All Governments are Criminal Organizations

"law enforcement coming from the government comes in the forms of fines, penalties, and maybe an arrest if the crimes are severe enough."There are many different forms of "punishment" for non-obedience, up to and including being shot. The violence, however, tends to show itself clearly only when the other intimidation techniques don't achieve the objective of your obedience. In the US, for instance, you may get a fine, but that fine is essentially an extortion notice, and is itself an act of intimidation. You must pay, or else. If you do not pay that fine, they can increase the intimidation. For instance, they can send you a court date, which is to say, they can demand that you appear before them. If you do not show up, they can issue a warrant for your arrest, which is to say, they create a document which "authorizes" somebody to abduct you against your will. Even that is nice language meant to play down what actually happens, as the truth, at least in the US, is that men with guns come to your house, tie you up in metal shackles, throw you in a vehicle, many times a windowless van, and toss you in a cage that is famous for being a place where you will be beaten and raped*.If you defend yourself from this horrific threat of abduction and prison rape, you will be shot - murdered, slaughtered, executed, put down like a pig, and the only "crimes" you committed were disobedience and self-defense."law enforcement doesn't come from violence and intimidation"Law enforcement IS violence and intimidation, and it is explicitly so. There are plenty of justifications for this violence and intimidation, (ie, claiming that it is a "necessary evil"), but saying they have nothing to do with each other is like saying war has nothing to do with killing people. Not only is it not true, it is the exact opposite of truth. "You are allowed to move beyond boundaries between governments though, they are called passports and it happens all the time. "You are contradicting yourself. If I am required to ask permission to do something (passport), then, ipso-facto, I am not "allowed" to do it. The idea that I would be "allowed" to move beyond those borders with permission implicitly asserts that the corporation has the right to deny me access, which is the exact opposite of me being "allowed" to cross those borders. Let's say you didn't even need a passport, and you could just freely move across borders - that is irrelevant to the question of how the corporation behaves within those borders. Building walls and having checkpoints on the borders is just one more example of criminal behavior on the part of these corporations. Much like "taxation", it is something that, if you or I attempted to do to a third party, it would immediately be recognized as criminal behavior."So taxes may be involuntary, but they are a necessary evil"Whether you believe it is "necessary" is irrelevant. It has been argued that the black market is "necessary", as well, but that is irrelevant to whether it is criminal. Slavery was once thought of as a "necessary evil", but that doesn't change the nature of slavery.Also, you forget that it is not "the people" government spends money on, as there is no such thing as 'the people". The government takes money from SOME people and uses it to benefit OTHER people. The size of the groups involved are irrelevant. For instance, not all people agree with you that taxes are "accepted as necessary evils".Even if that money was spent to improve society, and that 99.99% of the population approves of the spending, it is still a violation of the law unless we allow for an exemption - you even admit this yourself by calling taxation a necessary "evil". What is "evil" about being consistent with our values and rules? For us to consider it "evil", it must be a violation of our value system." That being said all governments are NOT criminal organizations because governments are liable to the laws they pass"...except the ones that have exemptions that allow them to violate the law, which, I still maintain, is all of them. I freely acknowledge that government agencies and individuals working for government are subject to some of the laws that the rest of us are. However, a criminal is still a criminal if he breaks even one criminal law, regardless of how many laws he obeys. If that criminal could decide what the laws are, there is no reason for him to give himself an exemption for laws he doesn't want to violate - just the ones preventing stealing, intimidation, racketeering, etc... just like governments do."Those governments are not criminal organizations because even though they create laws and enforce them, have rights over a region, and collect taxes, they are fictional governments and thus are not criminal organizations even though they count as governments."There are many fictional crime families out there. To the extent that they are fictional, their crimes are fictional, but that doesn't change the fact that they are criminal. What you are essentially saying:In order to argue your case, you have done the following: Claimed that law enforcement (law enFORCEment) has nothing to do with force, violence, or intimidation, even though the exact opposite is demonstrably true. Claimed that taxation is a "special case" because "the people" (ie, you, and people who agree with you) consider it a 'necessary evil'. In other words, it is exempt from our standards and is "legal" even though it violates other laws - exactly my point. Used fictional (FICTIONAL!) governments as examples of governments which are not criminal (even though they still are criminal as fictional governments). In short, you have produced no compelling reasons to dismiss my arguments. * http://reason.com...