You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A Simplified Taxless State: A Proposal (part one of three)
Aren't anarchists against government as a whole? The idea of countries and borders are useless at that point.
Aren't anarchists against government as a whole? The idea of countries and borders are useless at that point.
@vegeta, it depends on what exactly you mean by government. Your average anarcho-capitalist would define government as some variation of "The organization which initiates violence against peaceful people," so when they say they're against government as a whole, they mean no more and no less than that they're against initiating violence against peaceful people. Many people do not use the word government to apply solely to violence, and thus they are confused when anarchists oppose government, thinking anarchists oppose the good things governments do, which is not the case.
The above meme is using the word "governments" not in the anarchist sense, but in the sense the average person thinks of it in.
Precisely. As "Self-Government" for example, the word doesn't sound that bad anymore.
If by "average person" one means "person with a dictionary, who isn't a member of a cult" then yes, precisely. Government and "cybernetics" share the same Greek root word, meaning "steersmanship." This effectively means: "control exerted only where control is necessary, as indicated by feedback signals."
Where no-one is being attacked by aggressors, government is not necessary. Where aggressors and fraud perpetrators are present, government attempts to proportionally rise up against them. Those who never aggress against anyone should be able to exist without ever encountering government; much like those who are never attacked need never engage in the violence of self-defense.
The anarchist lack of understanding of the ramifications of the term "government" is also the reason that it's unintelligent to try to win support for "anarchism," per se. Political support (which results in fewer innocent people punished) can far more easily be won for a "radical libertarian," "night watchman," or "voluntaryist" state.
In a radical libertarian, night watchman, or voluntaryist state,
So, in short: Not everyone pays, but that's OK. There's no such thing as criminal tax evasion, and nonpayment of taxes shrinks the state while tax payment expands the state. Taxes are itemized to the greatest extent possible, and payments can be made to the military or courts that are not made to the local police. This then provides feedback to the local police about the job they are doing. Everyone also has a vote, and a vote on every "law."
The laws are "suggestions," and proper, random juries oversee the enforcement of laws that purely outlaw aggression and fraud. When a bogus law is broken, a random jury won't likely punish that lawbreaking. (Modern juries are not proper juries, but describing how and why that's the case requires more space than I have here.)
Everything legitimate that anarchists want is covered by a sufficiently-radical minarchist goal structure and viable strategy. Of course, that doesn't cover having a cool-sounding-but-ineffectual cult to belong to, for purposes of social signaling.
What will happen to the extend of use of violence in the case that competing governments can exist ?
Well, I'm thinking people may not like living in the area of a violent government.