist. Social constructs are necessarily collectivist. Meaning that “words” are collectivist institutions (we can have private languages - which you are positing that you do, but PL will get you nowhere in any field of “cooperation” with other humans). State power fits into this category. it has nothing to do with me or you it has to do with everyone that agrees to definitions of words.
And your propsition is false. Other people’s renunciation of the state means nothing to me if they still pay taxes (hypocrites). I’m fine with my situation.
I do not think we are in disagreement here. You are simply calling “dogma” what I am calling “social constructs.” Yes, common usage of words is a form of dogma (look at how the FED defines money and credit - somehow money is not the same thing as credit; dogma or utilitarian justified social constructs).
“Subject dependent” refers to subjective perspectives, but how are words used? Intersubjectively. It doesn’t matter that there is not an entity in nature that is “a word” or “the state” what matters is that people agree to recognize them. You can say that it doesn’t exist, but you are just affirming a private language for yourself - which is I suppose rebellious. I liken PL in my mind to the stage of thinking before you attach words to describe it which is very different from the way you seem to say it.
Further, “economics” doesn’t exist either, but people recognize so called “laws of economics”…because there are “necessary consequences” of ignoring them. Do you want to get into causality? Consequences must originate somewhere, no?
I’m not talking about your tactical position in this debate. “I knew the stormtroopers would penetrate my right flank but thats ok cause I live in the hq building.”
you acknowledge that there are practical considerations to tax protesting. now I want you to acknowledge that everyone’s situation is different. some people might be making so much money that they have to pay some tax. compliance or violation of the dictates of criminals is situational. whats his name above said he would eat shit. I wouldnt. I might give up some federal reserve notes if there was a personal threat. you might not. but my point through this whole discussion is that when you refuse to acknowledge the state you reduce the interactions to agents of the state, you realize that many if not most laws are unenforceable except in special cases. your information profile has a lot to do with whether you are a special case or not. that alone should tell you that the power elites care very much about public opinion, which gives lie to the idea that state power is something that can be taken for granted.
ok good. now I decline to acquiesce to that idea. henceforth any agent of the state who wishes to aggress against me or harm me in any way cannot use the state as a justification if they aggress against me, in order to justify it to me. I reserve the right to use tactical deception.
does that explain my position? its not a political stance, its individualist. it only applies when people want to deal with me.
you opted out of taxes already, except for the aformentioned consumption taxes with white market businesses. taxes are voluntary if you can un-volunteer.
I refuse to recognize the state. its the opposite of a private language, its the renunciation of someone else’s attempt at a shared reality. the state isnt real to me because I dont recognize it. I am fully aware of the existence of agents of the state, and that their belief in this fictional state motivates theyr behavior to some extent. I know government exists, and I know the state is fiction.
causality is where it is at. the verbal shortcut helps to avoid focusing on the proximal cause, acting man, and if you dig deeper I am still right. acting man is motivated by self interest. his belief in the state is an ideology that conflates his concept of self-interest with enforcement of what he considers to be the dictates of the state. thats the ultimate cause of state sponsored violence and thats what all this language and conditioning is designed to armor and camouflage.
economics laws are either descriptive or definitional. if they describe a logical (cause/effect) relationship, then good. if they are tautologous, then good as well. accepting one fiction does not obligate me to accept another.
thanks for replying, Aristophanes. youll see I’m not afraid of discovering that I am wrong. I am afraid of failing to discover that fact.