Do you realize government's promises are always fulfilled at your expenses?

And could it be any other way? Governmental non-action is also fulfilled at our expense. No way around it. We’re responsible either way.

Absolutely. I happen to believe the government doesn’t do anything that we can’t do for ourselves at a much cheaper price.

Example

Bush spending a trillion dollars, or Obama spending a trillion dollars, it’s all a bunch of bs. And what they’re spending it on doesn’t differ much at all. War, bureau after needless bureau, wiretapping, big bank and company bail outs, etc. Obama gave us no indication in his campaign or in his career and voting history that he favored change from the Bush administration. I don’t know where people get that from. He made inspiring speeches of hope and change, yet his answers to debate questions and statements on the issues showed absolutely no difference. Hell, he’s even against gay marriage because of his religion no less… someone please tell me how he’s different than previous presidents. He’s a puppet to his staff, and he’s putting on a play with our money. I’m so fucking disgusted that so many Americans fell for his bullshit. Perhaps that’s the worst part.

Obama wants this nation of “One” but we are so separate that it’s impossible. We, in fact, do not all want the same things from life, from our government. So this oneness that some dream about just cannot be. Once you realize this, you will also realize that governments don’t really “work.” You are paying out of your pocket for your government to make decisions and run your life. Sometimes you disagree with those decisions. But as you are disagreeing, there is someone else agreeing. And just when you think “Yes, they’re finally doing something right!” there’s someone else saying, “What the crap? That isn’t at all what I want!” So, only sometimes is your money being spent the way you want it to be spent. I don’t understand how anyone can be ok with that. And it’s not just about the money, it’s about a body of elected officials (complete strangers) making decisions based on what they THINK you want, and sometimes their religious beliefs. The fact that they take your money to do it (and gain triple your salary) is just another hearty kick in the ass.

Sorry… I don’t mean to offend people, I just don’t understand and it’s frustrating. I can’t help but get all worked up.

I see that @daloon has said that if there wasn’t government action, then we’d spend our own money to fix things ourselves. This is true 100%. However, we would have a direct say in how it was being spent, and there wouldn’t be all the extra added fees for all the bureaucratic nonsense. And we certainly would be paying for failing businesses to stay afloat, that’s for sure. Of course, unless we thought it was in our best interest, but at least we would have that choice.

We vote for those politicians to use our tax dollars for the benefit of all. They are (or should be) spending those tax dollars in ways that their constituency as voiced their opinion about.
If you don’t like what is happening…speak up! Write a letter to your representatives.
(I’d bet most people don’t even know who their representatives are)

@basp : Have you ever written your reps? I have. Multiple times. So has my husband. We get nothing but canned responses. I write letters all the time. And call them. The only one who has ever returned my call was Sen. Sarbanes (D-MD). Well, his secretary called me back, not him. And she practically read me the canned response letters I got from the other reps… this was on the bailouts last fall, I believe. Congress/state general assemblies no longer represent the people, I’m afraid. I’m very politically aware, and don’t take anything lying down. I wrote my first letter as a 1st grader to President George H.W. Bush. I remember because I asked my teacher what his address was and she yelled at me because I didn’t know. Maybe my parents’ tax money should’ve gone toward that in the curriculum. Anyway, a few weeks later is when I got my first canned response. It’s clear to me that they do what’s in their best interest (or special interest money), not the public. They have grown to think they know best, despite public outrage. This will continue until there is a governmental collapse.

@ubersiren I think that governmental collapse will happen sooner than you think.

Here’s a good story about that:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/09/hawaii.volunteers.repair/index.html

@VS: hahaha… that’s the story I linked above! We’re on the same page.

@Maldadpermanente: I’m afraid you’re right.

@ubersiren: you wanted a personalized response? Pony up. That’ll raise your taxes another mil.

