"Name one thing," and you cannot or will not. — tim wood

Your answer is enough confirmation that you didn't read my last answer, or if you did, you didn't want to understand my point of view, so, therefore, I can only quote myself.

Your argument is based on the fact that society has already been pre-established by the use of the State.

"Ask that same question to a bird who was trapped in a cage for his entire life, and if it somehow managed to answer you, it would tell you: - I had no choice! If I want to eat, I must stay inside the cage. If I want to sing, I still need to stay in the cage. When I do, those who put me in here are satisfied, but when I decided to leave the cage and do the same, they promptly captured me and I was imprisoned in the cage again."

It is obvious that in order to survive in this way in which society was structured, I still have to submit to the demands of the State, however, this does not prevent me from conceiving how bad and unnecessary it is.

Therefore, your contentment with the Status Quo is not a valid argument. — Gus Lamarch

this does not prevent me from conceiving how bad and unnecessary it is. — Gus Lamarch

How far do you get without government? Remember Hobbes? In fact, what is your point? Do you have one - beyond, perhaps, whining that government is not perfect?

The forum seems to have a plague of "sovereign citizens".

Folk who do not see the irony of their oxymoronic title.

I do not know where you live or how or the condition of your life, but I am pretty sure that you cannot go to bed at night, nor arise in morning without even at that experiencing some benefit of government that without government you would not have.

Of course if you want to live a mountain man in some wilderness, go to it! Although you're at least a century or two late. But you can make a go of it. Indoor plumbing? Pfft, a total government intrusion. Electricity? Running water? Clean water, or air? Infrastructure? You don't need them, for you have your stone axe. Food? How do you manage that one? Police? Medical care? Even education? None of these for you, and your life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." And without much in the way of laughs.

How far do you get without government? — tim wood

The discussion in question is about the "State" and not the "Government", as both are different concepts. Therefore, if you are unable to differentiate between the two, it is not my fault but of your ignorance.

In fact, what is your point? — tim wood

At this point, I really don't know what my purpose here is except to read the words of someone full of himself, however, my last point was to show you that your argument is invalid, so I'll reprise my thinking here:

"Your argument is invalid, as it is based on the concept of the State, which had been pre-established with society as a justification for the appropriation of private property of many by a few, which makes your argument "irrefutable" - irrefutability is fallacy -, since society in that we are both established, continues to take advantage of this method of oppression, and, therefore, it is obvious that I could not quote something that I want, desire, seek, etc... that is not, in some way, bound in the State."

I hope you understood, as I tried to be as clear as p.o.s.s.i.b.l.e.

The forum seems to have a plague of "sovereign citizens".

Folk who do not see the irony of their oxymoronic title. — Banno

As I have already stated, and I will continue to say: - While the people you love to belittle and degrade bring interesting content and questions to the table of debate, you glorify yourself by copying and pasting the link of an article on the forum and making a statement of two lines.

I believe that the real "whinning" here, are just those who truly have no content, and when they leave relevance, let themselves be consumed by bitterness.

I do not know where you live or how or the condition of your life, but I am pretty sure that you cannot go to bed at night, nor arise in morning without even at that experiencing some benefit of government that without government you would not have.

Of course if you want to live a mountain man in some wilderness, go to it! Although you're at least a century or two late. But you can make a go of it. Indoor plumbing? Pfft, a total government intrusion. Electricity? Running water? Clean water, or air? Infrastructure? You don't need them, for you have your stone axe. Food? How do you manage that one? Police? Medical care? Even education? None of these for you, and your life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." And without much in the way of laughs. — tim wood

Ad Hominem will only take this discussion to the garbage.

it is obvious that I could not quote something that I want, desire, seek, etc... that is not, in some way, bound in the State. — Gus Lamarch

The point here is that you can not point out anything at all. But if we imagine state or government away - poof, its gone - then what do you have?

And I have no idea what your distinction between state and government amounts to - anything? The verdict of history seems to be that some form of government is preferable to none. And to be sure some have been better than others, but this latter not your argument. And btw, did you notice that nos4 dropped out with a puerile parting shot? He at least knows when his ground won't support him.

Ad Hominem will only take this discussion to the garbage. — Gus Lamarch

With this you have departed coherence. Return when your meds have been adjusted.

The verdict of history seems to be that some form of government is preferable to none. And to be sure some have been better than others, but this latter not your argument. — tim wood

Well, do you want to debate the "State's historical evidence for being useful" with me? We will see how far you will be able to disagree without going into verbal aggression - which, being sincere, coming from you, does not seem to be a distant reality -.

At what point do you, the expert historian want to start? Feel free to choose the historical period. I will give you that honor.

The point here is that you can not point out anything at all. — tim wood

Indeed, but you prove yourself to be biased when you completely dismiss the rest of my argument.

With this you have departed coherence. Return when your meds have been adjusted. — tim wood

You are just no worse than Banno, because you still remain to hear the truths you don't want to accept. For that, you have my thanks.

The only time most US folks encounter any issue with capital gains taxes is with the sale of a principle residence, usually held for a period of years. That gain, for most folks, can be rolled into a new home, or the gain itself is subject to an substantial deduction, the practical result being for most folks little or no tax. Rich and richer folks, on the other hand, stand to make a tremendous gain if they're not taxed. The rich would be glad to support you in eliminating that tax. — tim wood

Or if they're selling stock, or cryptocurrency, or collectables like comic books or baseball cards. In other words, people who invest, and in those cases in the US many will be taxed twice: both on the state and federal level. Simply trading cryptocurrencies is a taxable event, as is using cryptocurrency to buy something. Does that really make any sense? Capital gains laws extend far beyond simply taxing the capital gain when people decide to sell. Lets just start there: Just tax us once and do it only when we cash out.

On the other hand, Nordic countries have high taxes and their HDIs are in Top 10 or so. — litewave

Yes because these countries fortunately have good governments that invest the revenue they get in good public goods. But it is not work in all countries. Sadly, it looks like that this social welfare system only work in Nordic countries.

Yeah, because economy works when stuff is given for free and people pay for it voluntarily.

Proponents of slavery argued the economy would collapse with abolition. Slavery worked, sure, but it was evil. My point is, the idea that taxation works is not much of an argument when it is premised on the denial of someone’s liberty and the appropriation of the fruits of his labor.

While comparing different nations' means of financing government, a number of factors have to be kept in mind.

The first question to ask is where the wealth is coming from. Diverse economies are very different systems compared to limited industry types. You mention Switzerland as a "tax haven." That is a reference to their banking industry that largely deals with money from other places. The industry contributes a big portion of tax revenue for the entire nation. So it is comparable to nations made wealthy by resource extraction but has degrees of freedom in the markets those directly tied to market prices do not.
The second question to ask is what is the wealth inequality gap between nations. Both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia score very high on the comparison but have vastly different systems in regards to diversity of industries.
The third question to ask is what are the minimum standards of living in a nation and how will it make people live below that. While this measure is aspirational as a quantum of policy, it has a direct bearing upon what will be accepted by a nation. This element can be considered by comparing how differently the question is considered amongst the nations with the highest degree of inequality.

There are many other aspects to explore but I have developed a three body problem and Newton showed that was usually enough to confound us all.

when it is premised on the denial of someone’s liberty and the appropriation of the fruits of his labor. — NOS4A2

But you seem to deny the reality of cost, and that someone or ones must pay. But the question to you too, which you have ignored. What is a part of your life that you benefit from that government has nothing to do with? I see the news this day that New Zealand has posted tsunami warnings following a significant earthquake - but what need have you of that!

Or if they're selling stock, or cryptocurrency, or collectables like comic books or baseball cards. — BitconnectCarlos

Sweet Jesus! You really don't know! Sure, your pipsqueak capitalist saves a hundred, maybe even a thousand dollars. But he or she is an infant playing on a financial highway. While he's saving chump-change, the rich are absorbing the country.

