“Okay let’s get something straight. I have no problem with community. But tax has nothing to do with community. Tax = theft. Tax = COERCION. Tax != community. Tax is NOT voluntary. Tax is not community spirit, it is not empathy, it is not compassion or kindness or anything to do with unity. Tax is extortion and robbery.”
Just a suggestion: it would help both, the discussion and your argument, if you would put “To me…” in front of your sermonic phrases…
Sounds like the current state of affairs. The state is a mafia, and always bribed by group of men.
The goal is to allow you to have choice, instead of being pointed by a gun and have no choice at all.
Edited: Wouldn’t warlords take over?
Can I like this twice?
I was reading this topic, watched the video you posted (what anarchy isn’t), and I have something to ask you: let’s say we live in anarchy and you want a new road in the mountains, because it’ll help you and other merchandisers sell their stuff more efficiently, but i and other people that rent rooms for tourists don’t want that road to be build because the are will not be as quiet and relaxing as it is now, we want a nice flower park instead. we both live in the same area, we are neighbors. if the road isn’t build, the commerce can’t evolve. if the garden isn’t build, the hospitality can’t evolve. without a central authority who can decide what should be build (at least first, if not just), a permanent conflict should settle or no business (commerce or hospitality) should evolve, right?
another example: the road in front of our houses,as neighbors, is damaged. you want to be repaired by a company who works cheaper, but not with quality materials. i want the opposite, quality materials which means higher price. how can we agree on which company should fix the road, without a central decision maker? should we go via a voting system? well, that’s not anarchy anymore.
to summarize: how do you deal with public property in anarchy?
There is nothing wrong with voting and coming to consensus… The questions is are you allowed to use force to get what you want and the answer is no. If you want your road fixed, you and your neighbors can raise money together and buy what you can afford with the money raised… Within an anarchist system you may not force your neighbor to pay…
OK, right, I have a question Sir. Who are you to tell me what is not allowed in an anarchic system? Are you, uhm, the government?
of course there’s nothing wrong with voting, except we end up into today democracy, where the majority decides, even if the majority is wrong from the minority point of view, at least. it’s like how the elections are held today. well, that is not anarchy. in anarchy nobody is forced to do anything they don’t like, and also, nobody is forced to support the consequences of other people decisions and actions.
from my point of view anarchy in it’s purest form and concept is something unreachable for all the people, as a society
I can’t see how your Anarchist model translates to the 1st Park/Road example, that @bugsbunny gave, or how anything would get built at all…so I’ll swiftly move on to the other example (as you did… 
)
Within the Anarchist system you propose, it seems quite obvious to me that some people will refuse to pay and that the burden of payment is likely to be unfairly distributed and that there is a high chance that a road that would benefit everybody ends up not being built at all with ill feeling all round. How exactly is this a better system than everybody paying a fair share?
Your argument appears to be based on moral absolutes, particularly “you’re not allowed to use force” - which although not a bad one, completely exaggerates the level of coercion inherent in Democracy and re-categorizes it as “force”.
I don’t think you should be shackled by moral absolutes in any case, certainly not when the negative outcomes are quite blatantly obvious.
@Artiscience ell the definition of the system is as such. If you operate differently you are outside of the system being propose and are proposing something different… One cannot totally ban criminals from being criminals. (They ignore the No gun zone laws) But you can defend yourself from them.
One has the right to use force to defend themselves and the have the right to delegate that right to others… Within that value system, a society that lives under those values will treat the mafia behavior (Taking ones property by force) s an act of aggression, and defense will be the rightful response…
This is a good primer - YouTube
@bugsbunny One can join covenants and contracts that operate in a democratic way so long as it is a choice… For example my neighborhood was owned by 3 gentlemen back at the turn of the century. They built a power company to bring power to their land – When they sold the land - they included right of way for the electric company in the sales contracts. If others want power from said company they also sign such a contract… There is no coercion in such a deal.
