Taxation is theft

A real world example of a country that functions strictly on free market capitalism does not exist. Don't get me wrong, if it would work in the way an idealistic capitalist might think it would, that'd be fantastic, if not downright optimal. I'm not convinced until I see it though. Currently its all theoretical.

Attached: 1537240474209.png (960x960, 459K)

walmart

What about it?

Attached: 1536121091112.jpg (853x480, 29K)

Its a real world example of a country that functions strictly on free market capitalism

You've lost me. Walmart is not a country.

Attached: 1518146415394.jpg (716x620, 257K)

They have their own judicial system
They have their own police
They have their own army
They have their own land
How is it not a country? Is abstract citizenship concept an absolute must to represent a "country"?

Even IF we assume Walmart is a country (which is frankly, absurd), it's still not an example of a free market economy functioning on a scale of (actual) countries. Walmart has retail outlets in numerous countries across the world, and is beholden to the laws/regulations of each of them. It is competing against other companies that are also beholden to these laws. There are far too many forces acting upon it for it to be seen as a 'free market capitalist country' in any respect. Your example is completely and fundamentally unworkable to prove that free market capitalism is enough to run a country.

Don't get me wrong, I want it to be enough. I love capitalism. The proof is in the pudding though, and we've got no pudding. I question if such a country would even be possible in the long term, anyway.

Say we largely remove the government. The governments only role becomes to make and enforce baseline laws about property/human rights, otherwise its a free for all. There would be multiple large companies interested in the game of making and running towns/cities etc. If you wanted to live there, you would need to pay them to maintain the place, all fine because it'd be a consensual agreement between you and them. These towns would likely have their own police forces, and many of them would likely band together under one large board, making the police active pretty much anywhere. It'd get to a point where you need to pay them to live anywhere at all that isn't the middle of nowhere. If you don't pay, the police will come. Anyway long story short the whole thing develops until we're exactly where we started. I believe this is likely the natural order of things.

Attached: 1537160826490.png (480x479, 267K)

>free market economy functioning on a scale of (actual) countries
I can argue with that, there are cunts with gpd less that 100 mils, walmart's mcap is over 300 bln.
>Walmart has retail outlets in numerous countries across the world, and is beholden to the laws/regulations of each of them.
Lobbyism is a real thing. Countries compete with each other just like companies do. In fact countries are defacto economies of scale and most of them run into a problem of innefficient leadership.
>There would be multiple large companies interested in the game of making and running towns/cities etc. If you wanted to live there, you would need to pay them to maintain the place, all fine because it'd be a consensual agreement between you and them. These towns would likely have their own police forces, and many of them would likely band together under one large board, making the police active pretty much anywhere. It'd get to a point where you need to pay them to live anywhere at all that isn't the middle of nowhere. If you don't pay, the police will come
This is the premise of a statement "taxation is theft". All of that already happening right now and only problem with it is you can't really choose service provider and are stuck with what you got.
>Anyway long story short the whole thing develops until we're exactly where we started.
Thats why large corps are structured in a way where they own multiple businesses which compete with each other to avoid stagnation.

>I can argue with that, there are cunts with gpd less that 100 mils, walmart's mcap is over 300 bln.
Wealth of an individual or business is not a qualifier of a country. A country is a landmass with a government. A country is a country when it is accepted as such by the other countries. Arbitrary yes, but so is our whole financial system. People can make businesses within a country. Those businesses are not themselves, a country. I don't even feel like I aught to need to argue this. To make myself clear though, I was only referring to conventional countries when I was talking about needing examples. Your twisting of definitions is ultimately irrelevant.
>This is the premise of a statement "taxation is theft". All of that already happening right now and only problem with it is you can't really choose service provider and are stuck with what you got.
You can move country, though.
>Thats why large corps are structured in a way where they own multiple businesses which compete with each other to avoid stagnation.
I doubt that would happen in my example though. The country would likely unify under one large corp that would eventually be the government. Either that or itd unify under multiple, which would become either independent countries, or states of one country. Either way the result is the same, unavoidable and morally questionable taxation. Ultimately though this too is all hypothetical. Just a thought experiment regardless of how you think it'd turn out. Nobody really knows.

Attached: 1546038096210.jpg (542x540, 26K)

>A country is a landmass with a government.
Walmart has both.
>A country is a country when it is accepted as such by the other countries.
De jure but laws are very abstract, especially international laws. De facto Israel exists. Kosovo is a country and Crimea is Russian.
I'm not twisting a single thing, just stretching it a little.
>You can move country, though.
Can you, really? Gaining citizenship is nigh impossible especially if you're trying to move from some shithole to 1st world.
>I doubt that would happen in my example though.
Why? Literally everything is run that way in the world unless we're talking monopolized industries exlusively run by countries themselves.

>Walmart has both.
>De jure but laws are very abstract, especially international laws. De facto Israel exists. Kosovo is a country and Crimea is Russian.
I'm not twisting a single thing, just stretching it a little.
None of this addresses my point about it needing to be a conventional country to be relevant. I don't really care about your abstractions.
>Can you, really? Gaining citizenship is nigh impossible especially if you're trying to move from some shithole to 1st world.
True, but you personally could. Russia isn't that bad.
>Why?
Because that is how I arbitrarily feel about it. There's been no real world examples of a government that dissolved itself down to the bare necessities and then was let loose with free market capitalism, so anything we have to say about the hypothetical is mere speculation. You have your hypothesis I have mine. Both are equally hollow.

Attached: 523b0e03ae2359dee46befb59af8703e--photo-manga-cute-girls.jpg (500x781, 49K)

>None of this addresses my point about it needing to be a conventional country to be relevant.
It adresses your point directly by pointing how abstract defenition of a country really is. And supporting conventions designed by abstract enteties rarely happens if ever at all. The whole international law is better used as a toilet paper when superpowers interests colide. Nobody really cared about UN during cold war.
>True, but you personally could.
Only chance I had to do that was set before me as a moral choice and I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I picked other option.
>Russia isn't that bad.
I'm not gonna argue that.
>There's been no real world examples of a government that dissolved itself down to the bare necessities and then was let loose with free market capitalism
Ehm, yes, *cough* ussr *cough*. And pretty much every revolution when socialist regime gets overthrown. I don't think my hypothesis is hollow because there are real world examples.

>It adresses your point directly by pointing how abstract defenition of a country really is.
There are fringe examples where a country may or may not actually be a country. Walmart is not such an example. Regardless, the whole point of this was me needing concrete evidence that free market capitalism can work on a country wide scale without government intervention. Walmart will never meet that criteria for me no matter how you try to justify it. It is not and will never be applicable. I'm not going to argue this further because it'll just go in circles.
>Ehm, yes, *cough* ussr *cough*. And pretty much every revolution when socialist regime gets overthrown. I don't think my hypothesis is hollow because there are real world examples.
So where is a free market utopia then? Any government takeover has ultimately lead to an new government. Often the new government is better, sure. We've still never had prolific unregulated free market capitalism, or if we have, it hasn't stayed that way very long.

Attached: 1518138149309.png (451x439, 153K)

I dunno, m8, I basically just answered your criteria for walmart to be a country other than international law one which I don't account for to even be real. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>So where is a free market utopia then?
Years of turning people into obidient cattle worked and commies snatched it all again. Nobody is happy but everyone is too docile to revolt and actually finished what was started in 80s.
>We've still never had prolific unregulated free market capitalism
Russia during 90s was pretty much a FFA. Government hardly existed.

Don't pay your taxes for four months and you can join the local Thieves' Guild

Attached: 66767c1cf9d6be6140fd25701bbaf52d.png (810x1043, 87K)

>Russia during 90s was pretty much a FFA. Government hardly existed.
And now it does. My point exactly. Governments are damn near unavoidable, I'm not sure that free market capitalism is sustainable. The only way it could be is if legislation was made specifically to prevent groups from becoming anything like a government, but at that point it wouldn't be free market capitalism. Catch 22.

Attached: 1536811561602.gif (310x310, 303K)

Don't be this quick to judge, this are remnants of old system grasping for power. This country might cease to exist in 10 years or so.

Yes, it is

Attached: 1552194884.png (1000x1414, 556K)

Eh idk man. Opinions are too varied. Not everyone believes it would be in our best interest to not have a government, in fact I would wager the majority of people don't believe that. Those that want one will make one, one way or the other.

Attached: 1546078164770.gif (500x500, 621K)

Ofc majority of people don't believe that because people are hurdled into this way of thinking by government from birth and there is basically no alternative view point presented simply because it would hurt government(I'm disillusioned here and I view pretty much all governmnetal workers as mercantile hacks who make money of abusing people's feelings and "morality" they themselves planted and ensuring their own survival and properity by this abuse is their primary goal).

I don't strictly disagree. Good luck trying to convince a country to convert to free market capitalism though. It just wont happen over any sustained period imo. I think we're more likely to reach some utopia where robots produce everything and we don't have to work at all before that happens.

Attached: 1518140963148.jpg (640x640, 37K)

Don't need to, you're right.

>I think we're more likely to reach some utopia where robots produce everything and we don't have to work at all before that happens.
COMMIE COMMIE COMMIE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
but seriously though, damn dude

Taxation is theft
Abortion is murder

Both are okay in limited amounts

It's a possible outcome though. I'm imagining a technocracy with a super computer as a government, it would still be market driven cause everyone would be given a fixed amount of credits. Computers would then battle to create products/services that draw in credits. There would of course be fields you could work in if you wanted more credits, there are some things that a robot or computer simply can't do. It wouldn't be mandatory though.

Anyway that's some pretty pie in the sky shit and it's not an outcome I necessarily expect. I just think its more likely than true free market capitalism emerging at this rate.

Attached: 1518139030488.gif (400x225, 1.47M)

You owe the environment and systems around you that allowed for the development of your character as it is today. If you want to to eschew the social contract and fuck off like a selfish, lazy little bitch then go live in the woods, you little shitbag. Woods maintained by park rangers, mind you. So make sure to fuck off from anywhere we can see your stupid ass.

How is it selfish to not want to be stolen from?

A totally free market is an economic state of nature a.k.a. tyranny of the strong. Just as a successful society cannot arise from a state of nature and must be regulated it so, too, impossible for a successful economy to rise out of a market in a state of nature.

Because a tribute or partial contribution isn't theft. It's a systemic collection of your debt to society for existence. It is selfish to attempt to withhold this while also having benefitted from society by allowing the conditions of your birth/growth to allow you to be born and grow and your continued benefit from society by existing in it. Without this systemic collection, it all falls apart. I don't agree that you're being stolen from so your question is disingenuous.

Why do you wish to violate the social contract while leeching off of society? Why don't you move into the woods?

I don't owe anyone for simply existing. Someone forcing me to pay them money that I do not owe with threats of imprisonment is theft.

Ah, but you do. Where did the hospital you were born in come from? Where did the school you were educated in come from? Paved roads? Economic system for commerce? Notice how roving bandits haven't pillaged your home or raped your mom lately? Courts? Laws? Technology? Peace that allows all this shit to get done? You owe a tiny bit for all of that and more. We all do. Fuck off innawoods if you don't like it.

If they are public they were paid for with taxes in the first place before somebody could benefit from them. If your argument is that tax isn't theft if you benefit from government services you should realize that in the first place somebody had to be taxed to build those, since they had not benefited before being taxed, it is theft by your logic.

>all of that
taxation
it came massively overpriced cause all governmental corporation are either corrupt to the core or just plain backwards and lack efficiency
don't pretend like there won't be anyone to supply services when there is such a massive demand
>b-but muh roads
seriously fuck off, most commercial roads are preferred over municipal

It's more than just services though. Also larger abstract benefits like the establishment of peace, community structures, economic and legal systems that give life a basic semantic framework for not being violent monkeys swung around by our passions and instincts.

>economic and legal systems that give life a basic semantic framework for not being violent monkeys swung around by our passions and instincts
The entire system is based on stealing money from people and kidnapping or killing those who resist, how is that not being like violent monkeys?

How are those commercial contractors paid?

