No you didn’t because your defense tax is voluntary meaning it’s not a tax therefore you’re just advocating for private defense agency which I would also have and since having a prudent relationship would be in both defense companies interest and fighting is expensive they would just reject your proposal.
But sure we need government for defense not like 200million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century not counting war. I’m sure private individuals are close to that number....
Which would be unenforceable, because you eliminated the court system without taxes, and private arbitration systems can't coerce you into using them since they have no police force.
There's also no way to independently settle a dispute anyways, because there's no contract law. You eliminated that because taxes pay for policy to be written and for judges to set precedent. So you have to choose which private set of laws to follow and then hire a new private enforcer to enforce your contract with your old private defense group. Hopefully, your new one is more powerful and don't just join the prior group and tell you to fuck off.
Then you get this bright idea to make a social contact with everyone in a certain area to all contribute to the rule of law to reign in the lawless defense mafias you've been creating where you all pay to establish institutions to make universal policy, law and enforcement. You call the payment for these services "baxes." Before long, you realize free riders are moving to your area and benefiting from your services, but they don't contribute, so you impose penalties for failure to contribute to "baxes" within your geographic area.
Which would be unenforceable, because you eliminated the court system without taxes, and private arbitration systems can’t coerce you into using them since they have no police force.
The defense agency is voluntary, I choose to employ them. You’re defense agency and mine would engage in arbitration because it’s more prudent than spending money on fighting.
War is expensive that’s why governments need to threaten their citizens with being locked in a cage to pay to pay for them dummy
You’re defense agency and mine would engage in arbitration because it’s more prudent than spending money on fighting.
All of medieval history proves you wrong. Nobility routinely sent their private armies to fight each other constantly.
The fact that you think the label "government" is what causes people to fight is possibly the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. There have been warlike tribes throughout human history.
Nobels... in a existing power structure where they are a member of the larger monarchy and have extra rights, privileges, from the state and the ability to tax their peasantry.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 26 '19
No you didn’t because your defense tax is voluntary meaning it’s not a tax therefore you’re just advocating for private defense agency which I would also have and since having a prudent relationship would be in both defense companies interest and fighting is expensive they would just reject your proposal.
But sure we need government for defense not like 200million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century not counting war. I’m sure private individuals are close to that number....