Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
Imagine a corporation in a "free-market" owning all the commons that the state owns today. Imagine this corporation offfering a deal to the
public: that they pay exactly what the pay the state today, under the exact terms and also that no customer of the corporation may deal with a
non-customer in any way whatsoever. It is a completely "voluntary" deal. Should you enter into the deal would you call paying taxes to the
corporation "robbery"? Or would you rather not enter into the deal and stay and rot on your property?
I would use the services of a competing organization, as would millions of others. This would mean the original organization would have to create fair
terms to attract customers (unlike the state they would be unable to force everybody to pay and obey their terms at gunpoint).
The point is there are no other competing organisations offering you a service. The road in front of your home is owned by this corporation and in
order for you to leave your home and step onto their property you either take their deal or stay put in your home.
Large monopolies do not exist in the free market.
In the absence of a state, large monopolies with extreme coercive power are what will form in a "free market". Witness the scenario in any place
where the state is extremely weak or non-existent. You think those who use the coercive power of the state today would bat an eyelid before forming
their own personal mercenary bands to directly establish their control?
Any modicum of competition that exists in the market today is because a state with monopoly on coercive power exists and in most cases is not
interested in stiffling competition. You remove the state with its monopoly on coercive power and private bands with coercive power will take over and
establish a state like structure with no accountability to anyone.
You are worried about your state launching murderous campaigns abroad with tax funded money? Same murderous campaigns will be launched within
your society by the same people controlling the state, when the stae is dissolved. I am not saying that is a bad thing. I wholly welcome it. I would
rather see Western thugs murder their own rather than murdering defenceless people in far off countries. So I strongly support the dissolution of
state in the West. But I am arguing here purely from an intellectual point of view. I know this discussion makes no difference to what happens in the
It is not as if humans are genetically incapable of using coercion individually or collectively and they require a state to do so and once the state
disappears, the coercion too will disappear and one will be left with a "free market". Individuals and business that have no qualms in using
the state coercion apparatus for personal ends will have no qualms in using private bands of armed thugs to achieving the same results
the absence of a state coercion appartus that can limit the scope of such private armed thugs, they will rule. Perhaps that is what the libertarians
want, private armed thugs ruling without any accountability to the public.
In a society of individuals driven exclusively by immediate self-interest, no individual businessman or coproration desires competition or wishes to
tolerate it. So they will use everything they can to wipe out competition, including use of physical coercion. So monopolies are inevitable
a society without a state.
You make it sound as if paying for the upkeep of commons is the only thing taxes pay for.
It is not the consumer's decision what the price he pays goes towards.
Oh so I'm happy for pay for whatever commons I use, therefore it is moral for the state to take half my income at gunpoint and use the
majority of it to pay for services I don't want or use?
It is not your decision what the cost of the services you use should be. The taxes that you pay are for the privilege of stepping on to the state
property. The rest of the services are free, even to you
What sort of freedom do you get under the current system obeying countless unjust laws?
Hmm.. Interesting, now you are talking about just and unjust laws. Perhaps you should dwell more on it, justice, instead of your self-interest. Then
you may understand the role of a state.
So because I want to use commons, while they have a gun to my head they can start calling out whatever terms they like? I use commons,
therefore I must also contribute to illegal wars, other peoples education, an oppressive police force, bank bailouts, government debt, etc. I don't
agree to those terms.
If you don't like the terms, stop using state property in any way. You won't make any money that way if you even survive beyond a few days, so you
don't have to worry about paying any taxes either.
If you disagree with the way your state is operating and there are enough like you, you can probably do something about changing
What about if I calculate the costs of my use, then ask for a refund for 90% of my tax back?
It is not
up to you to decide what the cost of your use is, it is up to the owner of the property, the state.
No, it is very different because consumers have a choice. They are not having a gun pointed at them and forced into the transaction. They can
deal with a competitor or no one at all. Therefore businesses must create terms and conditions that are fair. The state can do what it
Any business that understands the consumers have no choice
of not using its services, can set any terms it wants. Currently no business is
to set any terms it wants, because it is controlled by the state. In the absence of a state every business that understands that the
consumers have no choice but to use their services will
set any terms it wants.
I disagree. That (personal advancement) is the current goal of everyone. It is human nature. The sooner we have a system to accommodate that,
the better. It's not as if we can change human nature to get it to fit to the current system.
I happen to know many humans for who that is not true. However I won't try to convince you that such humans exist. If you don't know such people,
there is little I can do by way convincing you. But I can prove
that in such a society, a moral state, of the kind you desire, is an
So the choice is yours, you change or you will have more of what you have today.
IMO a moral state is ideal, but no state is still better than the current system.
You should probably try relocating to Somalia, it has no state. But if you wish to reduce your country, which I am guessing is a Western state, to
another Somalia, you have my complete support.
A state run by selfish individuals must not be allowed to have coercive power. Else those in power use that power and coercion to
control others to their own advantage. When people pay for what they use, the power is in the hands of the people (voting for what they want with
I edited what I quoted by introducing a 'not' and removing a 'to' in the first sentence, because I believe that is your intent.
A state without coercive power is a contradiction in terms. In fact, a state is one that has monopoly
on coercive power. Again, absence of
state doesn't mean absence of coercive power. It simply means anyone who wishes to use it is limited only by the existence of another coercive power
bigger than them. The biggest gang of crooks will replace the state in their coercive power, the only difference being there won't be anyone
bothering about your complaints of being "robbed" if you are even allowed to make them.