[bshepard]

By transferring government resources from the perpetuation of force (military industrial complex/prison archipelago) towards the social expenses mentioned above. This would involve a diminution of force, and an increase in cooperative social relations.

[fallous]

Let's be clear, we're not disagreeing on policies we're disagreeing on what the behavior of government is in enacting policies. Government does not have resources it did not acquire through laws... which are by necessity enforced. Say "no" to the IRS and see how things work out.

A diminution of force is not the absence of force and you simply can't have a government act without the consequence of enforcing its actions. This isn't "cooperative" since that requires voluntary consent of all parties. I may support any number of government actions but I do not hide behind euphemisms to convince myself that those actions carry with them the very real potential and actual consequence of force.

[maccam94]

I think you're not catching what fallous is saying, because s/he's using libertarian vernacular. Libertarians view taxation as force, because if you don't pay the tax the police can forcefully take your property/valuables. IMO this view is shortsighted and doesn't properly assess the advantages to generally granting the government a monopoly on the use of force.

[fallous]

You're mistaking my pointing out the means as a critique of the ends. If you do not pay your taxes not only can the police take your property but they can and will imprison your person. That is the reality of the situation and I support the collection of taxes (and the enforcement required) with the full understanding of what my support entails. I don't try and drape fig leaves around it.