Please be more precise, so you are saying that it is the definition of anarchy that people cannot decide on their own when to use force against another person or use any force at all? Just for the record…because that would be, let’s say, wayward.
One does not have the right to use force against a neighbor to get what they want. Me and my friends do not have the right to use force against a neighbor to get what we want. If government derives it’s power from it’s people, it’s people cannot delegate it authorities that they The people do not have themselves. A government that uses force to get what it wants gets it’s authority from it’s power, not from it’s people.
I think you are mixing anarchism with pacifism. “You are not allowed to do X…” is a law and laws only exist globally when there’s someone who enforces law. Since in anarchy there is not one government, this law cannot exist in an anarchic system.
You aren’t really saying anything other than repeating simple assertions based on a premise that Democracy involves “force” against your neighbours, which you don’t explain… Can you specifically state why you feel it is a better/fairer whatever system as I’ve asked, or are you just saying whatever dire consequences ensue just have to be suffered because your moral absolute must not be broken in however ill-defined a way or using whatever flimsy interpretation of the word “force” ?
@Al_Kafir, I am just suggesting that where ever possible we ought to move to coercion free funding. I think it is way more possible than people think. The new Crypto-systems make it way more possible. Like I said, my electricity exists, not by force, but by contract – So can most any other infrastructure.
Do you disagree with my logic that the government derives it’s power from power, not from the people? Where is the fallacy in that arguement? I would prefer voluntarism wherever possible. But when you have a hammer there is a very big tendency to use it – even if there is a better way…
@Artscience Who are you to impose definitions? The systems laid out by the videos etc allow for contracts, covenants, militias etc. Just not coercion. If you are arguing against a different system then you are arguing against a strawman, because nobody is arguing for such. Rewatch the primer links, because obviously you missed the point.
Lol…I am imposing by saying “I think…” must be a nice and simple world in which you are living. Let me ask you like this: Does “you are not allowed to X…” sound to you like a law or not? A simple yes or no is highly appreciated.
P.S. If you’re all about imposing definition, maybe go and comment on @Blindsite2k BitLaw - Polycentric Law in Crypto-Space (part 1) - #61 by Artiscience
Of course we should aim for as little corcion as possible and yes of course we should de-centralise lots of Govt functions …the part where we differ is when you scale up to larger group/community concerns…the Anarchist system breaks down at this point. You ask what’s wrong with your logic and if you have a moral absolute as your basic premise- then there is nothing inherently wrong logically - it is just the wrong moral position to take in my view - it is the consequences that matter. I have also clearly given you the likely negative outcomes, which clearly do not faze you…but then again why would they if the moral absolute takes primacy - we disagree on a deeper fundamental level it appears.
I’m not sure it matters whether your contract is with a state or private run utility company - it depends on your politics, so I’m not really sure what you mean.
Yes…
What argument?
Reducing goverment’s power is a good thing in that it makes us more free – But so long as Government is the most expedient method to get what we want we will continue to use it — Even though it is less efficient and more burdensome on freedom… I like that Crytpocurrencies are funding themselves with voluntarism… Many other things can be funded this way - often with better results than the government could provide by forceful taxation…
Ahhh…that argument. No…I don’t have a problem with your argument except to add that you omitted the collective power the group of individuals have.
No problems with the rest of your post, there’s definitely a place for voluntarism etc, t
Ooops…just noticed you added “forceful taxation”…so yeah…a problem there
You don’t pay taxes, and men with guns come and forcefully give you a vacation in a cage in a desert somewhere. It is what it is.
I like voluntary better where possible… Technology shall make that easier and easier with automated contracts etc.
I don’ think government is going away anytime soon, just hopefully we will make it less and less relevant and less and less needed.
Ahh…right…it works a little different in the UK, its part of the social contract people have historically come to agree upon and you are free to join any other country’s system you want, so long as they’ll let you in. Not paying tax should be more correctly considered anti-social behaviour I think…punishable in law as with other group agreed criminal acts I think we’ve exhausted all the charity based ideas to replace the tax system now don’t you, and gone through all the problems…