Just sort of curious what anti-government people will do when we are invaded by a foreign power? Also, what will they do when their neighbor doesn’t pony up to have his garbage removed? Or how you’ll get water delivered? Or how any organization large enough to drill for oil could be formed? Also, if your neighbor didn’t pay for fire department help, and the fire in his house sets yours on fire, too.

Seems to me that a country where government is shrunk to nothing would be a pretty poor, war-torn country. Like, oh, say Congo, Rwanda, Somalia, etc, etc.

I agree with daloon. I never saw “tax and spend” as a criticism of governemnt – it’s what they’re supposed to do! There are things we can and should take care of individually and things we can’t. For that, we need government. I write and call a lot too, and am happy to get the form letter in response that tells me the candidate’s opinion on the issue. If I don’t like the what the President is doing, I can vote him out (maybe about 8 years too late but still…)

@daloon: I dont expect a personalized response, but the letters should have at least something to do with the subject at hand. Not just “thanks for your concern, we’re doing everything we can on the matter you’re speaking about.”

Also, I don’t want to get into a big thing about anarchism, but not having a government doesn’t mean not having protection. If you felt threatened by a nation, you could pay for military protection. There will be brave young men and women who long to protect their land even if there wasn’t a government. Just like there would be people who find pride in teaching, or any other profession that is now funded by tax payer money.

The difference between what I’m talking about and Rwanda is that their government was stripped of them. Nobody who “wants” a government is going to respond well to having it taken from them. Some can’t even survive without it because it’s all they know. And I’m not proposing that US government should be eliminated, for that very reason. Some people in the US need someone to take care of them, or wouldn’t know how to live without government. I just don’t want to live under it. I could live in your neighborhood, right next door to you, only I wouldn’t pay taxes. Instead I’d only pay tolls for the roads I use. I’d only pay for the teachers my kids have (and would have the option of finding a better teacher if I needed to).

Ok, the fire department situation. Would it be in my best interest to not pay the fire department? Or have fire insurance? No, why would I put myself in that situation? Just because I’m anti government doesn’t mean I resist responsibility. On the contrary. I’m anti-government because I think I (or the people I pay) can do a better job for less money.

Ubersiren
I communicate with my representatives montly, by letter, phone, email and in person. Admittingly, there are some who are not good at responding and I do not lend my support to them at election time. But, for the most part, I get good response and with combined advocacy efforts, have been able to influence legislation.
Overall, I have had more successes than failures.

@ubersiren I’m sure you would pay for fire protection, however, there will be people who don’t. If you happen to live next to them, and their house catches on fire, you’re kind of screwed. If the fire spreads to your house, and they don’t fight the other fire, they won’t be successful at fighting your fire.

What I’m trying to point out is that we are interdependent and there is no way around it. We are interdependent in so many ways—ways most of us never think about, that if we didn’t have a government, people would almost instantly clamoring for one. The everyone for themselves scenario doesn’t work, when that means you can do anything. Like put in a waste recycling center or a pig farm next door. What individuals do affects other individuals, and without a government, we have no way to regulate it to protect all our interests as best we can, while leaving as much freedom as possible.

You may feel disenfranchised, and that your politicians are unresponsive. You have the power to do something about that in this country. Use it! You can’t do it without cooperating with others, though. Rhetoric doesn’t win. Cooperative work does. Can anarchists work together? Can they work with other people? Seems like if they did, they wouldn’t be anarchists any more.

Well, there are people who don’t pay for fire protection now. Their neighbors are screwed.

We are interdependent. We need each other to survive. The cobbler needs dentist work, and the dentist needs shoes. The teacher needs to drive on roads to get to work, and the road workers’ kids need teachers. But it’s my opinion that nobody needs the government to be the third party decider in what road workers build what roads and how much they will be paid. I can’t think of a single thing the government does for us that we can’t do on our own, and probably better.

I don’t agree that we can do anything about it in this country. We can vote, but there’s not guarantee that those elected officials will do what we expect (Obama is a shining example). I don’t believe “majority rules” is fair anyway. But that’s how we operate, and will always operate. I don’t believe there’s anything I can do to change that.

