Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Alternatives to Taxation

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 12:19:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
For the sake of this thread let us assume the following things,
1: We need a Government.
2: The Government needs to spend money to provide for vital services.
3: Taxation is essentially a form of theft or at least somewhat unpalatable.

What therefore are viable alternatives to taxation?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 1:13:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 12:19:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
For the sake of this thread let us assume the following things,
1: We need a Government.
2: The Government needs to spend money to provide for vital services.
3: Taxation is essentially a form of theft or at least somewhat unpalatable.

What therefore are viable alternatives to taxation?

Well, either the government then has to live on donations, or be run as a capitalist company.

Now imagine a police force that is run on donations. Who do you think they will run to help? Those who donate, or those who do not? In theory you could maybe keep donations secret, but then why would you donate? You don't get much benefit from donating. It's easier to hire private protection than to donate to the police force.

The police force would soon run out of money, and to even survive it would turn to racketeering and corruption. It's not viable.

Now imagine a police force that needs to make a profit. From what should they make this profit? Fines? Then they would hunt speeders and bad parking, but ignore murderers. Should the government make money from running industries? Then we will have the same situation as above: The government would use the police force to protect it's own industries, but not the others.

In both cases the government turns into a protection racket. Pay up, or you won't get any protection, and "bad things may happen to you".

So there is no viable alternative to taxation. We must have a judicial system with a police force, a monopoly on violence, a state. And that must extend it's protection equally to all. And we therefore somehow must all share the economic burden. Taxation is the only alternative, both practically and morally.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 8:15:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If all people in the society agree to pay taxes for the common good then it is not theft. Taxation is actually a very useful tool if used properly.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 8:31:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 8:15:29 AM, Lifeisgood wrote:
If all people in the society agree to pay taxes for the common good then it is not theft. Taxation is actually a very useful tool if used properly.

Citizenship is a contract. Today it's implicit. I'd like to make it explicit, to shut the "tax is theft and the government is oppressive" libertarians. :-) With an explicit citizenship contract you can't claim it's theft or oppressive, as it's an explicit mutual contract.
So prove me wrong, then.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 9:16:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 1:13:12 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/22/2009 12:19:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
For the sake of this thread let us assume the following things,
1: We need a Government.
2: The Government needs to spend money to provide for vital services.
3: Taxation is essentially a form of theft or at least somewhat unpalatable.

What therefore are viable alternatives to taxation?

Well, either the government then has to live on donations, or be run as a capitalist company.

Now imagine a police force that is run on donations. Who do you think they will run to help? Those who donate, or those who do not? In theory you could maybe keep donations secret, but then why would you donate? You don't get much benefit from donating. It's easier to hire private protection than to donate to the police force.

But most can't people can't afford to hire private protection, they can however afford to spare a few dollars or pounds for the collection. But you do raise some good points.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 9:18:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 8:15:29 AM, Lifeisgood wrote:
If all people in the society agree to pay taxes for the common good then it is not theft. Taxation is actually a very useful tool if used properly.

But they did not realy agree did they? Taxation pre-existed their birth and is a legal obligation.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 9:20:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 8:31:25 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/22/2009 8:15:29 AM, Lifeisgood wrote:
If all people in the society agree to pay taxes for the common good then it is not theft. Taxation is actually a very useful tool if used properly.

Citizenship is a contract. Today it's implicit. I'd like to make it explicit, to shut the "tax is theft and the government is oppressive" libertarians. :-) With an explicit citizenship contract you can't claim it's theft or oppressive, as it's an explicit mutual contract.

I never signed it. I never agreed to it. If it's a mutual contract then how comes I have no choice over whether or not to pay taxation, how the money is spent or the quality of my return?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 9:21:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 9:20:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2009 8:31:25 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/22/2009 8:15:29 AM, Lifeisgood wrote:
If all people in the society agree to pay taxes for the common good then it is not theft. Taxation is actually a very useful tool if used properly.

Citizenship is a contract. Today it's implicit. I'd like to make it explicit, to shut the "tax is theft and the government is oppressive" libertarians. :-) With an explicit citizenship contract you can't claim it's theft or oppressive, as it's an explicit mutual contract.

I never signed it. I never agreed to it. If it's a mutual contract then how comes I have no choice over whether or not to pay taxation, how the money is spent or the quality of my return?

Oh I see I just re-read what you wrote, it is now implicit I get you!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 9:46:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 9:16:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
But most can't people can't afford to hire private protection, they can however afford to spare a few dollars or pounds for the collection.

Sure, but that doesn't get them anywhere, because a few dollars affords them no protection. You'll only get enough money and enough protection if everyone contributes, and they won't, unless it's required.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 9:46:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 8:50:35 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm assuming that, if you did have an explicit contract, you would only be able to sign it when you reached the age of responsibility (18 in the US, for example).

Of course.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 4:05:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If all people in the society agree to pay taxes for the common good then it is not theft.
Such a hypothetical is meaningless, because you will never get such an agreement in a society larger than a small town, and good luck with even that.

Fines? Then they would hunt speeders and bad parking, but ignore murderers. Should the government make money from running industries? Then we will have the same situation as above: The government would use the police force to protect it's own industries, but not the others.
It is not logical to list the few alternatives you have the imaginaion for and conclude from that that they are all the alternatives.

The alternative to taxation is charging people money for the protection of the law. If you don't pay, instead of ending up in jail, you just don't have a card to show criminals they'll get in trouble for victimizing you, you can't call 911, you can't sue anybody, so on and so forth.

In both cases the government turns into a protection racket. Pay up, or you won't get any protection, and "bad things may happen to you".
And? It's true. Just like your doctor. Pay him, or bad things may happen to you. Your doctor didn't create germs, the government didn't create the criminals, so how are they responsible for getting rid of it for free? That just means you want someone else to be a slave to protect you from slavery.

And that must extend it's protection equally to all.
No it doesn't. Protection isn't equally earned. So why must it be equally provided?
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
8/22/2009 4:11:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Btw, not only is it not morally obligatory for protection to be equal, it's also impossible, Police cannot be equidistant from all parties at all times.
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.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 11:25:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 4:05:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If all people in the society agree to pay taxes for the common good then it is not theft.
Such a hypothetical is meaningless, because you will never get such an agreement in a society larger than a small town, and good luck with even that.

OK, let's look at that statement, by modifying it a bit:

"If all people in the company agree to work together for the common good then it is not opression."

This is something you could say a sa counter argument to a hypothetical socialist, for example, claiming that employment is oppression (they do that a lot).

Your statement would then be:

"Such a hypothetical is meaningless, because you will never get such an agreement in a company larger than a couple of hundred employees, and good luck with even that."

And that's obviously false. It is obviously perfectly possible to create agreements and contracts amongst very large groups of people.

Fines? Then they would hunt speeders and bad parking, but ignore murderers. Should the government make money from running industries? Then we will have the same situation as above: The government would use the police force to protect it's own industries, but not the others.

It is not logical to list the few alternatives you have the imagination for and conclude from that that they are all the alternatives.

Correct. But as it happens, they *are* the only alternatives, short of not having a state at all.

The alternative to taxation is charging people money for the protection of the law. If you don't pay, instead of ending up in jail, you just don't have a card to show criminals they'll get in trouble for victimizing you, you can't call 911, you can't sue anybody, so on and so forth.

This is only the formalization of my donation alternative, The only difference is that instead of making poor people lawless implicitly, you do it explicitly. Instead of turning the police force into a protection racket implicitly, you do it explicitly.

In both cases the government turns into a protection racket. Pay up, or you won't get any protection, and "bad things may happen to you".
And? It's true.

And bad.

And that must extend it's protection equally to all.
No it doesn't. Protection isn't equally earned. So why must it be equally provided?

<sarcasm on>
Oh, sorry, your profile said libertarian, so I thought you were of the opinion that it is every mans basic right to not be forced by violence or thread by violence, and that ownership was a basic right too.

Evidently, you now only think some people have this right. Maybe Fascist wasn't amongst the possible choices in the profile?
<sarcasm off>

It must be equally provided, because even amongst the most rabid libertarians, not being forced against your will is a basic human right that should be extended to all humans. Including the poor, sick, children and handicapped.
So prove me wrong, then.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 8:03:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Common services, such as the commone defense, can often not be ran like a capitalist company because of something called the free rider problem.

Individuals will in effect recieve defense protection whether they pay for it or not, so there is no incentive for them to pay for their defense individually.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 1:50:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 9:07:30 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
So R_R are you saying that we should de-socialize the police force or what?
If people choosing to pay the police force is what determines what the police force does, and that's what you mean by de-socialize, sure.

And that's obviously false. It is obviously perfectly possible to create agreements and contracts amongst very large groups of people.
People are not born into companies, they are born in "societies." While it may be theoretically possible, probabilistically given rates of disagreement among randomly gathered (as opposed to self-selected) people, it's not going to happen in any large one. Which is why I say it's not going to happen-- am I certain? No, but the next thing to it.

Correct. But as it happens, they *are* the only alternatives, short of not having a state at all.
You listed fines and "running industries." While I suppose a police force could be construed as an industry, it's obviously not what you meant, so charging user fees is not among the options you listed, yet it is an option.

This is only the formalization of my donation alternative, The only difference is that instead of making poor people lawless implicitly, you do it explicitly. Instead of turning the police force into a protection racket implicitly, you do it explicitly.
And?

And bad.
It is bad that the police force protect? Or it is bad that it be a "racket," i.e. an enforced monopoly?

Oh, sorry, your profile said libertarian, so I thought you were of the opinion that it is every mans basic right to not be forced by violence or thread by violence, and that ownership was a basic right too.
And? That doesn't make it equal. People own unequal things. Therefore, if everyone's property is enforced, that is not 'equal protection." It is equitable, perhaps, but not equal. And even if you have the right not to have something happen to you-- that doesnt' mean you have the right to make it happen to someone else in order to force them to protect you from it. Having the right to something is a moral claim that someone shouldn't do something to you, and a right for YOU to try to stop them or pay someone to stop them if they do-- but no one else is obligated to defend your rights, just not to violate them themselves. The only alternative to this argument is to have slaves defend your freedom, an alternative rejected for obvious reasons.

Evidently, you now only think some people have this right.
Not the case :).

Common services, such as the commone defense, can often not be ran like a capitalist company because of something called the free rider problem.
Individuals will in effect recieve defense protection whether they pay for it or not, so there is no incentive for them to pay for their defense individually.
I think I've addressed this to you before WJM, you seem to have forgotten. Defense is a cost internalizable as protecting one's business in courts/police (you don't run the courts and police if you don't defend your jurisdiction from other people who want to run them). Therefore, the funds for defense come out of the fees used for law enforcement. And people WILL pay those-- or they are subject to the whim of any common criminal. Free defense from foreign armies does you no good whatsoever when you get shot by your neighbor.
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.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 2:42:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 1:50:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And that's obviously false. It is obviously perfectly possible to create agreements and contracts amongst very large groups of people.
People are not born into companies, they are born in "societies." While it may be theoretically possible, probabilistically given rates of disagreement among randomly gathered (as opposed to self-selected) people, it's not going to happen in any large one. Which is why I say it's not going to happen-- am I certain? No, but the next thing to it.

