Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> it is the threat of force to take property from someone against their will.

No it's not. It's the threat of force against people who use that market and then refuse to pay the fees they owe. Any service can (and would) do the same via the legal system. I've never paid the US government a penny, because I don't use their market.

> We were born into this system and we never agreed to it.

You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees. Or of attempting to get them changed by voting for a representative that shares your views.

> Would you say if most of the world were enslaved that because there are no examples of a free people, it's not worth while to try?

If all the examples of 'free people' were actually living in much worse conditions than the so-called 'enslaved' ones, I'd certainly stop to question the definitions of 'enslaved' and 'free'.



You're making a false equivalency between the State and other market actors. You may not be using the US government's services, but you're probably using your own government's. Forcing a service on people (say the War on Drugs) and then demanding payment through taxation is different from competing in the market. Even if you cite paying a fee for using the roads--not too controversial--to gain a monopoly on road-building, the government had to use the threat of force. You must follow things back to the origin.

> You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees.

For a price, and then only to enter another country.


>For a price, and then only to enter another country.

Yeah, what would you expect? If you leave the social contract, you have all your rights back. Then again, you are no longer entitled to the protections society affords you. In an abstract version of this, upon completely leaving the system you were born into, you are subject to the state of nature and so the state can kill you if it feels like it. Or it can enslave you, or take all your property; what are you going to do about it?

You don't have to pay taxes, though.


> You're making a false equivalency between the State and other market actors.

This is a meaningless objection: no two things are exactly the same, but it can be useful to consider how they're similar.

> You may not be using the US government's services, but you're probably using your own government's.

Yes, and then I pay for them.

> Forcing a service on people (say the War on Drugs) and then demanding payment through taxation is different from competing in the market.

No it's not. Many companies take the money I paid for their service and use it in ways I don't like. I get far less say in their use of this money than I do in my country's government.

(My government doesn't have a monopoly on road building - I had to pay for the road up to my house - so I don't know what that refers to)

> You must follow things back to the origin.

Not really. While it may be interesting to find out the origin of certain rules and customs, it makes little difference to the way they are now.

> For a price, and then only to enter another country.

True, nothing in life is free; that's why it's a good general rule that poor people shouldn't pay taxes. But there are countries without governments and there are unclaimed territories around the world - they're just not very nice places to live.


If you don't like what your government spends tax money on, you have the power of the vote to (try and) change it - vote for the guy who is against the militarisation of the police forces, in favor of controlled legalisation of some drugs, and willing to shift the tax money to programs helping addicts out (and the underlying problems that cause drug addiction, like poverty, unemployment, culture, etc).

As for non-government stuff, you vote with your wallet.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: