Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophical Refutation of Anarchism

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 12:38:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Introduction

I argue in favor of the notion that government has a place in the society. Anarchists suggest that government is violence and has no place in the world. I argue that not all government action and existence is initiatory coercion or aggressive violence and only occurs in a tyrannical government.

Professor Noam Chomsky declares that "Authority is always illegitimate unless it proves itself to be legitimate." He believed that there are instances where authority can and has proven itself to be legitimate. As my colleague in government said, "government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit."

Justification of Government and Its Necessary and Natural Function

Government is justified by its administration of justice, defense, and sometimes infrastructure. Many will argue that government is unjustified aggression and force. They say that because refusal to follow the law results in violence, fines, or imprisonment.

I contend that some refusals to obey laws are acts that obstruct justice and therefore government force is justified. The Founders didn't believe Anarchy could provide justice and protect people from initiatory coercion, they believed a government run court system funded by consumption tax could provide justice.

Aristotle said that the city-state exists by nature, because it comes to be out of the more primitive natural associations and it serves as their end, because it alone attains self-sufficiency. In this way, the state arises naturally, not through force.

Anarchists have been able to win so many arguments because they have used language to define everything government does as unjustified aggressive force. Except in this country how many people needed to be slaughtered to build a court house. How many people were killed during collection of taxes. I'd imagine none. Yet they say private markets have no initiatory coercion.

I agree that the Income Tax and IRS is a violation of Liberty and property, but the Consumption Tax is completely voluntary and valid. Anarchists say the Consumption Tax is government violence against a business. Not quite. The consumer is hit with the Consumption Tax not the business.

When the consumer buys a product, there is small tax attached to the product. They voluntarily choose to buy the product or not. The Anarchist says "what if the consumer refuses to pay the tax, the government initiates violence to extort the tax." No. First of all, payment of the tax is automatic. But if a consumer refuses to pay for a product that's theft and force is therefore an appropriate response.

Conclusion

Taking a product without paying the price is theft. Consumption Tax is part of the price. It is not extortion because by paying the tax you are paying for a justice system that protects your rights and a defense system that keeps the people safe. It's not forcing you to buy something you don't want, it's insurance of what you already have. Life, liberty, and property and that's what a Constitutional government protects.

-- GeoLaureate8
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 12:49:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I do not buy an item because I do not want to pay the tax, that directly hurts the business. If the business lowers the price to compensate for the price of the tax, it hurts the company.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 1:02:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 1:01:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Posting in this thread so I can remember to come open some whoopass when I return from work.

I'm really excited.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 1:02:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not voluntary if there is violence involved. If it is voluntary that means the business owner does not in fact have to collect it. I have no problem with VOLUNTARY taxes, but clearly no tax is voluntary since there will always be coercion involved - i.e. collect this tax for the government or we will shut down your business / throw you in jail.

People go to jail all the time for not paying taxes. Not many, true, but that's only because the violence is so systemic no one dare fight it.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 1:04:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Incidentally a consumption tax is REALLY a tax on income. It's beyond the purview of this discussion for me to explain why, but check it out :

http://mises.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 1:06:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 12:49:55 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If I do not buy an item because I do not want to pay the tax, that directly hurts the business. If the business lowers the price to compensate for the price of the tax, it hurts the company.

Consumption Tax proposals are between 1% and 5%. If you're poor and buying a cheap item, we're literally talking pennies. Not going to change anyone's decision. If you're wealthy and buying an expensive item, 5% of $2,000.00 isn't going to change your decision.

There's only "what ifs," but those scenarios don't happen in reality. If 1%-5% isn't worth having a Constitution protecting your life, liberty, property, one million miles of roads and bridges, and courthouses then get the hell out and move to Somalia.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 1:09:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 12:59:30 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
What happens if someone refuses to pay this consumption tax, or if a business refuses to collect it?

What happens if I refuse to pay for a product in a market-only society?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 1:27:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 1:06:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 12:49:55 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If I do not buy an item because I do not want to pay the tax, that directly hurts the business. If the business lowers the price to compensate for the price of the tax, it hurts the company.

