"Taxation is a necessary evil" or "The state is a necessary evil" is the common justification of the states evils

"Taxation is a necessary evil" or "The state is a necessary evil" is the common justification of the states evils.

But is it truly necessary? Necessity is relevant to one's end goal and that of course varies from person to person. So we must assume the end goal to be something common such as the preservation of life.

But one can live without the state so it can not be necessary. It can be argued that preserving one's life might be more inconvenient without the state but then that changes the justification.

Now it should be phrased "The state is a convenient evil" and if one is justifying evil for the sake of convenience than you can actually justify every evil ever committed.

Other urls found in this thread:

cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/PA/Practical_Anarchy_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf
monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucault_Michel_Discipline_and_Punish_The_Birth_of_the_Prison_1977_1995.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Pretty much The state to be effective needs to Act within and outside of the law. We willingly give the state the right to kill in the belief that doing so they will not abuse it.

But it is not willing. If it was taxation we be voluntary and they would not have to threaten for their money.

Also you would be able to opt out of the state's services if it was a willing/volunteer transaction.

You would still be a free rider though. You cant just give up the state offers. Clean water, Infrastructure, Municipal Services. At the bare least you need contract law, for a society to survive.

>But one can live without the state so it can not be necessary
holy fuck grow up kid you think it was always like this? If you just abandon the state you'll be killed in war or by a murderer unless you alone are stronger than all aggressive humans combined

Benefiting from something that you do not pay for does not justify theft. There is countless things you benefit from and are a "free rider" of that you do not pay for.

You might benefit from a store being near you but you do not have to pay for the store being built.

>destroy state
>become Mexico 2.0

Even if that was true it still does not make it necessary for life just perhaps a convenience.

But why would you assume the need for protection can only be filled in by the state? Would you assume this for all other important markets?

So then you get the industrial age where all the power and money go to 1 or 2 people? The state provides those residents the right to operate their businesses within regulation. A stateless society is Chaos. You go back to survival the things you need is Food, Water, Shelter. The state allows a society to not worry about the base needs as much this allows the state to focus on other better things. A small but fair price is taken for the upkeep of basic human needs. That which without hold back the essence of Human potential

Because only a state is willing to spend trillions of dollars to build nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers.

>Muh muhlishua
Won't be shit, America's too rich in natty resources to not be invaded, and they'd ignore Cletus as long as he stays innawoods

Our entire civilization is a fucking convenience you idiot. We could still be living in caves, eating berries and hunting rabbits with sticks. But we decided to build cities and iphones and be kings and shit. We don't need any of it for survival, but most of us prefer enjoying the fruits of the last few hundred thousand years of progress.

So you do admit that committing evil in the name of convenience is justified. Which pretty much removes any morality from your argument.

Besides that though,the state is not the provider of basic thing such as food, water and shelter, people voluntarily (for the most part) trade you those things for your money. The state may regulate and hinder those transactions but they are still mostly free.

might makes right
As long as the state can collect taxes they will

Bro dont pull the mortality card every action can be justified in someway.

>rothbardian autists and ancaps

No better than leftist utopian retards desu

Voluntary militias would not be the only way of providing defense, you could actually pay a business to provide protection for. In a similar manner in which a state does it if wished but it will not be a state if the transaction is consensual.

So ol' Cletus might not need nuclear weapons to protect his shack and might not be willing to pay for such things but a mining company might be willing.

>posting about how the state isn't necessary
>on the internet
>on a computer
>powered by electricity

If you don't have a state then another state will invade

Where is the money coming from? It is coming from a universally agreed upon center of power. Are you saying that allowing the this power without any regulation. Hell every transaction essentially comes down to contract law. You need contract law to operate a society.

Not an argument

I originally was discussing morality in this thread, but morality by definition prohibits some behaviors and allows others. So no not every action can be justified.

Why get rid a thief when just another will come along?

Dude your missing the point with out the state you are free to be taken advantage of by any nut job out their. Its just a transference of power where the strongest survive. Without contract law which is a LAW is needed for a society to function.

Bullshit every single massacre can be traced back to some stupid bullshit that was started by some asshole. My Lai, Malmandy, at the end of the day some pissed off kid fired a shot which started some shit.

Taxation is irrelevant aside from controlling inflation, the government can fund anything it wants.

t. MMT

>Implying any companies would be able to exist without borders

I can't tell if this is serious or joking

call it whatever you like but without a state you'll end up with tribes all over instead of larger states.
might is right and whoever manages to muster enough might will be able to do whatever they want.

