Government for the people. How?

[Izzy]

The objective of this thread is to altruistically* design a political structure wherein the needs and interests of EVERY inhabitant of this country are met. (None of this "general public" crap, we should try to make everyone happy. ) It's impossible to not be aware of how inconceivable this sounds, but I think by being mindful of what we're trying to accomplish, but.. just might be feasible?**

Now, before we can even begin devising laws, creating our constitution, bill of rights, etc., I think it's best we assemble a list of what people want from their government. Feel free to contribute ANYTHING. (I stole some of these from the world's smallest political quiz and the bill of rights. >_>)

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet.
2. Military service should be voluntary.
3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults, where a consenting adult is anyone of 16 years of age or older.
4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
5. End government barriers to international free trade.
6. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
7. Keep government welfare, but no taxation without representation.
8. Freedom of speech, religion, sexuality, peaceful protests, and petition.
9. Soldiers may not be quartered in a house without the consent of the owner.
10. People may not be unreasonably searched or kept in captivity.
11. The right to a free, public, and speedy trial.
12. Laws are to remain the same from State to State.
13. Eventual globalization is a priority.

*We can get into the semantics of altruism later. I have.. mixed feelings, but this most closely elucidates my intentions. (Lol, I swear, I bounce back and forth from being the apathetic hippy civilian who just wants to live to the extremely fervent humanitarian practically daily. >_>)
** Eh, truthfully, it isn't. Too many people disagree on matters of religion, which define the moral code for a LOT of people (even if they don't strictly adhere to it, haha). We need to agree now to define morals for ourselves and not base them off of religious texts. Like, if someone proposes "Don't kill", that's perfectly acceptable, and I expect it to be fully ratified. If someone else suggests "Love God", this is more open to debate. While you can submit ideas that coincide with religious texts, submit them because they are mandates you want and agree with, not just because your scripture of choice tells you to follow them.

Edited February 13, 2014 by bonanova

[Izzy]

Man oh man. Listening to Muse - Time is Running Out, while reading this thread and waiting for Xanax to knock me out (extreme insomnia) has been.. so sensational haha. My iTunes knows me man. It freaking knows me. Fits so perfectly on my feelings about UtF's posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ9xadD2h48

Anyway, I just had a thought (at 5 am, after 4 mg of Xanax, I'm awake, wtf) .

Florida's economy is based almost entirely off of tourism because of our attractions like Disney, Universal, Islands of Adventure, etc. Without these and our citrus fruit, our state wouldn't survive. I think like 70% of our states money comes directly from tourist contributions. The parks were state built, so the money presumably goes to the state, funding public education, roads, etc.

Now, imagine that instead of taxes paying to build and maintain the parks, imagine some random patron had. That money, roughly 70% (I'm not sure about the percentage, tourism amounts to about $60 billion a year) goes directly to that patron, rather than the government. The entire state is now in total poverty. ..Actually, the money would be going to a dead dude 'cos Disney decided to build the rail roads haha. $60 billion a YEAR. We're officially broke. We can only have so many citrus farmers yo, there's definitely a cap on the amount of food stores need to buy from farmers.

Your system doens't work. I'm not in the proper mentality atm to elaborate, but essentially, unless that benefactor is kind enough to donate his money for the greater good, the state is in utter turmoil, and its inhabitants will flee to other states (or even Mexico, as dawh noted), putting serious strains on the jobs there and living space.

I totally agree. If people were peaceful and would get along with each other, your idea looks awesome. It's already been demonstrated that that is impossible. Remember the gay and weed laws, let's add in abortion. What is that, 8 countries base on three laws? Throw in capital punishment. 16 countries. Voluntary military. 32. Or, in short, we will have 2^(number of laws proposed) countries.

Bill of rights is like what, ten laws? + 27 amendments? 2^37 = 137,438,953,472, and we don't even have that many people in the world, lmao. And that's based off of the CURRENT constitution, not the hard core ones we're going to rewrite and make beastly.

WHY THE HELL AM I NOT ASLEEP YET.

Like really, how much effing laws are there? Hundreds? You do the math. No one will unanimously on ANYTHING. I'd rather stay how we are than drift into anarchism (you're anarchist btw, or like, libertarian to the extreme. ..Which... isn't exactly great when it comes to compassionate and philanthropic solutions.