@ubersiren How would roads get built in the system you are thinking about?

@daloon In response to your first answer. Well said!!!

What??? You mean Uncle Sam doesn’t pay for all those things? How many people really don’t know that every government program is paid for by the taxpayers?

@daloon : The way it got done in the article I linked. If enough people want a road somewhere, they can pay a road builder to build one. Maintenance would be achieved through tolls, or however the road owner/builder wants to gain fees. I don’t have one correct answer. Every road builder, policeman, clothier, chef, landscaper, makeup artist can collect fees in a way that suits them and the person on the receiving end of the service.

@ubersiren Yeah, and if some neighborhood slacker doesn’t want to pay his fair share they can send a couple of goons over to their house to break a couple of bones. After all, if you don’t have a community police force, supported by all the taxpayers, who is to say that you can’t have a few individual police in your pocket. If offer to pay more for them to rob you than you pay for protection, you’re stuck.

@YARNLADY : Who says we won’t have a police force? You can pay for their services just like any other service sector.

Besides, if some neighborhood slacker doesn’t want to pay the toll on the toll road, then he can’t pass. I think that’s the purpose of a toll. Isn’t that how business is done? You can’t have the stuff if you ain’t got the money. I don’t see why you would need goons.

@everyone: Try answering these questions yourselves. If you were, in fact, stripped of your government and had to live this way, how could it work? I think you will find that the answers are right there in logic. If you were dependent on others to survive, you wouldn’t be messing around and pissing people off. Your contribution to society would be necessary for your survival. If some douche hasn’t been paying his bar tab, it wouldn’t be in my best interest to send goons after him, would it? I don’t want to be known as the Corleone family bar, do I? Who would go to a bar like that? It would make much more sense if I just didn’t serve him anymore.

@ubersiren It’s hard to fathom that you are really that naive. The system you are talking about works for small isolated groups, but for large populations that are spread across thousands of miles it is totally unworkable, and on a global scale, unbelievable. You have a serious lack of knowledge of history and social economics.

@YARNLADY : So, you’re agreeing that it works? I’m not proposing everyone do it. Only those who want to, which I’m sure aren’t many. If a society like this existed in the US, it would likely be broken up into smaller “tribes” for lack of a better term. People working together in “tribes”... I don’t know why that would be so unworkable. People working with each other, tribes working with other tribes….There have existed anarchist societies, by the way. You are aware of this, right? They actually rarely fail on their own. Only when a nation’s government comes in and eradicates them are they erased.

I don’t know where you get off telling me I have a serious lack of knowledge of history. I’m very insulted by your claims that I’m naive and uneducated in the matter. Was social economics your major in college? If so, perhaps you can finally give me one solid argument against anarchism. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable one. If your case of “It wouldn’t work if it was bigger than a bread box” is the best you’ve got with no proof to back it up, then I have no choice but to think that I’m a little more versed than you on this subject. I may be younger than you, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t been studying this philosophy longer than you.

The repeated flaw I see in history’s failures is that of feeble minds being dependent on their often abusive leaders. Nothing has to be any certain way. If we want to, we can make our reality any way we’d like. We can set up systems people haven’t even dreamed of before.

Maybe you’re the naive one… thinking the only society that “works” is one run by men in suits whom you’ve never met. You can go ahead and be cozy in your version of the Truman Show, but I like to live my life my own way.

Can we be finished with the childish insults? I can really let loose if you want to continue. I’ve been cordial until now, but if you’re attacking my knowledge something I’m very passionate about, I can throw shit back like Tom Seaver throws a baseball. Please tell me how naive and lacking in knowledge I am again.

@ubersiren sorry, I just carried away with my credulity at your comments and sounded off without thinking of your feelings.

@ubersiren Well, my logic tells me it doesn’t work. To continue the road building example, you say, ”If enough people want a road somewhere, they can pay a road builder to build one.”