They don't have to agree on everything. All they have to do in both cases is agree to a contract. Which they will, if they think it is more beneficial to then to agree to it than not.

You listed fines and "running industries." While I suppose a police force could be construed as an industry, it's obviously not what you meant, so charging user fees is not among the options you listed, yet it is an option.

As I pointed out, that is for all intents and purposes the "donation" option.

And?

It still has the same drawbacks, hence it's not an alternative. A violent protection racketeering mob doesn't become a good thing just because they admit to being one.

It is bad that the police force protect? Or it is bad that it be a "racket," i.e. an enforced monopoly?

No, it's your suggestion which is the racket. It's in your suggestion the police/mafia says "If you don't pay, 'accident's can happen, and we don't want that do we?"

People own unequal things. Therefore, if everyone's property is enforced, that is not 'equal protection."

So you argue for that those who own more should pay more. And those who own nothing reasonably should pay nothing, but still get the protection. Fair enough to me!

Evidently, you now only think some people have this right.
Not the case :).

Good. Then we can exclude your suggestion that only those who can/will pay should get the protection.

Therefore, the funds for defense come out of the fees used for law enforcement. And people WILL pay those-- or they are subject to the whim of any common criminal.

And as we see above, your last suggestion was that everybody should get protection, but pay according to how rich they are or what income they have. A system also known as "taxes".

I think we can conclude this debate now. There clearly is no alternative to taxation.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 4:44:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 2:42:20 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/23/2009 1:50:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And that's obviously false. It is obviously perfectly possible to create agreements and contracts amongst very large groups of people.
People are not born into companies, they are born in "societies." While it may be theoretically possible, probabilistically given rates of disagreement among randomly gathered (as opposed to self-selected) people, it's not going to happen in any large one. Which is why I say it's not going to happen-- am I certain? No, but the next thing to it.

They don't have to agree on everything. All they have to do in both cases is agree to a contract. Which they will, if they think it is more beneficial to then to agree to it than not.
And you-- expect a whole "society" (presumably a country) to all be of one mind on that matter.

That's just it. No contract has ever been accomplished with a whole country full of random people all signing. There is little reason to think it even remotely likely to occur.


You listed fines and "running industries." While I suppose a police force could be construed as an industry, it's obviously not what you meant, so charging user fees is not among the options you listed, yet it is an option.

As I pointed out, that is for all intents and purposes the "donation" option.
No it isn't. A donation means you receive nothing as such in exchange, a user fee means whether you receive the service is tied to whether you pay. It's the difference between the Salvation Army and Microsoft.


It is bad that the police force protect? Or it is bad that it be a "racket," i.e. an enforced monopoly?

No, it's your suggestion which is the racket. It's in your suggestion the police/mafia says "If you don't pay, 'accident's can happen, and we don't want that do we?"
The implication you're striving after is that the police are the ones creating the accident. That is what taxes are, not user fees, which are charged for PROTECTION FROM A THIRD PARTY. Good lord, if you hired a bodyguard, would you call it a racket, because you are hiring him to prevent accidents from happening-- accidents he had nothing to do with creating?


People own unequal things. Therefore, if everyone's property is enforced, that is not 'equal protection."

So you argue for that those who own more should pay more. And those who own nothing reasonably should pay nothing, but still get the protection.
Well, if they own nothing, there is nothing to protect, obviously (given a premise of self-ownership, owning nothing means you are dead, and won't pay whether I wanted you to pay or not). But yes, the more inviting the target, the more it costs the gov't to protect it, and therefore they should pay more if they desire that protection.

Good. Then we can exclude your suggestion that only those who can/will pay should get the protection.
No. The right to not have something happen to you is not equivalent to the right to free protection from it. A right is a claim against the person who doesn't respect something-- if it is in danger, you no longer have to respect the rights of the one endangering it (the criminal), and can use this fact to arrange defenses-- but a third party ( a government) has no obligations given that. Police protection is a service, not a "right," as rights by definition accrue automatically in nature in the absence of interference, and police do not do that.


Therefore, the funds for defense come out of the fees used for law enforcement. And people WILL pay those-- or they are subject to the whim of any common criminal.

And as we see above, your last suggestion was that everybody should get protection, but pay according to how rich they are or what income they have. A system also known as "taxes".
Incorrect. My suggestion was that THOSE DESIRING protection get it and pay according to what they want protected (how much property and so forth)-- but they have the option to not pay, so long as they are willing to give up protection. A system known as not taxes. No "everybody protected" involved, and you know it, though why you want to build cheap little straw men I have no clue.
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.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 8:43:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 4:44:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/23/2009 2:42:20 PM, regebro wrote:
They don't have to agree on everything. All they have to do in both cases is agree to a contract. Which they will, if they think it is more beneficial to then to agree to it than not.
And you-- expect a whole "society" (presumably a country) to all be of one mind on that matter.

Again: No I don't.

That's just it. No contract has ever been accomplished with a whole country full of random people all signing. There is little reason to think it even remotely likely to occur.

There is no requirement that they all sign. You said "You will not get such an agreement in a society larger than a town". What you fail to realize is that the people who don't agree will move.

This is why I was talking about companies. It's perfectly possible to have companies with hundreds of thousands of people in them. They all agree. You can't take a hundred thousand random people and make them agree, but that was never the question.

Just as today: If you don't agree with the taxes. the you move somewhere else. If you stay and work in the US, that means you implicitly think the drawbacks of the taxes are outweighed by other benefits. That means you agree to work under that tax system. You have agreed.

