@Jack: Only because that's the only way I'll be able to really start my anarchist society. And I'll try to go to a private college, if I can get a scholarship. Otherwise I'd be forced to go to a stateschool, but I'll still be paying for it, and that is how I'll pay the state back for letting me go to it's college.

"Since you don't want any government services, I'm sure you'd be fine if your dad came back after a drunken binge, and beat you to death" My dad's not THAT bad of an alcoholic, so he wouldn't do that, but if something like that happened, then no, I do not want the state to protect me. I can protect myself, and whether you believe it or not, God can protect. That's enough for me.

You take it up with person B. Perhaps he'll not expect anything in return. Here, in this country, taxes are expected in return. You don't have a choice on that. ...and you know now that it is part of the bargain... so if you participate in the American economy then you owe some portion to the management. Period.

@Jack: You know, You seem to be confusing government and society. You called going to college taking what society has to offer, but I thought what you had a problem with was me taking what the government offers. Government and society are two different things.

"taxes are expected in return" Why can't the government charge for it's services, instead of engaging in theft? (Because that's what taxes are. Theft.)

Also: I know I take it up with person B. But the question is, do you really owe him anything?

Government is representative of society.

A state school is subsidized by the government. Therefore, you'd be taking the government's money. And thus, be a huge hypocrite.

But in any case, you can opt out of the government schools right now. But you won't, because you'd prefer to leech off of the same thing you profess to hate.

"Government is representative of society." It doesn't need to be.
And I won't opt out of the governments schools because my parents don't know, but accepting public school isn't hypocritical because my parents can't afford anything else, And I want to go to school, so the government is again forcing itself on me. And with state school, I'll be paying for it, so how is that hypocritical?

*my parents don't know that I'm an anarchist*

"Why can't the government charge for it's services, instead of engaging in theft? (Because that's what taxes are. Theft.)"

Taxes *are* the government's way to charge for its services. It is not theft. It is mandatory, yes, but it is not theft anymore than paying rent is theft. Besides... as a religious man, what ever came of "Pay then what is Caesar's to Caesar"?

1. So you admit you need the government's help to get an education. You claim to not want government services, but you are willing to take their services.

2. A state school's tuition doesn't cover the cost of education. The state in which you reside covers the rest. Thus, you are sucking at the government teat, so to speak.

The technical term for somebody who says one thing and then goes and does the opposite is a hypocrite.

I'm impressed. Most people wait until they're at least in their mid-twenties to sell out their beliefs... you're not wasting any time. Impressive!

@dexter: I will pay taxes, but wouldn't it be fairer for the government to charge for it's individual services?
Here is an article explaining the insanity of taxes (there's another one to, which I'll find later):

Regardless of what you call it, the economic system works as follows, in any country you care to name. The wealth produced is heavily influenced by the ratio of producers to thieves (mainly, the state):

Bob the candy dude buys various basic ingredients in bulk, such as sugar, baker's chocolate, etc. Bob then transforms these raw ingredients into his famous Zonkos. He sells his Zonkos for one Fwango (unit of currency) each. The cost of ingredients per Zonko is half a Fwango. Thus, Bob's profit is a half Fwango per Zonko.

Along comes Bill the Compassion Fascist, who institutes a Zonko tax of one Fwango per Zonko. If Bob keeps his prices the same, he obviously loses a half Fwango on each Zonko he sells. If he raises the price to one and a half Fwangos, he only breaks even (and still goes out of business). If he raises the price to one hundred Fwangos, no one will buy any, and he will go out of business.

Bob raises the price to two Fwangos per Zonko. He sells considerably fewer Zonkos at the higher price, but he still sells enough to stay in business.

So what was the effect of the Zonko tax that Bill the Compassion Fascist imposed?

1) Bob raises the price of Zonkos to stay in business.
2) Fewer Zonkos are sold because of the higher price.
3) Fewer Zonkos are made to adjust for what Bob can sell.
4) Supply of Zonkos is down, and demand for Zonkos is down.

Bill the Compassion Fascist has successfully made things cost more for everyone, and made there be less overall wealth. (Wealth is stuff people ultimately want, not currency.)

Bill, being the economic jackass that politicians usually are, had expected to make 50,000 Fwangos a year from the Zonko tax, since Bob had been selling 50,000 Zonkos a year. But because of the price increase, Bob sold only 20,000 Zonkos this year, so Bill only got 20,000 Fwangos in taxes; not enough to fund his universal healthcare plan. So Bill, proud of his stupidity, triples the Zonko tax, immediately putting Bob out of business, and ending any tax revenue from the sale of Zonkos.

In summary, here is how economics works:

People make trades they want to make (duh).
If the "buyer" wants to keep his money rather than pay a high price, he does (duh).
The same is true of the trade from the "sellers" view (duh).
Adding "tax" to the deal makes it more likely there will be no deal (duh).
(This bleeding obvious phenomenon affects "essential" items less, such as food, since the buyer needs food in order to survive.)

