[quinnchr]

If my landlord breaks the terms of my lease I am more than free to move, but I don't get to stay there for free just because he broke the contract.

You can nullify the contract by leaving any time you like. Or you can attempt to hold the government to the contract using a little known facet of our democratic process called "The Legislative Branch."

[np422]

Once again ... It's not a fair argument to say that you can leave any time you want.

Your home, family, friends, culture, job and probably a big part of your identity will be left behind. Even in states with well known scumbag governments people tend to stay until they have a very real threat to their life and person.

And to think that democracy is a kill-everything-silver-bullet is very naive, we have had laws written under democratic rule that allowed one person to own other persons, less then 10 years ago sexual intercourse between men were still illegal some states in USA.

And yet I agree that a central government is preferable to no central government, I would also agree that democracy is very much preferred over the alternatives.

All I ask is that the social contract is not to be used as a pretext for things that are not absolutely necessary since we are born into that contract and can not nullify it in any realistic way at a later stage in life. Please respect my personal freedom, privacy and individual rights - keep the use of force and violence against others to an absolute minimum.

Is that to much to ask?

PS Search youtube for video called "George Ought to Help", it may contain some things worth thinking about

[quinnchr]

Democracy is not the only option, according to the terms of the contract violent revolution is also on the table, but a cursory study of U.S. history will tell you how bad of an idea that is.

Also as I already pointed out, your home, family, friends, culture, and job are there largely because of the services the government provides. So while it may suck, if you disagree with paying taxes you can not pay them and leave, or you can stay pay your taxes and continue to enjoy the services of the government.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine if the government hadn't invested it's tax revenue back into national defense and infrastructure for the past three centuries. Do you still think your home, family, friends, culture, or job would exist? Why should you get to enjoy the payout of investing three centuries worth of tax revenue if you are not going to contribute?

People give up their homes, family, friends, and culture every single day in the U.S. just to survive. Now I do think it's definitely unfair to those who simply can't afford to move. If that's the case for you or the parent I was responding to, I will personally buy you a plane ticket to Somalia (or any other place with limited government) and give you two months rent.

[np422]

First, about taxes ... I live in Sweden and we pay the worlds second highest percentage of GDP as tax and the service I get in return is really not anywhere near best-of-class.

If we were talking about national defence and infrastructure, that would be something that even an "anarchist" as myself would be willing accept and file under "things that a government can administer", but the amount of government sponsored waste, abuse and misuse of collected tax is reaching biblical proportions right in front of my eyes.

We don't have a constitutional court in Sweden and the political landscape is very much a hegemony and in practice a two party system like the US - it doesn't lean towards changing the system in any meaningful way, When I'm told that I should be prepared to accept my current situation due to a "social contract" which I have been born into - and if I don't like it I can always pack my bags and move to Somalia - it doesn't seem at all reasonable to me - even if you pay my ticket.

Second, role and praise of governments ... The major advancements in living standards and job creation have largely been due to technological improvements, free market capitalism, enterprises and entrepreneurs. The largest redistributions of wealth have been due to voluntary membership in trade unions and individuals exercising their right to choose employer. Governments and nation states have historically opposed any change to things like guild systems and even ordered military forces to break up strike actions. I don't think that crediting governments for job creation and living standards is entierly correct.

We don't live in a perfect world, so I don't expect volontary co-operation to work for all issues that a society faces, I am prepared to accept a central government in a nation state. In that way I am just a different kind of authoritarian than you. There may even be a high practical value for a central government to administer things like infrastructure, defence and judical system.

But once we get past that point we are walking a slippery sloap and we must be very careful with every step we take - otherwise we might end up in a situation where it is me or your who gets a thoroughly examaniation of our back part like the gentleman mentioned in the article above.

And I really don't see how that is covered in any form of social contract.