[Guest]

I think it would be helpful to all of us if I wrote less, so I'll try to. I'm going to respond to multiple people (especially because you say similar things) in this one post including gvg, Izzy, and Zerep. I'll likely save dawh for my next post.

I've already said it: Human nature doesn't allow for voluntary governments without abuses. One would decide to spread it's power because it doesn't like the government of it's neighbors. If the attacker is strong enough, he will succeed. Who will help his neighbors? No one, unless another government has some sympathy. Because of this, eventually, one would reign supreme, and it would be the same as now or worse.

No, that wouldn't happen. Perhaps I haven't been very clear. I'm not saying that I want to force people to disband into 300+ million separate nations (as I think all three of you have said), but rather, I want you all to realize that there are people in the United States who want different things than you. They don't want to give their money to various poor people who they don't even know, for a major example.

So I'm asking you all, what gives you the right to decide what to do with their money? That's it. I personally see money as a tool used to exchange goods and services. Someone produces something and gives it to someone else in exchange for some money with the understanding that he will be able to exchange that money to someone else for another person's goods or services. Thus I see taxing someone against their will (when they never gave their consent to be taxed) is equivalent to tyrannically deciding to take what somebody is producing and giving it to someone else. That's called stealing. That can't be your idea of freedom or justice. That's you deciding that your somehow greater than these other people and thus you're allowed to take what they produce and use it for yourselves. You call that democracy? 100 people get together and 51 of them vote to seize all of the possessions of the 49 minority. That's an extreme depiction of what you're doing. But, that's exactly what you're doing. And I'm say that's wrong.

Personally I'm not too concerned about whether my idea "works" or not. I do happen to think that by allowing people to do what they want with their money would help make the world as a whole a better place in the future, but even if that weren't true I would still think that it would be wrong to seize peoples' production against their will. It's immoral and I'm struggling to see how you're justifying your visions of yourselves as superior to wealthy people whose money you vote to take away from them.

And looking at it, UtF does seem a little anarchist. His ideas would lead to the end of all CIVILIZED government. So yes. Anarchist.

My ideas would not lead to the end of all civilized government, unless you define "civilized" as "the poor majority voting to seize the products of the wealthy minority." Rather, it would lead to the end of tyrannical government. My idea is that rather than allow some people (liberals mostly?) to decide that they are better than people who make money and have the right to take their money away from them, allow every person to be a part of a government that benefits them personally. From your perspective you may like what the United States is doing, but from the perspective of a wealthy business owner, he sees his government as taking a large amount of what he produces and only giving him a small amount of goods and services back. How is that fair? How do you justify doing that to yourself? And don't tell me equality. I too would like to get rid of poverty, etc, in the future, but stealing from the rich to give to the poor will not solve the problem.

The courts. After all, a fair, speedy trial is a right. And if they find you guilty, you'll be forced to pay your taxes. Big whoop!

You call a trial that enforces laws that say it's okay to steal money from people who make money a fair trial?

And that's the thing: Your ideas are wonderful. Believe me. But people's greed, human nature, cannot allow something like that to continue. That's what led to communism's downfall. Humans cannot live with being equal; we naturally defend and worry about ourselves first.

Cut the garbage at the beginning. Why can't humans' selfish nature allow something like that to continue? Yes, I know that's what led to communism's downfall. You've already tried comparing my libertarian capitalist ideas to communism. Don't you realize that they're exact opposites? Communism takes everyone's money and everyone's production and gives it out equally to everyone. And that doesn't work! I'm advocating the opposite of that! Capitalism! Completely free markets! It's the exact opposite of communism and yet you say that it will fail in the same way that communism did. Wow.

And why can't humans live without being equal? That's what communism tries to do. As you said, we do act selfishly, just like every other plant and animal in the world. We're no different. Do you see any animals decide to set up governments to steal from the strong individuals and give to the weak individuals that can't find enough food to live on their own? No! Of course not! Any species that did that would have died out a long time ago. Thus that's why they evolved to act in their own interests. That's the best way to survive. Survival of the fittest. That's what will advance society. You're welcome to be generous and charitable if you wish. There are many example of altruism in nature too. But, trying to justify stealing from the rich to give to the poor by saying that you're doing it in the name of equality is madness!

