If you claim the a monopoly government is necessary to prevent the predation of the disadvantaged by the powerful, then I ask, howz that workin out for you so far?
Here's a question: let's say you could, for the rest of your life, commit 30% of your income and savings to charitable organizations of your choice, with a certain amount required to go to basic needs charities, in exchange for never paying taxes on anything ever again. Would you say yes? If that's too much, what's the maximum you'd go up to?
My maximum is zero percent. It's my money. If I am forced to be charitable, it's not really charity, is it? How much freedom would you be willing to give up for freedom? Your question makes no sense.
Billyjoeallen has the point go right over his head. Shocker.
My question is a test to see who cares about their ideals and who is just greedy. Judging by your response, it's all about the money for you, which suggests to me your odds of willfully giving anything to charity are extremely low. If that is the case, why should I believe your ridiculous "support through voluntary charity" argument. You clearly don't.
No, the point has gone over your head. Forced charity is not charity. Involuntary wealth redistribution is not efficient because the victims resist and evade. Wealth is destroyed in the process making everyone poorer. The size of the pie is just as important as the fraction of the slice. You don't seem to care about the poor and needy nearly as much as you care that I might possibly spend my money as I see fit and not as you think I should.
You spend your money your way and I spend my money my way. That's agreeing to disagree,
but when you advocate theft against me, that makes you my adversary. Billyjoeallen:
I must congratulate you, at least, for coming full circle back to the original postulate and re-emphasizing your point that you are of the belief that the government is the same as a thief - merely b/c they are levying taxes against your "involuntarily." I really wished that you could find some island to live upon, b/c you would like to stay detached from society, or at least that is what you are saying that you want. But when push comes to shove, you likely do NOT want to live on an island by yourself, and instead you want to enjoy the fruits of various infrastructure but NOT have to pay your fair share.
Surely, I would like to pay as little as possible as well; however, I realize that it is my responsibility to pay, even when I do NOT get a direct benefit. Anyhow, simply asserting the government is the equivalent of thieves demonstrates that you DO NOT appreciate either the various roles of government, and your logic remains very fuzzy to equate government with a ceo, such as Karpeles, who seems to have used his position of privelege and access to the money of others to be irresponsible at best and possibly engaged in fraud (has NOT been alleged, yet).