[ameister14]

You don't necessarily have to be asked to consent to something. Your not objecting to action for a certain period of time and in specific circumstances can be read as consent.

The social contract is not about A and B binding C to something. It's a contract between you and your community. What this actually means varies, but in the US it's pretty explicit.

Have you ever voted? If so, you've consented to being a part of this contract, as you even helped create its terms.

More specifically, the communal rights you are accorded will be removed, but your personal rights will be restored. You'll once more be your own sovereign. This means that you can do whatever you want, though you will have to bear the brunt of the consequences your actions bring.

[anoncowherd]

>> You don't necessarily have to be asked to consent to something. Your not objecting to action for a certain period of time and in specific circumstances can be read as consent.

Bullshit. We grow up not having the faintest fucking clue that we're all tax-slaves. We're all brainwashed into believing in the system, and just accepting everything at face value.

If someone questions something, he's told he should just appreciate the services he's "using" and getting in exchange for paying taxes, as if paying taxes was voluntary and as if you wouldn't want to choose the service providers yourself.

Since everyone is brainwashed into "The Matrix" (!), what you said is comparable to raping someone who's in a coma and declaring that he consented to it because he didn't object.

>> More specifically, the communal rights you are accorded will be removed, but your personal rights will be restored. You'll once more be your own sovereign. This means that you can do whatever you want, though you will have to bear the brunt of the consequences your actions bring.

I have no idea what you're talking about there, but if you're (once again) referring to the consequences of disobeying the State, it's worth pointing out that punishing someone for not wanting to be a slave is kind of unreasonable.

[ameister14]

We're not tax-slaves. All this stuff IS voluntary. You can choose not to do whatever you want.

The state of nature and any other system is not inherently better. Think about it. You're alone, you have no community ties, who protects you or your food when you sleep? What happens when someone bigger and stronger than you wants to take what you have, or hurt you?

If you have problems with the system in which you live, then change it. If you can't change it because you're in the far minority, then sorry, but the system we have is more about majority representation and minority protection than minority rule.

>I have no idea what you're talking about there, but if you're (once again) referring to the consequences of disobeying the State, it's worth pointing out that punishing someone for not wanting to be a slave is kind of unreasonable.

I'm saying that if you decide to leave the protection of the state, you sacrifice exactly that, protection. I'm not a slave, and I'd venture to guess you aren't either, but if you feel that way, then be free. Nobody is really stopping you but you.

[anoncowherd]

>> We're not tax-slaves. All this stuff IS voluntary. You can choose not to do whatever you want.

There's a really easy way to find out whether taxation is voluntary: stop paying taxes and see what happens. But you already know what would happen: you would be hauled to jail, and tased, beaten or even shot if you resisted. Everyone knows this.

Next, don't tell me it's voluntary because I can just leave the country. So what? Exchanging one "prison" for another does not mean you're free. Extortion by Mafia B is no more moral than extortion by Mafia A. This is obvious too. The only question is whether you're capable of accepting the reality you actually live in.

>> The state of nature and any other system is not inherently better. Think about it.

Oh believe me, I have :p You know, we're all brainwashed into believing that the State is necessary to protect us, to maintain order in society, and to keep us safe against say, terrorists, foreign nations, evil corporations and so on.

>> You're alone, you have no community ties, who protects you or your food when you sleep? What happens when someone bigger and stronger than you wants to take what you have, or hurt you?

This is your brainwashing talking. Do you think everyone you know would go on a rampage if the State ceased to exist tomorrow?

Of course not. You'd still have your friends and family to lean on, just like before. But that was an extreme example.

The vast majority of people would just go on making a living just like before. Companies would not cease to sell their products and services to customers, and employees would not stop working for companies, and so on. In other words, people would still want (and need) to make money, to get by and to buy whatever they happen to want.

Do you think the only reason McDonald's isn't forcing people to "buy" its burgers is that there's a State and a police force preventing it? Well no, of course not. So why would that change without a government? In fact, it's the government that is actually forcing you to "buy" its services, like healthcare, "protection" and "education".

When I was in the process of letting go of the belief that governments should exist at all, the last straw of my brainwashing I kept clutching on to was this idea that governments keep us safe. But then I realized that even now, if someone wants to physically hurt me, a police officer will not materialize between me and my assailant and prevent him from harming me.

If someone wants to hurt me, it's already just a matter of evaluating the risks vs the "rewards" - if he thinks it's unlikely enough that he'd suffer any negative consequences, he'll just happily punch me in the face or whatever.