Again I point to the fact that a toddler has to learn the concept of sharing; they do not come out of the womb generous.

And stop pointing at it because it's a mute point! All other animals in the world are born completely selfish as well! And do they ever form together in bands to take the food from the strong animals so that everybody, even those with genetic defects, has an equal opportunity? Of course not! That's not how the species evolve as a whole to be so efficient. That's not how human society will grow to become more successful either.

The road: What if there are other farmers closer to the area, or even right next to the town? This would mean that it wouldn't be worth it to build the 100 mile road to the other farmer. Is that fair? The other farmer has to suffer because he was unlucky enough to be far away?

Yes, if course it's fair! Why should everybody in the town be forced to pay for the ridiculously long 100 mile road just so that some farmer can drive is corn to market? That's how you tear society down. If I moved to the moon and had children there and asked NASA to build my children a spaceship road so that they could bring their moon rocks to town, would you agree with that? Would you agree to paying for such an absurd thing just to make it fair? That's how you tear society down!

Maybe they got laid off because of the recession caused by Bush (A conservative mind you; the US isn't liberal just because the president is. Don't mark liberalism like that)

I never liked Bush and I don't claim that this is a liberal country because of Obama. I claim that it is a liberal country because it demands that when I produce something I must give a portion of it to the government. I was born into such a system. I never choose to join it. You and others like you just decided that you have the authority to tell me what to do with my money, not me. I'm asking you to stop that.

Think about which is fairer: what Bush did (Cutting taxes on the rich and increasing those on the middle class) or what I'm proposing (Increasing taxes on those that can pay, the rich, and decreasing it on those who can't).

They're both quite unfair and I disapprove of both. But, from a moral perspective I would say that it was fairer to cut taxes on the rich and increase taxes on the middle class because the rich were still paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class was, so this evens out the burden. In terms of actual politics though, I really hate this national debt and wouldn't mind cutting more spending than people would allow and keeping taxes high for some time.

Just wondering: what do you feel about the new health care bill? Do you wish to see millions die because of lack of health insurance or would you rather help those in need?

I disapprove it which I'm sure is no surprise looking at Republican support. On the subject of millions of people dieing, of course. I'd much rather have them die than force other people to support them. I think you have to solve your problem of wanting everyone to be equal.

You are proposing exactly what we are trying to prevent. You are regressing from our current political system to that of 200 years ago. If a country allows slavery, are we going to let it? People were fine with it 200 years ago, and gawd knows the world is full of people that would prefer free labor increasing their gross profit thousandfold.

Yes, we should have let the south secede and continue their slavery. That's no reason to fight a war. My way would be to let them do their thing and then have the North continue their non-slavery thing. Eventually the South would see that their slavery ways weren't as productive as the North's free ways and perhaps they would stop having slavery then.

You say that slavery would increase these peoples' profits thousandfold, but would it increase their society's net production 1000 fold? I don't think so. Thus, I think the North would have advanced significantly ahead of the South until the south realized that there way of doing things wasn't working at which point they might learn by the North's example and change their ways.

And who are you to say, "If a country allows slavery, are we going to let it?" You're the one (one of four?) here advocating that you let our government keep me as a part slave. Is partial slavery okay? As long as you're only taking 1/5 of my income rather than only allowing me to keep 1/5 of my income, then that justifies it for you?

...

[Guest]

...

...but through-out history, strong centralized governments have been the only successful ones.

Why is that? Because people only had sticks for weapons. Thus crime was a lot easier to commit. A strong government could prevent people from stealing thus allowing a nation to grow more than a nation filled with thieves and beggars who were constantly trying to steal producers' goods. In today's modern world, I could have a country without a government that demands that I pay for things I don't need and yet there may still not be any crime. Why? Who would rob a house when the owner is legally allowed to shoot you down on his property? Now, I'm not a fan of guns or anything, I'm just a proponent of allowing individuals to keep their power. I don't like masses of people voting to steal from people in the name of equality.