As I pointed out, that is for all intents and purposes the "donation" option.
No it isn't. A donation means you receive nothing as such in exchange, a user fee means whether you receive the service is tied to whether you pay. It's the difference between the Salvation Army and Microsoft.

And what I pointed out was that this is in effect what the donation system would turn into. I agree that I implicitly assume people would realize that this was a bad idea. You didn't, which is a first for me.

No, it's your suggestion which is the racket. It's in your suggestion the police/mafia says "If you don't pay, 'accident's can happen, and we don't want that do we?"

The implication you're striving after is that the police are the ones creating the accident.

That's what happens. It turns into a protection racket, yes, with the "police" becoming a mafia.

That is what taxes are, not user fees, which are charged for PROTECTION FROM A THIRD PARTY.

Then, your "user fees" are taxes. Again: Taxation is the only answer.

Good lord, if you hired a bodyguard, would you call it a racket, because you are hiring him to prevent accidents from happening-- accidents he had nothing to do with creating?

No, but when the bodyguard sats "hire me or I'll break your bones" I would call it a racket.

I think you fail to realize that violence is not a commodity you can trade like you trade eggs or computers.

Good. Then we can exclude your suggestion that only those who can/will pay should get the protection.
No. The right to not have something happen to you is not equivalent to the right to free protection from it.

A right is a right. You have the right to whatever the right is. You now say that a right is a right, if you can afford it. Then it is not a right.

A right is a claim against the person who doesn't respect something-- if it is in danger, you no longer have to respect the rights of the one endangering it (the criminal), and can use this fact to arrange defenses--

This is a definition of Rights I've never heard before. But all you are saying here is that you have the right to defend yourself if attacked. It does not say that you have the right to not be attacked. You have removed the basic principle of libertarianism.

but a third party ( a government) has no obligations given that.

If we make a third party that has the obligation to do that, the obviously it has. If you don't want that third-party, then you are an anarchist. Our discussion here is how this third-party should be financed. If you want to argue against it's existence, then you can do that in my thread aimed at Anarchists, called "Questions for Anarchists".

Police protection is a service, not a "right," as rights by definition accrue automatically in nature in the absence of interference

No, rights are given by agreement amongst people. They do not accrue in nature. Nature has no right or obligations.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 9:15:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 8:43:20 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/25/2009 4:44:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/23/2009 2:42:20 PM, regebro wrote:
They don't have to agree on everything. All they have to do in both cases is agree to a contract. Which they will, if they think it is more beneficial to then to agree to it than not.
And you-- expect a whole "society" (presumably a country) to all be of one mind on that matter.

Again: No I don't.
So, you agree with me, they aren't all gonna agree.

There is no requirement that they all sign. You said "You will not get such an agreement in a society larger than a town". What you fail to realize is that the people who don't agree will move.
There is nowhere to move to. Nowhere to escape taxes and so forth. If I take your arse out on a ship in the middle of space and demand you work yourself to the bone, are you agreeing to it by not jumping out the hatch into a vacuum?

And what I pointed out was that this is in effect what the donation system would turn into.
Wait, when did you say the donation system would turn into the user fee system?


No, it's your suggestion which is the racket. It's in your suggestion the police/mafia says "If you don't pay, 'accident's can happen, and we don't want that do we?"

The implication you're striving after is that the police are the ones creating the accident.

That's what happens. It turns into a protection racket, yes, with the "police" becoming a mafia.
That's the government right now. By definition. We know for a fact that's what your system is. And you have no proof my system would be. 100%> anything less than 100%.


That is what taxes are, not user fees, which are charged for PROTECTION FROM A THIRD PARTY.

Then, your "user fees" are taxes. Again: Taxation is the only answer.
If I'm getting your argument right, you're stating that any government would INEVITABLY demand money for protection from itself instead of a third party and therefore any user fee system will become taxes. What you're missing is the proof that rulers have no free will and will inevitably behave as you describe. :).


No, but when the bodyguard sats "hire me or I'll break your bones" I would call it a racket.
Yes. And that's the system you're advocating (it's what the word taxes refers to). You might think my system makes it too, but that doesn't mean you have proof of it.


I think you fail to realize that violence is not a commodity you can trade like you trade eggs or computers.
But it is. That's what mercenaries are, that's what bodyguards are, that's what a police force run by user fees is :).

A right is a right. You have the right to whatever the right is. You now say that a right is a right, if you can afford it. Then it is not a right.
I have the right to life. I do not have the right to have a slave feed me grapes. You see the difference? The term "Right" means I have a domain of action that no one should involve themselves in without my permission-- no one should try to kill me, or cage me, or take my stuff, without my saying OK. But no one is obligated to feed me, to give me transportation or land, etc.


A right is a claim against the person who doesn't respect something-- if it is in danger, you no longer have to respect the rights of the one endangering it (the criminal), and can use this fact to arrange defenses--

This is a definition of Rights I've never heard before. But all you are saying here is that you have the right to defend yourself if attacked. It does not say that you have the right to not be attacked. You have removed the basic principle of libertarianism.
The right not to be attacked-- means that they shouldn't do it, and the "should" against certain actions against them is removed if they do. Having a right to something does not guarantee it will be so, it is possible to violate a right--and just to make negative conseqences for doing so-- but what do you propose? That people be FORCED to help protect you. That destroys the entire concept, unless you wish to carve yourself as an exception (which you can't enforce)-- conscripting slaves to "protect your rights" denies rights by virtue of the part about conscripting the slaves.


but a third party ( a government) has no obligations given that.

If we make a third party that has the obligation to do that, the obviously it has.
"If we make them have the obligation--" i.e. enslave them?

If you don't want that third-party, then you are an anarchist.
Straw man. I did not say I did not want the party-- I said I wanted the party to deal with me on mutual consent. They have to consent to do it, and I have to consent for any of their acts to protect me. If we can't come to some agreement, then I of course would prefer anarchy to slavery-- but I do seek to come to such an agreement, therefore, I do not qualify for the title of "anarchist," however much I sometimes wish I could (it is a cool title).


Police protection is a service, not a "right," as rights by definition accrue automatically in nature in the absence of interference

No, rights are given by agreement amongst people.
"Give a right" is an absurd contradiction. If it's YOUR exclusive domain of action, you don't need anyone's gift to get it.
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.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 10:18:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 9:15:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/25/2009 8:43:20 PM, regebro wrote:
Again: No I don't.
So, you agree with me, they aren't all gonna agree.

There is no "they". You presume a fixed list of people. There is no such assumption.

There is nowhere to move to. Nowhere to escape taxes and so forth.

There is no state that does not have taxes, correct. Now if you think about that some time, and also ponder that the conclusion of this debate all the time ends up with that there is no alternative to taxation, well, maybe you'll reach some sort of insight. :)

However, there IS places to move to if you don't want to pay taxes. And no I don't mean space. Somalia is a good place to start. You don't have to pay taxes there because the state has collapsed. Instead, you get your protection by hiring thugs with machine guns. This is exactly what you propose.

No? Why not?

Wait, when did you say the donation system would turn into the user fee system?

In my original reply. Although I did not use that term. There is no principal difference between a system where you get protected if you pay a "user fee" and one where you get protected if you pay a "donation".

That's what happens. It turns into a protection racket, yes, with the "police" becoming a mafia.
That's the government right now.

Then you agree that you "user fee system" is a form of taxation.

Then, your "user fees" are taxes. Again: Taxation is the only answer.
If I'm getting your argument right, you're stating that any government would INEVITABLY demand money for protection from itself instead of a third party and therefore any user fee system will become taxes.

Yes, you can phrase it that way. The conclusion is the same: There is no alternative to taxes.

Even a benevolent government will turn to taxes, but for different reasons. But in the end you end up in a system where you have a government, and pay taxes.

What you're missing is the proof that rulers have no free will and will inevitably behave as you describe. :).

No, they can behave like they want. But in a democratic society, people will for rational, and egoistic, and altruistic reasons, vote for a tax system. And in a dictatorship you will sooner or later (typically sooner, experience tells us) have the dictatorship/oligarchy extracting taxes.

Yes. And that's the system you're advocating (it's what the word taxes refers to). You might think my system makes it too, but that doesn't mean you have proof of it.

Not only do I have proof, I have explained to you why, and you have agreed. But I'll try again if you still have doubts.

You are in effect proposing a system where only a part of society funds the legal system. (In effect, this is the medieval feudal system). To keep peace they will also have to stop small fights from erupting, so they will have to stop people from killing each other, even if they don't pay. Otherwise society become violent and trade suffers and everybody gets poor.

This means that those who do not pay in effect are free riders on peace keeping. You also say that the people who do pay for the legal system has no obligation to not use violence towards those who do not pay.

Now, do you think the payers are going to just sit back and let the free riders sit back on their free ride? Of course not. They will, by force, extract taxes from the non-payers. And according to your view of rights, they have the full right to do so.

And hey presto, we have a tax system.

Taxes are quite simply a rational, efficient way of funding the necessary legal system. So people do have a choice. But either some a-hole will start extracting taxes for their benefit, or society in general will demand a tax system because it's more just.

I think you fail to realize that violence is not a commodity you can trade like you trade eggs or computers.
But it is. That's what mercenaries are, that's what bodyguards are, that's what a police force run by user fees is :).

Yes. And that's what anarchy is, and countries like Somalia. Do you think that works? No you don't.

A right is a right. You have the right to whatever the right is. You now say that a right is a right, if you can afford it. Then it is not a right.
I have the right to life. I do not have the right to have a slave feed me grapes. You see the difference?

It is correct that the right to life and the right to be fed grapes by a slave are different rights.

However, the right to not be forced does mean that you have the right not to be forced. It does not mean "the right not to be forced if you pay money". The right not to be forced is not different from the right not to be forced.

No, rights are given by agreement amongst people.
"Give a right" is an absurd contradiction. If it's YOUR exclusive domain of action, you don't need anyone's gift to get it.

Since this is a question of one using violence against another, it isn't any sort of "exclusive domain of action".

In any case we clearly agree that there should be a legal system with a monopoly on violence. That does nullify much of your argumentation, and makes much of the debate pointless, so we can therefore now go back to the topic on how to fund this.

And as I've now shown, taxes is the only way.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 10:43:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 10:18:21 PM, regebro wrote:
There is no "they". You presume a fixed list of people. There is no such assumption.
"They" was a generality, it refers to any country you care to name.


There is nowhere to move to. Nowhere to escape taxes and so forth.

There is no state that does not have taxes, correct. Now if you think about that some time, and also ponder that the conclusion of this debate all the time ends up with that there is no alternative to taxation, well, maybe you'll reach some sort of insight. :)
Your implication is fallacious. Just because no nation at present lacks taxation does NOT mean that no nation can poentially lack it.


However, there IS places to move to if you don't want to pay taxes. And no I don't mean space. Somalia is a good place to start. You don't have to pay taxes there because the state has collapsed.
And made way for a large number of smaller sorts of governments. Clans and so forth. Who probably also have taxes.

In my original reply. Although I did not use that term. There is no principal difference between a system where you get protected if you pay a "user fee" and one where you get protected if you pay a "donation".
Well sure, if you make it dependent on payment of the "donation," because then it isn't a donation-- a real donation system would permit free riding (an would not be what I propose of course, and would not work, but that's what a donation system means :) .


