>Hi jim,
>You've probably blocked me by now, but
The problem, briefly stated, is "How do you defend a country based on anarchistic or libertarian principles, if they cannot tax themselves to put on a defense?"
>The money and labor rise from people who value defense. This value is clear when the danger is clear.
The problem is related to the concept of "Tragedy of the Commons", I think. What happens if it costs about $X to protect a given land region from external aggression. What if many people don't contribute to this cost? People who support taxation (I don't; taxation is theft) worry that "We'll be conquered!" if not enough is collected to support some level of defense.
>AP is a little similar to a culture I heard of among indigenous people in canada. There is a nation of them who do not provide for outsiders to trespass on their land. The punishment for trespass is death, and that's just a part of their shared culture and has been for as long as anybody knows, so the entire nation would be familiar with supporting it. When living off the land, if the ecosystem is mistreated (e.g. overhunted by a neighbor), your families die, so managing the impact of others has been important.
Can you associate this with a name, a label that can be google-searched?
>But jim and I disagree on the result of money. I think I see supporting unlimited wealth as oppressive and jim sees it as freeing, not sure. Regardless you probably need some kind of financial government to provide for unlimited wealth, since people as a whole only have so much demand. Most people don't want advertisements in their search results, and those ads produce a lot of unnatural demand.
What do you mean by "supporting unlimited wealth"? Maybe you merely mean "ALLOWING unlimited wealth".
Myself, I don't think that's a problem. The way I look at it, if a person makes a huge amount of money, and assuming that he doesn't get that money by some sort of 'illegal' (or wrongful, or way that people generally agree is a violation of somebody's rights), he does so because he is doing even more 'good' for others than he collects.
Assuming that there isn't some improperly-achieved monopoly going on, then there must be competition, and that means that such profits are legitimate. If people object to paying whatever the going rate is, for those goods and services, then somebody else can and will enter the market to act as competition to that existing source. That's the way things ought to work.
Jim Bell