Taken advantage of like the state does now? You are still free to be taken advantage of with or without the state, yes the state supposed reason of existence is to stop that but it is contradictory in nature for it also take advantage of you.

The need to protect property and life can be outsourced to others just like we do with the state, but the difference being it can be voluntary instead of done against one's will.

You know the state's proposal to defend you is a bad deal when they have to threaten you do pay for it.

Well nobody would use state currency if they didn't hurt the people that tried to use other currency within their turf.

How would the lack of state borders prevent people from working together?

Bro you dont get it. All it is, is trading one evil for the next. Sure some men would thrive, and would exert power over others, hire goons to support him, who will enforce his will with power over others who in a sense becomes a new state. Look at Somalia a truly stateless society. Please tell me how it is thriving?

This.

Agriculture was a mistake.

Precisely. That's another function of taxation in modern fiat currency economies, to ensure only the state's desired currency is able to be used. Look up Abba Lerner.

Who is gonna fucking stop them you act as if human beings are rational. Fuck no we aren't. At the absolute core someone needs to control somebody.

Yes I am for allowing this power without regulation. Contracts are actually based

In my personal experience working for various state entities a lot of taxation is basically a money laundering scam where a government department is bad on purpose so they can request more money so no kek.

>Human beings are not rational
>Get humans to control humans

You act like the state is made up of non-human super people.

Shit somehow fucked that post

I meant contracts are actually based on trust, and trust is based on reputation.

A well run state with a practiced constitution which is a CONTRACT that cannot be broken runs well. That in effect is a society. There is always something. Absolute Anarchy is chaos.

>Agriculture was a mistake.

t. caveman

A contract must be agreed upon by both parties so you must not mean a state. But yes a contract for defense would be the best option, for providing ones own defense is usually not practical just like growing your own food is not usually practical.

Exactly a strong defense needs order For order to exist there needs to be some type of agreement that allows them to operate.

...

>A small but fair price is taken for the upkeep of basic human needs

Germany has an effective tax rate of about 70%, used to pay for basic human needs such as importing violent sandpeople or paying Greek pensions.

So we agree that their needs to be no state but rather actual consensual contracts for defense.

And no the state is not a contract

I guess if you dont discuss hating niggers and kikes its off topic. fucking topkek

Your government is fucking you and i dont know why, You truly had the chance to seize the day and be the hero of the EU. Instead you let Merkel blow it. Strictly speaking from an economic stand point your economy can not survive so many free riders. Why don't you have a system in place which lets you remove your leader when they get crazy. no offence but it always comes back to fuck you.

Yeah right. But what im saying though as long as the base force of Power is around there will be some type of state. This could be a dictator state or 100 people deciding something. One asshole will get stronger then someone The strong do what they can, the weak must suffer what they must.

Short answer: no.
cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/PA/Practical_Anarchy_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf

The states power does not rely on violence alone though, it uses ideas to pacify the normal resistance that would be there. If each person was convinced that the state was evil and not necessary it would not last long.

And that is what I am trying to accomplish, re-identify the state for what it actually is, morally unjustifiable and a leach on voluntary society.

So much this. Without the vast power of a state, how would you ensure that an even stronger, malicious state does not fill the void?
Say there are 9 people behind a single leader, who practices law that 8 of them agree with, and that is all under a constitution. One day the one that doesnt agree with the leader bans together and detroys the leader. This is now a state of anarchy, with no government. What is stopping this man from usurping the power, and selfishly oppressing the people far worse than the original leader ever did. People will always voluntarily ban together, and the strongest tribe will take over all the other tribes becoming the state or kingdom. Anarchy is wet dream with so many practical issues that it makes communists look enlightened.

Bro you just dont fucking get it. Im talking base fucking human extincts. At the end of the day someone will want power. Power is defined as the ability to coerce others. this can be done anyway. Religion we had that with the papal states and ISIS currently, Wealth Industrialists took over and worked children and people to death for little to no wages. Banks ruined the economy in the 30's and almost fucked us hard in the 00's someone will always want more power and that power leads to laws and law leads to a state.

Why would those 8 people not band together so they do not get taken advantage of again after just overthrowing the previous guy?

If that is the origins of the state then wouldn't we already have the worse state possible?

As i was saying in the state is not just violent force alone but its the ideals that help keeps its power.

you can never truly abolish the state

in essence, the state/government is whichever person/group has the biggest stick. It is in human nature to seek consolidation of power, because we want to feel secure

Does anyone else on the board feel a strong reluctance to engage in political-philosophical debate at a Hobbesian level with kids who have not fully mastered English spelling?