How are people going to organize themselves to pay for a road? How are they going to get everyone to chip in to finance it? What will they do when half the people on the proposed route refuse to pay for it? Who is going to get the land on the route, anyway? What if some people’s property is in the way?

You might say people will organize themselves, and I’ll say that’s nonsense. One person, or a few people will take on the job, and you know what? That’s government. Maybe they can’t get permission to build a road through someone’s property. What are they going to do? Hire themselves a few thugs, and burn the poor fellow out. There’s a reason it’s called anarchy.

People won’t cooperate unless they see the cooperation as fair in terms of costs and benefits. It’s the old prisoner’s dilemma. You end up with everyone defecting, and then it’s every family is a separate armed camp; no one trusting anyone else, and the standard of living going down the toilet.

You know, you are free to run off to Montana or Alaska somewhere, and start your own anarchist community. Buy plenty of land, and you won’t have to see anyone else who doesn’t share your politics. If you go to Alaska, they’ll even pay you something from the Permanent Fund every year. Of course, you don’t have to take it from the government. It’s a handout, but everyone gets it, so maybe it’s not so bad. Then again, maybe you’ll give yours back to the oil companies who drilled it. Oh wait. The government owns the land they drill on. Well, destroy the government, and let them keep all their profits. Oh, and who cares if the Trans-Alaska pipeline melts the permafrost and destroys migration lanes for animals. The oil company owns the land, and can do whatever they want with it. Nevermind that a native tribe needs those animals to provide food through the winter.

You anarchy is a might makes right society. Pardon me, but I’m not interested, and I don’t think you’ll have many takers. I think @YARNLADY is right. It’s an idea with precious little to say for it, and an awful lot to say against it. Truly, I don’t understand how you could defend it as you have, unless you are just jerking us around.

It gets even sillier when you think about armies defending the citizens from invasion. What if a few don’t want to pay for it? Will we let the invader shoot only the ones who won’t pay? @daloon I think he’s just pulling our collective chains

@daloon : Everyone doesn’t have to chip in to finance a road. It can be paid up front by those willing and able to do so. The rest can be paid over time by tolls. Maybe those people who paid up front get a free pass for a year or something… I don’t know, there are dozens of options…why can’t this work? If more people would want a road somewhere else, then road #1 just wouldn’t get built. It’s that simple. It wouldn’t be in the town’s best interest to build a road on someone’s property that isn’t willing to give it up. Maybe that person is the town doctor, or a major food provider. Our current government just says, “We’re taking your land to build an interstate, and here’s a little cash for it.” I see my society handling this better than we do now!

The only people who want to live in this lifestyle are those who believe it can work. i.e. everyone would be willing to live that way. There are natural leaders, and natural followers, but that doesn’t make a government vs. people society. Natural leaders are not elected or paid to lead, they don’t have to win anyone over to stay in office, they’re don’t have power over anyone else, they are not authority. So the followers can voice that they are unhappy with decisions get actual results rather than hoping their representatives vote the way they want them to. Nobody’s hiring thugs here! I will repeat- it’s not in a society’s best interest to start using brute force to “keep peace.” If they fall in that direction, the society will fail. But as I said before, more often than not, these societies don’t fail, because that rule is understood. Anarchy is only a dirty word to those who are scared of it.

People will cooperate if they want to survive. There’s no government to bail out failures. Contribute or you don’t get fed. This is one of the most appealing parts of the society I dream of.

I can’t start my own anarchist community as long as I live in the US. I am forced to pay property tax and income tax no matter what state I live in. Besides, why would I want to not see people of different ideals? That’s not very healthy. If I isolate myself, what good does that do? And I’m not leaving… this is my home, god damnit.

I don’t want to destroy the government. I want to live separate from it.

Why would I pay oil companies with any money? How did I get pinned as a non-environmentalist? And now I want to eradicate Alaskan natives? Wtf, dude?

