Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Voluntary Government Funding

Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Since, US government provides all of residents with such great value, and we have a "social contract" that requires funding, what Federal executive agency or department would you fund voluntarily?

Which would get zero funding?

Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:07:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Since, US government provides all of residents with such great value, and we have a "social contract" that requires funding, what Federal executive agency or department would you fund voluntarily?

Which would get zero funding?


Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

I would try to break down my current tax burden as follows:

35% defense
10% social benefit
20% infrastructure/environment
20% education
15% diplomatic/trade (not to be confused with aid)
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 3:26:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:

Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

We pay taxes because as a society it is much more efficient to combat nation wide problems on a nation wide scale. The problem is we do not always agree on what government needs to do and to what degree it has to do it. However, we realize that in any case not sticking together is the worst option. That is why we elect officials who then determine what is in our best interest. Once they do that, everyone is bound to the laws and decisions they come up with, because otherwise we would have no cooperation and that is the worst case for everyone.

If you want to be part of a nation, you have to follow it's rules.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 4:17:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 3:26:59 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:

Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

We pay taxes because as a society it is much more efficient to combat nation wide problems on a nation wide scale. The problem is we do not always agree on what government needs to do and to what degree it has to do it. However, we realize that in any case not sticking together is the worst option. That is why we elect officials who then determine what is in our best interest. Once they do that, everyone is bound to the laws and decisions they come up with, because otherwise we would have no cooperation and that is the worst case for everyone.

If you want to be part of a nation, you have to follow it's rules.

Unless you come from Mexico :D
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 4:18:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:07:12 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Since, US government provides all of residents with such great value, and we have a "social contract" that requires funding, what Federal executive agency or department would you fund voluntarily?

Which would get zero funding?


Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

I would try to break down my current tax burden as follows:

15% defense
30% social benefit
20% infrastructure/environment
25% education
10% diplomatic/trade (not to be confused with aid)
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 4:57:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 4:18:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:07:12 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Since, US government provides all of residents with such great value, and we have a "social contract" that requires funding, what Federal executive agency or department would you fund voluntarily?

Which would get zero funding?


Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

I would try to break down my current tax burden as follows:

15% defense
30% social benefit
20% infrastructure/environment
25% education
10% diplomatic/trade (not to be confused with aid)

10% luck
20% skill
15% concentrated power of wi... wait sorry, sorry wrong list
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 8:00:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 3:26:59 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:

Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

We pay taxes because as a society it is much more efficient to combat nation wide problems on a nation wide scale.

Not really, most people pay because of the gun to their head.

The problem is we do not always agree on what government needs to do and to what degree it has to do it. However, we realize that in any case not sticking together is the worst option.

Individuals would get a veto option, thus making the group truly voluntary.

That is why we elect officials who then determine what is in our best interest.

Yet, those elected to represent us pass laws for the powerful.

Once they do that, everyone is bound to the laws and decisions they come up with, because otherwise we would have no cooperation and that is the worst case for everyone.

Cooperation means voluntary. If voluntary is removed the word become compulsive. Which brings the gun back to the equation.

If you want to be part of a nation, you have to follow it's rules.

The nation must respond to the citizens. Government power comes from the consent of the governed. There is no better way to demonstrate this than to have voluntary taxation. When people agree with the laws funding will be greater.

There are many nations with authoritarian governments of all types, People that want to live under that type of government have many options. Those that want freedom and liberty well their options are quite limited. America should be the exception, not just like all the rest.

If taxation was voluntary, would you pay your fair share?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 8:07:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Would anybody volunarially pay interest on the debt or actual principle?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 8:11:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 4:18:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:07:12 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Since, US government provides all of residents with such great value, and we have a "social contract" that requires funding, what Federal executive agency or department would you fund voluntarily?

Which would get zero funding?


Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

I would try to break down my current tax burden as follows:

15% defense
30% social benefit
20% infrastructure/environment
25% education
10% diplomatic/trade (not to be confused with aid)

Wow, you do have a heart.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 8:43:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 8:11:12 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:18:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:07:12 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Since, US government provides all of residents with such great value, and we have a "social contract" that requires funding, what Federal executive agency or department would you fund voluntarily?