Look, I get it, but we couldn't have made anything to the level we have without large scale organization. Rome and other grest societies of history proved this.

you can't steal what is legally your property

Because it's systematized and the devision was based off more than just instinctual passion. Also, the basis of society is keeping order so nice things can happen and it's willing to engage in some violent monkey business to protect that. Violent monkey instincts have their place, just not in polite society.

It's funny because there is a framework within the system (the democratic/republic systems anyhow) for corruption and that's voting. Problem is that no one cares to vote. Usually becaise muh rigged but the only reason the game can be rigged is because nobody's playing. Ironing.

People can peacefully coexist without a government stealing from and killing innocent people.

Look around at nature and look into our past and you'll see that the whole thing is a god damn, bloody mess. I 100% disagree with this. These systems arose out of need for them.

One can argue that they've grown out of control but that's a different discussion that we may be on the same side on.

literally enterpreneuship, like its always been

you say this like tribal rulers and other systems that are created by humans long ago wouldn't generally fall under the label of "government"
I'm just here to watch, but I think this isn't accurate regardless of what side you're on here

Just not what we're looking for. We require a great deal mental agility.

Well, yeah they are. They're forms of government that don't scale well as the population grows out of the grasp of the influence of a tribal leader. That's why socialism and monarchism are bad for the same reasons; too much centralised power, often in one or few people.

I don't disagree totally with the sentiment behind "taxation is theft", I just think it's taking that sentiment unreasonably far.

Countries need a monopoly on the use of force.

>then go live in the woods
You literally can't do that without owning property ,

Taxation would be fine if it was done with the consent of both parties and represented what the community wants.
I think it should be voluntary rather than mandatory, that would force Politicans to be more involved in their communities and not just burn money on stupid shit since they'd be forced on a budget.

Attached: Shell.jpg (918x837, 220K)

Voting needs to be reformed it's pretty awful right now.

That's just wrong. There are tons of societies that exist without governments . They are usually just very small

it's not tax if it's voluntary

not necessarily force, but rather arbitration

taxation is remuneration mandated by a state. private ownership of land is theft, so obviously tax is theft. however remuneration as dictated by equitable contract is not.
youre not wrong, but i’m pretty sure you come to a stupid conclusion because of the fact

Are you rich as hell? No one gets rich as hell without being a thief.

>People can peacefully coexist without a government
sure, but how would you handle theft in a no-government land?
the typical response is that there will be mercenaries which fulfill security duty.
the problem is these mercenaries quickly turn into roving bands of mafia thugs trying to extort money out of business owners for "protection".
so you inevitably have to create some monopoly of force, that being the government.
unless you have some alternative idea which addresses this?

unfortunately there is no way to restructure how our voting system works without sacrificing at least one of the virtues we hold dearly to the democratic process.
such as no dictatorship.
it's the unfortunate case of democracy.
there will always be winners and losers.
it's a shitty system, and many people will inevitably be disappointed with their vote, but it's better than the rest to handle politics.

Taxation is necessary as it brings out many lulz in many types of poeple

As we all know, when no lulz are present, life is just a bore........
But when I am presented, lulz are never unpresent!

There needs to be a Profit Approval Commission (PAC)
that determines whether your profit was rightly or ill gotten.

"C'mon Barbie lets go party!

Attached: 5d434713100a240d1f0bc044-750-375.jpg (750x375, 85K)

FORT RESORT!

wage slavery is theft
corporate profit schemes are theft
workers must own the means of production

Theft is defined as the unjust forceful taking of another's property.
If you get into a car accident, you may be forced by the state to pay for the other person's car repair and physical injuries if you're found at fault.
This is not theft by any reasonable definition. It's merly the enforcement of restitutive justice.
If you are fined for going past the speed limit, the cop is not stealing from you. It's a just form of deterrence.
If one person owned the only road you could take to work, they could charge you and everyone at the workplace extortive amounts, taking perhaps all of your paychecks. This would be unjust. So the government must take over the creation and maintenance of roads to right this. Since this would require proper funding regardless of where you live, how populous it is, or how wealthy, it must be tax funded to ensure a fair implementation.
Of course not all taxation is just. The 08 bank bailouts were definitely theft.

> So the government must take over the creation and maintenance of roads to right this.
idiot