In other words, the only thing preventing someone from hurting me are whatever unpleasant consequences he might suffer as a result. But there's no reason why a free society could not arrange unpleasant consequences to those who harm others too, and much more efficiently than the current system to boot. For example, do you think police officers and judges (overall) actually give a flying fuck about you or whether you get justice? What about locking people up in a rape-cage for a decade for having a certain plant in their pockets? -Is that justice?

>> If you have problems with the system in which you live, then change it

You can't. Governments are full of sociopaths, and they are perfectly happy with the way things are going - they went there to exploit and manipulate other people after all. The whole system is based on the belief in authority - the belief that someone "has the right" to make decisions for millions of others and then enforce them. It's simply insane, but people believe it because they've been brainwashed all their lives.

>> I'm not a slave, and I'd venture to guess you aren't either

Nope. We're all slaves. Sure, there are some nuances, but think of it this way: someone else takes 100% of the fruits of a slave's labour. That's a full-on slave, right?

But what about if someone else takes 50% of the fruits of your labour? -Well, then you're a "50% slave". But does it really make a difference? -For example, can you rape a woman "only a little"? 50%-rape a woman? Well no, you either rape someone or you do not, and you either enslave someone or you do not.

Then there's the clear-cut slavery scenario of compulsory military service. In Finland we've got three options:

    1) Slave-camp where you do as you're told, or you get punished.
    2) Civil service, just another way to arrange forced-labour.
    3) Jail.

They can't really make our slavery any more obvious than that, without too many people waking up from their programming.

But yeah, we are tax-slaves. The red pill is seriously fucking hard to swallow, but after you do, you're in a much better position to take care of yourself and to improve your own life. For example, you'll start thinking for yourself, figuring out what's really going on and why, protecting your assets and yourself, and so on.

If you live in the US, it's high time to get the fuck out - staying in an oppressive police state can fuck up decades of your life. There are plenty of examples in history, and since the problem was always the State existing at all, new oppressive regimes will keep coming and going as long as the problem persists.

[ameister14]

Here's an easier way to see if something is voluntary; can you stop doing it at all?

There has only been one real society that I know of that succeeded in maintaining an anarchic system, and that was the vikings. However, there was a hell of a lot of death there; in a society like that, if you screw someone, they may kill you.

Why would capitalism be the default system with no state regulation? Wouldn't it be easier for the people with larger resources to take advantage of their new lack of regulation to actually enslave people, or force them to be serfs? It works pretty well for the people at the top.

What do I think would change without a government? Money and trade would be first. We use fiat currencies, so many people would begin producing their own. Lot's more people would lie about their product's efficiency, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.

Some people would seize all the valuable land and resources; see what's going on in the CAR for a good example of all this.

In a slave scenario, I not only take 100% of the product of a slave's labor, but I also choose what they labor upon, if they can marry or have relationships, what they read or watch, where they can go and what they can do. I can also beat them without anyone saying anything.

If you feel that this is what your government does to you, then get the hell out.

[anoncowherd]

I didn't really expect you to wake up this easily.

>> Here's an easier way to see if something is voluntary; can you stop doing it at all?

What I said still stands. If you want to claim taxation is voluntary, stop paying taxes and see how voluntary it actually is. But as mentioned before, you already know full well it's not.

>> However, there was a hell of a lot of death there; in a society like that, if you screw someone, they may kill you.

You may have noticed the vast majority of people not being savage animals? Why would this be any different without a government?

>> Why would capitalism be the default system with no state regulation?

The word "Capitalism" has been tainted by Marxism/government propaganda, but what it actually entails is property rights combined with people making voluntary exchanges, agreements and investments. That's it. It's important to realize that capitalism is not some kind of "system" that would be imposed on people - it's what we do in any case.

Saving and investment is the basis of all human wealth, because without savings, there can be no productivity improvements. Higher productivity means it's just that much easier to save more, and the virtuous cycle continues.

( http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia/videos for more information )

>> Wouldn't it be easier for the people with larger resources to take advantage of their new lack of regulation to actually enslave people, or force them to be serfs?

Well, how would they enslave people? Money alone is not a problem, even if someone has shitloads of it. People can be enslaved only through coercion, through the initiation of force. You need to threaten someone with violence if he doesn't obey you. Sure, you may be able to hire an army of mercenaries to help you force people to do something, but then people can just organize against you and kill you, if necessary.

Even if you've got ten trillion dollars in your bank account, you still don't want to die, right? Your actions have consequences, and one of them might be your own personal death, so you'll want to avoid making that choice.

>> It works pretty well for the people at the top.

Huh? Enslaving other people works well for the people at the top? As in, the sociopaths in government who went there for that specific purpose? Well yeah, that's about right.

>> We use fiat currencies, so many people would begin producing their own.

People wouldn't use fiat currencies anymore, they'd use a currency that can't be manipulated by anyone, and that would be great for everyone. Have you got any idea how much of the dollar's purchasing power has evaporated during your lifetime? That shit wouldn't happen in a free market. Who does inflation hurt the most? -The poor, of course.

>> Lot's more people would lie about their product's efficiency, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.

There would be independent, third party quality assurance services, and so on. And they'd all be responsible to their customers, unlike government agencies. The government is not responsible to anyone for what they do, and that's a massive factor in how fucked up everything is.

>> Some people would seize all the valuable land and resources

Or not? That's just a scaremongering assumption, like just about everything else you're saying. But even if that were true, would it be better to have a group of sociopaths (=government) seize anything and everything at will?

>> In a slave scenario, I not only take 100% of the product of a slave's labor, but I also choose what they labor upon, if they can marry or have relationships, what they read or watch, where they can go and what they can do. I can also beat them without anyone saying anything.

Right. Well, the most productive slave is one who thinks he's free: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Xbp...

>> If you feel that this is what your government does to you, then get the hell out.

Tell that to someone in North-Korea. Doesn't seem all that convincing in that context, huh? Well, it's just another government, just another tax farm.

Here's the main difference between North-Korea and a democratic country of your choice: in North-Korea, the enslavement system is held together by fear, but in a democracy it's held together through propaganda.

See, the only thing the sociopaths in charge care about, is maintaining their own power and their ability to loot the general populace. In other words, the only thing they care about is maintaining their tax farm. Any time there's a threat to this model, they do everything they can to neutralize it. If a specific regime completely loses its credibility and "legitimacy" in the eyes of their tax cattle, then they have a choice: 1) step down, or 2) set up torture camps etc and rule by sheer terror.

But we've been through your pseudo-argument already. Being able to switch slave-masters does not mean you're free.

[ameister14]

>>Voluntary

See, we clearly have different conceptions of what is and is not voluntary. Let's say you voluntarily decide to kick a glass window. It breaks, as a consequence of that action, and you are hurt. Does that mean not kicking in windows is involuntary, simply because it sets of a series of reactions?

Now, if you decide that it isn't worth it to you to do something because the consequences of an action are worse than the rewards you would gain, it doesn't mean that taking or not taking this action is involuntary, it means you're probably rational.

>>You may have noticed the vast majority of people not being savage animals? Why would this be any different without a government?

I'm not sure what you're saying here; are you disputing that there was more violence, saying that's not bad, or saying that this won't happen?

>>The word "Capitalism" has been tainted by Marxism/government propaganda, but what it actually entails is property rights combined with people making voluntary exchanges, agreements and investments. That's it.

It's actually not. Capitalism is associated with a religious calling, as in the 19th century it was common for Calvinists/some Baptists to equate hard work with being more likely to go to heaven, and more money as the proof of God's grace and favor. That's where the shift to capitalism really started, particularly as an influence on people's day-to-day lives.

>> Well, how would they enslave people? Money alone is not a problem, even if someone has shitloads of it. People can be enslaved only through coercion, through the initiation of force. You need to threaten someone with violence if he doesn't obey you. Sure, you may be able to hire an army of mercenaries to help you force people to do something, but then people can just organize against you and kill you, if necessary. Even if you've got ten trillion dollars in your bank account, you still don't want to die, right? Your actions have consequences, and one of them might be your own personal death, so you'll want to avoid making that choice.

This would be totally valid if people didn't consistently make this choice, throughout history and today, and it's actually extremely rare for the people to rise up and successfully rebel against it. It's more likely that other powerful people want your power and attempt to take it from you, but the situation doesn't change much for normal people.

>>North Korea

Actually, the main difference is a combined lack of freedom and widespread starvation.

By the way, I don't think I have a slave-master. I pay taxes, this is true, but I get a lot out of that. Should there be tax reform? Sure. Does the existence of taxation make you automatically enslaved? I don't think so.

I'm not sure we're living in the same systems; in my experience, the government has trouble seizing anything at all, let alone whatever it wants for any reason. I think it's really funny that you talk about corporations being more responsible to their customers than the government because you mention that anyone taking power has a risk of being overthrown; do you think that doesn't apply to government?