Consumption Tax proposals are between 1% and 5%. If you're poor and buying a cheap item, we're literally talking pennies. Not going to change anyone's decision. If you're wealthy and buying an expensive item, 5% of $2,000.00 isn't going to change your decision.

There's only "what ifs," but those scenarios don't happen in reality. If 1%-5% isn't worth having a Constitution protecting your life, liberty, property, one million miles of roads and bridges, and courthouses then get the hell out and move to Somalia.

I don't care. It's the principle of coercion that matters.

Also, LOL at you comparing what would happen to the US if it became anarchistic to Somalia. Different economic climates.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 1:28:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Of the various forms of consumption tax, the sales tax surely has the great advantage, for most of us, of eliminating the despotic power of the government over the life of every individual, as in the income tax, or over each business firm, as in the VAT. It would not distort the production structure as would the VAT, and it would not skew individual preferences as would specific excise taxes."
-- Murray N. Rothbard

https://mises.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 1:28:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"It only is a small violation of freedom so it's OK."
~Geo.

"What happens if I refuse to pay for a product in a market-only society?"
You don't get the product and the company doesn't get your money. What are you getting at?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 2:43:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 12:38:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Introduction

I argue in favor of the notion that government has a place in the society. Anarchists suggest that government is violence and has no place in the world. I argue that not all government action and existence is initiatory coercion or aggressive violence and only occurs in a tyrannical government.

Professor Noam Chomsky declares that "Authority is always illegitimate unless it proves itself to be legitimate." He believed that there are instances where authority can and has proven itself to be legitimate. As my colleague in government said, "government is necessary to do what the private sector can't do efficiently and for a profit."

Justification of Government and Its Necessary and Natural Function

Government is justified by its administration of justice, defense, and sometimes infrastructure. Many will argue that government is unjustified aggression and force. They say that because refusal to follow the law results in violence, fines, or imprisonment.

I contend that some refusals to obey laws are acts that obstruct justice and therefore government force is justified. The Founders didn't believe Anarchy could provide justice and protect people from initiatory coercion, they believed a government run court system funded by consumption tax could provide justice.

Aristotle said that the city-state exists by nature, because it comes to be out of the more primitive natural associations and it serves as their end, because it alone attains self-sufficiency. In this way, the state arises naturally, not through force.

Anarchists have been able to win so many arguments because they have used language to define everything government does as unjustified aggressive force. Except in this country how many people needed to be slaughtered to build a court house. How many people were killed during collection of taxes. I'd imagine none. Yet they say private markets have no initiatory coercion.

I agree that the Income Tax and IRS is a violation of Liberty and property, but the Consumption Tax is completely voluntary and valid. Anarchists say the Consumption Tax is government violence against a business. Not quite. The consumer is hit with the Consumption Tax not the business.

When the consumer buys a product, there is small tax attached to the product. They voluntarily choose to buy the product or not. The Anarchist says "what if the consumer refuses to pay the tax, the government initiates violence to extort the tax." No. First of all, payment of the tax is automatic. But if a consumer refuses to pay for a product that's theft and force is therefore an appropriate response.

Conclusion

Taking a product without paying the price is theft. Consumption Tax is part of the price. It is not extortion because by paying the tax you are paying for a justice system that protects your rights and a defense system that keeps the people safe. It's not forcing you to buy something you don't want, it's insurance of what you already have. Life, liberty, and property and that's what a Constitutional government protects.

-- GeoLaureate8

This is funny coming from a Ron Paul supporter, most self-respecting libertarians know the final utopian stage of society should be statelessness. Of course, we don't agree with the abolition of gov't as quick as anarchists, we agree with taking the state we have now, and slowly dissolving it.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 2:47:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 1:28:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"It only is a small violation of freedom so it's OK."
~Geo.

Strawman. No cashier under the directives of the government has ever pointed a gun at me, chained me down and forced me to pay a consumption tax.