"Leach" is a verb, son. The noun you are fumbling for is "leech".

Go to bed, get up in the morning, get Mom to drive you and sis to school, sit and learn your lessons and come back to me in about five years when you graduate. Until then there's Spark Notes and shit.

I would not agree on your definition of power, I would define it as the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. (from google)

But even going with that are you saying we should just give up because it is going to happen no matter what? Why stop the murderer when another might come along?

Also most of the things you listed are state related in power. Religion in the middle ages of europe was very tied with the kings. ISIS is just a violent band of thieves just like any state. Wealth industrialist did nothing wrong besides lobby for government goodies. The CENTRAL bank is what fucked the economy and the banking industry is so tied with the state its almost inseparable.

>oh fuck he made a spelling mistake I got him now.

Its a japanese image board not a formal paper. You can discuss important things without being formal.

Dude just because they use force doesn't meant they have power. You can get people to follow you if you do good acts. the thing is are you doing these acts to further your own goals? Or are you really just going to sit there and tell me that a Carrot does not work just as well as a stick.

Im just drunk son.

"Putting up with edgy 20 year olds is a necessary evil." But is it really? I mean if we executed everyone under 30, what would we lose really?

>I would not agree on your definition of power, I would define it as the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. (from google)

So what you mean then is actually: "some random unevaluated sequence of letters that popped up on my computer screen when I typed in the letters 'd-e-f-i-n-e p-o-w-e-r' defines it as.....

As Theodor Adorno once put it: "In the case of most people, the use of the term 'I' constitutes an impudence'.

Maybe at first he doesn't seem to bad, and then by the time they realize the power he has amassed it is too late.
Anyways the point I was getting at is
>Without a law banning the forging of laws or a state, what is to stop people from creating a "state" and using that state to pass new laws, laws that could oppress people, and go against the non-aggression principle?
Gets it.

Dude, this is like LITERALLY just a reiteration of the Nozickian dilution of the para-Rousseauan argument from the state of Nature that like this chick explained to me at this rave I was at last weekend. Like bro that was like LEGIT a specious postulation of a tertium non datur, you feel me bro?

No the sequence of letters was not random and was evaluated, stop assuming things. Are you telling me while debating if you disagree on a definition you should never consult a dictionary?

Do you actually have arguments or do you just bitch at people all day?

Aight my argument is coming off sounding retarded right now i know. But i can back mine up, The quote "The strong do what they can and the weak must suffer what they must" Comes from Thucydides "History of the Peloponnesian War" and the rest is pretty much this monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucault_Michel_Discipline_and_Punish_The_Birth_of_the_Prison_1977_1995.pdf

Can I hang out with you

Taxation is theft

You can not have a law banning laws for you would have a law.

> what is to stop people from creating a "state" and using that state to pass new laws, laws that could oppress people, and go against the non-aggression principle?
What I am purposing is an end to states, so yes that includes creating a state. Whats to stop them is the same people who would end the state in the first place. As of how possible that is as of right now is questionable but the first step to ridding it is delegitimizing it.

In this case, yes, I am.
If you were not a puffed-up ignorant little high-school kid you would understand this.
You initiated a discussion at a very exalted philosophical level - at the level, as I said, of a text of Hobbes's or Rousseau's or Foucault's. Do you think that Foucault, when engaging in a debate about the nature of power with another philosopher of politics, read out DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS? He would have been laughed off the podium.
Make up your mind. If you just want to gather some more material for an essay you have to hand in tomorrow, I'm sure there are high-school-kid forums for that kind of thing, or sites where you can just download an essay full of good little dictionary definitions of whatever subject teacher has asked you to write on. If you want to discuss these matters at an adult level, however, you have to actually try to THINK about what power is, not just google it.

Fuck I hate sophists.

Self defense is a convenient evil by that logic. It preserves life so it is considered necessary. Simple as that. Are you autistic?

Good luck living without the state.
Do you want slavery? Because that's how you get slavery.

>puffed-up ignorant little high-school kid unlike me.
You sound more puffed up than anyone so far. Are you actual going to argue or are my words unworthy of your class? You can argue against that definition of "power" and I will be down for that.

This is why you'll never get laid, 'sperg boy.

The State is imaginary. Individuals who call themselves Government use this imaginary State to justify taking a portion of your money and wealth and doing what they want with it and killing or imprisoning you if you don't go along with it.

>it's another lolbertarians episode
Time to change the channal again, fucking Telekom jews, should have gone with DiGi

Go back to Somalia, asshole!

