RE: When Taxation is Not Theft

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

When Taxation is Not Theft

in taxation •  7 years ago 

Markets can easily exist without government. Goods were initially bartered for, traded for other goods. Government currency standardizes the system of trade but money and currency needs not be issued by the government. There are a lot of people tired of the Governments interference and manipulation of money through central banking and the fiat system. CryptoCurrency is flourishing and will continue to do so as more people awaken to the fact government creates more problems than it solves.

A good read is What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  7 years ago (edited)

And then we'll have a government by the rich, where fewer and fewer landlords and capital owners become richer as they buy more and more land... while exploiting others through unfairly priced rent/mortgage/loans/insurance/etc, unfair wages, and monopolies of the means of productions. It will be feudalism all over again.

If we depend on the government or the rich, then we are not truly free. We should be looking for ways to eliminate our needs on others. How are our present systems not feudalism? We do not own our land, we rent it from the government. The government is our master.

By government I mean the society and the rules that govern said society. It could be arranged in different ways. When society equally owns nature and individuals only owns personal properties that are not necessary for others to thrive, then we have one of the most fair arrangement.

Freedom without restriction cannot apply to everyone fairly. One's freedom ends where the next person's freedom begin.

I've read it. Rothbard, and the Austrians in general, are wrong though. The narrative of the Austrians, laid out in Carl Menger's "The Origin of Money," and picked up by Rothbard, is that barter precedes money. That's historically false. Barter, in actuality, historically emerged in economies that had previously used money. Barter follows currency collapses, but money actually precedes barter, historically. Primitive economies, prior to the emergence of money, almost never used barter. There was no market. Instead, their economy was more of an informal "gift" economy, only the gifts weren't free gifts but seen as obligating the receiver to give in turn when called upon. It is sometimes called a "gift economy," but it's really more of an informal credit system.

A good read on that subject is "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" by the anarchist anthologist David Graeber. Although the title is "Debt," its really more of a history of money.

Your assertions are comical.

To know which came first (barter or money)...

You would have to have been alive at all times and everywhere at once. And have knowledge of most transactions.

If you believe that history books provide the answers, that would be even more comical.

God knows which came first. You don't.