You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Consent Makes all the Difference
How is the internet the result of taxation?
And my post has nothing to do with how society would work without taxes or government. I'm not interested in utilitarian arguments, because anything can be justified that way. I'm interested in moral arguments.
It is an undeniable fact that everything the government does is backed by violence or the threat of violence. They are no different than the Mafia except for the fact that everyone is under the delusion that they have the right to bully people and commit these acts of extortion and violence.
Because the research that led to the world wide web was backed with public money.
So let's talk moral arguments then, sure. I'm not trying to deny anything, just would like to see you back your statement. Are you talking about legislation? What is an alternative? Are all attempts to govern violent?
Yes. All legislation is violent. Because if you don't obey, you will be met with threats of fines (more extortion) and jail (kidnapping). If you resist the violence, it will escalate.
As for alternatives, I can't predict exactly what "systems" free people might come up with, but this is a pretty good video explaining a possibility. It's the first in a series. I don't necessarily agree with all of the ideas in the video series, but it shows that there are possibilities.
But the videos don't offer anything at all. In fact they seem to boil down to displacing what is already there, and turning it all into lesser, for-profit systems, which very quickly looks like a horrendous idea.
Conceptually speaking, what is the difference between companies such as Dawn Defence and Tanner Justice, and democratically elected political parties? By incentivising the outcome of justice, his second video pictures a type of distopian nightmare that has been explored over and over again in countless stories. Humans are reduced to mere puppets or potential bags of money, that have to conform to a single end goal in exchange for their very identity. It's a caricature of exactly what you despise.
In his 'model', people are reduced to automatons where everyone has to think the same way (where have we heard that before?), and his view of 'government' seems to be this almost childish image of an authoritarian dictator, benign or not. In fact he speaks of it as if it's a single person, or body moving in perfect unison. He also seems to presume that government is by definition above the law. It is not. That's why, for example, currently in the US, Donald Trump can't get his muslim ban through.
The end result of it is still what you call violence. He talks of loss of social status, loss of financial means, loss of independence, imprisonment... But it is worse - it's now implemented for profit, and how does that sound? If you think corrupt governments are bad (and they are), try a system like this guy's. His example of conflict resolution through competing companies is not only utterly naive, it's also incredibly costly. The only result will either be a continuous 'search for justice' ad infinitum where everyone loses and the companies win, or large scale conflict.
Honestly, society has progressed a little bit since the invention of writing. Is it perfect? No of course not. It's continuously evolving with ups and downs and faster than ever before. And I think we may well agree on a lot of things should we discuss them. But reducing it, like this person does, to the equivalent of a car being any old box with four wheels underneath isn't very helpful.
Suffice to say. I'm not convinced...
As for the moral argument, is parenting violence? Is education?
Education SURE is :D