Yep, they're spewing PR-bullshit and doing whatever they think will make more money for them, principles be damned.

It's just words, though.

I'm annoyed by having to see inane pun circle-jerk threads, comments by militant feminists or their subservient henchmen, the White Knights, and so on.. But somehow I survive seeing them anyway, without demanding that they all be banned.

If seeing comments you find upsetting is a big enough problem, the easy solution is to stop using Reddit and find a better forum, or just do something else with that time. For the most part, commenting on the Internet is a waste of time anyway. Yes, myself included.

So some people had a subreddit, and were saying things. How the fuck is that a problem for anyone else? If you don't like what people are posting in some specific corner of the Intarwebs, just don't read it and you have no problem.

Good luck!

the fact remains that in order to have a functioning society, some costs must be collectivized and borne by all of the people, for the benefit of (ideally) all the people

Somehow you failed to mention why "costs must be collectivized", and what the "costs" even are, and to whom?

Also, politicians just keep showing us, with their actions, that they're not working towards our interests, but their own (and their cronies). Why would you still insist otherwise?

I'm not playing anymore :p

asks that its citizens pay

You know "ask" is not the right word, right? I bet you also understand that your argument is based on that.. shall we say, mistake?

("encourage" is wrong too)

Hmm.. I wonder how you, as a psychopath playing games with me, see this situation.

I'm guessing you thought you managed to "hook me" with the earlier message where you were "more reasonable", and now thought it was time to start making me jump through your bullshit hoops, refuting complete fucking horseshit?

As an aside, how fucking sad is it to gleefully play games where your "opponent" doesn't even know he's playing?

In reality, your supposed opponent is not even an opponent, because he's simply not playing. There's only one player, like some retarded child moving the pieces of both sides of a chessboard and being proud of winning.

You might want to consider trying to have your life amount to more than just a shitstain on the sole of humanity's boot. Participate.

#2 is a premise, an axiom. An organization threatening you with <NOPE> to get money from you matches both extortion and "taxation".

Taxation is done to keep the state alive.

Extortion is done to fund a mafia's activities, and the bosses' yachts and so on.

Calling it extortion is ridiculous, and misses the historical and social reasons we have tax.

Calling it extortion is ridiculous and misses the historical and social reasons we have mafias.

Sure, maybe it feels like extortion because there's a threat of punishment, but a having a government is the natural state of things, and they do provide some very beneficial services.

Sure, maybe it feels like extortion because it is, but having a mafia is the natural state of things, and they do provide some very beneficial protection services.

When you say "penalty for failing to pay", you're actually talking about "punishment for disobeying". When a mafia tells you to give them money, they know you won't do it voluntarily, so they'll have to force you (by threatening you with violence or property destruction or whatever).

"Penalty for failing to pay" sounds like you have an obligation to pay, which of course you don't.

When a government tells us to give them money for all their fucking adult lives, they know we wouldn't do it voluntarily, so they force us to pay (by threatening us with imprisonment).

People grumble about having to pay taxes, just like a restaurant owner would grumble about having to pay protection money, but they don't see that it's actually just extortion, because they've been brainwashed by government schools and continuous propaganda bombardment from the media.

Suppose a photography club- .. nay, commune, imposes its membership on you and starts extorting you for money. They'll tell you that your money will be used to provide equipment for the club's members, so that they can produce lovely photographs.

Naturally, the photography club has a Leader who gets to impose his will on all the other members. The leader is chosen by voting, and anyone who disobeys him will be punished.

Since "collectivism" is important for the progress of great photography, I guess everything is alright?

I'm not sure what to make of your message overall, except that it looks intellectually dishonest. So I'll just keep this brief.

We pay taxes because otherwise we're imprisoned, just like restaurant owners pay protection money to a mafia because otherwise they'll be hurt or their property destroyed.

1. Extortion is immoral. 2. Taxation is extortion. 3. Taxation is immoral.

The author makes sure not to say anything too upsetting.

all governments—sometimes for good reasons—engage in concealment of their more questionable activities, or even resort to out and out deception

Considering that governments are supposed to act in our interest (because otherwise why would we accept them), and we're talking about governments doing something that we would find "questionable", i.e. against our interests (or plain immoral), what possible justification could there be for concealing it?

While an elected government might sometimes engage in activity that is legally questionable, there is normally some plausible pretext employed to cover up or explain the act.

Even smoking pot is "legally questionable" in many places, but that doesn't matter. The real question is whether something is immoral or not, and governments sure do lots of things that are immoral (taxation, for starters).

But if something immoral is done, a "plausible pretext" is just not good enough. In fact, nothing is, because nothing changes an act having been immoral at the time it was committed. Covering it up doesn't make it alright either.

This guy is just beating around the bush right from the start, where he framed the issue of a deep state in terms of a problem with the Turkish state in particular, as if there weren't one everywhere.

A deep state is basically just whatever group of elite innermost-insider psychopaths is actually calling the shots in a country. They operate behind the scenes of the public political circus, which is like a breeding ground for future members of the deep state. The most "accomplished" psychopaths are promoted, the rest keep competing for a spot (or being useful idiots).

To be more accurate, it's a tool for the police state. Next time the peasants demand that they be looted and subjugated less, the new laser guns will come in handy!

The total cost will be about $3 million, paid out in two $1.5-million small-business-innovation-research contracts to Physical Optics Corp., which is working on the lighting effects, and a Tucson-based company called GEOST, which is working on the sound.

Oh but of course. Only $3 million. That's a small price for us to pay for weapons that will be used to subjugate us. In reality, it will be way more expensive of course. Cronies being cronies and all.

And no, I still don't believe that simply removing the political sector from the equation will lead to an improvement of the situation.

What situation is that, and how would you improve it?

the political framework surrounding the options and (throuh corporate media) our perception of our options

Corporations don't "manipulate political frameworks". Our rulers do.

Assuming they are indeed able to do so, it may actually be a decent idea.

Exactly. So how about not shaming me about "assumptions"? I don't know him or his exact circumstances, but he does have that option, and he sounds like he's in an overly negative mindset. With a $55k per year income, he's not really poor.

The rest of your message is not really relevant to our discussion, so I won't comment further.

Well, with your envy-inducing native-English-language privilege you can just waltz over to an Asian country of your choosing, and pretend to teach English for ~15h/week for a (usually) considerably above average salary (by local standards).

It makes no sense that you can do that, just because of an accident of birth, without any skills whatsoever, but hey.. the world we live in makes very little sense.

Moving is not a problem. I've moved out of Finland twice now, but without that privilege. I'm almost 40 and have no pension saved up.

That doesn't really matter because again, we're not any worse off than others, because others are going to lose their pensions when governments plunder them. We'll all just have to work longer, or run a successful business to be able to retire earlier.

You can move out if you just have the will to make it happen. Don't hate "corporations" for employing you. The fact that you're working somewhere shows that you find it preferrable to any other options you perceived you had. Now you have a new one. Go "teach" while you still can.

I make around $55,000 a year but I receive no benefits, no 401k, no future.

Isn't that reasonably good money though?

Don't worry about your 401k or pension or something. Young(-ish) people's pensions will be plundered by governments before they get anything anyway, so you're not any worse off in that regard.

What really pisses me off is the "company" I work for is based in a place where they wouldn't dare treat their employees like that. But they can here. Because we're used to it. Because we're desperate. Just like me.

Why can't you move to a better place then? Is it genuinely impossible, or are you just uncomfortable with the idea?

An employee has a job because a business needs to have something done. The employee gets paid to do it.

It's in the business' interest to make the employee emotionally invested in the company, because then he'll be more productive and loyal. But that doesn't change anything about why the business maintains the relationship as long as it remains necessary, feasible and worthwhile.

In other words, the employer always sees the job for what it is: just a business arrangement. Employees should see it that way too.

Note that I'm not saying people should not do a good job. It's just a good idea to keep the true nature of the relationship in mind when choosing what to do with your life and when.