Exchanges of goods in the real world go like this: in order to obtain a product I must exchange a set amount of money. It's called "cost." I exchange x amount to receive product y. This is a voluntary arrangement. 5% of the money is appropriated to the government. This appropriation of the money has nothing to do with me and has zero ability to restrict my actions.

"What happens if I refuse to pay for a product in a market-only society?"
You don't get the product and the company doesn't get your money. What are you getting at?

Don't be an idiot.

What happens if I get a product but refuse to pay the consumption tax? Force.
What happens if I get a product but refuse to pay the business price? Force.

Refusal to pay full price after obtaining the product results in force. Also, the fallacy is when you separate the two. They're both parts of the same overall cost. The cashier doesn't say "give me the sales tax. Ok now hand over the business price amount." They ring you up and say "your total will be $5.23 sir."

Here's one: A corporation owns the Colorado River, I am thirsty and drink from it. What happens? Private police hired by the corporation bludgeons my head with a night stick.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 2:57:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 2:47:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 1:28:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"It only is a small violation of freedom so it's OK."
~Geo.

Strawman. No cashier under the directives of the government has ever pointed a gun at me, chained me down and forced me to pay a consumption tax.
Go to a store right now and only pay 5.99 or whatever for the item when they ask for 6.28.

Exchanges of goods in the real world go like this: in order to obtain a product I must exchange a set amount of money. It's called "cost." I exchange x amount to receive product y.
I know.
This is a voluntary arrangement. 5% of the money is appropriated to the government. This appropriation of the money has nothing to do with me and has zero ability to restrict my actions.
It's state coercion. The companies are forced to charge the tax.

"What happens if I refuse to pay for a product in a market-only society?"
You don't get the product and the company doesn't get your money. What are you getting at?

Don't be an idiot.

What happens if I get a product but refuse to pay the consumption tax? Force.
What happens if I get a product but refuse to pay the business price? Force.

Refusal to pay full price after obtaining the product results in force.
I'm not advocating publicly funded anything. You wouldn't get any product from the government.
Also, the fallacy is when you separate the two. They're both parts of the same overall cost. The cashier doesn't say "give me the sales tax. Ok now hand over the business price amount." They ring you up and say "your total will be $5.23 sir."
Does 100% go to the business?

Here's one: A corporation owns the Colorado River, I am thirsty and drink from it. What happens? Private police hired by the corporation bludgeons my head with a night stick.

Yup.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:04:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 1:27:26 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't care. It's the principle of coercion that matters.

Have you ever been literally coerced when shopping at Target? If so please describe the manner in which you were forced at gun point to hand over money for socks.

Also, LOL at you comparing what would happen to the US if it became anarchistic to Somalia. Different economic climates.

I didn't compare the two.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:08:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 3:04:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 1:27:26 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't care. It's the principle of coercion that matters.

Have you ever been literally coerced when shopping at Target? If so please describe the manner in which you were forced at gun point to hand over money for socks.
If I want to buy socks but don't want to pay taxes for them, then yes. You saying "at gunpoint" is pointless.

Also, LOL at you comparing what would happen to the US if it became anarchistic to Somalia. Different economic climates.

I didn't compare the two.

I don't want to live in Somalia but would want to live in anarchistic America. There is a comparison that you made.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:10:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 1:01:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Posting in this thread so I can remember to come open some whoopass when I return from work.

Will that whoopass be of the canned variety? If so, please remember to open at least two cans.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:16:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 2:43:57 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Funny coming from a Ron Paul supporter,

Ron Paul identifies as a Constitutionalist and believes in the Founding Fathers. He does not advocate Anarchy, he openly supports states rights.

most self-respecting libertarians know the final utopian stage of society should be statelessness.

Most self-respecting Libertarians know that chasing utopias is worthless, unachievable, and not ideal.

Of course, we don't agree with the abolition of gov't as quick as anarchists, we agree with taking the state we have now, and slowly dissolving it.

