At gunpoint, presumably?

No smiley required, since the answer to your question is literally, "Yes."

Everything the government does it does by force. Unless you believe that paying property tax is optional (given that one is a property owner).

To the contrary, I would say that precisely what is remarkable about modern societies is that so little of what governments do is actually done by force, especially in comparison to the past. That's the gist of Pinker's argument, re: BTM2 and Jibs' argument (maybe that was in the other thread).

Sure, lurking behind everything is the threat of potential force implied by the state monopoly on "legitimate" violence. But jumping from there to the idea that everything is literally done by force is missing a lot of really important truths about how societies function. Most importantly that it's not actually the literal threat of force that causes most people to comply with social norms -- it's socialization processes that lead people to consider those norms legitimate so that they wish to comply with them in the first place, making force unnecessary.

Given that I am NOT an anarchist, I recognize the legitimacy of the state to ensure the protection of individual's rights, and that therefore some measure of "force" is required to prevent a malevolent "greater" force.

Perhaps one can distinguish (as I do) what might be term "virtuous force", from "malicious force."

I think we probably agree in principle, but I would I'm certain have a government with far more limited scope than you would.

I don't know how to make this clearer. My argument is not that voting doesn't "reflect" on people's morality. My claim is that it is just not as important as people generally suppose these days. My view is that someone's moral character is seen more clearly through how they treat the people they deal with everyday - their spouse, children, friends, customers and co-workers, etc. I think the signal from a person's political beliefs or voting to their moral character is just not that strong, but not zero.

Good thing I'm not claiming that then.

The state protects people every single day, very successfully. There is no argument here that market-based protection would involve less violence than state-based protection, just you noting that there is an alternative to state-based violence. An alternative which doesn't actually exist anywhere in the world now or in recent memory on a large scale.

This completely ignores my point and you know it. I was born into a country with a state that already had power. I never voted to ratify the Constitution.

That being said, sure, it seems plausible to me that the state has a similar amount of power as when I was born. For instance, federal outlays as a percentage of GDP is lower now than when I was born:



And while the government has tightened some laws and regulation, they've loosened others (eg around homosexuality, drug usage, divorce, etc).

Yes they did. For instance, in 1833 England abolished slavery. In 1865, many southern people were still alive that could remember when northern states abolished slavery as well, including New Jersey in 1804 and New York in 1799. I don't know where you are getting this claim that abolishing slavery was so inconceivable. On the other hand, I know of no large country in history that didn't have a state of some kind.

That is a good word. I would say "absolutely amazing" and "nearly inconceivable on an ad hoc basis."

In the past year, what things did you want to do that were prevented by the government?

(and in response to Lagtight also)

There are certainly repercussions for not paying my property taxes but the threat of actual physical violence is so very remote it is rather silly to mention.

Legal notices, county laws, lawyers, the sheriff's department and a whole host of paper pushing bureaucrats would get involved if I didn't pay within a reasonable time frame or just refused to pay at all. And you should understand also that some of the laws actually protect me; I would not be gunned down at my front door for refusal to pay for example and I would have some legal protection(s) for legitimate non payment in some circumstances or delayed payment or a payment schedule worked out that would allow me to keep my property.

What could happen is that someone else could pay the property tax and after a number of years thus legally acquire my property, after proper formality with the county clerk and court.

Lots but I will not list them*. I plead the 5th.


* The list would be too long for you to digest at one sitting.

None.

And there were some things that I did that I COULD NOT have done WITHOUT government involvement.

Yeah, I think my comment might have been written "aT gUnPoInT, pReSuMaBlY" (to denote sarcasm) if I was a lot younger.

Someone might eventually see the business end of a gun if the situation continues to escalate dramatically, but then it's no longer a situation of "not paying taxes" but of resisting arrest or worse.



Something which could still be true, eventually, under AC if contracts have been broken or ignored - at contracted gunpoint instead of the state.

A contract without the threat of force is nothing more than a mere suggestion.

This includes those contracted to protect your interests.

+1

Do we have the exact same thing being discussed in two different threads, or am I just losing it?

And the topic has nothing to do with religion.

I AM losing it....

Tax exemption for churches (US only)

charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations

Tax "exemption" for individuals, etc...

irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4361.pdf


My brother is a minister and is thus exempt.

I'm a Holy Man; I pay my taxes.

The topic is about religion! This topic uses words and arguments, which makes it the same thing as a religious topic!

Maybe the really dangerous people are those who try to define some people as good and others as bad. It sounds like the beginning of something. I'm not a lawyer but I like the law. It doesn't say, "murder is wrong", it just says, "if you do it, we'll put you in a cage."

Solzhenitsyn said, "the line between good and evil runs through every human heart and who is willing to destroy part of his own heart".

Well that's not true at all. There are many ways to deal with those that do not honor contracts that do not include force.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

What are some of those "many ways?"

I didn't realize this was a tag-team match.

Jib, that is what I was going to ask. I'll add that these "many ways" must be applicable in the real world. For instance, if it requires that information asymmetry doesn't exist, then no points will be awarded.

Go read some Rothbard or Mises. You'll find all the answers you need there.

That was one of the least helpful responses I have ever seen.

I'll buy every Rothbard and Mises book for sale on Amazon. Hopefully I'll find an answer to my question in less than a year of reading their books.

That wouldn't be nearly enough. You'd also have to read the various criticisms of Austrian Economics.

The main one is that it has no basis in reality.

See the previous discussion with BTM2

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk