Waarom zouden mensen een overheid accepteren?
- Bescherming van lijf en goed.
- Euh, tsja, dat was het ook wel. Meer redenendan dat kan ik me niet indenken.
Maar: een staat betaalt zichzelf dmv belastingen: diefstal, dus je goed dat onder dwang van je wordt afgenomen, wordt niet bepaald beschermd.
En wie niet (op tijd) betaalt, beland in een donkere grot. Dus: bescherming van het andere is ze ook al niet op het lijf geschreven.
Buiten dat: is bescherming van de landsgrenzen ook niet iets waar ze in uitmunten. Zo ken ik geen enkel geval van een staatsleger, dat in staat is geweest om een aanval af te slaan.
- Duitsland vs. GB en
- Italië vs Griekenland ttv WO2, en
- Duitsland vs. Rusland ttv WO2,
- Frankrijk vs Rusland (Napoleon)
Tellen niet mee, in want de meeste van die gevallen, werden de aangevallen naties gewoon beschermd door geografisch (de Noordzee igv (1) en grandioos lange aanvoerlijnen (2, 3)/meteorologisch (3, 4) ) toeval.
Of door militair onbenul van Mussolini. (2)
En dan nog: zou je alleen maar het baantje van Rutte/WimLex beschermen.
This is a tiny short parable on Keynesian economics, inspired by Fréderic Bastiat (and his later American translator, Henry Hazlitt)
So some politician wants to get reelected, Instead of blandly giving money to the people, he (/she/fae), decides to fix unemployment, by commissioning a new bridge. What is seen, is the new bridge (the summit of which offers a nice view to the other bridges already across the river). What is not seen, is the traffic across that bridge, which would have occurred if people had not had their money stolen from them, in order to finance the building of the bridge.
Taxation is a tool; it has long since surpassed its original excuse of funding the state; it is now a tool to bend the population to the politicians’ will: aka taxation is undemocratic/dictatorial.
Wstching this vid, and hearing Mr. Jordan mention “Afraid of getting caught”, I got inspired to write the following:
“Afraid of getting caught” describes the contemporary justice system to a T, which is why there is so much “crime” (victimless). Legal crime isn’t about doing wrong or harm, but about displeasing some MP. It’s not about committing misdeeds. Which is why people feel no qualms about committing the “crimes”. All punishment for crimes is limited to the consequences of getting caught. Your conscience will not nag at you for any actual wrong-doing, because none has been committed. This will transfer to actual (harm causing) misdeeds, escalating into a dog eat dog criminal society.
Instead of dividing one country up into two, it would be better to split into 300 million sovereign individuals. Whose body is their (hereditary) kingdom, not to be invaded by anyone.
But until then, as an intermediate workaround, this is nice: http://roditisforcontroller.com/trickle-up-taxation/
There was a whole fuss about fuel consumption figures in brochures not being feasible on the road.
This should be of no concern, because if you use the consumption figures to compare cars, you could still buy Tlthe most frugal of the two. This meant that the consumer would still be best of. But: that was of no concern to the state (that after all does not care about the citizen), because the state wanted to base the degrees of punishment of individual citizens, on the fuel consumption (CO2-emmission)of the vehicle they foolishly chose to drive. Ideally they wanted to chose the vehicle the citizen was going to drive also. Even more ideally, they’d like to force the citizen out of any car at all, but that’s another subject entirely.
And to get away with the excessive punishment regime they were hoping for, they developed the New European Driving Cycle. That could generate more accurate & representative fuel consumption figures and allow more differentiated punishment, under the guise of stimulating more desirable behavior.
(coming from https://contrakrugman.com/ep-137-is-taxation-theft-not-if-youre-not-entitled-to-your-paycheck-in-the-first-place-says-philosopher/ )
No, Mr. Goff, You are the one who’s confused, even distastefully so. Because the state is an immoral actor (oppression against one’s will is a tautology and always immoral).
Not only that, but the state could not exist without the people, therefore the people rank hgher in the hierarchy than any government (the people can easily exist without the state – they’d even flourish in the condition of not having to fear for their life, health or property). So, the state – which had confiscated the monopoly right to issue money – can only issue money for the use and benefit of the people. If the state steals too much money from the people, the people can simply up and leave (some already do – Monaco is a popular residential area among wealthy people, with zero taxes)
If the people wish to keep the proceeds of their labor, they are perfectly entitled to keep every fraction of it.