You do. You can choose to not live in society. Go live in the jungle, or buy a raft and jump onto the sea; no one will follow you to tax you.
Of course, you won't do this, cause you like living with people. You like living in cities but cities cannot run without roads, piers, planning, etc. And you like being safe, knowing if people hurt you or take your stuff they'll be punished, if your house catches on fire it'll be turned off, and if you're out late at night the sidewalk will be lit so you can find your way back home.
You have the choice, it just doesn't seem like one because not living in society is just not worth it.
That is the choice of giving up my money, or dying - during a robbery.
I am talking about the choice I have in any free marked: where to spend my money and what to get in exchange. I have none of that when it comes to over half of my revenue: my taxes.
You have a huge amount of choice in your taxes; you can vote, run for office, and advocate for political positions. You have zero choice in your economic situation (if you are 99% of people) since most financial choices are made for you by large companies that you have zero stake in or control over.
Is there a difference between someone pointing a gun at your head and saying 'your money or your life' and a company that buys all the water in your region and withholds it saying 'your money or your life'? No.
Have you voted? How much did your vote count? Did you run for office? How much change did you manage to bring?
In a company you can also buy shares, vote at board meeting or get a job in and change it from the inside.
But that is not the freedom of choice I am talking about. That is a fake choice since it is too difficult, requiring you to change your entire life.
What I am talking about is the simple choice of free market: choosing who to give your money and for what services.
I do not intend to give up the government services, I just want to be able to transparently select the provider and not have to buy them in bulk, bundled together.
>But that is not the freedom of choice I am talking about. That is a fake choice since it is too difficult, requiring you to change your entire life.
What I am talking about is the simple choice of free market: choosing who to give your money and for what services.
Sure -- but at the same time, I bought a product at walmart five years ago, then I decided not to buy there anymore. Why hasn't walmart changed its business practices? I think you're right to say my vote means nearly nothing, but you are missing the point that my purchase means even less. Votes are at least distributed one vote one person; if you accept the financial scheme for decision making you are literally just giving all the power to people who are currently wealthy explicitly.
>What I am talking about is the simple choice of free market: choosing who to give your money and for what services.
This is a meaningless choice that only the wealthy can make in the first place.
>I do not intend to give up the government services, I just want to be able to transparently select the provider and not have to buy them in bulk, bundled together.
I'm not sure what you mean here -- you want government services, but you also want to transparently select the provider. For government services, the government is the provider.
You guess wrong. My country is crappy run by a corrupt, inept government. My tax money have the worst ROI of all my spendings.
Have you actually tried to change citizenship? I did it once (and then back). It is a long, gruesome process where you change a monopoly with another. It takes years and it's not always an option. Try giving this "advice" to the people of Cuba, Venezuela or N Korea.
>>That is the choice of giving up my money, or dying - during a robbery.
Why do you believe living in the jungle will result in dying? Our ancestors did it, and many people manage to do it today.
It wouldn't be easy of course, especially if you're so used to your creature comforts that you lack basic survival skills, but it's definitely not a death sentence.
There are no jungles around where I live. Just forests. And they all belong to the government.
My grad parents tried living off their land, but during a time when the government raised the taxes to impossible levels they couldn’t pay and the government came down on them - hard. They lost it all but survived. Others weren’t so lucky.
>>There are no jungles around where I live. Just forests. And they all belong to the government.
You can live on government land. You just have to move at least 25 miles every 14 days. So basically a nomadic lifestyle. It's doable. People have done it and still do it today.
Of course, you won't do this, cause you like living with people. You like living in cities but cities cannot run without roads, piers, planning, etc. And you like being safe, knowing if people hurt you or take your stuff they'll be punished, if your house catches on fire it'll be turned off, and if you're out late at night the sidewalk will be lit so you can find your way back home.
You have the choice, it just doesn't seem like one because not living in society is just not worth it.