-
Daily Poll 1: Does the State have a right to exist?
I don’t think most of use do but these polls are for encouraging discussion. We’ve had some interesting discussions on some functions of the state but it all stems from finding legitimacy in the state’s claim it has the right to exist and its mire existence is necessitated on taking away your rights. That’s just me, what do you think?
-
4 Replies
-
I agree. These polls will be good conversation starters.
-
Most of us here know that the state is a monopoly of power of others. It only exists when people choose a false sense of safety over their own sovereignty. I am a bit conflicted to be honest though. I do not want to dictate others how they want to live. We know that communism is bad, but do we stop those that want to live that system? The state is evil, but do we stop it from forming or do we let others fall victim to the state? My stance is that the state has no right to exist, just like rapists or pedos.
-
The ethics of the state could be mostly resolved if we could simply opt out. People who want to have social security, or government healthcare, etc can just check the yes box on their tax form for the year. Check yes for whatever functions of government you will use, or would like to participate in, and be excluded from financial responsibility or any benefit provided by the other programs. The state would have to shrink considerably for this to be feasible, but it resolves a lot of the ethics and doesn’t require anyone to pay for things they find morally abhorrent or ineffective and means nobody’s getting a free ride on someone else’s unwilling back.
For example, my state just created a compulsory payroll tax for a retirement home when we’re seniors. All I ask for here is a “no thank you” box I can check. If not enough people check yes, refund the contributions and close the program.
The same approach could house the homeless, treat the mentally ill, and assist disabled people, without removing the possibility of a viable market competitor and without forcing anyone with other priorities to pay for things they wouldn’t fund voluntarily.
In its current form, fuck the state.
-
I voted “No”, but, I feel the question itself is based on a bad premise. I guess technically the more correct answer would be “Only if it’s unanimous among its citizens”, although even the unanimity of its agreed upon “legitimacy” may change at some point in the future. With that said, does this state then cease to exist when one potential individual decides it no longer has a right to exist, or would the state simply flex on this individual by way of force and numbers? Or, would the individual have the option to “opt out” of taxes and “protection” from the state since they no longer legitimize it? I feel the tendency of man would be to force dissenters to stay in the system by means of coercion.