That's what the Communist Manifesto says. Libertarians and Ron Paul do not believe in that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:19:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 3:08:36 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:04:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 1:27:26 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't care. It's the principle of coercion that matters.

Have you ever been literally coerced when shopping at Target? If so please describe the manner in which you were forced at gun point to hand over money for socks.
If I want to buy socks but don't want to pay taxes for them, then yes. You saying "at gunpoint" is pointless.
You already pay taxes on everything you buy, sales tax or not. They are embedded into the price of your socks because the taxes on producers are always countered with price hikes on consumers.

Also, LOL at you comparing what would happen to the US if it became anarchistic to Somalia. Different economic climates.

I didn't compare the two.

I don't want to live in Somalia but would want to live in anarchistic America. There is a comparison that you made.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:25:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 3:19:47 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:08:36 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:04:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 1:27:26 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't care. It's the principle of coercion that matters.

Have you ever been literally coerced when shopping at Target? If so please describe the manner in which you were forced at gun point to hand over money for socks.
If I want to buy socks but don't want to pay taxes for them, then yes. You saying "at gunpoint" is pointless.
You already pay taxes on everything you buy, sales tax or not. They are embedded into the price of your socks because the taxes on producers are always countered with price hikes on consumers.
Which is unneeded.

Also, LOL at you comparing what would happen to the US if it became anarchistic to Somalia. Different economic climates.

I didn't compare the two.

I don't want to live in Somalia but would want to live in anarchistic America. There is a comparison that you made.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:34:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 3:25:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:19:47 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:08:36 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:04:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 1:27:26 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't care. It's the principle of coercion that matters.

Have you ever been literally coerced when shopping at Target? If so please describe the manner in which you were forced at gun point to hand over money for socks.
If I want to buy socks but don't want to pay taxes for them, then yes. You saying "at gunpoint" is pointless.
You already pay taxes on everything you buy, sales tax or not. They are embedded into the price of your socks because the taxes on producers are always countered with price hikes on consumers.
Which is unneeded.
It could be needed for infrastructure; many businesses rely on working roads and trains for the delivery of their products. What of the national defense that protects the sovereignty and stability of our airspace and shipping routes? That is needed too!

Also, LOL at you comparing what would happen to the US if it became anarchistic to Somalia. Different economic climates.

I didn't compare the two.

I don't want to live in Somalia but would want to live in anarchistic America. There is a comparison that you made.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:37:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 3:34:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:25:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:19:47 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:08:36 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:04:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 1:27:26 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't care. It's the principle of coercion that matters.

Have you ever been literally coerced when shopping at Target? If so please describe the manner in which you were forced at gun point to hand over money for socks.
If I want to buy socks but don't want to pay taxes for them, then yes. You saying "at gunpoint" is pointless.
You already pay taxes on everything you buy, sales tax or not. They are embedded into the price of your socks because the taxes on producers are always countered with price hikes on consumers.
Which is unneeded.
It could be needed for infrastructure; many businesses rely on working roads and trains for the delivery of their products. What of the national defense that protects the sovereignty and stability of our airspace and shipping routes? That is needed too!
Looks like a demand for something. You know what's good at filling demands? The private sector!!!

Also, LOL at you comparing what would happen to the US if it became anarchistic to Somalia. Different economic climates.

I didn't compare the two.

I don't want to live in Somalia but would want to live in anarchistic America. There is a comparison that you made.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:45:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 3:37:05 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:34:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:25:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:19:47 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:08:36 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:04:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 1:27:26 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't care. It's the principle of coercion that matters.

Have you ever been literally coerced when shopping at Target? If so please describe the manner in which you were forced at gun point to hand over money for socks.
If I want to buy socks but don't want to pay taxes for them, then yes. You saying "at gunpoint" is pointless.
You already pay taxes on everything you buy, sales tax or not. They are embedded into the price of your socks because the taxes on producers are always countered with price hikes on consumers.
Which is unneeded.
It could be needed for infrastructure; many businesses rely on working roads and trains for the delivery of their products. What of the national defense that protects the sovereignty and stability of our airspace and shipping routes? That is needed too!
Looks like a demand for something. You know what's good at filling demands? The private sector!!!
Lol that doesn't mean you won't have to pay for those services when you go to buy socks. If infrastructure is privatized, businesses will still have to pay the corporation(s) that runs it in order to use it. Transportation expenses will take the place of taxes, and you will still end up paying extra for a service you didnt necessarily use.