That's what happens. It turns into a protection racket, yes, with the "police" becoming a mafia.
That's the government right now.

Then you agree that you "user fee system" is a form of taxation.
No, I do not. In stating that your description of a racket is applicable to taxation, I do not thereby state that a user fee system is taxation. There is an ipse-dixetism :).


What you're missing is the proof that rulers have no free will and will inevitably behave as you describe. :).

No, they can behave like they want. But in a democratic society, people will for rational, and egoistic, and altruistic reasons, vote for a tax system. And in a dictatorship you will sooner or later (typically sooner, experience tells us) have the dictatorship/oligarchy extracting taxes.
In other words "It has to be that way because that's the way they've always done it." Human action is not a force of nature. It can be changed. People can vote for different things, dictators can dictate different things.


Yes. And that's the system you're advocating (it's what the word taxes refers to). You might think my system makes it too, but that doesn't mean you have proof of it.

Not only do I have proof, I have explained to you why, and you have agreed.
I never even saw the explanation, let alone agreed to it.


You are in effect proposing a system where only a part of society funds the legal system. (In effect, this is the medieval feudal system). To keep peace they will also have to stop small fights from erupting, so they will have to stop people from killing each other, even if they don't pay. Otherwise society become violent and trade suffers and everybody gets poor.
This is the fallacy of the ambigous collective. Nonpayers killing each other does not make "society' violent, it makes the specific segment of "society" which contains only the nonpayers such.
There are small fights NOW, and yet not everyone is poor. Violence targeted solely to those who are not protected need not spread beyond that. Therefore, no free ride because we are refusing to protect the nonpayers, your argument falls apart.

You also say that the people who do pay for the legal system has no obligation to not use violence towards those who do not pay.
No enforced one anyway. They still have a moral one of course, but fat lot of good the mouse's morality does when spoken to the cat.

I think you fail to realize that violence is not a commodity you can trade like you trade eggs or computers.
But it is. That's what mercenaries are, that's what bodyguards are, that's what a police force run by user fees is :).

Yes. And that's what anarchy is, and countries like Somalia. Do you think that works? No you don't.
Somalia is a thousand different little governments. Anarchy is not a different system of funding police forces, it's either a, an unstable state in which there are nonmonopoly police, just waiting for the first contradiction, whether they know it or not, which will set them to war-- or b, an idle dream of a world in which no one, not the pettiest thug, bothers trying to govern anyone anymore, which is statistically next to impossible.


However, the right to not be forced does mean that you have the right not to be forced. It does not mean "the right not to be forced if you pay money". The right not to be forced is not different from the right not to be forced.
So, you're against taxes I take it.
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.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 11:52:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 10:43:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/25/2009 10:18:21 PM, regebro wrote:
There is no "they". You presume a fixed list of people. There is no such assumption.
"They" was a generality, it refers to any country you care to name.

No, it refers to people, not countries. Again: You presume a fixed list of people. There is no such assumption. You say "These 10 million people over there". I say "10 million people". See the difference?

There is nowhere to move to. Nowhere to escape taxes and so forth.

There is no state that does not have taxes, correct. Now if you think about that some time, and also ponder that the conclusion of this debate all the time ends up with that there is no alternative to taxation, well, maybe you'll reach some sort of insight. :)
Your implication is fallacious. Just because no nation at present lacks taxation does NOT mean that no nation can poentially lack it.

Just because nobody has taken a rowboat to the moon doesn't mean you can't *potentially* row to the moon. My point was that you would think about it. You didn't. Try again.

There may be a reason why there is no state without taxes. Maybe the reasons are those who I have presented here? Maybe the fact that no state has ever done without taxes actually is an indication of something?

However, there IS places to move to if you don't want to pay taxes. And no I don't mean space. Somalia is a good place to start. You don't have to pay taxes there because the state has collapsed.
And made way for a large number of smaller sorts of governments. Clans and so forth. Who probably also have taxes.

No. it made way for brutal violent anarchy. But if you want you can call each clan/mafia/whatever for "government". And yes, they probably extort money. And you can call that taxes, yes. And a big fat QED, then. That's my point, it's unavoidable.

In my original reply. Although I did not use that term. There is no principal difference between a system where you get protected if you pay a "user fee" and one where you get protected if you pay a "donation".
Well sure, if you make it dependent on payment of the "donation," because then it isn't a donation-- a real donation system would permit free riding (an would not be what I propose of course, and would not work, but that's what a donation system means :) .

Yes, and once again: That was my point. Donation systems turn into "pay or get no protection" systems, which soon turns into "pay or we beat you up" systems.

How many times do I need to repeat this? It is getting really boring.

No, they can behave like they want. But in a democratic society, people will for rational, and egoistic, and altruistic reasons, vote for a tax system. And in a dictatorship you will sooner or later (typically sooner, experience tells us) have the dictatorship/oligarchy extracting taxes.
In other words "It has to be that way because that's the way they've always done it."

That has no resemblance to what I said.

Human action is not a force of nature. It can be changed. People can vote for different things, dictators can dictate different things.

Just ignoring my arguments won't get you anywhere.

You are in effect proposing a system where only a part of society funds the legal system. (In effect, this is the medieval feudal system). To keep peace they will also have to stop small fights from erupting, so they will have to stop people from killing each other, even if they don't pay. Otherwise society become violent and trade suffers and everybody gets poor.
This is the fallacy of the ambigous collective. Nonpayers killing each other does not make "society' violent, it makes the specific segment of "society" which contains only the nonpayers such.