@YARNLADY: I’m a woman, first. Second, again- best interest. I can’t say that enough. It wouldn’t be in the town’s army’s best interest to let anyone die. Maybe after the battle, the soldiers would give those who didn’t contribute another chance to pay or volunteer or whatever they decide. Chances are, they would be grateful for their lives, and pay up. Chances are if war was eminent, everyone would band together and contribute in whatever way they could.

I don’t know why this is so silly to everyone. It can work. Just work it out in your mind. Stop saying, “This can’t work because,” and replace it with, “It could work if…” The sky is the limit, but only if you step out of your box. I guess several hundred years ago, men flying to the moon was laughed at too.

Happy Easter everyone. I’ll be gone til’ Sun. night. I’m not ignoring the post.

@ubersiren sorry about ‘he’ I agree with your last statement, “It could work if” but I’m sorry to have to report to you that the if part is what we are all taking about, not the “It could work” part. The if is totally insurmountable with the state of the social development in the world today, and anytime in the near future. IF everybody was as nice and self assured as you and I are, yes, we could establish the type of utopian society we would love to see. But, we live in this world, not that dream one.

I often find myself thinking if only people were as honest as I am, the police, courts, and jailers would be out of business. Do I then start cheating? NO. It starts with me. And just in case you are wondering, I live the life I think everyone else should live, and try to pass it along to my children and grandchildren as well, but I don’t delude myself into thinking that I could convince enough other people to do it that the world would change.

I actually did live like that for many years in a commune just outside of Santa Barbara. We lived similar to a big, happy family, where everybody actually loved everybody else, and shared the work, and lived off the land as much as possible. What we discovered is that unless there is a patron outside the group that can pay our way, it doesn’t work in the modern world.

@YARNLADY The only way to live is to “brighten the corner where you are”, if you will pardon the cliche. Of course we have jails, and police, (and sickness and all the other problems) because we are not perfect. You do what you can, in your corner. My favourite poem, by Matthew Arnold (Dover Beach).

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

@YARNLADY : The “if” isn’t any one thing. It doesn’t have to be. And I’m not especially nice. An anarchist society wouldn’t be a hippie Utopia… it’s not a commune, or a Phish concert where I pass the dutchie because I’m in a loving mood.

As I’ve said a dozen times, I don’t want the world to “change.” I know some people want/need government. Only people who think the way I do could make this type of lifestyle work. Someone reliant on a government would never survive if they had to do things themselves. I’m not in this to force people to live in a way they don’t want to. I just want the option to live that way myself… Just the OPTION! Just like I think gay marriage should be legal, but not required- what sense does that make? Not everyone is suited for marriage, as not everyone is suited to live without a governing body. I’m not preaching that everyone should come over to my side, and I don’t know where you get that. I’m not delusional, thanks.

See… in your last paragraph, this is how you assume I want to live. But I’m no hippie. I’m not a hunter. I have the opposite of a green thumb, I suck at sewing, and I’m not friendly enough to provide a service for someone just because they’re part of my community. They have to earn it. If this is your idea of anarchy, then your mind is already made up for you. You’re not listening to me, and you’re not opening yourself up to the possibility of my “dreamworld” being, in a lot of ways, similar and coexistent with the real world now.

@ubersiren Sorry I interpreted your comments as being from a nice person. I won’t make that mistake in the future. Dream on, and live your life exactly as you see fit.

I said I’m not especially nice. As in, not more than your average person. I’m glad to see you got the most of my message.

@ubersiren “Anarchy is only a dirty word to those who are scared of it.” This is the most succinct defense of anarchy I’ve ever seen. I couldn’t have put it better myself (and I’ve tried). May I use it in future discussions?

The problem is exactly as you describe. Anarchy has become synonymous with chaos, crime, and violence. It means none of these things. It simply means lack of government.