If I don't like my neighbor, decide to shoot him, and the secede creating my own country where this is legal, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Do you REALLY want that? Because that's exactly what you're proposing.

Of course there's something people can do about it. I imagine this neighbor has friends or family who wouldn't approve of you murdering him for such a stupid reason. I'm sure they would gather a force to deal with you and prosecute you. There's such a thing as overlapping jurisdictions. Perhaps you decide that your government has ownership over your neighbor's property, but this doesn't mean that they won't fight you back. By saying that I want voluntary governments, I'm not saying that there will be four countries on one street. I'm simply saying that I don't want the USA to vote to take my money from me against my will. Will stopping that cause me to be able to shoot my neighbor and leave you helpless? Of course not! I just want you to stop regulating me so much and taking my money. If what I do doesn't affect you then it should be fine with you. Don't see yourself as the authority figure who has the right to pass universal laws across the country and who has the right to take money from people living hundreds of miles away in the name of equality! What is with you people and this equality thing?

If you're not trying to create world peace, we have different goals. Your system is incredibly selfish, whereas the one most people in this thread are proposing is peaceful and we're putting people aside from ourselves before us.

Other way around. My way is to live in my own peaceful country, not to go fight a way to force people hundreds of miles away from me to live peacefully. You can't use force to promote peace. To promote peace you must be willing to stop your traditions of stealing from people with the threat of violent force (exactly what our US taxation is). Your system is the violent one, not mine. I hope you realize that. In your system, you and the rest of the liberals decide that it is okay to take my money from me and use it for your own purposes. You say, "Give me this much of your money or else we're going to have to arrest you." I usually say, "Okay, fine, dictator," because I know that if I refuse and refuse to go to jail, then my house will be bombarded violently with guns carried by your law enforcement officers. My only way out alive would be a life sentence in your jail. So, because I would rather live as a slave in your system of tyranny than die I choose to pay my taxes. It's not a willing choice. It's a choice between paying taxes and going to jail, or paying taxes and defending myself to the death in my own home as you come and try to seize me for not obeying your tyrannical rules. Your system is the violent one. Not mine. My system is a system of consent. Rather than you giving yourself to take my money as if I am a slave to society, I ask that you give me power over my own production and let me willingly choose to help out the poor if I so wish. My system is a system of consent, in which everybody is pleased and nobody uses their power to force others to submit to slavery. In my world, should somebody act like you and use the threat of force to demand that I give them something, then the people of my country who see the world as I do would use force to diminish that dictator. I see my society of agreements and voluntary charity to the poor as a peaceful, juster, more prosperous society. Your image of it is obviously skewed, but I'm actually not that surprised seeing as your vision of democracy says that it's okay to steal as long as it's organized and a majority of people support it.

This is why we need to switch to a direct democracy (made possible by the internet). In another thread, dawh pointed out some flaws with this, but this way EVERY voice is heard. I think one of the things we need to focus on is eliminating (or seriously limiting) Congress/Presidency, and just have laws and an amendment process.

Great, that might be a government I too like better, but are you still going to force people who don't like it to be a part of it?

Yeah, there's no way everyone is going to agree. Even if you allow everyone to secede and form their own countries, they're STILL going to disagree, so I don't see your point. Example. Say California is the only country with legalized marijuana but also legalized marriage. The people that don't like either of those are going to secede and form their own country. Then the people that don't like gay marriage are going to secede and form their own. Because of two laws, you've already create four countries.

1. Legal gay marriage and weed.

2. Legal weed, illegal gay marriage.

3. Legal gay marriage, illegal weed.

4. Illegal weed and gay marriage.

You really have to take a moment to stop and realize what I've been proposing. That's completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. All that I'm saying is that if someone wants to do something that's not hurting you, then let them do it. If two gay people want to call themselves married then let them. If people want to smoke weed, then let them. Don't pretend that you're so special that you get to decide what everyone else should do. I'm proposing a system of consent... a system where people sign contracts giving their consent. This system differs from yours in that people do not use their guns to threaten others to give them money and call it justice or equality. It's not a system of a million countries or of complete agreement on every issue. It's a system where someone agrees to be part of a liberal country like the United States where they know they won't agree with every law, but they choose to join it anyways. Do you not understand that?

