Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Question for Minarchists.

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 1:43:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Would you approve of taxes and welfare under these conditions?

Before paying any taxes or receiving any welfare you must first sign a contract with the government that lays out the terms.

It seems to hold to your beliefs but the result would be remarkably similar to what we have now. The welfare and taxes we have now have, for the most part, been decided democratically(ok, not really) so we can assume that most people would choose them. It could even be democratic within the terms; some people sign up for public education and the signers vote for how to pay for it, most likely progressively.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 1:49:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That wouldn't be a government, it would just be another business. And no, it would look nothing like what we have now. No one would voluntarily pay a progressive tax for services when they could just buy those services on the market for the market price. And if someone wanted to help others, they wouldn't pay additional money, through taxes or extra fees or whatever, to the service provider, they'd give it to charity.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:08:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 1:49:06 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
That wouldn't be a government, it would just be another business.

It's not a business because it doesn't make a profit. Theres a reason you don't see things like this around, at least on a large scale.

And no, it would look nothing like what we have now. No one would voluntarily pay a progressive tax for services when they could just buy those services on the market for the market price.

That's a good point.

And if someone wanted to help others, they wouldn't pay additional money, through taxes or extra fees or whatever, to the service provider, they'd give it to charity.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:09:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 2:08:28 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/19/2011 1:49:06 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
That wouldn't be a government, it would just be another business.

It's not a business because it doesn't make a profit. Theres a reason you don't see things like this around, at least on a large scale.
Then it would be a charity. Either way, not a government.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 1:59:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not a business because it doesn't make a profit.
Why not?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 2:00:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
anyway, while morally acceptable, a welfare state is not sustainable with fake taxes (user fees), only real taxes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:24:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have another question for Minarchist.

You say the police force should be paid for through user fees, this way there's no collective risk-sharing involved(gasp!). When someone in need of the police force has it's utilities used for them they must directly pay up. Here's my question: What happens when the budget for the police force is required to grow, such as in the case of a crime-wave? Where do the funds come from? If you simply raise the price on user fees that's essentially the same as a tax, the person is being forced to pay for other people.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:27:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 1:24:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I have another question for Minarchist.

You say the police force should be paid for through user fees, this way there's no collective risk-sharing involved(gasp!). When someone in need of the police force has it's utilities used for them they must directly pay up. Here's my question: What happens when the budget for the police force is required to grow, such as in the case of a crime-wave? Where do the funds come from? If you simply raise the price on user fees that's essentially the same as a tax, the person is being forced to pay for other people.

....

no their not. a crime wave effects everyone in that everyone is at a greater risk of experiencing crime. say they raise their fees.. you can either pay more or risk going without police protection.

its not that spreading risk among many people is bad (insurance exists) its the issue of being forced to participate.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:47:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ragnar I have a minarchist question for you

<--- minarchist in training

If you had society set up just the way you wanted it, and became successful and wealthy, would you buy a bunch of guards to surround your house and belongings who would occasionally beat any small furry animal that wandered too close? What would the guards' disposition be towards anarcho-huggists that are too lazy to work?
no comment
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:56:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 1:47:23 AM, Caramel wrote:
Ragnar I have a minarchist question for you

<--- minarchist in training

If you had society set up just the way you wanted it, and became successful and wealthy, would you buy a bunch of guards to surround your house and belongings who would occasionally beat any small furry animal that wandered too close? What would the guards' disposition be towards anarcho-huggists that are too lazy to work?

WIN
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:56:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 1:27:49 AM, belle wrote:
its not that spreading risk among many people is bad (insurance exists) its the issue of being forced to participate.

I see.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:58:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 1:27:49 AM, belle wrote:
no their not. a crime wave effects everyone in that everyone is at a greater risk of experiencing crime. say they raise their fees.. you can either pay more or risk going without police protection.

I don't buy this. It's still the government collectivizing risk but, as you said, you don't care about that.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 2:16:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
When someone in need of the police force has it's utilities used for them they must directly pay up. Here's my question: What happens when the budget for the police force is required to grow, such as in the case of a crime-wave? Where do the funds come from? If you simply raise the price on user fees that's essentially the same as a tax, the person is being forced to pay for other people.

They aren't forced to pay. If the price raises for the next month, they can refuse to pay for the next month. Will they? Probably not if the reason is genuinely an increase in the rate of crime :P.

If you had society set up just the way you wanted it, and became successful and wealthy, would you buy a bunch of guards to surround your house and belongings who would occasionally beat any small furry animal that wandered too close?
Not unless it looked like it had rabies or I wanted the animal for dinner. I might throw a rock at a squirrel on a whim (I've never done so before but you never know what sort of harmless whim you might have), but why would I pay someone else to do so?

What would the guards' disposition be towards anarcho-huggists that are too lazy to work?
The guards say: This is private property, please leave if you do not have business here. They put their hands to their weapons quite visibly as well

If they do not turn to leave or to describe their business, the disposition is shove them toward the property line.

If they still do not respond, the guard gets to decide how they would like to remove them from the property. If they resist, the guard is not to permit the person (who has just proven they are not an anarcho-huggist) to survive the encounter.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.