It seems like in a few short years this hypothetical is going to crash and burn. The major reason being concentration of wealth and nothing in place to prevent it. If Walmart wanted to buy up all the interstates lets say, they could very easily charge their competition whatever they want. There is no government to step in and stop them. Thus they would very easily become a monopoly and the only place anyone could shop would be Walmart. You might end up having Google, Exxon, Walmart, Apple, and Verizon owning the entire United States because they have the capital to do so. With that much power they could easily depress wages, buy up any business they want, or make the barrier to entry into a space very difficult. Do you have anything is this society to prevent any of this, with government only covering military invasion/security?
I think that’s a well thought out position. I don’t agree entirely, but I can see where you are coming from. Philosophy has never really been my thing. I’m very much a realist.
Well said @oldstyle00
Taxation is theft no getting around it
I think the telling question would be to ask which would he rather, pay taxes or get mugged? Even if taxation is theft, it doesn’t mean all theft is morally equivalent.
This has all been discussed in Libertarian circles. You can easily search basic questions like this
If we agree taxation is theft shouldn’t we actively work to minimize as much as possible?
Yes.
I don’t want to go search for it I want to know how your going to deal with it, this utopia is not a libertarian utopia. I know several libertarians and non of them believe taxes should be voluntary and government only should have 2 functions. They do believe in a smaller more efficient government and limited taxes. I want to know how raj is going to deal with that issue.
So you are advocating for a political philosophy which you don’t actually practice, but that is very easy to actually effect.
GETTHEFUCKOUTAHERE!
That is weak as fuck. How can you ever expect for something that you are supposedly an advocate of to come to fruition when you won’t even lift a finger to move its building blocks?
How exactly should I behave according to u?
We don’t agree that taxation os theft… We do agree taxation should be minimized.
Well, according to what you have put forth, if taxes are theft and social safety nets are in part to blame for these egregious taxes, and a volunteer driven social safety net is part of the solution- You should be creating proof of concept that you are correct by volunteering.
It’s not what I think you should do. It’s what you think you should do, but aren’t doing.
I have no idea what the hell this means and I think you were just trying to get a reaction out of me with the GTFO comment and failed.
If you can form a cogent thought I’ll consider responding
If you want to get explicit, it is the forcible taking of property that doesn’t belong to you from someone who is not a threat and has done you no wrong. I really don’t see, other than legally, how that isn’t theft. By all means, claim that it is justifiable, but the theft/not theft stuff is more than a little pedantic at this point. You seem to agree that it is bad since we should do it as little as possible. Can we just use the term “bad” then or something?
I’ll explain my pov when I finish at the gym.
Dude, that is as clear as a bell to everybody here.
You just got snagged up in your own greedy, twisted little snare by taking a philosophy and turning it to your own selfish ends.
I’d be willing to bet real money that everybody here does more to alleviate the social burden and cost of human suffering than you.
One could live the non government lifestyle in any of the following scenarios:
- Modern day mountain man - be careful not to use any item that has government contact. Such as delivered on the Interstate System, processed water or food, or the legal tender.
- Move to an area that become lawless, likely because of war. Such as Central America, Afghanistan, Somalia, or Burma.
- Deserted island living like Castaway.
Living with no government is like saying one chooses not to breathe because, freedom?
If you lived here in the 1800’s and were anti-slavery, presumably you would also have to go live in the mountains or be a hypocrite?
Freedom as in - it is my God given right to choose not to breathe. Absurd in its premise, in the natural world.
Having a government or whatever social rules / obligations are titled, are just part of the deal. Humans are poorly equipped to survive, much less thrive without some collectivist behavior.
But if you don’t agree with part of a society’s rules, you have to leave it or you’re a hypocrite, right?