If you're so upset about taxes, go complain about how much of your money goes to rampant runaway military spending.
You're the one who baselessly assumed two things, that his country has high military spending (some countries don't even
have militaries),
and that he
loves his country's high military spending.
Pffahahaha oh wow.
Yes, governments are so bad and evil for giving you, your neighbours, and your countrymen resources such as roads, education, clean water, healthcare, etc, in return for a portion of your income.
I support neither side in statist-antistatist debate, but I never heard of government which even
pretends that taxes are voluntary.
But you object to his point only because he is obviously in minority, but you consider your own views to be mainstream. But take USA for example. Let's assume you're anti-war American. So you'll just vote for anti-war party. Which party is it? I think last president who didn't bomb any country was Jim Carter? At least not directly. He gave support (paid with taxpayers money) to regimes which waged wars. So even if you're in mainstream, your opinion can count for nothing.
I am pretty certain you'd object to your government funding state religion with 10% tax your income (and not the "nice" kind, but "God hates _insertopressedminority_"). Well, those supporting the idea would argue it'd provide you with valuable services (wedings, funerals, charity, sunday schools...), and only for so
minor portion of your income. You might object you don't want those things, or to pay for those things. But you've already said you're fine with people paying for stuff they don't want, as long majority is for. It's social contract, you don't have to personally agree to be obliged to financially support it. You're just don't worried you'll have to, because you consider yourself mainstream, and aren't worrying about being outvoted.
This is not just me being contrarian. In 1850s, people in the North had to fund enforcement of "fugitive slave" laws. People right now have to fund war on drugs (and on non-violent drug users), even if they want legalisation of some drugs. They must fund war effort that involves bombing of countries they have nothing against.
You support all of those things? No? Then what is so heinous in idea that people wouldn't have to pay anymore for things they don't want? You just drew arbitrary line that happens to be just between things you don't like and things that you love.
A drain on resources is different from the usual Paradox rebel armies: fighting units that have no strategic coordination and just sit there either waiting to be slaughtered or, in extreme cases, impossible to beat.
I would like it if rebellions were few and far between and functioned more or less like civil wars in HOI4, with breakaway countries allying your rivals, etc. But I'm scared of just having to fight fleets made out of thin air under red and black flags.
I agree. In Hoi4 or Stellaris eras, rebellions would work little different than in CK2 or Eu4 Era.
In year 1000 to rebel, you just needed group of angry peasants with pitchforks. Government doesn't have
that much higher level of organisation of military equipment than angry mob. Rebels appearing out of thin air make sense in that context. But as ages passes, difference in power becomes more obvious.
By year 2200, government has everything rebels do not. Secure communication channels, standing army, spacefleet, monitors your social media, etc.
So, with exception of militray coups, most rebellions would start as mere unrest, that slowly saps away powers of the state. You can keep up with low-level unrest indefinitely, nothing your secret police can't handle, but only as long as things aren't getting progressively even worse.
As more and more people are unhappy and consider government illegitimate, it takes up more and more resources to keep them in line (police states are expensive), until it costs more to keep them than to let them go.
Then government can either let things fall apart (USSR dissolution, UK simply letting India go), or risk being unable to pay its soldiers, officers, police, who rather than suppress rioters can join them, and which point unrest that was mere -50% to minerals/energy production turns into actual civil war.
Now, how to represent it in game?
First way, is that rebel factions are especially popular among military, part which launches civil war to overthrow regime, or fight for independence.
Second way is more roundabout way.
Well, if your slaves and conquered pops are so unhappy, you either need buttload of armies, or suck up huge production penalty. Both cause you to lose resources. You can get by with small drain, but if you go into negative, and stay there too long, part of your armed forces swap to rebels (proportional to fraction of them you cannot afford to pay), and instantly teleport to rebel stronghold.
This. Fun comes from overcoming constraints. The more constraints, the more challenge and the more fun. That's why Vicky2 is my favorite Paradoxe game and why I prefer Stellaris over HOI4 (even though Stellaris is not on VIcky levels it's still better than god mode HOI4).
Mostly agree, but didn't Vicky 2 went little too far and had hilariously large rebellions? Millions of pops up in arms?