Which would get zero funding?


Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

I would try to break down my current tax burden as follows:

15% defense
30% social benefit
20% infrastructure/environment
25% education
10% diplomatic/trade (not to be confused with aid)

Wow, you do have a heart.

well ... I am a teacher :o
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 7:22:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 8:00:32 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 4/15/2016 3:26:59 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:

Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

We pay taxes because as a society it is much more efficient to combat nation wide problems on a nation wide scale.

Not really, most people pay because of the gun to their head.

The problem is we do not always agree on what government needs to do and to what degree it has to do it. However, we realize that in any case not sticking together is the worst option.

Individuals would get a veto option, thus making the group truly voluntary.

Imagine I offer you a contract that says I pay you $100 a day but in exchange I am allowed to decide when and were you get your hair cut. You have a complete free choice to accept or decline this contract, it is a voluntary decision. Also, after accepting it you can at any time decide to end the contract, but you can't return back to it after. If you do accept the contract then you have to keep your part, you can't start vetoing my decisions without ending the contract.

Let me be very clear on what my point is:
We could set up a social contract in which anyone is allowed to personally veto any taxes they disagree with. Lets call this case (1). I am not denying that this case is possible.
We could also set up a social contract in which people are not allowed to withhold taxes simply because they disagree with them. This is case (2).

Now my point is that both cases are voluntary. Case (1) may ensure more personal freedom, but I would argue that case (2) leads to a better functioning society.
You claim case (2) is involuntary. If it were so, then someone would have to be forcing you to accept that social contract. But in fact nobody is forcing you to accept the contract, you have a free decision to accept or decline it.
You are confusing being forced to accept a contract and enforcing an aspect of an already voluntary accepted contract.

That is why we elect officials who then determine what is in our best interest.

Yet, those elected to represent us pass laws for the powerful.

That is an attribute of an imperfect system. There has never been a perfect political system in the history of humanity so far, but it has been improving and I think it is very possible that it will continue to improve.

Once they do that, everyone is bound to the laws and decisions they come up with, because otherwise we would have no cooperation and that is the worst case for everyone.

Cooperation means voluntary. If voluntary is removed the word become compulsive. Which brings the gun back to the equation.

Yes, and it is your voluntary decision to accept or decline the social contract. If you do accept then you have to follow the rules.

If you want to be part of a nation, you have to follow it's rules.

The nation must respond to the citizens. Government power comes from the consent of the governed. There is no better way to demonstrate this than to have voluntary taxation. When people agree with the laws funding will be greater.

There are many nations with authoritarian governments of all types, People that want to live under that type of government have many options. Those that want freedom and liberty well their options are quite limited. America should be the exception, not just like all the rest.

If taxation was voluntary, would you pay your fair share?

There are many reasons to have a compulsory tax once a social contract has been accepted.

The Tragedy of the Commons is a theory that demonstrates how individuals fail to achieve the greatest good under certain conditions. This is only one example in Game Theory that shows even though all participants want to cooperate, their individual rationality prevents them from reaching a common goal. This is also why I wouldn't pay my fair share. There are programs that only can operate if they receive enough funding. However, if some people decide not to pay their taxes, those programs would not produce any economic benefit and it no longer makes sense for me to pay anything since the money would be wasted.

Another aspect is that people have been shown to not make smart long-run decisions when it comes to economics. If taxes could be vetoed many would not withstand the temptation to have a little extra for themselves and in return not fund a school or a road that would actually benefit them. Many might not even understand why they are paying certain taxes. Not because they disagree, simply because they don't understand what the idea behind it is.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:20:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 7:22:05 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 4/15/2016 8:00:32 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 4/15/2016 3:26:59 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 4/15/2016 4:18:31 AM, Chang29 wrote:

Or, do you only pay taxes because of a gun to your head (very civilized)?

We pay taxes because as a society it is much more efficient to combat nation wide problems on a nation wide scale.

Not really, most people pay because of the gun to their head.

