"what makes you so sure that a government is always, without doubt, not only the best, but the only way to defend the individual?"

Fuck it.

The burden of proof is on you

Prove there's a better alternative

Else we'll just continue with our governments

👋🏻

why? in prehistoric times there was no government, people defended themselves. in early american settlements by europeans, there wasn't many of them if at all around. and despite harsh circumstances, people did managed to come by. People living in remote areas today manage to defend their property, so it's certainly not the only way all while you're proposing that a giant beurocratic system by people who don't even know or really care about you somehow will come to your aid. I just can't bring up that trust in a system which fails so often

We're not in those times

So they're irrelevant

Ok, lemme go slow

Government defends from foreign thieves

now

why is it mandatory?

because if it weren't

the ppl who "opt out" would sooner or later realize that the only way not to get shit stolen from them by others is to form their own competing gov

so allowing an opt-out option

is creating competition for your power structure

which, in a world of limited resources, is rather DUMB

Thus gov needs to be mandatory

even though that goes against your Liberal head-utopia where all coercion is evil

You can't defend the people who pay for the army without defending the people who don't. Given that, there's no individual incentive for anyone to pay taxes, and then the nation gets pillaged by the French

@Tonight at 11 - DOOM `even though that goes against your Liberal head-utopia where all coercion is evil` you assume a lot of things about my position, so I understand your anger.
why is it good to keep up a power structure if it is not able to perform as well as the competition? especially if that same structure caused or didn't prevent the circumstances which made you leave in the first place. that's sorta how the USA fas founded. so it's in your interest to be a well performing and popular state.

anger, lol

"why is it good to keep up a power structure if it is not able to perform as well as the competition?"

You haven't shown there's a better alternative.

There needs to be a threat in order for people to cooperate against their own interest. Altruism isn't reliable.

Again, the burden of proof is on you

And that's where you're going to fail to change anyone's mind.

Good luck.

@Weez your argument essentially boils downn to, sometimes gov doesn't work but often it does work based on them just being there while nothing happened so therefore governments are necessary. hence you fail to change my mind as well. godspeed

My argument has changed

Ignore everything else I've said previously

Show me a better alternative.

less taxation as a start. trump recently cut them which seems, despite the scuffle with china, to have boosted the economy

I disagree

More taxation on the rich, so that we can increase military spending

And fund more social programs.

But that all still requires a government doesn't it?

but the rich are also the class with the most mobility, what do you do if they all piss off?

for instance that's the reason nordic countries tax the middle class so heavily instead

I want to lessen their hyper-mobility