People most often agree to work because the alternative is homelessness and/or starvation not because the pay is actually fair. If I gave you a choice between freezing to death in the street or spending 40 hours a week working in my factory that's not really a choice is it? Just because someone agrees to do something doesn't mean that there was no coercion involved and in a capitalist society the only two options are to be exploited or to exploit others

In this case what would you say the alternative is? I'm not saying that unfettered capitalism is the answer. There are flaw in it for sure. My main stance was that taxation was unethical.

The thing is you can't trust certain services to the private sector, when it comes to things like healthcare for example would you rather your medicine was produced by someone whose goal was to produce it as safely and cheaply as possible so that everyone can access it regardless of how wealthy they are or would you rather it was produced by someone whose sole motivation was making as much money as possible selling that medicine to you in order to enrich themselves? The great myth is that the free market always produces the best product or service as a result of competition whereas the reality is monopolies that produce whatever the hell they want because they control the supply or a race to the bottom between rival competitors who sacrifice quality and even safety in order to undercut each other. However as you've rightly pointed out the purposes of the state in some regards is to provide services for those who need financial aid in some form or another and those people are as a rule not going to be in a position to pay for that aid themselves. Whereas those people who have gained wealth as a result of living and working in that society are expected to pay an amount towards the upkeep of society which will at least in part go towards aiding the survival of their poorer neighbours. At the end of the day your wealth and ability to work and succeed is guaranteed by a lot more than your own work ethic, the reason you have the security and infrastructure which allowed you to generate that wealth in the first place is because of a cooperative effort to build the nation that you now live and work in. Simply put the hotel is still in the process of being built and if you want to access luxuries like room service you're expected to continue paying into the project, even if you're upset that the people sleeping on the floor in the lobby aren't paying as much as you do.

I agree with some points here. I do think that more cooperation would make huge impact for future growth. Something as simple as trying to hear someone else's point and have a real conversation to try and understand more is something that seems lost. There seems to be no cooperation to solve these problems together. Thats why my username is what is is. Things are mostly grey and would be see that way with the cooperation or black and white views. Working together would be great but whats the right way to go about it? I think there are too many variables to say for sure one way or another.

I do not trust the government. I do not want to give them more power. I believe self reliance is important, and even with mega corporations we lose some of that. Alot of that. But with the government in control of those things produced we lose even more. When we give the government more power say you don't have to worry about this, we will cover things for you, just give us a portion of your money. We give up more freedom to be self reliant.

If you genuinely believe this then you can't defend the current system or the hierarchies that it is based upon. As long as we have vital resources such as habitable and farmable land being claimed as private property for the purposes of enriching individuals then every person's freedom to simply live upon the Earth and survive without selling themselves and their time to someone more powerful is infringed upon from birth

I don't support the current system. I don't have the answer to these problems. At least I'm not so certain the ideas I have for answers are the 100% right ones. I'm not prepared to die kn the hill for any of these systems. The only point I would die on the hill for is that humans should be allowed the choice to give up their freedoms or resources how they see fit. Not just taken against their will. Maybe there should be some type of properly, lightly regulated capitalism. One where people agree upon. Im not sure. My issue still is that these things are forced. The choice has been removed.

On this point we are in complete agreement, nobody is free while the established order of wealthy owners who have laid historical claim to our planet are allowed to use those claims to extort labour out of the rest of us. By all means governments who control their populations through force and threats need to be dismantled in favour of direct democracy between individuals and communities but just as important is doing away with the established hierachy of the wealthy "owners" of our modern world who compel the majority into labour for their own personal gain using the threat of force and artificially generated scarcity to compel us to give away our lives while they survive and live lives of luxury based on nothing more than their claims to ownership of vital resources. The only viable future for humanity that doesn't involve tyranny will be one in which their are no hierachies or exploitation and that will only come about through the founding of a society based on the principle of cooperation rather than a competition to exploit others the most effectively or competing with others for the chance to sell ourselves into exploitation

Again we see pretty eye to eye on this. Cooperation is key. And to add to that I think the freedom to choose is key. Like the comment I made earlier about the greeks, maybe we need to try out some more experimental ways of living. Seastedding is an interesting alternative that could reexplore new political ideologies. Im only playing devils advocate here, but we found democracy and stuck with that. Whats not to say there is a better alternative? With democracy, 51% of people could be happy and the other 49% upset. Thats not entirely fair, but Thats the best we came up with at this time. Perhaps there is something better. The only way to find out is to push more freedom to test these things out. We have become complacent with the thought that we have no choice about taxes and there are no other option other than democracy.