Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Voluntary User Fees vs Taxes

OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2010 11:42:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Since it is technically a separate topic and I am actually interested in this idea and wouldn't mind seeing some legitimate answers to questions I have (and others may come up with), I decided to start a discussion on it.

J.Kenyon had brought up the idea of replacing taxes (I'm assuming because taxes = stealing) with "voluntary" user fees. Not going into what the definition of voluntary actual is, I began asking him a handful of questions regarding it. The following is the course of the subject so far:

OG "*scratches head* If taxes are stealing and the government shouldn't be allowed to steal, how is it expected to have even a limited government? Is it supposed to evolve beyond the need of a budget?"

JK "Orion, my government would operate on user fees."

OG "And the difference between user fees and taxes is?"

JK "User fees are paid voluntarily."

OG "So your issue is not with taxation itself but with how the tax system currently functions."

JK "Voluntary user fees are not taxes, otherwise you'd have consider all payments made in exchange for services, like insurance, as taxes, which is clearly absurd."

OG "Toll road taxes are taxes paid for the use of a highway. Likewise someone who lives self-sufficiently up in the mountains pays no taxes at all and also doesn't use any tax-financed services.

What would happen in your "voluntary" user fees system if someone used a service or product without paying the fee?"

And it ends there. If anyone else has this idea for a "voluntary" user fee replacing taxes or questions regarding it, might as well ask them here.
Noblesse Oblige
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2010 11:52:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2010 11:42:12 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Since it is technically a separate topic and I am actually interested in this idea and wouldn't mind seeing some legitimate answers to questions I have (and others may come up with), I decided to start a discussion on it.

J.Kenyon had brought up the idea of replacing taxes (I'm assuming because taxes = stealing) with "voluntary" user fees. Not going into what the definition of voluntary actual is, I began asking him a handful of questions regarding it. The following is the course of the subject so far:

OG "*scratches head* If taxes are stealing and the government shouldn't be allowed to steal, how is it expected to have even a limited government? Is it supposed to evolve beyond the need of a budget?"

JK "Orion, my government would operate on user fees."

OG "And the difference between user fees and taxes is?"

JK "User fees are paid voluntarily."

OG "So your issue is not with taxation itself but with how the tax system currently functions."

JK "Voluntary user fees are not taxes, otherwise you'd have consider all payments made in exchange for services, like insurance, as taxes, which is clearly absurd."

OG "Toll road taxes are taxes paid for the use of a highway. Likewise someone who lives self-sufficiently up in the mountains pays no taxes at all and also doesn't use any tax-financed services.

What would happen in your "voluntary" user fees system if someone used a service or product without paying the fee?"

And it ends there. If anyone else has this idea for a "voluntary" user fee replacing taxes or questions regarding it, might as well ask them here.

used a service or product without paying

Example?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 12:02:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2010 11:52:50 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/7/2010 11:42:12 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Since it is technically a separate topic and I am actually interested in this idea and wouldn't mind seeing some legitimate answers to questions I have (and others may come up with), I decided to start a discussion on it.

J.Kenyon had brought up the idea of replacing taxes (I'm assuming because taxes = stealing) with "voluntary" user fees. Not going into what the definition of voluntary actual is, I began asking him a handful of questions regarding it. The following is the course of the subject so far:

OG "*scratches head* If taxes are stealing and the government shouldn't be allowed to steal, how is it expected to have even a limited government? Is it supposed to evolve beyond the need of a budget?"

JK "Orion, my government would operate on user fees."

OG "And the difference between user fees and taxes is?"

JK "User fees are paid voluntarily."

OG "So your issue is not with taxation itself but with how the tax system currently functions."

JK "Voluntary user fees are not taxes, otherwise you'd have consider all payments made in exchange for services, like insurance, as taxes, which is clearly absurd."

OG "Toll road taxes are taxes paid for the use of a highway. Likewise someone who lives self-sufficiently up in the mountains pays no taxes at all and also doesn't use any tax-financed services.

What would happen in your "voluntary" user fees system if someone used a service or product without paying the fee?"

And it ends there. If anyone else has this idea for a "voluntary" user fee replacing taxes or questions regarding it, might as well ask them here.

used a service or product without paying

Example?

Toll roads. You would end up paying anyway right? So what is the difference? Principle? The feeling of not having to pay? It would be the same dang thing really. If I want to drive on this road I have to pay the tax/toll. I want to drive o the road either way, all this seems ot boil down to is different ways of paying for the same exact thing. Except I might feel better if it is a toll instead of a tax. Sounds like Kleptins washing machine.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 12:12:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't see the need for an example for a general question. If someone received a product or service that is provided by one of these "voluntary" user fees, just "Yeah I'm not going to pay for that", what happens?
Noblesse Oblige
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 12:44:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
OK, basically it goes like this:

(1.) In the process of establishing a minimal state, it is justifiable for the locally dominant protection agency to outlaw harmful competition without violating the NAP (anarchists will contest this, but it isn't really relevant to the present discussion).

(2.) User fees will be implemented instead of compulsory taxes, but some people will be unable and others will be unwilling to pay them.

(3.) The state will provide protection to all residents within it's jurisdiction, including the non-sate independents who don't pay user fees.

(4.) But now we're faced with a free rider problem. Instead, protection will be provided to independents, but they will only be protected from individuals who do pay user fees.

(5.) Independents will have an incentive to do this because:

a. By implementing the minimal state in step one, we've limited the ability of non-state independents to form their own protective agencies and provide for their own defense.

b. The more people who don't pay user fees, the greater the risk of being attacked by someone who the state will not protect you against.

c. Therefore, the more people there are who don't pay, the greater the incentive there is to pay.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 12:56:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 12:44:59 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
OK, basically it goes like this:

(1.) In the process of establishing a minimal state, it is justifiable for the locally dominant protection agency to outlaw harmful competition without violating the NAP (anarchists will contest this, but it isn't really relevant to the present discussion).

(2.) User fees will be implemented instead of compulsory taxes, but some people will be unable and others will be unwilling to pay them.

(3.) The state will provide protection to all residents within it's jurisdiction, including the non-sate independents who don't pay user fees.

(4.) But now we're faced with a free rider problem. Instead, protection will be provided to independents, but they will only be protected from individuals who do pay user fees.

(5.) Independents will have an incentive to do this because:

a. By implementing the minimal state in step one, we've limited the ability of non-state independents to form their own protective agencies and provide for their own defense.

b. The more people who don't pay user fees, the greater the risk of being attacked by someone who the state will not protect you against.

c. Therefore, the more people there are who don't pay, the greater the incentive there is to pay.

Maybe this was a made by someone else or is considered separate, but preventing non-state independents as you call them from forming their own protective agencies would ave to be done through aggression and coercion. It's blatantly inciting armed conflict which I could have sworn was supposed to be bad?

Additionally, the beginning of your statement is exceptionally apathetic.

"User fees will be implemented instead of compulsory taxes, but some people will be unable and others will be unwilling to pay them."

Now before people get all self-righteous on me for not being a sheep, I want to clearly state I actually agree with a user-fee like system over our current tax system, either by removing the tax system or changing it.

Back on topic and using the example provided in the original location of this conversation, here's a scenario for you:

A single mother of three whose husband suddenly died and due to the sudden accident was unable leave anything for his family, is laid off or otherwise terminated from her employment through no fault of her own. Unable to find a new job for quite sometime, she is unable to pay any " voluntary" 'user fees' for a long length of time. One night when off at an interview, her home catches on fire. She returns to see her home engulfed in flames, her children trapped inside, and the private fire agency stroking each other nearby making sure the fire doesn't spread to any other houses but doing nothing to squelch the flames.

Under a private for-profit agency concerned only with generating revenue this is considered fine.
Noblesse Oblige
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 1:09:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 12:56:55 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:

A single mother of three whose husband suddenly died and due to the sudden accident was unable leave anything for his family, is laid off or otherwise terminated from her employment through no fault of her own. Unable to find a new job for quite sometime, she is unable to pay any " voluntary" 'user fees' for a long length of time. One night when off at an interview, her home catches on fire. She returns to see her home engulfed in flames, her children trapped inside, and the private fire agency stroking each other nearby making sure the fire doesn't spread to any other houses but doing nothing to squelch the flames.

Under a private for-profit agency concerned only with generating revenue this is considered fine.

Any fire company that intervenes when someone hasn't paid should get to place a lien on the property, entitling that company to 20% of the property value.

Solution!
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 1:14:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 1:09:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/8/2010 12:56:55 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:

A single mother of three whose husband suddenly died and due to the sudden accident was unable leave anything for his family, is laid off or otherwise terminated from her employment through no fault of her own. Unable to find a new job for quite sometime, she is unable to pay any " voluntary" 'user fees' for a long length of time. One night when off at an interview, her home catches on fire. She returns to see her home engulfed in flames, her children trapped inside, and the private fire agency stroking each other nearby making sure the fire doesn't spread to any other houses but doing nothing to squelch the flames.

Under a private for-profit agency concerned only with generating revenue this is considered fine.

Any fire company that intervenes when someone hasn't paid should get to place a lien on the property, entitling that company to 20% of the property value.

Solution!

I actually like the lien idea, it indeed solves the issue. Though 20%? Is the back-payment owned worth 20%? Does that mean interest is being charged on top of the principle payment? What if the money owed plus interest is more than the 20% lien?
Noblesse Oblige
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 1:17:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was just going to mention that if somebody couldn't afford to pay their user fees then their house would be ignored and free to burn down, but I already saw some good explanations in this thread...
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 1:25:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 1:17:26 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I was just going to mention that if somebody couldn't afford to pay their user fees then their house would be ignored and free to burn down, but I already saw some good explanations in this thread...

For the love of God. What the heck is with all the hate and resentment for your common man from your generation?

I'm not one to have a desire to hold someone's hand, my perfect world would be a pure meritocracy. But for all of you people resenting the idea of a "might is right" mentality when you're on the receiving end, when the tables are reversed and the weak need assistance, you're all for stomping your foot on their throat.
Noblesse Oblige
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 1:29:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 1:14:05 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/8/2010 1:09:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/8/2010 12:56:55 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:

A single mother of three whose husband suddenly died and due to the sudden accident was unable leave anything for his family, is laid off or otherwise terminated from her employment through no fault of her own. Unable to find a new job for quite sometime, she is unable to pay any " voluntary" 'user fees' for a long length of time. One night when off at an interview, her home catches on fire. She returns to see her home engulfed in flames, her children trapped inside, and the private fire agency stroking each other nearby making sure the fire doesn't spread to any other houses but doing nothing to squelch the flames.

Under a private for-profit agency concerned only with generating revenue this is considered fine.

Any fire company that intervenes when someone hasn't paid should get to place a lien on the property, entitling that company to 20% of the property value.

Solution!

I actually like the lien idea, it indeed solves the issue. Though 20%? Is the back-payment owned worth 20%? Does that mean interest is being charged on top of the principle payment? What if the money owed plus interest is more than the 20% lien?

Then your house seriously sucks...

The number can obviously change. It should be punitive, meaning more than the back-payments owed plus interest.

Glad you like the idea.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 1:40:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 1:29:17 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/8/2010 1:14:05 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/8/2010 1:09:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/8/2010 12:56:55 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:

A single mother of three whose husband suddenly died and due to the sudden accident was unable leave anything for his family, is laid off or otherwise terminated from her employment through no fault of her own. Unable to find a new job for quite sometime, she is unable to pay any " voluntary" 'user fees' for a long length of time. One night when off at an interview, her home catches on fire. She returns to see her home engulfed in flames, her children trapped inside, and the private fire agency stroking each other nearby making sure the fire doesn't spread to any other houses but doing nothing to squelch the flames.

Under a private for-profit agency concerned only with generating revenue this is considered fine.

Any fire company that intervenes when someone hasn't paid should get to place a lien on the property, entitling that company to 20% of the property value.

Solution!

I actually like the lien idea, it indeed solves the issue. Though 20%? Is the back-payment owned worth 20%? Does that mean interest is being charged on top of the principle payment? What if the money owed plus interest is more than the 20% lien?

Then your house seriously sucks...

The number can obviously change. It should be punitive, meaning more than the back-payments owed plus interest.

Glad you like the idea.

In which case as you mentioned it's a matter of pricing. I honestly hadn't thought of using a lien despite the fact I believe I have one out on somebody who didn't think they needed to pay my step-father and I for the construction work we did. I'll have to ask him if she ever paid because it's been quite a while.

As I mentioned before I quite like the idea of a similar user-fee oriented taxation system. I think listing off the taxes you pay for where they actually go to pay for stuff (like how medicare and social security is a separate and listed tax) would solve a lot if not most issues we have to deal with concerning government spending and taxation.

If it was clear what taxes went specifically where, a significant less amount of spending would be hidden in the big general taxes we pay now (I'm of course assuming average intelligence of the average America with everything listed in front of them would prevent the blinders politicians like to put on people).
Noblesse Oblige
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 1:51:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I wanted to ask real quick, is everyone's issues with all government...or just higher levels of government (ie. State and Federal)?
Noblesse Oblige
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 6:57:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is already a country in the world that has no taxes and everything, including protection of the person and their property, is paid for by user fees.

That country is called Somalia – a country that is effectively controlled by a motley assortment of pirates, bandits and criminal gangs where those who cannot fend for themselves, or cannot afford to pay for protection, go by the wayside.

Personally, I'd rather pay taxes than live in a country like that.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 7:51:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 6:57:07 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
There is already a country in the world that has no taxes and everything, including protection of the person and their property, is paid for by user fees.

That country is called Somalia – a country that is effectively controlled by a motley assortment of pirates, bandits and criminal gangs where those who cannot fend for themselves, or cannot afford to pay for protection, go by the wayside.

Personally, I'd rather pay taxes than live in a country like that.

Tsk tsk anarchists argue that Somalia is a WONDERFUL place where business has only thrived and everything has been completely honky dory :)
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:12:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 12:44:59 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
(4.) But now we're faced with a free rider problem. Instead, protection will be provided to independents, but they will only be protected from individuals who do pay user fees.

So if I pay fees and you don't, but I attack you, you're protected because I pay the fees?

a. By implementing the minimal state in step one, we've limited the ability of non-state independents to form their own protective agencies and provide for their own defense.

Hehe wow.

b. The more people who don't pay user fees, the greater the risk of being attacked by someone who the state will not protect you against.

It seems as if it's optimal to have as many people as possible pay the fees, but I don't see the incentive for an individual to do so. You just said that people will "only be protected from individuals who do pay user fees." By that logic there is no incentive to pay user fees, because once you do, the state can attack you but if you don't pay the fees then you're free.

c. Therefore, the more people there are who don't pay, the greater the incentive there is to pay.

How so though? If neither of us pay into the system, and because you don't pay I know the state won't protect me from you ("only be protected from individuals who do pay user fees") then why would I pay into the system if it's not going to protect me from you?
President of DDO
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:39:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 6:57:07 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
There is already a country in the world that has no taxes and everything, including protection of the person and their property, is paid for by user fees.

That country is called Somalia – a country that is effectively controlled by a motley assortment of pirates, bandits and criminal gangs where those who cannot fend for themselves, or cannot afford to pay for protection, go by the wayside.

Personally, I'd rather pay taxes than live in a country like that.

Your contention regarding Somalia is completely wrong. The current state of Somalia is the result of a civil war that destroyed the state and government itself. For some years now there actually has been significant return of government control however they state has fractured into five (or six) different governmental factions via for congtrol of the state as a whole, including two foreign powers.

The global rise of piracy is due to the lack of a significant global naval presence by national powers, mostly recently as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States reducing the size and budget of its navy due to the lack of a serious conventional adversary. With the amount of wealth and resources passing through the gulf in and out of the Suez Canal, and no serious naval presence to defend civilian vessels in the area, it shouldn't be a shock that the locale leaders wouldn't try to pirate off of it. (It also doesn't help that a now resergent Russian Federal Navy is providing logistical and material assistance to the pirates attacking European and America civilian merchant shipping.)
Noblesse Oblige
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:17:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 6:57:07 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
There is already a country in the world that has no taxes and everything, including protection of the person and their property, is paid for by user fees.

That country is called Somalia – a country that is effectively controlled by a motley assortment of pirates, bandits and criminal gangs where those who cannot fend for themselves, or cannot afford to pay for protection, go by the wayside.

Personally, I'd rather pay taxes than live in a country like that.

Right, because Somalia wasn't also a dirt-poor under a state. No one I know that studies it seriously says it's good, only that it's better than it used to be. Regardless, it isn't what one would call a "libertarian" society.

As for security, according to a lecture by Benjamin Powell, most people believe their personal security needs are better met now than under the State. http://fee.org...
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:26:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:39:02 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/8/2010 6:57:07 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
There is already a country in the world that has no taxes and everything, including protection of the person and their property, is paid for by user fees.

That country is called Somalia – a country that is effectively controlled by a motley assortment of pirates, bandits and criminal gangs where those who cannot fend for themselves, or cannot afford to pay for protection, go by the wayside.

Personally, I'd rather pay taxes than live in a country like that.

Your contention regarding Somalia is completely wrong. The current state of Somalia is the result of a civil war that destroyed the state and government itself. For some years now there actually has been significant return of government control however they state has fractured into five (or six) different governmental factions via for congtrol of the state as a whole, including two foreign powers.

The global rise of piracy is due to the lack of a significant global naval presence by national powers, mostly recently as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States reducing the size and budget of its navy due to the lack of a serious conventional adversary. With the amount of wealth and resources passing through the gulf in and out of the Suez Canal, and no serious naval presence to defend civilian vessels in the area, it shouldn't be a shock that the locale leaders wouldn't try to pirate off of it. (It also doesn't help that a now resergent Russian Federal Navy is providing logistical and material assistance to the pirates attacking European and America civilian merchant shipping.)

According to the lecture I just linked in my previous post, the pirate issue is a bit more complicated. After the State collapsed, foreign countries stopped respecting the fishing rights of Somalis (which extended 200 miles out from the shore, I think by international law but since there's no state, other governments don't care about the 200 mile issue). The initial pirates seem to be people whose livelihoods were taken away by foreigners and so they see it as justified to take random third parties passing through as hostages. The Somali law (Xeer) also doesn't particularly care about the piracy issue basically because the people being pirated and held hostage are outside the system. Still it doesn't justify the piracy, I'm only explaining it from their eyes.

Also, I've heard Somali has been used as a dumping ground by foreign nations which I'm sure has bred hostility and resentment amongst the locals. Not sure if that's true or not, but if it is, it's easier to see why Somalis would turn to piracy against foreigners.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:33:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 1:14:05 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/8/2010 1:09:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/8/2010 12:56:55 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:

A single mother of three whose husband suddenly died and due to the sudden accident was unable leave anything for his family, is laid off or otherwise terminated from her employment through no fault of her own. Unable to find a new job for quite sometime, she is unable to pay any " voluntary" 'user fees' for a long length of time. One night when off at an interview, her home catches on fire. She returns to see her home engulfed in flames, her children trapped inside, and the private fire agency stroking each other nearby making sure the fire doesn't spread to any other houses but doing nothing to squelch the flames.

Under a private for-profit agency concerned only with generating revenue this is considered fine.

Any fire company that intervenes when someone hasn't paid should get to place a lien on the property, entitling that company to 20% of the property value.

Solution!

I actually like the lien idea, it indeed solves the issue. Though 20%? Is the back-payment owned worth 20%? Does that mean interest is being charged on top of the principle payment? What if the money owed plus interest is more than the 20% lien?

I forget which company does this (AAA perhaps?) but I'm pretty sure it's for the realm of roadside assistance. Anyway, If you have insurance with the company, you're either not charged when they come to tow your car, or the price is very low. If you don't have insurance and they come, you're charged a ridiculously high fee. That helps solve the free rider problem.

It would be very tough for me to see a private fire fighting agency letting a house burn down. That's a profit opportunity for them, and if they refuse, they make themselves vulnerable to advertising campaigns by their competitors, meaning they could potentially lose a big customers base.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:38:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is just a business model for a protection agency, that happens to have a territorial monopoly.

Kenyon can't know the optimal (or even a good) business model via theory. Business models HAVE to be developed on a competitive market.

Kenyon would concede in a second that he can't structure an oil company, so why can he structure a government?

Imo, he's opting for this because he doesn't know how to handle the uncertainty of anarchy. This is the illusion of control, maintained by verbal fiat. "And the state will do THIS and the state will do THAT"... You can't make that assumption. It should be obvious that a territorial monopoly on violence could easily exploit said violence to maximize its profits by forcing more people to pay.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:39:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 7:51:55 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/8/2010 6:57:07 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
There is already a country in the world that has no taxes and everything, including protection of the person and their property, is paid for by user fees.

That country is called Somalia – a country that is effectively controlled by a motley assortment of pirates, bandits and criminal gangs where those who cannot fend for themselves, or cannot afford to pay for protection, go by the wayside.

Personally, I'd rather pay taxes than live in a country like that.

Tsk tsk anarchists argue that Somalia is a WONDERFUL place where business has only thrived and everything has been completely honky dory :)

Troll harder.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:26:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 1:25:13 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/8/2010 1:17:26 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I was just going to mention that if somebody couldn't afford to pay their user fees then their house would be ignored and free to burn down, but I already saw some good explanations in this thread...

For the love of God. What the heck is with all the hate and resentment for your common man from your generation?

I'm not one to have a desire to hold someone's hand, my perfect world would be a pure meritocracy. But for all of you people resenting the idea of a "might is right" mentality when you're on the receiving end, when the tables are reversed and the weak need assistance, you're all for stomping your foot on their throat.

What are you talking about? If given the opportunity and resources I would go and help every poor person, those who are genuinely poor and not just poor because they're too lazy to do anything.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:29:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Toll roads. You would end up paying anyway right?
With a "Tax" whether you pay the builders of a road is not determined by whether you happen to drive on that road.
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.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:38:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 10:38:01 AM, Sieben wrote:
It should be obvious that a territorial monopoly on violence could easily exploit said violence to maximize its profits by forcing more people to pay.

I don't think he advocates a territorial monopoly on violence; he just said he would manipulate the situation as such that it would be advantageous for people to buy into the state, essentially making all other attempts at 'protection' nearly obsolete.

But I see what you're getting that, and that's the thing that irks me too -- the illusion of choice. I respect anarchists a lot more than libertarians for this reason. They don't want a monopoly on certain things (like force) because they genuinely want the best "protection agency" to prevail. However J.Kenyon admittedly asserts that he would simply want the state to be the most practical option, even if it's not the best. It is precisely because of these 'monopolies' that we often have to settle...

An-caps free Market > Libertarian's capitalism
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:38:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
For example, under the present regime, roads are paid for out of gasoline taxes (including if I use that gas mowing lawns or driving an alternate, easier-to-maintain route,), and even income taxes (Including if my sole source of transportation is a mountain bike or walking or the train).

This is not conducive to economizing on transportation, since the people using a given mode of transportation are not those paying the costs, and do not pay in proportion to use.

Or, using a more inherently governmental example:
People who take safety precautions must pay the increased average policing costs for those who don't.
People who think they can live without the protection of the law do not have the opportunity to prove it and save money for their (probably ill advised but nevertheless within their rights) decision.
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.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:40:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 10:38:01 AM, Sieben wrote:
Imo, he's opting for this because he doesn't know how to handle the uncertainty of anarchy. This is the illusion of control, maintained by verbal fiat. "And the state will do THIS and the state will do THAT"... You can't make that assumption. It should be obvious that a territorial monopoly on violence could easily exploit said violence to maximize its profits by forcing more people to pay.

No, actually, I wouldn't oppose anarchy if it were ever achieved, I just think it would quickly end up becoming a state, even without violating its own terms.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:40:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2010 10:39:01 AM, Sieben wrote:
Tsk tsk anarchists argue that Somalia is a WONDERFUL place where business has only thrived and everything has been completely honky dory :)

Troll harder.

Oh you don't like what I said (turns out I was right though). Poor you. You're an anarchist troll but I don't tell you to copy-paste your mises rants somewhere else so dayum try having a sense of humor. I'm guessing you don't get laid? Somalia lover.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:42:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lwerd, how precisely do you propose that a "market" resolve a contradiction between the legal codes of competing protection agencies? I've never been satisfied with the ancaps' proposals.

The entire point of a market is that it measures which options better by how many people agree on given trades. That doesn't work in a context where people who don't agree are affected anyway, and to correct that context is to make protection agencies impotent against anyone but their own customers, which is useless, since a burglar or rapist (or, more likely, someone taking advantage of far easier to disagree on areas in law) need merely not buy in.
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.