Didn't we also already agree on national defense? I don't think there's any reason why I would want to drop back 250 years and have multiple currencies used in the USA. Creating a uniform national currency seems to be a legitimate function of a national government.
Yes, and national defense. The government, law enforcement, and national defense. Creating a uniform national currency is not required, therefore there is no justification to use force against people to do so. Money always arises on the free market. Some thing will become universally accepted as payment for goods. Such always happens, unless the government prevents this from happening.
But remember our definition of "state"? State: The organization of human beings for the common good within an area, creating a structure for authority and coordination. Having a uniform currency with which we can trade with each other facilitates trade itself. I am not saying it is impossible to trade without it, I am saying it facilitates it. I don't want the 50 states each issuing their own currency, or hundreds of counties, or thousands of cities, or companies either. And besides, what modern nation doesn't have a national currency?
Which is why we traders will arrive at a uniform currency on our own without the need for violence by the state.
Yes, as has always happened in the past when the state leaves us to do so. Prior to FDR, that uniform currency was gold, as it has been for most of history. Have you ever wondered how 300 million people came up with a uniform language without government interference?
But that's not our definition. In post 28, you're responding to Longshot. The person who should define "state"(he actually said "government"), as used in post 28 is Longshot, not you or "us". The definition you should accept for "state", as it appears in post 1 is that offered by Maximatic. If you don't accept people's definitions of their own terms, you won't understand people, and rational discourse will be impossible.
Prior to FDR, our uniform currency was the dollar. Gold backed it up, but the U.S. government issued dollars, and it was the national currency.
There were many currencies before FDR. One of them, the Dollar, was defined in many ways, usually as some amount of gold. Since most(non-government issued) currencies were defined as gold anyway, uniform currency was not necessary.
I don't care for your definition - A "state" is an entity with a territorial monopoly on the legal use of coercion and/or the power to tax. - and I explained why. I think people have always had "states", even going back to primitive times. We created systems of authority and coordination (states) for our own survival. As I said before, we are not male leopards; we are human beings, and we need these systems to survive and thrive. Coordination requires some form of recognized authority or leadership and some form of consequence for non-cooperation with the group for its greater good. I do not believe human beings created states for the purpose of having a territorial monopoly on the legal use of coercion or taxation. I believe states were created for survival. We are perfectly capable of having rational discourse while disagreeing on things.
The OP addresses the concept of a an entity with a territorial monopoly on the legal use of coercion and/or the power to tax. It does not address "The organization of human beings for the common good within an area, creating a structure for authority and coordination". You seem to be trying to prevent meaningful discourse on this subject.
The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's, which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
This is not about the definition of "state". Definitions are easy: When in doubt, just ask the speaker "what do you mean by that?", then listen. I've already offered to use another word to denote what I mean by "state", but Seth won't agree to recognize any such word even though having a territorial monopoly on the legal use of coercion and the power to tax is a property shared by all modern states and criteria for their qualification as states. He even agrees that states "may" have those properties(he calls them "claims") but, for some reason, he doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of territorial jurisdiction or the power to tax in this thread.
I do acknowledge that. I just think the definition is defective for all the reasons I've already stated. We should move on with the discussion.
So it sounds like we agree to taxation to the federal government for defense and law enforcement. Let's just agree to disagree on the need for a national currency. I assume we can agree on the need for embassies and foreign relations. So do you guys see anything else we need the feds to tax for?
OK, but the government issued dollars that represented gold (and silver I believe) and which represented the credibility of the government itself. People didn't have to worry about whether a note was "worth the paper it was printed on" when it was a U.S. dollar versus a bank note or company note or some other paper representing value. Anyways, I'm ready to move off this point. We can agree to disagree on the need for it. - - - Updated - - - OK, yeah I meant you and Maximatic.
There would be coercion, but not all coercion is unjustified. If you find a man walking out of your house with your TV and jewelry, you point your gun at him and instruct him to put that stuff back where he found it, and he does, you will have coerced him, but you will not have done anything wrong. One difference between going without insurance in a stateless society(assuming such a system emerges through market forces) and not paying taxes is that one wouldn't be hunted down and caged for not having insurance. There would be pressure to conform, but none of it would come if the individual did not desire relationships to which he is not entitled. One does not have a right to be hired, rent an apartment, borrow money, go to the mall or the cigar club. In the stateless order, any pressure to conform is exerted by people exercising ownership rights over their own bodies and justly acquired property. Since the uninsured has no right to relationships with, or the property of, others, they are not violating his rights to his own body and property by denying them access to theirs.
So let's say a person didn't choose to help pay for roads or the fire department. But he uses the roads anyway. Or his house catches fire and the Fire Department puts the fire out.
If payment is required to use the roads, and if he doesn't pay the owner and uses the road anyway, he would be guilty of trespass or more likely theft. If the fire company put the fire out over his objections, then that's their choice to make. But I don't see why they would respond to a fire at a non-client location, unless they were a volunteer company.
Thousands of cars use the roads in my town every day. How would that work? I'm not saying the owner would object, but he just doesn't pay. Who would pay to put out a forest fire?
That would be up to the road owner. Maybe he uses EZ pass to charge for use. Maybe he just funds the road as a loss leader to permit people to get to his retail stores. There are infinite possibilities. If he doesn't pay for a service he purchased, then he'd be in breach of contract and his creditor would have a legal claim against him. The owner of the forest, or those he designated to do so.
When I go to work, I drive through city-owned streets, belonging to 5 different cities, a state highway, county-owned roads in two counties, and an interstate freeway. In a stateless order, it sounds like my commute would be a giant hassle. And God help the tourist or vacationer who was just taking a trip. I have questions about this too ... What about the elderly, disabled, and poor? They are protected by various tax-supported programs now. How would that work in a stateless order?
You (and others who choose to) would take care of them. - - - Updated - - - I don't find EZ pass to be any sort of hassle at all. In fact, I find it quite convenient.
