RE: Fear of Voluntaryism due to Statist Thinking
I don't want to appear as a troll.
You are not a troll. I like when people tolerate my pedantic psychobabble.
The statement assumes that I already agree that peaceful people are currently being forced to do things against their will
Yes. It is a problem whenever people from two very different perspectives try to communicate. In in-person conversations, I would focus on getting people to recognize that people respond differently to different stimuli (some people like country music, and some do not), and that I actually experience a sense of loss when I pay taxes (including lots of business tax and fees) and that I legitimately feel constrained by regulation (business regulations, firearm regulations, employment regulations, and thousands of petty regulations that serve no other purpose than to allow police to stop somebody). I have a draft of a post to give examples of the mountain of petty regulations and how it affects people. I'll post that eventually.
Also note, another user posted some resources. Those resources and nearly all others that you will find in philosophy and political forums on the Internet are derived from a particular brand of Libertarian theory that was recently (past couple decades) popularized by the Mises Institute. I reject their entire paradigm of analysis, called praxeology which is explicitly anti-scientific. I criticize their methods, but some of their ideas might get you thinking. Try looking at Walter Block and his book Defending the Undefendable. I disagree with much of what he says, but he raises some interesting questions.
I've started following you so I'll keep a look out. What I will say though, already now, is this:
You can give all the examples you want but, in my opinion, it only takes one good law to argue against the abolishment of all laws. If you present me with a mountain of petty regulations, I'll most likely agree that we should remove those specific regulations. But I won't simply conclude that all laws and regulations should be removed. For that one good law, I'll still say we keep it. To me, that's basic logic. For example, pointing out all the adult human beings in the world is not going to convince me that all human beings are adults. All it takes is one child to render that argument false.
If you want to prove that we should remove all laws, focus on the so called "good laws". If you can present a mountain of seemingly good laws and show how they are actually bad then you'll have a better chance of convincing me. Back to my example, if you explain that all children are actually adults in waiting then maybe I'll start to think of all human beings as adults. I realize that this is not a very good analogy but hopefully you get my point.
Well, I don't so I can't empathize. And in the absence of empathy, how do you then convince me that taxes are bad? How do you convince me that your feelings are more important than the benefits I perceive from taxation. I'm not even saying taxes are definitely a good thing. It's just my perception. But how do you change that perception?
Yes, they've been very informative and helpful. I'll also check out the other resources you've mentioned. Thanks.