Right. Also there was far less confusion - there weren't slaves that thought they were citizens.
If the system is not voluntary, if you are forced to handover some portion of your wealth, what is the percentage which defines freedom or slavery? My position is that if even 1% (I can dream) is forcibly extracted, then I am not free.
Only voluntary systems can be free. But the governance system we have is a 100% monopoly. Opting out is not possible.
The top tax bracket is higher than I say. Once you add up all tax, inheritance, local taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, special taxes (petrol, alcohol), you will see that the percentage I suggest is quite reasonable at all levels.
You need to resolve what you mean by 'free'. If you have no option but to pay tax, ie your wealth is forcibly extracted, you are not free. You can't both be free and have wealth forcibly extracted.
If you wish to say that you agree with this system, perhaps you can do this thought exercise. Left to your own devices, how much money would you be prepared to gift the present system for the services they provide?
I'm free to not fend for myself with everything in life. Healthcare (ex US), defense, food safety, inaccurate gas pumps/food scales, etc.
It only works if everyone pays into the system. Something something tragedy of the commons/social contract. The needle of what should/shouldn't be covered moves around.
Related thought experiment, how much would you bid (as in an auction) before birth, if you had a choice of which country you'd be born into, and which countries would be at the top of your list? What do they look like politically?
> You need to resolve what you mean by 'free'. If you have no option but to pay tax, ie your wealth is forcibly extracted, you are not free. You can't both be free and have wealth forcibly extracted.
In many places you're free to opt out of the economy and thus skip all this "forcible extraction of wealth". This of course comes with the downside of not having much ownership that the system forcibly enforces.
Property rights aren't some laws of nature. They are part of the "social contract" just like taxation.
How do you mean you can opt out of the economy? And why would you want to do that? Government does not provide the economy and everyone should be able to freely associate, right?
I'm glad you put 'social contract' in quotes, because it is not social or a contact. If you do not agree or sign a contract, this does not make you anti-social or something. In reverse, being forced to agree to some terms (without a choice to do otherwise), is coercion. This is immoral.
This is the situation we have - immoral use of force by an exclusive monopolist (ie the existing governance system) - but it's immoral nature cannot be made right however many people argue for it. It can never be right to exhort or force others.
Government provides the enforcement of property rights. I didn't sign for property rights, does that make them immoral?
There is right to roam in many countries, meaning you can just live in a forest, although you'd have to rely on foraging. Farming and hunting and building is typically banned or highly limited. Without right to roam this is often done by coercion via private property establishing an exclusive monopoly over a land area. Somebody will exhort or force you out of the hunting or farming or building or even just being in the area by exhorting or forcing.
> You keep saying immoral. That's just an opinion.
If I force you to hand over some percentage of your money - I think you would agree that was immoral.
If I and 100 friends force you to hand over some percentage of your money - I think you would agree that was still immoral - the number of people agreeing to do an immoral act, cannot make that action 'good'.
If I and my friends call myself 'the government', talk about a 'social contract', establish 'the rule of law' and call that 'justice', use your money to train you and your children to believe all that at face value (education, entertainment) and force you to hand over some percentage of your money - this is still immoral. Unless I explicitely agree to the 'social contract' it is force and without consent - aka immoral.
