You owe the government your tax money as payment for services. Didn't you know that?

[Adam_E_Zandarski]

@Mlee

Given that in a non-state society, a vast majority of the populace would more than likely be armed, and would know how to use said arms, and would be WILLING to use them, the probability of a small number (Because States are always run by a small elite) of individuals, no matter how proficent in weapons use, will probably not be able to conquer their neighbors.

I can see two hypotheticals that could make a problem for this. One is the creation of a new technology in one community that isnt easily accesable to other communities. And the second would be if multiple like-minded polarities joined against a common threat.

Does the Catholic church levy any formal taxes upon its people? Yet it is still inherently corrupt and ineffecient. Is it government that is doomed to setbacks? Or is it systems of human interaction?

[Mlee]

You mean weapons technology. Of course tech is helpful, but then again, even if the attacked civ had a state, this would not make the situation any better, in fact, given that governments have centralized command systems that are geographically placed, it would be MUCH EASIER to conquer a statist society. An anarchist society, on the other hand, would not have this problem.

You mean multiple polarities joined to conquer a common foe or prey. Possible, but the state does nothing to prevent this from happening. It would as I said earlier, only make the conquerer’s job easier.

Government is a human system that is doomed to setbacks. Period.

[wilderness]

@McDuffie

Thus in effect all the money you hold is held by virtue of the society you live in. If said society by its legislature (which you voted for) decides to collect moderate taxes, that means that the money to pay them was never actually yours.

So my labour is not mine?

[fsk]

Taxation is not a voluntary exchange.

How do I tell the State, “You’re fired! I’m hiring police and justice and defense from someone else!”

This is illegal/impractical. Therefore, taxation is not voluntary and I’m really the personal property of the tax collector.

I don’t own my labor, because I must pay tax on it.

I don’t own my land, because I must pay property taxes.

Doesn’t that make me a slave? If I don’t own my labor and I don’t own land, what else could I be but a slave?

[Bostwick]

@Adam E Zandarski

I seek the way to provide for worldwide protected trade routes, contract enforcement, well-developed infrastructure, and ever advancing technology.

That’s fine. But if your preferred “way” involves murder and slavery, I’d say you had better keep looking for a better way.

If you would bother actually reading any of arguments on this site, instead of trying to evangelize us with your uninformed opinions, you might just find a better way.

[MacFall]

@Adam E Zandarski

Now Im a freedomist. I fail to see liberty as a lack of regulation. I see liberty as an ability for the general populace, the average joe, to pursue his happiness. But one mans happiness could be to see others in pain. Therefore, there have to be regulations on just what freedoms you are provided for.

Using ethics in Liberty is a responsible choice by well intentioned people.

Liberty means that everyone has the exclusive right to the full use of his person and property. That’s all. It needs no further explanation or complication, because implied in that principle is the only regulation you need: if everyone has such an exclusive right to their own person and property, it follows necessarily that nobody has the right to anybody else’s person and property without that person’s permission.