No, this is incorrect. First of all, when a large part of society turns to violence to make income and to solve issues, this will affect also those who have payed protection. It means that will have to have protection with them at all times, first of all, making the protection more expensive. It also increases the risk of violence, so that make sit more expensive. And it also hurts the economy, as violence is bad for business.

The only way to solve this is, as I mentioned, to use the legal system to stop violence even between those who do not pay. This is beneficial to society as a whole, turning the non-payers into free-riders.

There are small fights NOW, and yet not everyone is poor.

These small fights are very rare, historically spekaing. And societies where they are not, like Somalia, Haiti and other corrupt and failed states, ARE poor.

I think you fail to realize that violence is not a commodity you can trade like you trade eggs or computers.
But it is. That's what mercenaries are, that's what bodyguards are, that's what a police force run by user fees is :).

Yes. And that's what anarchy is, and countries like Somalia. Do you think that works? No you don't.
Somalia is a thousand different little governments.

I.e Anarchy. That's what the word means: That there is no state, no monopoly on violence.

Anarchy is not a different system of funding police forces, it's either a, an unstable state in which there are nonmonopoly police, just waiting for the first contradiction, whether they know it or not, which will set them to war-- or b, an idle dream of a world in which no one, not the pettiest thug, bothers trying to govern anyone anymore, which is statistically next to impossible.

I.e. Somalia.

Why do I have to repeat myself so much? :-/

However, the right to not be forced does mean that you have the right not to be forced. It does not mean "the right not to be forced if you pay money". The right not to be forced is not different from the right not to be forced.
So, you're against taxes I take it.

Yes, they are a necessary evil, so to speak. Obviously it would be better if we all lived in peaceful harmony with pink unicorns and free manna from heaven, but that is now not how the world looks.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 7:23:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago

There may be a reason why there is no state without taxes. Maybe the reasons are those who I have presented here
Those reasons are insufficient. The primary reason is that no state has ever bothered to attempt it :)

And made way for a large number of smaller sorts of governments. Clans and so forth. Who probably also have taxes.

No. it made way for brutal violent anarchy.
Somalia is probably less violent than whatever came before.

But if you want you can call each clan/mafia/whatever for "government". And yes, they probably extort money. And you can call that taxes, yes. And a big fat QED, then. That's my point, it's unavoidable.
Again-- current governments=/= all governments that can be.

Well sure, if you make it dependent on payment of the "donation," because then it isn't a donation-- a real donation system would permit free riding (an would not be what I propose of course, and would not work, but that's what a donation system means :) .

Yes, and once again: That was my point. Donation systems turn into "pay or get no protection" systems
No, they just turn into bad free riding. Any other transformation requires initiative on the part of a politician :).

which soon turns into "pay or we beat you up" systems.
Because all people are born with original sin or something? You're only supposed proof is "um... they've always done it."

No, they can behave like they want. But in a democratic society, people will for rational, and egoistic, and altruistic reasons, vote for a tax system. And in a dictatorship you will sooner or later (typically sooner, experience tells us) have the dictatorship/oligarchy extracting taxes.
In other words "It has to be that way because that's the way they've always done it."

That has no resemblance to what I said.
Well, you had no evidence except "experience tells us." Which means "That's the way they've always done it.


Human action is not a force of nature. It can be changed. People can vote for different things, dictators can dictate different things.

Just ignoring my arguments won't get you anywhere.
Arguments consist of premises>conclusion, not conclusion>conclusion.

This is the fallacy of the ambigous collective. Nonpayers killing each other does not make "society' violent, it makes the specific segment of "society" which contains only the nonpayers such.

No, this is incorrect. First of all, when a large part of society turns to violence to make income and to solve issues, this will affect also those who have payed protection. It means that will have to have protection with them at all times, first of all, making the protection more expensive.
Or they need merely, I don't know, CARRY AROUND PROOF OF PAYMENT TO SHOW TO CRIMINALS? I think if they do, CRIMINALS WILL AVOID THEM AND GO AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T PAY. Why? Because those people are EASIER PREY. :)

It also increases the risk of violence
Attacking those who don't pay only increases the risk of violence-- for those who don't pay.
And it also hurts the economy, as violence is bad for business.
It hurts the businesses of the nonpayers. "The economy" like any other human grouping is not some stupendous whole.


There are small fights NOW, and yet not everyone is poor.

These small fights are very rare, historically spekaing.
Depends on which city you live in, and in which part.

And societies where they are not, like Somalia, Haiti and other corrupt and failed states, ARE poor.
Correlation=/= causation.

Somalia is a thousand different little governments.

I.e Anarchy. That's what the word means: That there is no state, no monopoly on violence.
But there is. In each small part, some party has a monopoly. It's just that the jurisdictions are smaller. Making government more local doesn't make it less government.


Anarchy is not a different system of funding police forces, it's either a, an unstable state in which there are nonmonopoly police, just waiting for the first contradiction, whether they know it or not, which will set them to war-- or b, an idle dream of a world in which no one, not the pettiest thug, bothers trying to govern anyone anymore, which is statistically next to impossible.

I.e. Somalia.
Most of Somalia has some monopoly or other. It's just that different parts have different monopolies :).


Why do I have to repeat myself so much? :-/

However, the right to not be forced does mean that you have the right not to be forced. It does not mean "the right not to be forced if you pay money". The right not to be forced is not different from the right not to be forced.
So, you're against taxes I take it.

Yes, they are a necessary evil, so to speak.
The right not to be forced is the right not to be forced, not the right not to be forced except for taxes (despite your different definition of right as such :). When you accept some evil as "necessary" you damn your entire system, by declaring it has no possible relation to reality.
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.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 7:59:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ragnar Rahl will like this idea...nobody pays any tax. Hooray!

