In my leaflet on tax-resitance I suggest that - instead of handing over money to Government (in the expectation that they will use it wisely, and ‘in our interest’) - we help each other directly (using our money where appropriate and necessary).
Some readers may have found that vague, or thought I was ‘joking’ - or only half-serious. I wasn’t joking; I was being completely earnest. And my meaning and intention in this regard are explained - quite explicitly and unambiguously - at https://nideog.ie/ .
Whether you agree fully or precisely with the perspective shared in those pages, I still contend that formulating our own means to achieve societal goals is superior (both from a moral and practical standpoint) than delegating the responsibility to the state.
By ‘helping each other’ I mean ‘helping’ in the broadest sense - in almost any way conceivable. From helping someone to find or build a home, to finding meaningful work (not ‘wage labour’), to assisting them during a period of convalescence, etc.
Giving money to the Government for this purpose is a cop-out, a sort of ‘washing our hands’ of the problem. Not only will the Government apparatus be ineffecient in its actions to meet these needs (perhaps hopelessly so); it will also use the money it receives in ways that are opposed to societal well-being.
When we give money to the state we can’t ‘earmark’ the money to be spent on A and B, but not C or D. But if we ‘take matters in to our own hands’ - by resolving to manage issues such as housing, etc, ourselves - then we can. And that, in my opinion, is the way it should be.
But this is off the wall
This will seem ‘off the wall’ only to someone so indoctrinated that they can’t see past their own noses - indoctrinated, that is, to believe that threats and coercion (and taxation) are necessary to achieve societal goals.
This might seem ‘off the wall’ to someone whose imagination has atrophied to the point where they can envisage no other way of ‘doing things’ - except continuously granting large sums of money to idiots, scoundrels and ideological fanatics in the expectation (or at least hope) that this woebegone bunch will ‘solve’ society’s problems. Good luck with that.
If you’re unwilling or unable to wrap your head around the possibility that there might be another way of ‘doing things’ - involving voluntary and peaceful agreement, and people simply trying to help each other from the ‘goodness of their heart’ - then so be it. But I suspect you’re not trying very hard (to see things from another perspective).
In any case … You’re entitled to dismiss all of this as ‘off the wall’ - as a ‘pipe-dream’ - but do not simultaneously (having made little or no effort to examine it seriously) expect me to subsidise or participate in your pipe-dream. What do I mean?
Illusion vs reality
The perception that the Government cares about you is an illusion. It doesn’t. (Some of the people who work within the state apparatus might be genuinely caring people, but that has little or no bearing on the operation of the overall machinery.)
You might argue that these ideas are ‘laughable’. But what’s really laughable is that people continue to believe that Government ‘cares for them’, and ‘puts their needs first’ - despite all the evidence to the contrary. Or at least it would be laughable, if the consequences of this delusion weren’t so far-reaching.
The NGOs, think-tanks, lobbyists and assorted grifters and hangers-on who mould public policy don’t care about you - in the slightest.
Perhaps, unfortunately, the only way some people will come to realise this is when they find themselves on the street and the pavement smacks them in the face. Or someone they love suffers serious iatrogenic harm at the hands of the (so-called) ‘health care’ system.
Takeaway
So yes, I’m serious when I suggest to help each other directly. If that doesn’t interest or appeal to you, I won’t badger you to participate. Perhaps, in turn, you could show me the same courtesy: don’t badger me, or imply that I have a moral obligation to subsidise this Government and its plans.