Wait, what?
Wait, WHAT?!
Really? What happens if you refuse to go to court? If you choose not to participate in a system you did not agree to? For your second point, we already have violence inflicted on innocent people, many times by the state. FFS, last time I was in London, your city, there were police on the streets carrying MP5’s.
As for infrastructure, how do we run anything that is not provided by the state? Anarchy is about eliminating government, not organization. If the state was dissolved a huge market vacuum would follow, and you can bet that there would be plenty of people lining up to provide these services. Perhaps through tolls, or perhaps people from a local group would pay a fee for unlimited use of roads for example. The difference are A) you would not have government for a middle man. B) There would be competition for lower prices on said service. C) Taxes would not be extracted by force for said services by law.
The state has a legal right to steal from you and use violence against you, which you have no way to object to. Is this not clear?
How are you going to enforce those tolls? How are you going to print/mint the money? Why would people even agree to your value of money?
Except, that, y’know, you did agree to it. And agree to it every single day you use government services. You there, stop drinking water. Stop breathing the air. Stop all the things you’re doing! Otherwise, pay up and stop stealing from the rest of us.
D) Those services would be extraordinarily more expensive if they’re subject to anarchic-market forces…if such could even exist.
Except, no, they don’t.
Really? What do you call taxation and imprisonment? And BTW, I use private well water, and was not aware that air was a government service.
I’m not sure how that’s a valid answer to any of our points.
EDIT: You’re also using the internet.
Taxation is payment for services rendered.
Tell me something: In an anarchic society, how would one prosecute someone that steals?
Yes, taxation is a payment for services rendered. Those services can include roads and water. Sure, even to pay for legislation for clean air. they can also include paying for drone bombers that kill civilians in far off nations, putting people in privately owned prisons for non violent crimes and payouts to environment killing corporations. The point is that paying for these services in not voluntary and that is why it is an unethical system.
No, I’m pretty sure you don’t have to pay them, ask your nearest homeless person.
Right, so work and pay for war crimes or be homeless. Great choices, what a wonderful system we have LOL.
I’m still waiting on how the keystone of anarchism to be explained: How do you prosecute wrong-doers?
And you haven’t answered the whole infrastructure thing sensibly either.
EDIT: No, you own property and use the government services, then you get taxed. You don’t, you don’t get taxed. We’ve been through this.
I guess it depends on where you are living. I would imagine that under an ideal anarchist society you would have local voluntaryist societies. You have to remember that there would be very few crimes. Only crimes that violate ones human rights, like murder, rape, theft. So I would imagine that those would be few. Perhaps banishment? I don’t know, it would be up to the community to decide that. Of course if you do not like the rules of the community you live in, you would be free to leave.
How do you know there would be few crimes?
In other words: “If you don’t like it, move!” Stick a marker on your statist troll bingo board. Also, I highly doubt there would be “very few crimes” at all, especially since there seems to be no possibility of prosecution.
Because there would be fewer laws for one. And most crime is the result of laws. How many murders occur over the manufacturing and sale of illegal products on a black market? How much abuse occurs because things like prostitution are illegal? I have always maintained that it is not the discord of lawlessness, but rather the existing discord resulting from law that people should be more worried about. However I could be completely wrong about that. But it seems that now we have an anarchy of laws anyway.
It still sounds like you’re advocating government and not anarchy, Diabeetus.
“An anarchy of laws.”
Now I know you’re kidding.