Also, LOL at you comparing what would happen to the US if it became anarchistic to Somalia. Different economic climates.

I didn't compare the two.

I don't want to live in Somalia but would want to live in anarchistic America. There is a comparison that you made.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:51:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 3:37:05 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:34:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
It could be needed for infrastructure; many businesses rely on working roads and trains for the delivery of their products. What of the national defense that protects the sovereignty and stability of our airspace and shipping routes? That is needed too!

Looks like a demand for something. You know what's good at filling demands? The private sector!!!

"They'd like to eliminate highway taxes because they force you to pay for a road you may never drive on. As an alternative, they suggest that if you and I want to get somewhere, we should build a road there and charge people tolls on it. Just try generalizing that. Such a society couldn't survive, and even if it could, it would be so full of terror and hate that any human being would prefer to live in hell."
-- Noam Chomsky

Btw, the private sector can't fulfill every demand. A court system would literally have no revenue to operate functionally and even then, the level at which the court is run would fluctuate depending on influxes and decreases in revenue.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 4:02:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 3:45:51 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:37:05 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:34:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:25:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:19:47 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:08:36 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:04:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 1:27:26 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't care. It's the principle of coercion that matters.

Have you ever been literally coerced when shopping at Target? If so please describe the manner in which you were forced at gun point to hand over money for socks.
If I want to buy socks but don't want to pay taxes for them, then yes. You saying "at gunpoint" is pointless.
You already pay taxes on everything you buy, sales tax or not. They are embedded into the price of your socks because the taxes on producers are always countered with price hikes on consumers.
Which is unneeded.
It could be needed for infrastructure; many businesses rely on working roads and trains for the delivery of their products. What of the national defense that protects the sovereignty and stability of our airspace and shipping routes? That is needed too!
Looks like a demand for something. You know what's good at filling demands? The private sector!!!
Lol that doesn't mean you won't have to pay for those services when you go to buy socks. If infrastructure is privatized, businesses will still have to pay the corporation(s) that runs it in order to use it. Transportation expenses will take the place of taxes, and you will still end up paying extra for a service you didnt necessarily use.
But the company isn't being coerced.

Also, LOL at you comparing what would happen to the US if it became anarchistic to Somalia. Different economic climates.

I didn't compare the two.

I don't want to live in Somalia but would want to live in anarchistic America. There is a comparison that you made.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 4:04:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 3:51:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:37:05 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 3:34:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
It could be needed for infrastructure; many businesses rely on working roads and trains for the delivery of their products. What of the national defense that protects the sovereignty and stability of our airspace and shipping routes? That is needed too!

Looks like a demand for something. You know what's good at filling demands? The private sector!!!

"They'd like to eliminate highway taxes because they force you to pay for a road you may never drive on. As an alternative, they suggest that if you and I want to get somewhere, we should build a road there and charge people tolls on it. Just try generalizing that. Such a society couldn't survive, and even if it could, it would be so full of terror and hate that any human being would prefer to live in hell."
-- Noam Chomsky
Why? Competition is pretty good at keeping standards up.

Btw, the private sector can't fulfill every demand. A court system would literally have no revenue to operate functionally
Why wouldn't they? There's always a demand for arbitration.
and even then, the level at which the court is run would fluctuate depending on influxes and decreases in revenue.
The court would run at a high level to assure revenue.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 4:53:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"How many people were killed during collection of taxes."

You do realize that the War of Independence had the fact that the colonists thought that the Empire was taxing them too much as one of the key factors for the revolt?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 4:58:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Where's the whoopass I was promised?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.