Message from @VexenX
Discord ID: 465360807681589248
that goes back to the question of whether humans are inherently violent... i would guess we are
Then the state isn't violence
That is a different definition if violence is involved though.
But the state has to use aggessive violence to exist
Do they?
Man, I'm getting some sweet xp typing away with you peeps. XD
They levy taxes
I believe he is correct that they do.
theft is violent
Otherwise people would ignore their rules.
Think of the most BASIC of government systems
And if the rules are not enforced, there is no government.
is there a government that doesn't tax?
Volunteerism only goes so far.
Canadian Question
I'm already bored here. too many people talking lol
XD
Aw well
It was good while it lasted
@AiarUther No, I just like talking one on one, not to three different people
suuuure
I don't mind a group. **shrug**
It's better in text than voice.
okay, I'll stop being a troll
Alright, then let me repeat my question: What is the most basic of governments you can think of? One that provides commons defense, yes?
yes
The most rudimentary would be one that protects it citizens for some level of prosperity.
even the most simple?
Yes, but how successful would it be?
How long would it last?
Yes it's completely voluntary, it's just the 'main' group of 'border guards'
Imagine my Locke
Where's the violence against those who are ruled?
As long as there was no dissent in the internal structure itself, it could last, but that would potentially have to be protected...
the most rudimentary form of governments only purpose is to protect the rights of its citzenry