Wow are you deluded JLL. A Chief of a tribe had every monopoly on violence. If he said go to war and you refused, you would either be killed by the tribe, or cast out from it. Denying reality is not an answer.
It is not me who is denying reality.
I am not talking about chiefs of tribes, I am talking about medieval Iceland. The "chiefs" had no power to force people into war, because the judicial system was privatized. Clearly you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Nether, it is simply reality. If you exist in any society, you do so by accepting the rules and responsibilities that society assigns to you.
So what you are saying is that by existing somewhere I accept any rules the majority occupying that region decides to implement? I just want to get this correct before further questions.
You're really stretching JLL. Stealing is an action of individuals against individuals, be that "individual" a person, a business, or a corporation. Tax is a legally levied responsibility given to every member of society. It was passed by a vote of the public, in order to provide large scale public services to the entire society as a whole. If you do not wish to enjoy those services you are free to leave the society, vote to have those services discontinued, or break the law and pay the penalties. You do not get to pick and chose what responsibilities you will assume or not.
I think it is you who is stretching.
What is society but a collection of individuals? You have already defined an individual so that it encompasses even corporations; why is a society then not an individual in this sense?
Tell me, do you think it is possible for a society to steal?
You are free to have whatever opinion you wish JLL, but the reality is these laws were passed because they were determined to be in the interest of the society precisely because the private sector FAILED to provide them.
No, that is incorrect. There are many examples where the private sector worked just fine, but it was still replaced by a state monopoly.
You enjoy the benefits of a society JLL. Did those benefits simply appear out of thin air? Do they exist without that society to provide them?
No, they did not appear out of thin air. And the public sector obviously does not exist without a society. I don't see how that is relevant to anything, though.
Like I said, me "enjoying" the benefits of something that I am forced to pay for does not change the fact that it is wrong to force people in the first place. You keep on coming back to this same point, but you fail to answer any of my questions properly. I will try to reformulate: if it is the enjoying of benefits that is the key here, then why is it not right for me (or several people like me, if one individual is not enough) to force you to give me money and then spend that money on something that I/we have decided to be beneficial?
The Government became involved in Police and Fire because your system was tried, and FAILED BADLY, so badly in fact that the public demanded that it be removed from the private sector's control. When large cities burned because the fire departments were busier fighting each other than fires, the public decided enough was enough. While this may indeed have taken place before you were born, you have spent your entire life benefiting from that fact. The SOCIETY at that time decided that it was necessary to enact legislation which provided services to all members of society, paid for by a fee charged to each person.
What you mean is that the majority of people decided that it was alright to take money from everyone to provide public police and fire services. You have yet to show how the majority can turn something immoral (stealing) into moral, however.
What if the society comprised 1,000 individuals, and 499 of them voted that police services must be funded through taxation? Would that be immoral or moral? What about 500? What about 501?
In that regard, it is EXACTLY the same as you paying for the service of car insurance, or paying for the service of receiving merchandise from a store, or the service of having someone come paint your house. You are paying for the services you benefit from simply by being a member of society.
You are confused. I don't care whether A is exactly the same as B in some regard, because your original statement was that A is exactly the same as B in all regards. Just because I give money to both a thief and salesman does not mean these are equal transactions.
I will say it once more: I can choose whether I want to pay to get my house painted, but I cannot choose whether I want to pay for police "services". This is the only difference I am interested in. I am not interested in the fact that both my house and a police uniform can be blue in color. This is irrelevant. What we are talking about is the freedom of choice.
As those services are provided for you regardless of whether you "desire" them or not, you are obligated, just as everyone else in society is, to help pay for them.
Why am I obligated? Because the majority has voted so? Am I obligated because might is right, or because I have a moral obligation? If a thief points a gun at your head and tells you to hand over your wallet, are you obligated to comply?
If you think you pay too much for them now, you truly do not want to see how much you would pay if that cost was not divided across the entirety of the population.
Are you saying that getting my house painted has to be done by the government?
But I did not vote to allow the mafia to tax me, now did I? We the people voted to accept the responsibility of paying for those services paid for with our taxes.
But I am not a part of "we the people", am I? I did not vote for any of the things you claim are beneficial for me.
What if the mafia moved next to you, and all your neighbors voted that it is okay for the mafia to offer protection services to you. Would that be okay? Clearly your opinion is that not everyone has to agree, just as long as the majority does.
If you wish to change that law, you are free to initiate petitions, and attempt to persuade others to support you, and attempt to get your choice of law passed. None of those options exist with the Mafia.
Of course they exist within the mafia. You can work from within the system if you want to change it. Of course, you may have to whack a few guys on your way to the top, but then, that's precisely how the government works too.
You also mention that if I don't agree with the government, I can also move somewhere else. But tell me, why is it me who should pack my things and leave and not the government? Why do they have a claim on my property?