[quinnchr]

I'll admit I don't know much about the government of Sweden but aren't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Legislation_(Sweden) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Sweden an analogue of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Sweden is second in the world behind Norway for income equality (one of the most import factors in encouraging entrepreneurship), has one of the highest rates of entrepreneurship of OECD countries (much higher than the U.S.), is number one in the world in terms of gender equality, has the 4th highest life expectancy in the world (The U.S. is 33rd), has the fifth lowest infant mortality rate in the world (less than half that of the U.S.), and is within 10% of the U.S. in terms of GDP per capita.

According to the most recent data I can find (2012) Sweden is fifth in the world in terms of tax percentage of GDP. Considering Sweden is top 5 in almost every indicator I can think of, that seems pretty reasonable to me, and I would not hesitate to call that best of class service.

How can you simultaneously claim that "The largest redistribution of wealth have been due to voluntary membership in trade unions and individuals exercising their right to choose employer."

While also making the claim that you can't simply up and move because "Your home, family, friends, culture, job and probably a big part of your identity will be left behind".

If there is only one or very few employers in your area what real right do you have to choose your employer? Your indictment of the Social contract is equally an indictment of the Free Market.

Also you're going to need some evidence to back up claims like "The major advancements in living standards and job creation have largely been due to technological improvements, free market capitalism, enterprises and entrepreneurs." If you'll take at look at the industrial revolution you'll notice almost all infant industries were subsidized, several key technological developments that helped lead to the industrial revolution were spurred by government intervention (e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer), and patents were really enforced for the first time to encourage entrepreneurship and strangle competition from competing countries.

As for the government using force to break up strikes. I can only speak to U.S. history, but I can't think of an instance where the government stepped in (with violence) before the strike turned violent. I can think of several far more egregious applications of violence by private industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matewan_Massacre

And in fact, it was the government which codified the right of unions to strike, preventing private enterprise's unjustified use of violence (or at least attempting to). Unions pretty much wouldn't exist today if it weren't for government protection.

Also, I'm sorry but anarchists reject the use of force in all forms, they would not support any hierarchical forms of power (in a lot of cases that includes any capitalist system, and no anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists). Let's call it what it is, Libertarianism.

[smokeyj]

> Why should you get to enjoy the payout of investing three centuries worth of tax revenue if you are not going to contribute?

You're portraying industry and taxation as a chicken and egg scenario, and by proving that taxation is why your job is here, taxation must therefore be the enabler of civilization (and as a result, just and moral -- to the extent you support caging people who do not agree). Your basic premise is theoretically and historically inaccurate.

As for your disdain for limited government, that's what set the US apart. It's why we grew to have the largest industry in the world. By your reasoning, Cuba and North Korea should have regulated themselves into endless prosperity by now. Let me buy you a ticket.

[quinnchr]

Cuba has a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and more gender equality than the US. It also has a much better educational system.

So yes, I would actually love to live in Cuba, so I will take you up on your offer to buy me a ticket.

You can email me at [e-mail] to make arrangements.

Thanks!

[quinnchr]

Also, if you want to provide any evidence for any of your claims, that'd be great!

[smokeyj]

You need evidence that economic prosperity should not come at the expense of human rights? Or that America was founded on the principles of restricted government and individual liberty seeking freedom from religious persecutions? Or that shaping moments of this nation was a tax revolt that led to the American Revolution? I don't have time to give history lessons, but I'm not making it up. Check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

[quinnchr]

Ahahahahah the entire history of the United States is based on expanding economic prosperity at the expense of human rights. For fucks sake slavery was enshrined in our constitution because it was so profitable. Then there was the whole genocide of native populations at the expense of economic growth.

And yes obviously they were revolting over having to pay taxes not you know the whole taxation without representation thing (hmmm... taxation in exchange for representation, that sounds almost like some sort of social contract). Maybe try reading some history through a different lens than "waaaaah taxes!" Why don't you give this a try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People's_History_of_the_Unite...

Also I was dead serious about accepting your offer to buy me a ticket to Cuba, you can email me at [e-mail]

Thanks!