Here's the key thing to understand: politicians are a bunch of psychopaths jockeying for personal gain and playing games at the masses' expense. That's pretty much all there is to politics.

Tsipras has been railing against the evil Troika for months on end, had the Greek people vote "NO!" on more bailouts, but suddenly it's alright to make a deal with them? You've noticed politicians lying time and time again, changing their positions like they change their socks, etc.. Well there you go.

We simply can't know what the hell went on behind the scenes during the whole Greek circus, but that doesn't really matter. All we can do is try and improve our personal circumstances in life, like for example the few (ordinary) people who transferred their savings the fuck out of Greece before they closed the banks on the hapless masses.

Fair enough :)

I didn't put words in your mouth. It was a (snarky) question.

Redistribution approaches and/or the creation/augmentation of additional welfare systems could be one approach

As I snarkily suggested, taking money from some people and giving it to others (minus "costs"), does not create wealth. In fact, it destroys wealth, because the bureaucrats running the circus consume some of the money being "redistributed".

Then there's the problem that taxation is extortion, and thus immoral. When a mafia threatens people with violence to get money from them, it's called "extortion". When a government threatens people with imprisonment to get money from them, it's called "taxation" (because it's actually extortion and rulers don't want people to see that).

All people need to get by just fine is for the government to get out of their way and let them produce wealth, goods and services.

Look at how Burma has been rising recently, when the rulers there decided to become less tyrannical. There's your proof. If that's not enough, look at America's history, or England's, or Germany's. Whenever there's relative freedom, there will be prosperity.

Political power can't be used to fix problems that are caused by political power's existence to begin with.

I just find it incredibly hard to envision a scenario where getting rid of politicians wouldn't just mean replacing them with different, more openly corporate rulers in anarcho capitalism

It's like you didn't even read my message. What part of people resisting would-be rulers because they don't accept rulers anymore do you find incredibly hard to envision?

as far as analysis of the problems with capitalism goes, I'd say one could do a lot worse than listen to what Marx had to say

Feel free to list the alleged problems then. If you think he made sense, it should be easy to come up with some good examples.

When I think about those early days, I think about slavery, hellish factories burning through child labor... Pretty much people with monocles and top hats climbing to the top on ladders made out of human misery and broken existences

You're looking increasingly dishonest there. Lots and lots of people immigrated into America, by making a 1-month boat trip that could potentially kill them.

Do you think they went through that so that they could be horribly exploited by evil capitalists? Or do you think they came in looking for a better life because that's what they were told was available, because that was exactly what people who came before them had achieved in America?

Look, not everyone who doubts that "more capitalism" is the solution to the world's problems is Hitler

How the hell did you get there from what I said?

You're the first blatant troll I've seen here. Congrats.

Do you think there are any politicians who might be able to address these issues?

Address how? Oh you mean by taking money from most people and giving it to others (after taking their "administrative costs", of course)?

Can you create prosperity by taking money from some and handing less out to others?

Look into the idea of DROs, which I brought up earlier.

I still don't get how, in Anarcho-capitalism, people would have any chance against corporations exploiting both environment and population

You do understand that right now it's supposed to be our benevolent slave-masters' job to prevent "corporations" from doing that? How's that working out for us so far? Not that well, and that means we wouldn't be any worse off in that regard without rulers, which means the idea doesn't work as an argument against.. freedom.. :D (see the absurdity?)

So if you want to compare our current societies to what might happen without rulers (i.e. in AnCap), imagine all the differences between enslavement and freedom and try to figure out which would be preferrable to us - the ones that are currently being enslaved.

If people woke up to seeing that they should not have rulers, do you think they'd figure out a way to resist would-be rulers if necessary?

Terrifying portrayal of corporations assuming absolute control.

It's probably just propaganda suggesting that rulers are necessary and beneficial to us, because without them we'd be oppressed by evul corporations!! (.. which would be.. worse than being oppressed by Hitler or Stalin?)