Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

And a little afterthought-

> your wealth still goes to either the taxman involuntary by threat of licit force by the state or to voluntarily people that provide you goods and services that you deem beneficial

This voluntary-involuntary distinction is just sort of asserted without a lot of examination of the actual situation.

You're starving. Somebody else has bread for sale. You can buy the bread for an inflated price or starve. Is this voluntary?

Perhaps it is- even though in practice you had no meaningful choice, in that particular situation the best outcome for you comes from paying almost any sum for that bread. There's an argument there that you chose to buy it willingly, rather than starve.

You also have an option not to pay taxes! If you pay, you do so willingly. Yes, you'll wind up in prison, but- the best outcome for you comes from paying the taxes. You had a choice- you decided to purchase your freedom. This was voluntary.

In fact, assuming a rational actor, in this shallow definition, practically everything they do is voluntary- if a spy is being tortured and gives up some information, they did so willingly- after all, they could have continued to suffer. If you're being held up at gunpoint, you choose to hand over your wallet- you make the rational choice that losing some cash and having to cancel your credit cards is preferable to being shot.

Now consider one last situation- You're locked in a room, starving. There is some bread on a table. You go and try to eat the bread, but are stopped by a man with a gun. He will kill you if you eat it, he says, unless you pay him first.

Your options are to die by starvation, get shot, or pay money. Is your choice to continue to live and to pay the money a voluntary one?

And did you notice that this is the same situation as the first one?

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact