RE: Perception changes Everything - Is Taxation really theft?
Great post, as always. Based on this line of thinking, I wonder, is the blockchain (any blockchain) the first "thing" not owned by the government? It doesn't exist within their physical jurisdiction (some functional copies of it might even be in space). Though it relies heavily on the Internet, if the Internet were shut down in a specific region it could go on living via ham radio, mesh networks, or private wide area networks. As blockchains thrive, they create an ecosystem to provide any and all services currently controlled in some way or another by government. For the first time, we might have realistic competition for government services.
Unfortunately, the blockchain isn't a "thing" in the physical sense. Though we may be members of a community online, we're still bags of meat in 3D space, needing to care for our needs within the physical jurisdiction of a government.
Reaching a consensus on reputation is perhaps the most challenging problem faced by voluntarists looking to setup a free society. If this nut can be cracked, then I believe everything else will fall into place
You mentioned previously plans to build a more detailed reputation system that would connect to an individual, not just to their posts. Care to elaborate on that further? Is it something you're working on related to Steemit or separately? Do you see it (whatever "it" might be) becoming functional within a year? 2? 5?
I agree with you, reputation is key. It's one of the reasons I don't use a pseudonym here. I'm Luke Stokes, so I'm @lukestokes. Hopefully someday the distinction between my name "in the real world" and the name I build online will not only be small, but the accuracy of the one will mirror the other as far as describing who I actually am and how I relate to the emergent properties that arise from my fellow humans around the world becoming us.
@lukestokes
The goverment is in a sense a blockchain contract with specific parametres. You can either participate or leave. (unless you are in the perpetual hard fork-North Korea)
I've never been a fan of the "if you don't like it, you can leave" argument because it implies there's some other place someone can live that isn't controlled by a Mafia-style coercive entity.
Some things are morally wrong and should be prevented by civilized, empathetic humans. We don't say things like "if you don't like child/spouse abuse, you can leave" or "if your don't like slavery, you can leave" because we recognize these actions as immoral and unjustified. Even then, these outrageous claims are more logical because they imply there is a place on earth the victim can go to escape the abuse. This is not the case with government. Accepting their monopoly on the initiation of force and saying it's up to the victim to find a country which won't be as bad, to me, is similar to justifying what is inherently evil. If slavery is taking 100% of my income, at what percentages is it no longer slavery? Saying government owns everything may make us feel better, but I don't see how it gets around the realities of theft/extortion.
But I guess many don't see government as evil. They see it as a force used for good and evil. Maybe they are right, but I personally can't get around democide. Any organization that is responsible for 100% of war doesn't get a pass.
But there is! There are tons of places that the "smart contract" of the goverment doesn't apply.
Liberland, most of Australia, most of Mongolia, many places in Latin America and Russia, There are tons of places where the goverment doesn't really give a fuck if you go there.
Nothing is "morally wrong". Morality is subjective because morality is defined by the group, not some higher entity. morality is a construct of the group, the masses. They decide what is moral and what is not. It is something people agree upon. This is why every single part of the earth has different morality. this is why every single person has a different morality.
Saying "the goverment" is a massively erroneous generalisation since there are many goverments and many places without a goverment.
There is nothing "inherently evil". Some people agreed that things should be "X" and you were born in that place. That contract is written on those parametres. if you don't like it then you can live. really. you can. nobody is holding you slave or abuses you. that's just sensationalisms.
// If slavery is taking 100% of my income, at what percentages is it no longer slavery?//
You don't need to repeat to me libertarian memes. You are not making any more points by doing it. Again. it is slavery if you HAVE to pay it and they won't let you go. If you can leave then it is not slavery. You are paying a "fee" for being there.
No I don't see goverment as evil because the goverment is a generic concept much like religion. Science is not evil. Religion is not evil. Schooling is not evil, parenting is not evil. these are just concepts. they can be evil or good depending on who is judging them and from what specific scope.
In support of this claim you list Liberland (which I recognize as having the potential of being possibly one of the only places, along with the Sea Steading Institute, but it's still just a possibility), Mongolia (not a place many humans want to live), most of Australia (also basically uninhabitable, unless you happen to be an Aborigine and care little about modern quality of life), Russia (might as well also list the North and South poles), and Latin America. Latin America comes close to a rational argument for me, and I have been looking into options like Belize, Chile, Panama, Costa Rica, and the like. Unfortunately, there's still government backed by violence or there's more obvious Mafia-stye enforcement (bribe this group or that group, etc) which I may actually prefer because at least there's no pretense. One could at least argue there's slightly less monopoly use of force going on. I'm looking into it from a "lesser of many evils" perspective.
I've discussed morality before and don't think it's as subjective as you see it. Many disagree with me, but I think it's based on where humanity as a whole sits on Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. If morality was subjective, we could create arguments to justify things like rape, murder, and theft. Given the modern realities of our species and where we are on the evolutionary scale of consciousness, I don't think those arguments could be valid. Some things (at this stage in history) are clearly wrong and can not be justified (IMO).
I wish we could use more accurate language because there is no actual contract. No consenting adult agreed to "it" simply by location of birth and where they grew up. I can't think of any valid, enforceable contract that doesn't involve conscious choice by consenting adults. Even the "by signing up, you agree to our terms of service" have some problems in court (and I don't mean "court" in just the legal sense). To me, "the social contract" is a story we tell ourselves to feel better about our current immoral situation.
Try not paying. Try leaving without paying. Try leaving without paying an exit fee. Try arriving somewhere other than Siberia and also not paying. From my perspective, you're telling yourself a story (as we all are), but your story doesn't seem consistent with reality from my perspective. If I'm paying a fee and that fee is not voluntary and if I don't pay the fee, violent force is used against me, that's called extortion. We can call it other things, if we like, but that's what the word means.
I see government as evil because I define it as a monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographic region (rights I believe no one has, so no one can delegate them). If we had social structures which didn't have that specific characteristic and met the needs we have in society, I'd be all about it, and I wouldn't describe it as "government" as I do the State. It would be similar to so many other voluntary organizations we have that do have real contracts like home owner's associations, bowling leagues, boy scouts, etc, etc.
And yes, this is certainly true:
We have the arguments we can make and support with evidence. I appreciate being able to voice my views and hear criticisms of them.
You have to buy your freedom from the U.S.A. You can't just leave and be free of them. They still claim ownership of you.
@kyriacos - Regarding your idea that it is easy to leave the country and rid oneself of the leech that is the US government:
According to the IRS: "Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside."
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/u-s-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad
According to the US government, you must request permission to renounce citizenship and it can be denied:
"A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html
You also have to pay extortion money in order to "legally" separate yourself. This article explains quite a bit: http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/227982/Income+Tax/Renouncing+Your+US+Citizenship+Is+Divorcing+Uncle+Sam+Right+For+You
Lastly, without paying for a passport (paying for the right to move my physical body to another physical location), it is not easy to leave or enter another country. In fact, I know people who were recently denied entry into Canada for a visit due to petty, old "criminal" charges for which fines and probation were paid and served years prior to attempting to cross the imaginary line between the US and Canada. Again, this was just for a visit, not even a request for citizenship, which is a whole other process.
Bullshit. one good friend of mine just moved to Kuwait and dropped his green card.
Where do you people hear these things? Research the laws of your own country guys. stop listening to bullshiters.
If you want to live on an island alone with no community or society and not benefit from hydro, health programs, transit, etc...maybe you can say that you won't pay taxes but for the rest of us living with others in society it is a necessity not an option since we benefit from what the government provides.