Comment: You have not been able to reconcile the contradiction between

(See in situ)


You have not been able to reconcile the contradiction between

Your position and your own ethical premise.

You believe that we should have a state whose purpose is to protect our rights and property, and the state would then fund itself through forcefully exacting revenue in the form of compulsory taxation from its subjects. Your state regards the very law that it is supposed to enforce with impunity!

You have said that someone would be within the law if he defended his property with force, and if he relied on someone else to protect his property with force, whether it be voluntarily or due to a business arrangement, so long as his actions were within the law.

You have not answered the question of whether or not your state would have the authority to break the law without any repercussions. Even if we assume that there is a different set of laws for your state than for the rest of us(which is what you have outlined for us), how do you expect the people to hold the government accountable to restraining itself to the confines of the law that it sets for itself?

Especially when said government is the ultimate arbiter of justice, and wielder of supreme power.

Why must a government have full territorial control, huh? Ever thought of that? No, of course you haven't. Here is the answer Jan, because it is not about law, and its not about dispute resolution. Its about revenue. You say that people should be allowed to opt out, but they can't take their property. They can't say, "you know what, this government isn't good to me anymore, I don't belong to it. I am not going to require their services, I will contract for them" That is not legal in your society. They would have to leave. Or the troopers would come in and arrest them, and take their things, and throw them in jail.

Public police didn't come about in this country until the middle 1800's Jan. There is plenty of private dispute resolution. There are also many tiny countries that have no military to speak of, who have no fear about being overwhelmed by a foreign super power. Do you think they should pay taxes to the united states because the us provides their protection? And when people tried to leave this country, they were forced to stay by men holding guns, and continue paying taxes.

Let me ask you this.

What is it about a state(by which i define as an institution who depends on compulsory taxation to fund its enterprise) that protects us from any of the potential issues that you present to us in your debates, better than the alternative?

Séamusín