What's your angle here? Are you accusing me of not paying taxes? Are you one of these cradle to grave big government socialists? I never said "I want to abolish government" verbatim. I pointed out that if it's to be replaced, it should be replaced by "Coalitions of free and voluntary people." Just scroll up and read the transcript carefully. You can read right? People already pointed out that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive... So, unless you want to come right out and advocate for some kind of fascism or communism wholeheartedly, stop looking for a fight. And please don't put words in my mouth @deaddog.
I don't remember even mentioning taxes. And no I'm one who thinks we should have a choice of not having a government and just let the bureaucrats run the country for a year. Admittedly you did not say you wanted to abolish government but volunteered an answer when I asked that question to someone else. So I'll ask you how you see a coalition of free and voluntary people being able to manage what government does now?
Thank you. As was implied previously, "coalitions of free and voluntary people" are not necessarily distinct from "governments". I think it'd help foster an intellectually honest conversation if the issue wasn't framed as if they were. That's a matter of semantics and if you want to nit pick a choice of words then you'll excuse me because I have better things to do than bicker over that. Now... you ask how? Well, in very much the same way more classically liberal governments do now. But this doesn't mean that what people colloquially refer to as "governments" (even relatively free ones) don't often step on individual rights in dubious ways. There's room for improvement. For example, I don't think there are many valid reasons for making so-called "crimes of consent" illegal. Do you think there's a great need for jaywalking to still be on the books? Or is that law somehow still necessary? Don't you think this is an encroachment on the individual? IOW, an excuse for government overreach and only used as a lever to control people in greater ways? There's a whole slew of explanations why some regulations fall short of their mark in this respect. And, I won't try to explain them myself but I'll suggest you seek more eloquent sources, e.g. Walter Block.
I think we are pretty much of the same mind. You mention semantics, if the founding fathers had called it a protectorate rather than a government where the elected officials were to protect the people instead of goverm them, things might be different today.
Yeah, IDK... the pessimist in me suspects that the adage "power corrupts" will always apply. And, as you may agree, it's not just the words, but their meaning that matters too. OTOH, I think that social institutions (whatever their name) have no choice but to improve (not just evolve) as time passes. I have no specific expectations or preconceived notions though; the future is hard to predict. Not sure this justifies optimism or hope exactly... but it helps me get out of bed in the morning.
Fact remains, without the Fed, the US would be bankrupt today, right now. Insolvent. Lights out, game over. The country would need over a decade to gain the trust of foreign investors to buy a single dollar denominated government bond ever again.
one wouldn't have to travel far to see a lawless city (Slab City, California). an interesting read. 5 Reasons to Avoid Slab City - Mortons on the Move