The problem is we do not always agree on what government needs to do and to what degree it has to do it. However, we realize that in any case not sticking together is the worst option.

Individuals would get a veto option, thus making the group truly voluntary.

Imagine I offer you a contract that says I pay you $100 a day but in exchange I am allowed to decide when and were you get your hair cut. You have a complete free choice to accept or decline this contract, it is a voluntary decision. Also, after accepting it you can at any time decide to end the contract, but you can't return back to it after. If you do accept the contract then you have to keep your part, you can't start vetoing my decisions without ending the contract.

Let me be very clear on what my point is:
We could set up a social contract in which anyone is allowed to personally veto any taxes they disagree with. Lets call this case (1). I am not denying that this case is possible.
We could also set up a social contract in which people are not allowed to withhold taxes simply because they disagree with them. This is case (2).

Now my point is that both cases are voluntary. Case (1) may ensure more personal freedom, but I would argue that case (2) leads to a better functioning society.
You claim case (2) is involuntary. If it were so, then someone would have to be forcing you to accept that social contract. But in fact nobody is forcing you to accept the contract, you have a free decision to accept or decline it.
You are confusing being forced to accept a contract and enforcing an aspect of an already voluntary accepted contract.

Good thing the idea of a social contract is imaginary.

If this concept was real, a couple years ago the supporters of gay marriage were violating the social contract of that time.


That is why we elect officials who then determine what is in our best interest.

Yet, those elected to represent us pass laws for the powerful.

That is an attribute of an imperfect system. There has never been a perfect political system in the history of humanity so far, but it has been improving and I think it is very possible that it will continue to improve.

Once they do that, everyone is bound to the laws and decisions they come up with, because otherwise we would have no cooperation and that is the worst case for everyone.

Cooperation means voluntary. If voluntary is removed the word become compulsive. Which brings the gun back to the equation.

Yes, and it is your voluntary decision to accept or decline the social contract. If you do accept then you have to follow the rules.

The conditions of this imaginary contract are extremely vage. Does it include a right to own weapons unconditional, and to put any substance into one's body? How is consent withdrawn? Leaving the country does not work for Americans. Since, an expatriated Americans are subject to many laws, should those citizens expect the American social contract to apply in other nations.


If you want to be part of a nation, you have to follow it's rules.

Even the immoral rules? People alive in 1860, that helped slaves escape were not heros, because they were breaking the social contract of their day?


The nation must respond to the citizens. Government power comes from the consent of the governed. There is no better way to demonstrate this than to have voluntary taxation. When people agree with the laws funding will be greater.

There are many nations with authoritarian governments of all types, People that want to live under that type of government have many options. Those that want freedom and liberty well their options are quite limited. America should be the exception, not just like all the rest.

If taxation was voluntary, would you pay your fair share?

There are many reasons to have a compulsory tax once a social contract has been accepted.

The Tragedy of the Commons is a theory that demonstrates how individuals fail to achieve the greatest good under certain conditions.

Tragedy of the Commons is government, something that belongs to everyone really belongs to nobody.

This is only one example in Game Theory that shows even though all participants want to cooperate, their individual rationality prevents them from reaching a common goal. This is also why I wouldn't pay my fair share.

That is what leaders are for, Influencing people to work as a group, not hold a gun to their head.

There are programs that only can operate if they receive enough funding. However, if some people decide not to pay their taxes, those programs would not produce any economic benefit and it no longer makes sense for me to pay anything since the money would be wasted.

If programs require coercion to be funded, maybe people really do not want it.

A government attempting to provide an economic benefit is a government that is for sale. Separation of state and the economy is fair and equal.


Another aspect is that people have been shown to not make smart long-run decisions when it comes to economics. If taxes could be vetoed many would not withstand the temptation to have a little extra for themselves and in return not fund a school or a road that would actually benefit them. Many might not even understand why they are paying certain taxes. Not because they disagree, simply because they don't understand what the idea behind it is.

536 elected officials are expected to make better decisions. They appear to make the best decisions for the rich and powerful, not the rest of us. If people had an individual veto (withhold funding), America would be a much greater place.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.