There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. That's one major difference. There would be no police, fire agencies, etc etc, for those who cannot afford to pay for them. There would be less in the way of a social safety net for those who fall from their job.
And as I say, in order to avoid the IRS, or any other organisation which might seek to tax you, you'd have to plan out the social infrastructure so that there are no big targets to attack and demand money from. Otherwise, it's very easy for a new IRS to pop up.
> People on their own hating blacks, or gay or mexicans cannot do much
So it is outright impossible for groups of people to gather to cause serious violent harm towards members of a minority, leading to loss of life with no potential legal recourse (unless you're rich enough to pay for it)? Is this what you are saying?
I highy recommend you watch this video, it's an illustrated talk by David D. Friedman, explaining how police, courts and other things would exist and work in a world without government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o All of those things are just services. And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers.
> So it is outright impossible for groups of people to gather to cause serious violent harm towards members of a minority, leading to loss of life with no potential legal recourse? Is this what you are saying?
It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. How many people, do you suppose, would oppose gay marriage or, say, pot if they were presented with a bill for outlawing it? My guess most of them would prefer to keep the money and make their peace with it. But because the cost of outlawing certain things is paid by all the taxpayers, they essentially pay for what they believe is right out of everyone else's pockets.
Most countries have a benefits system which allows the poor a minimum level of quality of life. Additionally, cars, shoes, and computers, are all available second-hand for much reduced prices, because of consumerism. That is how they can afford these things. Are you suggesting that the poor should only be allowed to access lesser court systems than the rich?
Why don't you look up fire services in the past - if you did not have the money, which some did not, they would let your house burn to the ground. Why don't you look up medicine today - in the countries where the Government does not provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, the poor regularly die of very treatable diseases. Your theory that everybody will be able to afford what they need does not work out.
> It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket.
We have a history of this happening. It still happens in many countries which have weak or compliant court systems, India for example. I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world.
In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers.
My argument is that it's not going to be necessarily perfect, but simply better and more fair to the poor if government wasn't a monopoly on police and courts.
Of course the rich would get better everything. They always will. The point is to improve the lot of ordinary people, not to hurt the rich. If you intend to help the poor by robbing (taxing) the rich, you're trying to do good by doing harm - that's not moral.
And the solution to that is not to encode those inequalities into the fabric and rules of how a society works. It's to try and solve the issue as best as we possibly can.
If you truly wanted equality, you'd be arguing for lesser or no government intervention into the economy, so that people could easily and freely start businesses without the need to acquire licences and red tape. In the words of Milton Friedman:
"If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that [free market]. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."
Thank you for your statement that you literally could not care less about how people with less money than you are treated.
I've been in a country where the vast majority of businesses never touch Government red tape. They don't pay taxes, the Government doesn't know they exist. Anyone who owns property could easily start up such a business. It still has massive poverty issues. I've lived there for years. I never want to go back. It would be unsafe for me to go back; due to a medical condition that I have, it is very likely that I would be discriminated against, and very possibly raped, with no recourse. And it'd be worse for a native.
Not relevant, it's not his now, it belongs to the public and his intentions are no more relevant than anyone else's.
> You call yourself reasonable, but you didn't even care to learn a bit about why Bitcoin came to be so popular and why it was invented in the first place.
I know all about it, so please keep your silly baseless presumptions to yourself.
I honestly believe you guys are for a big surprise. Go ahead and use Bitcoin, I'm all for it. But don't expect everyone else to keep paying taxes and obey regulations. It's just not going to happen. In fact, the reverse will happen, with more people not willing to participate in government scam.
If you truly believe society cannot survive and prosper without government, then the only logical step I see is for you to stop using Bitcoin or even lobby to ban it. If you don't, I'm personally fine with it, but you might regret it.
That's right, you don't. Why, because you assume it must succeed as a currency to succeed and that's simply not true. It can succeed as a payment network and store of wealth while failing as a currency and be wildly successful still. The political ideologies you're attaching to it don't matter.
> But don't expect everyone else to keep paying taxes and obey regulations. It's just not going to happen.
Yes it will, the tax system already relies on voluntary reporting and people still declare and pay their taxes simply because it's illegal to not do so. Everyone isn't like you; they don't want to not pay their taxes and risk getting caught committing tax fraud.
> with more people not willing to participate in government scam
Once again, those are your political ideals and they are not shared by the vast majority of society. You are in the minority, we don't all see government as a scam.
> If you truly believe society cannot survive and prosper without government, then the only logical step I see is for you to stop using Bitcoin or even lobby to ban it.
Then you have very limited logical abilities and very small thinking.
2) they don't want to not pay their taxes and risk getting caught
Talking about logical abilities. Taxes are voluntarily paid because people don't want to be caught and end up in jail? You can't call something voluntary if it requires threats for people to sign up.
Just because you're scared of the consequences of getting caught lying doesn't mean lying isn't a voluntary option. Voluntary doesn't mean free of consequences. You are free to voluntarily lie about your income to the IRS, you are not free from the consequences of doing so should you get caught in a big lie.
Tax reporting is voluntary. Taxes are not. I'm not nitpicking, I'm stating facts clearly.
You tried to make the point that people won't report their Bitcoin income to the IRS; you are wrong, people aren't going to suddenly all start committing tax fraud just because you would. Most people will stay within the law and report any significant income because that's what people do. Most people aren't political radicals looking to bring down the system and they don't care about your ideals. You are not representative of most people; you are a dissident.
What matters is that taxes are theft because in order to take that money away you have to threaten people with fines and jail. If you couldn't fine or put people in jail, my guess is that most would stop paying taxes. If you can't prove logically that taxes aren't theft, then, of course, it's okay to call people names and not argue like an adult, because that is all you're left with.
Not necessarily. If there was no IRS and taxes, everything would be almost the same, except cheaper.
And who do you suppose the IRS gets their biggest share of revenue from anyway? It's not the rich. It's the middle class. The rich can already afford expensive schemes for tax evasion. Now the middle class will also be able to hide some of their savings from the IRS.
And again, "not spending" is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, with a deflationary currency, it's a good thing, since it incentivizes thoughtful investment in things that are truly important. The point of having money and not spending it is a very important point: you have security for you and your family, you also have an opportunity to wait until something truly great comes up in which you can invest the money. With Bitcoin, you also don't have to fear inflation.
> What happens the next time everyone decides some minority is the root cause of all their problems?
Next time this happens, government uses your own money it collected from you in the form of taxes to satisfy the irrational attitude of those who hate this or that minority. People on their own hating blacks, or gay or mexicans cannot do much, but government provides them with instruments of oppression and the beauty of it is that those instruments are paid for by all the people, not just those with this irrational attitude. Market competition will simply eradicate those companies who discriminate against minorities, because their competitors would hire minorities for slightly less and provide cheaper products. Government has nothing to do with protecting the minorities. In fact, historically, it was government laws that prevented minorities from succeeding. I highly recommend Thomas Sowell books on that subject where he provides examples from all over the world on the subject of minorities.