You actually don't. You just need honor.

I'm not obliged to go through the pretence of argument and discussion with every little 15-year-old whom Mommy allows to use the computer for an hour before she tucks him in.

You wouldn't be able to follow a serious discussion of the topic you thought you were up to addressing.

My only purpose in replying to you and your little friends was to try to convince you to go away and gather on some 'Sup Forums for kiddies' board and leave this board free for adult discussion. So go away kid. Men are talking.

Defending one's self is not evil nor can that be derived from my logic.

I was assuming that the people that stated "The state is a necessary evil" was convinced it was evil already, but the argument was whether it was actually a necessary one.

That makes no sense

What do you think power is? im curious.

Good bait.
>pol is for adult discussions such as race baiting and cuckholding threads.

Again with this sense of superiority. You can leave your ego behind when debating especially when you do in anonymously

And we engage in all of those things voluntarily. That's the big difference. If you don't buy the new iPhone, Steve Jobs can't send the cops to your door to throw you in jail.

Funny though Honor in of it self acts as power. The best warrior gets more honor and can boss the lesser ones around. There is a sense of command people are being subjugated by someone else.

dont remind me jewman

you clearly don't understand what a "necessary evil is"

a "necessary evil" is not a "necessity," it is an evil that is needed to provide contrast for good, like Satan. fuck ur stupid

How are you gonna compare a bunch of 70 IQ near animals with no culture to something like North America.

>a "necessary evil" is not a "necessity," it is an evil that is needed to provide contrast for good

Again necessity as stated in OP is relative to a goal. Just like your sentence where you even use the word "needed" the goal would be to define good. When the people say that "The state is a necessary evil" I doubt their goal is for contrast for definition.

>Taxation is a necessary evil
Depends on what the people want. Take a look at Germany's ridiculous taxation. On the other hand, they get a giant amount of free services from this. Here on the other hand, you pay almost no taxes but everything costs money. I prefer this system because I'm young and strong. But it won't last forever. I think the social system of Germany works better for useless people unwilling to do anything in life.

Btw somalia totally has a government. Im going to sleep good talks buddies

>Contract that cannot be broken
Dude wtf are you even talking about?

Because the west did it with Hitler, Napoleon, Putin. Don't act like we don't have ours.

For example the US Constitution a system which separated three branches of government A legislature a Executive with power, and a judicial with the ability to check the other two.On paper in a and Hobbes and Keynesian sense the USA is an ideal society then.

There's people who want to abolish the state.
And then there's people who have already done so and give no fucks.

Be the latter.

No that's strength. You need strength and honor to have a society. Honor to maintain from within and strength to protect from without.

Everything in that system is still voluntary. People just voluntarily decide not to deal with dishonorable people. Dishonorable folks are free to break contracts with the risk that they will be shunned and receive no protection from their fellow man.

True so then they are a mercenary they don't live long though.

God the French are such elitist faggots.

There are two ways of looking at the world.
1. Everyone is evil and self centered
2. Everyone is nice and good and decent to everyone else.

We obviously live in (1). So now, we create societies. We need a government, because if we just let anarchy rule, everyone dies, because eventually there are enough crazy evil people to kill all the normal people. Nobody is going to do work for free, especially not in government, so we have to pay them. Therefore, taxes are necessary, because we choose to have a system where we collectively pay for things and we elect people to decide which things are in the best interest of the people to pay for. It's not always what everyone wants, but its a "necessary evil".

Saying "one can live without the state" is a pseudo-fallacy. By one's self, sure, you can live without a governing body. But the moment you add more people to the situation, you need a form of government to keep everyone from killing everyone else. And no, you will never have a group of perpetually nice people who never need a government, because as I stated before, nobody is perfectly good.

-sigh- It's a shame that a guy from 3rd has to teach you about taxation. I don't know about your system but here the system in my country
>there is a limit i.e. if you are earning 3000$ per year for male or 45000$ for females and elderly per year only then you are eligible to pay taxes otherwise you don't have to
>You have to pay 30% of your savings as tax (savings not earnings, you have to attach your expenditure bills as a proof)
>Taxes are very important here because they help is country's defense, infrastructure (rods, gov. schools for poor kids, gov. hospitals for free care of poor, fire departments, police for maintaining law and order, emergency funds i.e. during droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes. Stocking up food for emergencies like that)
>Government is necessary because you can't earn money to provide your family and then take care of those thing too. That's what a government's job is, this is why we choose them to rule us, so there won't be any chaos.
>And to do its job government needs funds which is provided by the taxes