Quote:
Quote by: grandpa  I know you may not mind paying taxes, but they'll still threaten you if you do not. Hence, I say the government uses threats even in its most basic functions. That's not an "oversimplification," but a plainly observable fact. If anything, you are oversimplifying things.
Really, the perceived need to pay taxes, or any other kind of fee, is inherently coercive. Where these artificially imposed "needs" are in effect, we are ultimately placed under some degree of duress. And, as has been argued all over the political spectrum, the "national unity" behind paying taxes is a false one. Yes, it's true there are no individuals who pay
ALL taxes, but the mere process of being forced to pay for this and that is not truly unifying, it's a way of artificially dividing people. So not only is taxation imposed, but it's ultimately divisive -- as is the bulk of the state-capitalist system. Also, trade and social activity cannot help but take on a false character, as we believe we cannot do anything unless there is a price tag involved. And what establishes and defends these price tags? It would be the authorities an dtheir biggest loyalists, who tend to be either wealthy and powerful or highly indoctrinated.
Grandpa h. |
So, your argument, essentially, is that even though most people do not need to be or feel coerced in most things governmental, they all are because some are and you have to be either wealthy (and benefiting from the coercision) or stupid to play along? I think that is a bunch of crap. I don't have to pay for things because the government exists, I have to pay for things because there is not enough of everything everybody wants and/or needs to satisfy everyone. It is a simple economic principle, scarcity. I am a freely participating member of a democratic system that is imperfect to be sure, but, in my estimation, a far superior system to the one you propose. It is superior because it recognizes the simple fact that most of what we need and desire will never be free. Explain to me how everyone who wants a gold trinket can have one at no cost, even in a world free of government? Damn right I believe there is little that can be done without a price tag involved. I don't believe that because I have been indoctrinated. I believe it because it is a fact. Tell me how, in a world of finite resources, you get around that fact. Gold is pretty. Gold is a finite resource. More people want it than can have it. How is that the "fault" of government. Water is needed for survival. It is a finite resource. Explain to me how getting rid of government will make people stop trying to gain control of that resource. Everything you say might sound noble and impressive when it comes to some idealized view of humans and the world we inhabit, but it turns ugly when it butts up against reality. I have said it before and you do not hear, so I will try to say it again and maybe it will sink in this time: Government is a tool. Most people use the tool to try to improve their lives and some very bad people use it to try to enrich themselves at the expense of others. It has gone through eons of trial and error and refinement. It is not perfect. But people do not discard it because in the end, they find existence more bearable with it than without it and use the more rational approach of trying to minimize the harm the assholes can cause. It's a net gain to the average individual. It can be misused to devastating effect, but the problem is not government, the problem is bad government. You can site examples of bad government from here to all eternity and it will not make your contention true. Just because I could site millions of examples of people drowning through the years, that does not mean water should be done away with. The existence of waterboarding does not make water bad. It makes the assholes who use it bad. That is the very simple concept you seem to be unwilling to grasp.