Oh, tell that to the people born in Syria, North Korea or any other horror state how they should just move. How about the Palestinians? The Jews in Germany.
Strawman fallacy bordering on Godwin point.
I'm not a fan on using big words for the sake of it. Look at real slavery and the true horror it generates. Same goes for "kidnapping" and "guns".[/quote]
The horrors of prison is very real. You keep talking like these things are not real because they aren't happening to you at this very second.
So is the horror of living under the bridge because you are pennyless after you boss fired you and you can't get an new job.
Let's face it: we won't have a productive conversation that way. I'm talking about avoiding hyperbole (slavery for citizenship) and you reply by engaging in a slippery rope that avoids talking about the real thing (here, abuse of hyperbole).
Are you honestly saying that people are not being kidnapped and put in the rape camps known as prison for defying the state by asserting their own rights to property and body?
Ditto (I hesitate between loaded question and strawman, through).
Let's talk business. Offer and demand: there is a demand for taxation. Economy of scale: good luck making large structure work without spreading the cost and the maintenance - consider fixing just the part of the road you are actually walking on. Before the advent of state-owned schools, which part of the population was litterate (reminder: freedom starts when you can question what you are being told, and litteracy is a great way to do it)?
There is also a demand for child porn and slavery. It doens't matter if there is a demand for things that are immoral. It does not make them any more moral.
Of course there is a demand for free money by the people who benefit from getting them, and the power they bring.
OK, I quit. It seems that you main argumentation is about invoking various avatars of Godwin. I will continue this conversation with Anon136 until you revert to a more contructive argumentation.
A contract should require two things: that you understand it and that you accept it (which in turns implies that you can refuse it). I accept the social contract for the most part and you seem not to. This doesn't make it less legible (even though the fact that you cannot practically refuse it is annoying, to say the least). I consider you are confusing "I refuse" and "Everyone shall refuse" (Russel's teapot here).
You are free to sign any contract you want. Where do I confuse this?
You are not, I was just making a point. Sorry if it was unclear.
The fact that you can't refuse it says it's not a real contract, but a form of slavery.
I must admit you argumentation is interesting here - a contract that you can't refuse is not really a contract, it is closer to slavery. But your use of hyperbole still annoys me. Slavery is in my view to strong of a word, even if the idea is similar.
So maybe you can help me understand something. Why are lefties involved in a movement whos purpose, not by any mans imposition, but by its own nature, is to create a free market. I mean I welcome you guys. I welcome everyone. But i just dont understand why you guys would want to be involved in this. Wouldn't you rather support the money that the state uses to fund its self? You talk about how much you love government schools. You know those are mostly paid for by stealing the purchasing power of the money that they force everyone to use right? Why dont you use that money if you love government run schools so much. Now just to be clear, its not rhetorical, i dont want you to use that money, i personally want you to use crypto, its just a legit question that sounds rhetorical even though it isn't.
First, I would welcome a state to convert its currency into a cryptocurrency. Cryptodollars? Why not!
Second, my vision of interventionnism (or leftism, if you prefer) is: a safety net for everyone at a cost of a contribution. A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level.
I believe in offer and demand (and not only for economy, also in biology or psychology, hence religions). But I also believe in safety net. I completely accept this is a Judeo-Christian thing at heart (caritas, justice) and I won't say it is rational (although there is some rationality in defending it, watch
Nick Hanauer and
Richard Wilkinson). It is my ideal of life, that people who fall won't die.
You are free to offer any social safety net you wish. Why do you feel the need to force people into it by the threat of violence to gain their possessions to redistribute?
No anarchist wants to stop you from setting up a working safety net that you may opt in to. The very idea that you would need force to do this seems to imply that you think it's a failed idea, because people can't voluntarily do it.
See my answer to Anon136. Safety net like an insurance, maybe opt-out instead of opt-in (children and insufficiently informed people). Now that I think about it, it is close to the Theory X and Theory Y (X=people are stupid, we shall protect them against themselves; Y=people can be empowered)
So, my vision of interventionnism is more like an
opt-out insurance.