I wonder where these people think governments come from. As if they magically appeared as an all-knowing, all-powerful force of nature. To imagine a world without one is akin to an evangelical Christian trying to imagine a world without God. It just doesn’t compute.

I’ll pay for that road.

@Poser : For the love of all that is good, please use it. Another thing to keep in mind is that government is just people. Not special people, not better educated people, not people with a privilege to be in office. So, how can we rely on them to make the best choices for us? We can elect people to run us, or we, as people ourselves can do it.

I don’t understand how I keep giving anarchist-minded solutions to every problem I’m presented with in these discussions, and I’m still the delusional one. Every single question I’ve been asked, such as “Well, how would this work,” has been answered clearly. There are so many answers to the same question. I have yet to be stumped. I have yet to be dumbfounded by a problem. Yet I keep getting, “Well, that just won’t work,” with no backing explanation other than it’s just “ridiculous” or I don’t know what I’m talking about, or plain stupid. But, I keep answering questions. I will continue to answer these questions until tolerance is reached.

@ubersiren The reason your answers aren’t taken as valid is because they are “IF” this and “IF” that, and the if’s are just too far fetched. Or other instances where you insist that those who won’t pay their way will still be served at the expense of those that do. You are saying that those who pay should carry the freeloaders. I, for one, don’t like freeloaders (“It wouldn’t be in the town’s army’s best interest to let anyone die.”)followed by a big Maybe. If’s and maybes are not real answers, just wishes. In one comment you insist you are trying to change the world, yet every one of your so called solutions requires a complete turn around in attitude and custom.

@YARNLADY Because, God knows, our current system does nothing to reward freeloaders.

Besides, what’s wrong with changing the world? Maybe a little outside the box thinking is what this world needs.

@Poser There are freeloaders in our present system, yes, but most people wouldn’t actually try to encourage it. I didn’t say there was anything wrong with changing the world, I think major change is good and will come, but @ubersiren claims that she isn’t trying to change the world, yet everything she suggests would require huge changes in the way everything works.

@YARNLADY Who said anything about encouraging freeloaders? I never heard @ubersiren say anything close to that.

@Poser I gave an example in my comment. It is impossible in the real world to “pay per use” for all the services we all share in, and yet she implies that people who don’t pay their fair share for fire, police, schools, roads and any other service, would still receive the advantages. I don’t know how she thinks the food gets to her grocery store, or the water to her faucet, not to mention sewer, and trash. To only educate the children of people who are willing to pay for it would make our country as helpless as those “third world” countries.

Do you want to live in a neighborhood where only those who pay for it will get their trash picked up, and the rest can just throw it in their yard? Can you imagine what would happen if you had to interview and hire a contractor everytime there was a pothole in your street, rather than letting the public agency handle it? Or worse, let someone else pay for it, because you think property taxes are not fair.

Here is a great article that addresses this very issue. Basically, you all are missing the point. It’s not about whether Anarchy is possible. It’s about whether government itself—the idea of government, aka “The State”—is just.

Anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states do not necessarily employ aggression.

Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t “work” or is not “practical” is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved – I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.

@Poser In the first sentence, redefining a word (taxes = agression)raises a red flag. Then the blanket statement “always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression” I stop reading. It simply isn’t true.

What happens if you refuse to partake in the services provided by government, and refuse to pay your taxes? The government compels you to pay your taxes under threat of incarceration (which is pretty violent in itself). Therefore, taxes=aggression.

And what competing defense agencies does the government allow?

Just because you refuse to acknowledge ideas you disagree with doesn’t make them any less true.

Perhaps you have heard of the NRA, and the multiple militia organizations, plus multiple volunteer police and fire departments in “rural” areas http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=militia+organizations&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Your example of non-taxpayers has nothing to do with taxes, but instead with willfully breaking the law. Taxes = public funded services and nothing more.

There are thousands of people in every city in this country who pay no taxes, and who do not use any public facilities and they are free to live their lives anyway they want.

