/liberty/ - Liberty

>>61915

>Isn't this much better than sudden, rapid abolition of the state, with high potential for anarchy in the negative sense (and potentially tyrannical, competing governments)?

Yes, it would be better to graduate from what we have now to minarchism to night watchman-state minarchism to full statelessness but it would be better for the state to collapse, violently or otherwise, rather than continue on our current track.

If you give me a CHOICE, yes, I would wean society off statism. We don't always get the choices we want, though, and at some point you have to realize that sitting around and waiting for the BEST choice to come your way is going to result in nothing fucking happening, forever.

This is like saying "it's better to quit smoking gradually with various aids than it is to go cold-turkey" and then deliberately leaving out the fact that even cold-turkey is better than continuing to smoke.

>>61915

This is one of the primary functions of the Agorist method of transition. In this framework, the state is not abolished; it is allowed to fail, while private actors establish competing institutions to meet people's needs. This way, there is continuity of service; as government departments and offices go bankrupt one by one, the private sector institutions which have been functioning for years pick up the slack, possibly even buying off government assets as they are sold to cover debts for overblown government programs. As more and more people are emboldened to evade taxes and refuse to comply, the state loses ever more revenue and faces a shrinking demand for its services. Eventually, the state will no longer be able to pay its soldiers and functionaries, or to maintain its infrastructure and equipment. These things increasingly become financial burdens, and so they must be laid off or sold off.

We need not abolish the state; its policies are fundamentally unsustainable. It must collapse at some point. What we can do is prepare by creating private sector alternatives to function along side it today, to out-compete it and gradually starve it of participants.

>>61915

>>61917

The danger of a political shrinking of government is that it would diminish the symptoms of tyranny. As the state abolishes its encroachments (presuming that such a thing could be accomplished), it becomes increasingly pleasant to live under, reducing the urgency of the drive for its abolition. If you shrink the state, you make people more comfortable in their slavery, and at some point

we can expect their drive to diminish, leaving behind some remnant of the state, but a state nonetheless. We have already seen what happens when a small state is allowed to persist in a prospering society; it grows quietly until it chokes the very prosperity that sustained it, and its subterfuge in doing so allows it to grow all the bigger before it becomes intolerable.

We must not treat the symptoms; we must cure the disease at its cause. We must build up our independence from the state, sever it from its sustenance, and allow it to wither entirely. To do otherwise is to invite the same slow catastrophe that grips us now.

>>61919

This is fairly compelling, yes. I would say one thing, though, and this kind of goes back to the OP's point.

We have a lot of bacteria in our mouths whose sole purpose really is to simply keep more malignant bacteria from taking root and really fucking us up good. A sufficiently diminished and weakened night watchman state might be seen as roughly equivalent to those bacteria.

If you abolish the state, how do you abolish the gains people have made by leveraging the state against the people?

How do you punish the jews or the Rothschilds?

Your entire system puts the cart before the horse, because they will still have land, property, wealth and private armies, and you will have nothing. Welcome the new warlords, same as the old warlords.

>>61944

>How do you punish the jews or the Rothschilds?

/pol/ is that you? Muh bogeymen!

>>61915

The longer you take abolishing the State the more time you give it to fight back. You can't beat the State at propagandizing. Consider the generation above high school age lost. You're not going to convert enough. Conviction always precedes action.

>>61920

I don't see how this is relevant. There is no such thing as a non-malignant state.

Furthermore its unclear that a malignant state wouldn't be more vulnerable to the patterns that caused the original parasites to die.

>>61944

That would involve throwing a third or more of the population out of their houses (if you mean taking back every penny ever spent). I would prefer for it not to happen, though it would be quite cool in a movie (former public servants vs former tax victims)

>>61956

Everyone is a tax victim.

>>61957

Even workers in the public sector?

>>61960

They pay taxes right?

>>61960

Not just workers in the public sector, even recipients of things like unemployment

The state taxes taxdollars

Bumping a thread that isn't utter garbage. Don't mind me.

>>61976

They're taxed on a wage that comes from taxes. It's the same thing as if their salary was just lower by the amount they were taxed. Since the taxes aren't 100%, they are still net recipients of tax money

>>62020

>They're taxed on a wage that comes from taxes.

That's all I needed. It doesn't matter where the wage comes from, they still pay taxes.