From: https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never-mind-1-percent-lets-talk-about-001-percent
"The threshold for membership in the 1 percent in 2014 was an annual household income of $386,000, excluding any capital gains.... That’s more than seven times the median household income that year of $54,000. The 0.1 percent, 160,000 families, in 2014 made at least $1.5 million a year. The top 0.01 percent, 16,000 families, had annual income of $7 million."

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/
"The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth, according to a new paper by economist Edward N. Wolff. That share is higher than it has been at any point since at least 1962, according to Wolff's data, which comes from the federal Survey of Consumer Finances.
The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America."

And this from Youtube, as of 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Watch the video!

So you get raped and brutalized in financial terms, but hey, it's ok, because you get a bauble or two, and plastic at that!

Sweet Jesus! You really don't know! Sure, your pipsqueak capitalist saves a hundred, maybe even a thousand dollars. But he or she is an infant playing on a financial highway. While he's saving chump-change, the rich are absorbing the country. — tim wood

So what about the "capitalists" who are saving 5k? 10k? 100k? 500k? At what point does it become a big deal to you? You seem to be treating it like everyone is either saving $100 or $10 million and there's no in between.

Watch the video!

I'm familiar with wealth inequality, but that shouldn't be our main concern here. If your main concern is equality, the best way to do what would be to crash the stock market. Everyone would suffer, but we'd all be more equal. If a nuclear war broke out we'd all be much more equal.

There's also more to say about these statistics like that there's more people in the top 20% than in the bottom 20% and also that as people get richer they move quintiles so it's not like these quintiles are static. You need to track individuals over time, not portray the country as 5 static quintiles when people move through those quintiles throughout their lives.

But the question to you too, which you have ignored. — tim wood

Oh no my friend, if you dare to use this argument again, I will have to use it against your bias as well.

Well, why did you refuse to prove the "Good" that the State brought during history to me? I was kind enough to let you choose the historical period. Why so shy?

If your main concern is equality, the best way to do what would be to crash the stock market. Everyone would suffer, but we'd all be more equal. If a nuclear war broke out we'd all be much more equal. — BitconnectCarlos

The problem with inequality is not that it fails to provide equality. When the means of exchange in a system are vastly different from each other, it involves using the inequality as a fulcrum of wealth.

Most periods most of the time for most things. In modern America most people have access to food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care, relatively clean air and water, electricity, indoor plumbing and hot water, access to markets of many kinds, a year-'round's access to food both fresh and prepared, transportation that would make a Caesar gnash his teeth in envy and roads to drive on, law and law enforcement, the internet and computers for almost everyone, entertainment, libraries, a broad spectrum of services, the benefits of technology. And so forth. But you anti-state. So let's imagine this is all gone. What do you have? Is that the fourth time asked? .

I don't understand what you're saying and I would like a more concrete example. I understand the first sentence.

Which part do you not understand?

Oh are you talking about differences in foreign currency value? I could agree with you there, but I was talking about domestic economics with tim and initially addressing the OP.

I was responding to your comment that observing differences in equality was about an agenda to level all experiences. Like a nuclear war or what not.

You aren't doing a great job of owning your own ideas. My interest level is dropping.

So let's imagine this is all gone. What do you have? Is that the fourth time asked? . — tim wood

@javi2541997 It is not ridiculous and a lack of respect towards us, when we have already spoken more than 5,000 words about what the Government is and what its role in society is.

Since you didn't even have the ability to have a real discussion with me, I'm sorry to inform you that you will have to look for your answers on your own. If you don't want to, feel free to not do it, our discussions will be much richer without your participation.

Thank you. Good day/Good night.

Arguments based upon authority are the weakest kind.

Arguments based upon authority are the weakest kind. — Valentinus

Indeed, they are... But Tim doesn't appear to perceive that.