I am not refusing to acknowledge ideas at all, but when the ideas presented are pure nonsense, I do not find it worth my time and effort refuting them. It’s worse than trying to answer why is the sky blue a thousand times.

“Your example of non-taxpayers has nothing to do with taxes, but instead with willfully breaking the law. ” This is exactly my point. Who but the government has the power to pass laws that force you to pay taxes? Refusing to pay taxes is willfully breaking the law, and you have no choice in the matter. If you refuse to pay, you go to jail. That is aggression.

The NRA isn’t a defense agency. Nor are police forces or fire departments.

There are countless examples of government aggression against citizens. They aren’t hidden. They are blatant. You are an example of the result of such aggression. You are afraid of even the idea of life without the heavy hand of government, such that you can’t even see the chains which you’ve embraced.

I’m through. I can’t take it anymore.

If you don’t want to be part of society, you can leave the country. Good luck trying to find a place where people don’t care about your behavior. You always affect other people, and if you are out of touch with that, collective action (aka government) is a good way to show you that you most people will not tolerate it if you run roughshod over others.

People live in an interconnected world. We are all dependent upon each other whether we like it or not. If you don’t submit to that at all, you will be crushed. Government is the means that society uses to encourage the amount of politeness necessary for a society that maximizes happiness. You only have a certain amount of freedom. It is not absolute.

Government expresses the will of society, perhaps imperfectly, but you can’t convincingly support a claim that government is it’s own entity, out of touch with everything but itself. It may reflect the will of a minority, but that can’t last forever. If you are in a very tiny minority, your best hope is to form a society (or a country) where you can do it the way you want to. Good luck. Don’t expect me to visit that country if you ever do manage to create it. Although, within a few years, you’ll either have created government, or you’ll be dead.

@Poser Making a blanket statement “You are afraid of even the idea of life without the heavy hand of government, such that you can’t even see the chains which you’ve embraced.” Is counter productive to a conversation. I am not afraid of any such thing. I am suggesting that it not all as simple as people who don’t want to pay their taxes think it is. You can’t come up with the answers about how this would work, and resort to name calling instead of ideas. Doing away with taxes and even government will not magically get rid of greed and corruption or freeloaders or hatred or racism or child molestors, or criminals of every type, or any of the issues plague us.

All the elimination of government would do is split the country into the same type of tribal groups that are scattered through out Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The living standard of the US would collapse into warring leaders with continual fighting to obtain power over what pieces of humanity they could control by the most brutal means possible.

Any one of us could end up on the receiving end of a campaign to rid the earth of “our kind” whatever it might be.

Personally, I’m glad I live in a country where millions of people pay their taxes and the government is chosen in a free election, and I have the best protection money can buy.

The thing is that anyone can opt out of the system any time they want, and I know plenty of people who have done it. Any time you are ready to do it yourself, just look up “Living off the grid” and get busy. No one is going to hand it to you on a silver platter, you have to get off your butt, and off the computer and do it yourself.

@YARNLADY You are still arguing a moot point. I’m not arguing about how anarchy would work. Simply that government, in itself, is inherently unethical.

@Poser Government is not a thing, and therefore cannot be unethical. Some who govern can be, and in many countries, the people have no choice in who is in charge, but in the US the people who are asked to make the decisions for us are chosen by the people.

Each person is ultimately responsible for governing themselves, but since most prove unable or unwilling to do that, they delegate that responsibility to others.

@YARNLADY “Government is not a thing, and therefore cannot be unethical.” I don’t even know what this means. Government most certainly is a thing, but I don’t think this is a requirement for something being unethical. Racism isn’t a “thing,” but it is certainly unethical.

@Poser Government is an organization of people that have the authority and function to make and the power to enforce laws, regulations, or rules. In the US, this authority is given to them by the people, through elections. It is not a “thing” that could have any kind of ethics good or bad. It is a group of people, and a few of them are sometimes unethical, but that does not make the system unethical.