Ankesh
November 17, 2008, 05:02 AM
While I agree with a lot of the things you say Michael - I think the notion of no government and no taxation is not practical.
Because history shows us that in absence of a stable government or power, there is total chaos. And warlords emerge. Anarchy is bad for the people.
And it requires just one person to be power-hungry to disrupt the way of living of people in absence of a government.
Say there is no government. And no taxes. Your more powerful neighbour comes and tells you that he owns your land. What do you do?
In absence of a government, there will always be more violence.
A government is needed for delivering justice. And to run the government - taxes are needed.
When there is a government, there is always the risk of the government coming and saying that the land you stay on is theirs. But thats the risk I think people have to take to prevent against anarchy. Who will govern the government will always be a problem. But having a government democratically elected as opposed to having anarchy - thats the lesser of 2 evils.
Because history shows us that in absence of a stable government or power, there is total chaos. And warlords emerge. Anarchy is bad for the people.
And it requires just one person to be power-hungry to disrupt the way of living of people in absence of a government.
Say there is no government. And no taxes. Your more powerful neighbour comes and tells you that he owns your land. What do you do?
In absence of a government, there will always be more violence.
A government is needed for delivering justice. And to run the government - taxes are needed.
When there is a government, there is always the risk of the government coming and saying that the land you stay on is theirs. But thats the risk I think people have to take to prevent against anarchy. Who will govern the government will always be a problem. But having a government democratically elected as opposed to having anarchy - thats the lesser of 2 evils.
