Is taxation force?
Anyways I disagree with the idea, I'm not sure it would work, but I respect your opinion.
Yes, exactly is by definition. You could've said violent force and it'd still be correct.
Wouldn't having privatized police and courts create a conflict of interest?
And would firefighters not put out people's houses unless they were paid? Wouldn't that endanger the entire community if a fire weren't extinguished?
And also wouldn't private armies endanger... well.. everyone???
It's certainly coercive. I consider them necessary but they are by definition coercive
You misinterpreted my comment. I'm advocating for society to voulentarilly pay for those things rather than being forced to do so.
Oh I'm sorry my bad. But how would those services be paid for without taxes?
Not for privatization.
Would you pay for those services? I would gladly write a check for those things, not be forced to pay for them on top of 10,000 other thinks that i dont need and hurt us.
So it would be voluntary charity. Are you sure that could provide enough funds?
Yes. People want those things. They don't need a gun to their head.
I respect all opinions that say 'yes but it is a necessary force'. I disagree, but thats reasonable. However, to say it is not a force is a denial of fact.
But what if people became victims of bystander effect? There are lots of potential donators, they may feel that others would pay for them.
What would you use as a replacement for taxation? Or are you an anarchist or minarchist?
You mean people wouldn't pay for those things because 'my neighbor will'? Doubtful.
Replace it with nothing. All human interaction should be voluntary. People would still give money for police, military, courts and fire and that should be pretty much it.