[Guest]

Still reading through posts, but discussing this on AIM. UtF, this is why your ideas should never be implemented.

Izzy

but brb

Eli

kkk

Izzy

back my neo-nazi kkk homie

Nick

lol

Izzy

lol eli

Eli

there's a country for that

Izzy

and there's a country that bombs it

Izzy

i want a country where everyone dresses like viking pirates and we raid cities and burn them down. but first you have to find the flag. IT'S LIKE AN ENORMOUS GAME OF CAPTURE THE FLAG AND WE EXECUTE THE LOSERS. Can I get a "woo modern Rome?"

Eli

a country for the west boro church

Eli

imagine the picket signs they'd come up with

Eli

imagine school?

Izzy

hahaha

Eli

prostiution marketnig 101

Izzy

all schools have to have classes that teach us how to survive the zombie invasion

Eli

lawls

Izzy

it's like gym class, but practical

Eli

i would find it highly important

Well that shows your lack of understanding.

[gvg]

UtF: 1: I understand that what you are proposing isn't communism. I'm saying that your system will fail for the same reasons communism did.

2: Stop marking liberalism like it's evil. Liberalism is change. That's it. Some people are liberals and want to change taxes the way you do. Others want to change them in a way that me, Izzy, and others are proposing. You can't say that liberalism is causing the problems you want to fix. They were still there during the republican reign, after all.

3: What you said about the dictators: Wouldn't removing them from power be using force to get what you want, their removal, as you claim the government is doing with taxes? What if that country wanted the dictator? Removing him/her would be against there wishes. They wouldn't have a choice if that happened, or if they did, they would just put a new one in power.

[Guest]

My ideas would not lead to the end of all civilized government, unless you define "civilized" as "the poor majority voting to seize the products of the wealthy minority." Rather, it would lead to the end of tyrannical government. My idea is that rather than allow some people (liberals mostly?) to decide that they are better than people who make money and have the right to take their money away from them, allow every person to be a part of a government that benefits them personally. From your perspective you may like what the United States is doing, but from the perspective of a wealthy business owner, he sees his government as taking a large amount of what he produces and only giving him a small amount of goods and services back. How is that fair? How do you justify doing that to yourself? And don't tell me equality. I too would like to get rid of poverty, etc, in the future, but stealing from the rich to give to the poor will not solve the problem.

It's like the argument in "Monty Python's The Life of Brian."

"And what have the Romans ever given us in return?!"

"The aqueduct?"

"What?"

"The aqueduct."

"Oh yeah, yeah, they did give us that, that's true."

"And sanitation. Yes, the sanitation, remember what the city used to be like, Reg."

"Yes OK, I'll grant you, the aqueduct and sanitation are two things the Romans HAVE done."

"And the roads!"

"Well yes obviously the roads, I mean the roads go without saying, don't they! But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct and the roads..."

"Irrigation! Medicine! Education!"

"Yeah, all right, fair enough."

"And the wine..."

"Yes, that's something we'd really miss if the Romans left."

"Public baths! And it's safe to walk the streets at night now Reg."

"Yes, they certainly know how to keep order. Only ones who could in a place like this! All right. But APART from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?!"

"Brought peace!"

What has the Federal government ever done for the poor rich businessmen other than those things above... A rich businessman is dependent on the community to sell his product. If the community lacks essential services, then they can't support the local businesses. The vast majority of consumption is done by poor people. They need to buy food and pay for housing regardless of how much money they are making. And since there are a heck of a lot more of them than the rich businessmen, they fuel the economy on a far greater scale than the rich businessmen ever could.

Cut the garbage at the beginning. Why can't humans' selfish nature allow something like that to continue? Yes, I know that's what led to communism's downfall. You've already tried comparing my libertarian capitalist ideas to communism. Don't you realize that they're exact opposites? Communism takes everyone's money and everyone's production and gives it out equally to everyone. And that doesn't work! I'm advocating the opposite of that! Capitalism! Completely free markets! It's the exact opposite of communism and yet you say that it will fail in the same way that communism did. Wow.