But wait, how does the government generate its income?

Ah, this is the clever bit. You invade another country, rip off all their natural resources and tax their citizens until their pips squeak. Then, after a few decades or so, you grant them independence and move on to the next country.

It's so beautifully simple - I can't believe nobody has thought of it before!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 11:55:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 7:23:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Those reasons are insufficient. The primary reason is that no state has ever bothered to attempt it :)

You know, you sound exactly like a socialist claiming socialism has never been tried.

No. it made way for brutal violent anarchy.
Somalia is probably less violent than whatever came before.

You can't just invent facts so they suite you, you know.

Again-- current governments=/= all governments that can be.

Again, I never ever claimed they were. You can't use this excuse any more. My argument is not and has never been "since we always had taxes we will always have taxes". I have NOT made this claim, stop pretending that I have.

Yes, and once again: That was my point. Donation systems turn into "pay or get no protection" systems
No, they just turn into bad free riding. Any other transformation requires initiative on the part of a politician :).

Then you define politicians so that anyone who have or is trying to get more control over the government is a politician. And then you always have politicians.

which soon turns into "pay or we beat you up" systems.
Because all people are born with original sin or something? You're only supposed proof is "um... they've always done it."

No, that is not my only supposed proof. In fact, I have never used this argument. You are trying to avoid the argumentation by making a straw man.

That has no resemblance to what I said.
Well, you had no evidence except "experience tells us."

Experience is the only evidence that exists, ever, so that's a nonsense statement. Besides I do not base my argumentation on this. I *explain* with logic why this is so. You are sticking your fingers in your ears.

Which means "That's the way they've always done it.

No, it does not mean that.

Just ignoring my arguments won't get you anywhere.
Arguments consist of premises>conclusion, not conclusion>conclusion.

Yes. Just ignoring my arguments won't get you anywhere.

No, this is incorrect. First of all, when a large part of society turns to violence to make income and to solve issues, this will affect also those who have payed protection. It means that will have to have protection with them at all times, first of all, making the protection more expensive.
Or they need merely, I don't know, CARRY AROUND PROOF OF PAYMENT TO SHOW TO CRIMINALS? I think if they do, CRIMINALS WILL AVOID THEM AND GO AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T PAY. Why? Because those people are EASIER PREY. :)

Oh god almighty, do you think criminals will walk up to people and say "Excuse me sir, do you have a proof of protection on you, I would like to see if I should rob you or not?" I mean honestly. :rolleyes:

It also increases the risk of violence
Attacking those who don't pay only increases the risk of violence-- for those who don't pay.

Wrong, I explained. What did you not understand in the explanation?

And it also hurts the economy, as violence is bad for business.
It hurts the businesses of the nonpayers. "The economy" like any other human grouping is not some stupendous whole.

Yes, the economy is in fact exactly that. A stupendous whole.

There are small fights NOW, and yet not everyone is poor.

These small fights are very rare, historically spekaing.
Depends on which city you live in, and in which part.

Yes, obviously I was talking about countries that have states. It is not true for example in Mogadishu. In any democratic state, these small fights are very rare, historically speaking.

Stop coming with excuses for ignoring what I say. It's just daft.

And societies where they are not, like Somalia, Haiti and other corrupt and failed states, ARE poor.
Correlation=/= causation.

No, but it's evidence that supports a theory. Stop coming with excuses.

I.e Anarchy. That's what the word means: That there is no state, no monopoly on violence.
But there is. In each small part, some party has a monopoly. It's just that the jurisdictions are smaller.

No, that's not how it works. Again you are just pulling stuff out of your behind that supports your standpoint and hope that it's correct without bothering to check with reality.

I.e. Somalia.
Most of Somalia has some monopoly or other. It's just that different parts have different monopolies :).

Wrong. Somalia is in a state of almost constant civil warfare. The groups you think of are only interested in fighting each other. They aren't bothered much with upholding the law, which is mostly done bu thungs with machine guns.

The right not to be forced is the right not to be forced, not the right not to be forced except for taxes (despite your different definition of right as such :). When you accept some evil as "necessary" you damn your entire system, by declaring it has no possible relation to reality.

No, I damn *your* system by declaring it has no possible relation to reality. My system evidently works well.
So prove me wrong, then.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 3:27:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 8:31:25 AM, regebro wrote:
Citizenship is a contract. Today it's implicit. I'd like to make it explicit, to shut the "tax is theft and the government is oppressive" libertarians. :-) With an explicit citizenship contract you can't claim it's theft or oppressive, as it's an explicit mutual contract.

True, but these days it's kind of hard not to "sign" it. There is no escaping society.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 3:51:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 7:59:24 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Ragnar Rahl will like this idea...nobody pays any tax. Hooray!

But wait, how does the government generate its income?

Ah, this is the clever bit. You invade another country, rip off all their natural resources and tax their citizens until their pips squeak. Then, after a few decades or so, you grant them independence and move on to the next country.

It's so beautifully simple - I can't believe nobody has thought of it before!

Medieval Spain must've had a magical connection to the internet half a millenium ago, 'cuz that's exactly what they did! Spain went to Mexico, thinking that stealing all of the Aztec's gold would make them richer, and guess what happened? Exactly what you said:

Hyperinflation screwed up their economy for 400 years.

And it's not going to be any different than if a country today took any other country's shoes, or gloves, or iPods, or cars, or people for slaves, it's going to crash their own economy. It's a pretty awesome plan, I wonder why people aren't doing it today? No wait, the USFG is. Except it's called the Stimulus Package. And this time, it's stealing from the future.

I definitely support it. The USFG had to die sometime, might as well make it within my lifetime. It also makes talking about anarchism to people so much easier.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?