Who Owns You?

The problem isn't government vs no government. We came together as a species to work together for a reason. The problem is finding the right system of government. It's not communism, not democracy, or a republic.

I couldn't tell you what the ideal government is, but I'm confident one exists. We just have to abandon our preconceptions and come together to work it out.

Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum

 

 
 
You sound like a voluntarist....
 
But it depends on how you define government.

 

 
She's got it! Great clip.
 

 
Taxes make the state and all its crimes against humanity possible. They couldn't exist otherwise.
 
Others above have answered the "obeying laws" excuse quite well.
 
However, I will add: We always assume that if government is doing "X," it's because it isn't possible for anyone else to do it. It's been like that all our lives so we assume it to be true, but it isn't. Anything the state does the private sector could do better, more efficiently, and cheaper. The evidence is all around us.
 
The big, huge, negative about the state is that it rests on a foundation of coercion and violence. We are so used to it that we cannot grasp the idea of an orderly society without some sort of violent political government overseeing it.
 
It is perfectly legal for the state to steal, coerce, destroy others' property, murder, and even commit mass-murder.
 
But is it moral?
 
"All laws are not just, nor is justice necessarily legal." -- Col. Jeff Cooper (deceased)
 
The state is an illegitimate out-dated institution. It's time we tried something else, IMO.

 

 
Did you actually READ it? Or can't you comprehend what you read?
 
It says "All laws are not just . . . "
 
That means that 100% of laws are not necessarily just. That means some are and some aren't
 
It's plain English and pretty simple to understand, unless you're a product of government schools.

 

Because eradicating corruption would be like getting rid of gravity, it will always exist. Governments give corruption validation. Under no circumstances would a individual invade Iraq for perceived weapons of mass destruction would they? And under what circumstances would a individual use wmd against other individuals? Or say a nukes? Do you think that if we lived in anarco-cap world that anyone would of used nuclear technology for anything other than energy? Really think about it. People even violent people wouldn't destroy property just to take control of it. It doesn't make economic since. If you wanted to steal your neighbors house would you kill them and burn it down? A state would and does. The state has fund's derived from force to destroy and then rebuild property. It can employ or order by force the rebuilding of that house. The state allows people to gather as a singular voice and suppress whole region's. Do you think any individual has the ability to enforce a embargo? Or what about spending more on military might than the rest of the world combined? Is this possible under the feared anarchy society? Think about it.
Your worried about justice? Laws that are fair. Are you getting that now? Your worried about education especially for the poor, how's that going? Your worried about the killing of innocents, millions have been murdered by the state. Your biggest fears about anarchy are already happening now! But in the grandest of all scales. This is only made possible through the state.

bat mobile

 

If taxation isn't voluntary then your idea of government is flawed corrupt and immoral. If it is voluntary than it ceases to be a government in the way we know it today. It would then be a business like any other without a monopoly on certain services which are then open for people to compete which results into better quality of roads, protection and laws. 

 

Who's to say if government didn't own the roads and the air we wouldn't have flying vehicles?

bat mobile