do you hate the other side?

[FA_Q2]

How do you figure it's stolen money? If a town has a meeting and the majority of members decide to enact a 5% tax to pay for a sheriff and buy equipment for a volunteer fire department, is it theft for those that voted no?

It depends.

Is coercive action used to ensure that the tax gets paid? It is also important to remember that you cannot consent to an illegitimate system, and all institutions of force are illegitimate.

Of course it depends. Did someone hold a gun on the people to vote a certain way? If so, you are correct. If it was a free election, then that's democracy.

Please define your terms with examples in our present government to show what you mean. "Coercive action", "Illegitimate system" and "Institutions of force".

Ill take this up as Onyx seems to not be able to have a discussion with you on it. I would out forth that it is, by the very definition, coercion.

If you have 3 people in a group and 2 of then vote to take the thirds land from him then that is no different from theft. It is also true that should the third refuse to acknoledge the other two's decision that force is used to take it from him (if we are comparing this to our government) and that is the essence of why it is coercion. The third person does not have an option. He cannot simply leave without forfeiture of what he owns or has worked to create.

That is no difference than taxing people. Those people may be able to vote but that does not, by itself, mean that they are complicit. Indeed, the participants in a democracy such as ours do not have a choice in the matter. They obey the decisions of the democratic process or are brought to heel with violence.

I would also add that an anarchist state of being is an ideal that is similar to those that back communism. It is not attainable in any real sense on a large scale in the modern world. Nothing is perfect and human nature certainly is not immune to that fact. Coercion is fact of life in a community and ours is no different. A constitutional republic as we have is, IMO, the best balance that has been achieved in order to both protect rights and ensure a working society.

If those that are true anarchists really believed what they said they would take what they could and go somewhere that they could live by those ideals. It is possible but at the end of the day those people also want the fruits of a high functioning society as well - such as the computer that I type this on and the police/military that ensure they are not conquered by others.

 

[Divine Wind]

...I would also add that an anarchist state of being is an ideal that is similar to those that back communism. It is not attainable in any real sense on a large scale in the modern world. Nothing is perfect and human nature certainly is not immune to that fact. Coercion is fact of life in a community and ours is no different. A constitutional republic as we have is, IMO, the best balance that has been achieved in order to both protect rights and ensure a working society.

If those that are true anarchists really believed what they said they would take what they could and go somewhere that they could live by those ideals. It is possible but at the end of the day those people also want the fruits of a high functioning society as well - such as the computer that I type this on and the police/military that ensure they are not conquered by others.

Excellent write up and agreed.

A small disagreement, as you stated, sometimes "the state" coerces people. Eminent domain to building a shopping mall is one example. I'm against eminent domain for private business. OTOH, a town hall meeting voting to pave main street by imposing a small sales tax isn't the same as "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".

Thanks for the post.