Taxation is theft.
Rents are a form of tax.
Taxation is theft.
Rents are a form of tax.
I’m not sure why we’d need taxes to fund roads, since roads existed before taxes.
- Roads predate states. States are much older than either the Roman state or the medieval period. We don’t need taxes to have roads.
- States don’t tax to fund spending.
- Coercion is bad. If people have to be coerced into doing something, it’s probably not worth doing. If it is worth doing, then people will probably do it without being coerced.
- The usefulness of coercion to you is not a good justification for coercion.
“People living thousands of years ago didn’t have asphalt” is not a particularly good argument for the state.
The observation that people in nonstate societies without taxes still have roads is empirical, not idealist.
Not sure if your dork car can handle roads in places like Chiapas, but, again, your argument seems to boil down to “men with guns should extract resources at gunpoint to fund amenities for me and my dork car” which still isn’t compelling.
So to be clear, you’re acknowledging that you’re happy men with guns coercively extract resources and compel labor so you can comfortably drive your dork car around?
Can you identify where I’ve said that?
What do you think taxes are? How do you think the state compels people to pay taxes? Does the state threaten to, say, tickle you if you don’t pay your taxes? Or maybe something a little harsher?
My alternative is “people freely and voluntarily engaging in cooperative effort,” but a critical identification of taxes and rents as theft does not rely on presenting an alternative.
Chiapas, Zomia, Tristan da Cunha, any time you and your mates get together and buy each other a round.
Oh whew I was really worried there for a sec
Not sure why you’re so reluctant to answer the question, or why you think so little of people that you can’t imagine them engaging in voluntary cooperation.
So to you, people engaged in voluntary cooperation is as fantastical as dragons?
After watching people for the last 20 years or so, and studying much more of history, I would say emphatically that voluntary empathy/co-operation is about as realistic as dragons for most people.
The vast majority of modern governments are deeply broken, to the point that I do not believe that they can be fixed. That doesn't mean that some sort of more equitable system won't need to be built.
My personal ideal is a democratic federation very similar to the Fediverse. Some baseline stuff (like infrastructure, education, and Healthcare) helps EVERYONE so everyone can help fund it. Otherwise the groups sort themselves out and leaving for another area should be easy and cheap.
Strong centralized power is ALWAYS bad but co-operation for the common good sometimes requires co-operation instead of requesting.
Is it your understanding that the people of Chiapas live in huts as hunter gatherers?
In any case, no, that’s not my argument, but I’m starting to wonder which part of “anarchist communist” you misunderstood when you decided to follow me.
Taxes don’t fund road construction, but even if they did, the existence of a benefit for you does not justify theft.
That roads many thousands of years ago were not designed for modern SUVs does not obviate the point that people in stateless societies still have roads.
Super excited to get to introduce this to you:
The idea that taxes fund things is also theoretical unless you can demonstrate it empirically. The reason MMT even exists is because you can't.
It’s true that local government in the US taxes to fund spending, but that’s only because the federal government has not delegated its money-producing authority to its subnational components. But that’s like saying “the government can’t create money” because a government employee has to submit an expense report to get reimbursed.
The existence of an alternative does not really having any bearing on whether taxes are theft or not.
Freedom from coercion is better. Not sure why you have such a hard time either getting behind this idea, or admitting that you believe human beings need to be coerced by a separate ruling class in order to thrive.
You either believe the coercion is justified or you don't. How do you not fit into one of those categories?
Correctly identifying taxation and rents as theft is not really pro-fascist.
Does the truth value of a statement change because a fascist repeated it?
The state doesn’t tickle us to compel us to pay taxes. It doesn’t ask politely. It deploys armed agents with the authority to kill or detain to imprison us against our will until we pay.
It differs from the capitalist only in scale, not in kind.
Again, the truth of the statement “taxes and rents are theft” does not hinge on the presentation of a viable alternative to taxation to fund roads on which you can comfortably drive your car.
You’re mistaking your privileged comfort as the standard by which state coercion should be judged. I don’t really care if you’ve decided that you benefit too much from coercive exploitation to meaningfully change that coercive exploitation.
Next you’ll tell me you’re a landlord.
The viable concrete alternative is to let people work things out together without coercion. There is no singular "system" that must be defined and implemented for everyone everywhere, in place of the current one.
You mean, from your first reply to my first post?
Saying that our society is built on coercion is not rhetoric. Deciding which side you're on is not a "dumb game".
Hilariously, he has blocked me.
He followed an anarchist communist and then threw a tantrum when I wrote anarchist communist things.
Me too. Too bad, I was just about to give in and spill the whole secret anarchist System Of Everything in minute detail. The new improved extra-compelling version.
Oh well.