Any questions?

@Jack: I think we may have a little misunderstanding. I still will pay taxes when I'm an adult, to "pay" the government for it's services. But it's services in no way require me to obey the government.

"Most people wait until they're at least in their mid-twenties to sell out their beliefs... you're not wasting any time. Impressive!"

The thing that scares me about Conservative Man is that he's blaming society for *his own* choices. He isn't just selling out... he actually blames America for his selling out. This is a Timothy McVeigh in the making. His idealism could inspire him to create great things in his life - but as long as he is blaming others it is more like a cancer.

If your parents are relatively poor, then I doubt your parents have paid enough to equal out the services provided.

It is irrelevant to me if you obey the law out of belief that you should, or mere fear of the law.

It means the same thing in the end.

I also hasten to add that if your parents are relatively poor, I doubt they've paid "enough" to justify what the various levels of government have provided to assist them, and to educate you.

So you're freeloading, and then claiming that the law doesn't apply to you.

@Jack: Did I not say that I will pay taxes. Considering that that is what the government is asking for in exchange for it's "services", I would think that that is all I should owe the government for it's "services".

@Conservative Man, in your economic example... yes, taxes *can be* oppressively high... there is something called the Laffer curve that illustrates the idea of diminishing returns with really high taxes... and the ideal levels of taxes for maximum tax revenue (and its not 0%). See http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/06/The-Laffer-Curve-Past-Present-and-Future for a nice in-depth explanation by Dr. Laffer himself.

I think I should re-give my analogy, but make it more detailed. Let's say you are walking in some random town in the middle of nowhere. Two people are offering you a place to stay for the night. Person A will charge you $25. Person B will charge you $30. Naturally you want to stay with Person A, so Person B kills Person A. You know have to stay with Person B or freeze to death outside. Do you really owe Person B anything besides the $30?

What else do you think Person B expects?
...and is Person A the Native Americans? I'm unclear on the analogy here.

@Dexter: Person A is private enterprise. Person B is government. According to you, Person B expects complete obedience.

Anyway, I have to go somewhere soon. I'll be back in about 9 hours.

Only in a socialist country is Person B the only choice in town.

@Dexter: So the government doesn't have any monopolies? Not even on law and order? Not in mailing letter?

Besides, Person B is really us. Person B are the people we elect to represent us and do our bidding. I do not feel exploited by me. Granted that government involves compromise - and I don't get everything I want... but I get a lot more of what I want than if there was no constitutional democracy here. So I'm cool with it. Its a good bargain. Imperfect, yes - and I'll continue to try and make it better - but its still a good bargain and I am thankful for it.

Law and order that is obedient to the Constitution? Yes - I like that monopoly. I don't really want private gangs to interfere with my social contract. Mailing letters? Freaking best deal in civilization. FedEx isn't going to mail your letter from Bumfuck to Middle-of-nowhere for 44 cents. And they'll cut off the service any damn time they please - they don't have to answer to me. The U.S. government does.

Wow, CM. To assume that cities can work without government goes against probably all history...

It has worked before. In a very broad Marxist macro-historical take on history, first there were 'proto-communist' societies. In these societies, there was no hierarchy, and everyone gave what they could, and resources were generally shared as they were needed.
No, I'm not saying these societies were perfect. They could be quite sexist, the old were treated with disdain and were generally left to die, and they were quite primitive.

However, the main problem is greed. Specifically relative scarcity. If we could get around that problem, then a anarchist or communist society would be much easier to create.

Dexter, do you really think the government answers to you? Unless you are a millionaire/billionaire industrialist, then I might believe you. What can you do?
Vote? Once every four years, and it isn't much of a choice.
Write letters/petitions? Unlikely they will listen. Look at Arizona. The Dept. of Education is removing teachers with 'accented' speech. A six page letter was written to the department asking to stop it, written by the head of linguistics at the University of Arizona, signed by seventeen professors and one lecturer.
Strike/sit-down/civil disobedience? Only really works in numbers.

Of course it only works in numbers. A country of 300 million isn't going to turn on a dime because I, alone, want it to.

@Conservative Man:

Ummm................

What on EARTH made you think I'm a Christian??????

I mean really, I'm always talking on these threads, I've said it a million times over I'm Jewish on both sides by descent and I don't hold with any religion now, I'm a mitigated skeptic.

I believe I even said that on this thread.

I really have to know, what, exactly, made you think, at all, that I was a Christian?

And a city working without a government?

It could be argued that a city's existence IMPLIES government, otherwise how could it be an organized and working body, a city generally is an organized body of people and structures abiding by the same laws and striving towards goals but individual and communal, and for this, to regulate and allow all this, a government is needed, otherwsie it's just a group of nomads or hunter-gatherers making camp near each other and trying not to kill one another, not a city.