My analogy was to provide a stepping stone towards understanding why you aren't an island and, yes, that your success depends on EVERYONE as a whole. Not just specific people.
I used to be an libertarian, so I crafted my analogy to appeal to the self-made Only I Deserve The Sweat Of My Brow type of person. As programmers, we live in a bubble. We tend to think we are smarter than everyone else. We forget we are in the same boat as everyone else. And if we look around, we are sinking. We just happen to be in the crows nest, so we have a while til we will have to worry.
Society is not a voluntary cooperation. It has fees and dues. If you feel collecting those fees and dues are against your morals, then please pay back what you've taken and exit society to stop reaping its fruits.
WRT to your point. The non-aggression principle is a well thought out red herring. Guess what happens if you violate a contract? Guess what happens if you are the wrong side of a property dispute? Guess what happens if you violate court orders?
You can complain about the monopoly of force, but it is better than the alternative. That force keeps you from being stripped of your possessions by the masses. That force ensures you can do honest business. What do you think keeps people from holding a gun to your head and taking everything you've got?
If the government didn't ensure corporations property rights and ability to collect dues, do you honestly think they wouldn't be enforced through the guns of a private entity? One that has no accountability to the public? Today, we see the rise of private security agencies as the wealth gap increases.
You are taking from society and then stubbornly trying to find any way to not give up some of your bounty.
You are essentially stealing, and complaining that it will get you in trouble with the government. The same exact thing will happen if you work at an Apple store and take a new iMac, because you sold ten today therefore deserve to take one home. You will end up in jail in both cases.
You do have a choice in paying taxes just as you have a choice in stealing that computer. You can leave society, just as you can leave the Apple store. Don't complain when men with guns try to stop you if you go ahead and steal.
We have tried having private entities handle what governments govern. It was disastrous. It was business as usual.
If people don't pay taxes and dissolve government, then infrastructure will crumble. Violent factions will arise. Warlords and fiefdoms will manifest. Businesses will escape the hostile and uncertain landscape. We will look like Somalia did a few years ago. Thankfully, government has restored some order to the area as of recently.
Worst of all, it maximises for suffering. Even today, when we do have programs in place by the government to address social issues, suffering is rampant. How can you fail to see this? And if you do, how can you defend the maximization of suffering so you can save some pennies?
I'm sorry, but your definition of theft doesn't make any sense. If you say I steal from society, then certainly I do it without even a threat of force, without lying and by asking people to get into businesses relationship with me voluntarily. When government steals from me, it's quite the opposite.
But I understand that you made up your mind, so if you're still checking this thread let me ask you something. You mentioned you were a libertarian. What was the turning point for you when you ceased being one?
He clearly grew up. He's dead on now about how absurd the non aggression principle is and dead on about everything he just said to you. If you were wise, you'd listen.
I used to be an libertarian, so I crafted my analogy to appeal to the self-made Only I Deserve The Sweat Of My Brow type of person. As programmers, we live in a bubble. We tend to think we are smarter than everyone else. We forget we are in the same boat as everyone else. And if we look around, we are sinking. We just happen to be in the crows nest, so we have a while til we will have to worry.
Society is not a voluntary cooperation. It has fees and dues. If you feel collecting those fees and dues are against your morals, then please pay back what you've taken and exit society to stop reaping its fruits.
WRT to your point. The non-aggression principle is a well thought out red herring. Guess what happens if you violate a contract? Guess what happens if you are the wrong side of a property dispute? Guess what happens if you violate court orders?
You can complain about the monopoly of force, but it is better than the alternative. That force keeps you from being stripped of your possessions by the masses. That force ensures you can do honest business. What do you think keeps people from holding a gun to your head and taking everything you've got?
If the government didn't ensure corporations property rights and ability to collect dues, do you honestly think they wouldn't be enforced through the guns of a private entity? One that has no accountability to the public? Today, we see the rise of private security agencies as the wealth gap increases.
You are taking from society and then stubbornly trying to find any way to not give up some of your bounty.
You are essentially stealing, and complaining that it will get you in trouble with the government. The same exact thing will happen if you work at an Apple store and take a new iMac, because you sold ten today therefore deserve to take one home. You will end up in jail in both cases.
You do have a choice in paying taxes just as you have a choice in stealing that computer. You can leave society, just as you can leave the Apple store. Don't complain when men with guns try to stop you if you go ahead and steal.
We have tried having private entities handle what governments govern. It was disastrous. It was business as usual.
If people don't pay taxes and dissolve government, then infrastructure will crumble. Violent factions will arise. Warlords and fiefdoms will manifest. Businesses will escape the hostile and uncertain landscape. We will look like Somalia did a few years ago. Thankfully, government has restored some order to the area as of recently.
Worst of all, it maximises for suffering. Even today, when we do have programs in place by the government to address social issues, suffering is rampant. How can you fail to see this? And if you do, how can you defend the maximization of suffering so you can save some pennies?