fritz45 on Nostr: In the absence of a state which completely changes the equation because people ...

In the absence of a state which completely changes the equation because people can’t contract their violence out to the state? Dunno. Some people would likely be more violent. Once those people are likely killed, they likely won’t be jailed which is a continuous drain on resources that is less likely to occur in the absence of taxation, the violence drops off. That’s the problem. We don’t see the violence now because it’s all one sided and we call it things like taxation.

In the absence of a state you have to respond to all sorts of things that not responding to now is an option. If you look like a coward that’s a giant come fuck with me sign. So the answer is likely in some ways more violence and in some ways less.

If we’re talking about in the presence of a state the violence is spread out. The state handles it all and has enough power that most people are forced into compliance which is violence when used in a way that would be violent if done by other people. Taxes. Fines for things like allowing smoking in your restaurant. People that support having that state as the alternative to an anarchy get to own all that though as the cost of doing business. Whether they work for the government or not. None of us get out clean. Whatever the system the piper has to be paid.