But that's just it, it was human selfishness that prevented Communism from ever being truly actualized. The Soviet Union followed Marx's suggestions to a tee on steps A, B, C and D, but they just never implemented step E. Marx called for the violent overthrow of the government and the setting up of a dictatorship to nationalize all of the businesses. Once the people's affairs were in order, the Dictator was supposed to step down and join the rest of the people. That was the step E that they never got around to. You give someone dictatorial powers, they aren't going to want to give them up. That's human nature. That's why Communism failed.

So we're saying that your system has the same flaws. It won't fail in the same way, but it will be due to human excesses that drive people to opposition. Like Izzy was saying, if one rich "sponsor" controls the vast majority of the wealth in a region, then they get to say what the laws are. Who's going to oppose someone who can spend you out of business or pay thugs to intimidate you if you try to object to what he is doing. Without a government greater than the people, there is no protection for the least of us. Sure, there would be some great "countries" formed under your solution, I'm sure. But among those, there would also be smaller fiefdoms where people came together in an agreement and then someone with more power than the majority of the rest of the people stepped in and broke his promises and used his position of power to abuse everyone below him. If he becomes the De Facto law, who can oppose him?

Say people are still allowed to leave a "government" when they like. Where would they go if they find that the agreement they began in just wasn't their cup of tea? If it was an individual, he may have to join a different government that he never agreed to. What reason would that second government have to take him? He are obviously picky, since he abandoned his first choice. Why should the community take him in now?

And stop pointing at it because it's a mute point! All other animals in the world are born completely selfish as well! And do they ever form together in bands to take the food from the strong animals so that everybody, even those with genetic defects, has an equal opportunity? Of course not! That's not how the species evolve as a whole to be so efficient. That's not how human society will grow to become more successful either.

More successful than what? We're already the most successful species on the planet right now. You want to abandon the poor and weak, but you refuse to talk about what you would do with them in your perfect society. Poor people will almost invariably exist in your society and since everyone has a choice, as you put it, what if everyone "chooses" to ignore the poor? What recourse do they have then? I'm sure that a society full of UtF's would be just grand and everyone would work together in a harmonious collective. But the vast majority of people aren't as brilliant as you are, I guess. People with vast wealth will use that wealth as a wedge to turn the people around them into servants or even slaves, unable to self-determine since they "got themselves" into the mess by agreeing in the first place. Have you ever read about Debtor's Prison in Victorian England? It's a common feature of a lot of Charles Dickens' stories and he really hated the concept because people who made agreements in good faith would suddenly find themselves in situations where they couldn't cover their obligations and they would be forced to live out the rest of their lives in squalor and servitude (if they were lucky). Savvy, unscrupulous people would be able to resurrect that concept in your world and hence the formation of the fiefdoms that I've been hammering.

Yes, we should have let the south secede and continue their slavery. That's no reason to fight a war. My way would be to let them do their thing and then have the North continue their non-slavery thing. Eventually the South would see that their slavery ways weren't as productive as the North's free ways and perhaps they would stop having slavery then.

You say that slavery would increase these peoples' profits thousandfold, but would it increase their society's net production 1000 fold? I don't think so. Thus, I think the North would have advanced significantly ahead of the South until the south realized that there way of doing things wasn't working at which point they might learn by the North's example and change their ways.

And who are you to say, "If a country allows slavery, are we going to let it?" You're the one (one of four?) here advocating that you let our government keep me as a part slave. Is partial slavery okay? As long as you're only taking 1/5 of my income rather than only allowing me to keep 1/5 of my income, then that justifies it for you?

Now that's just arguing from ignorance. The South was totally dependent on the slave trade and cotton production. They really didn't have anything else. All of the major ports were in the North and the vast majority of the manufacturing was in the North. The South's economy was dependent on the slaves and on the North buying their produce. The South was hoping that France would step in and support them the same way that it did when we fought the Revolutionary War against the British. Then, they would get their manufactured goods from France instead and sell their cotton there. It completely didn't work because France wasn't interested. Also, the first act of the South was to violate the Confederate Constitution (or whatever it was called) because they needed money to pay for the war, so they implemented a tax, in violation of the founding document they wrote up. The South fought the war for all of the wrong reasons and Lincoln recognized that allowing them to secede created a dangerous precedent that would have led to a bunch of "Banana Republics" of small handfuls of states, sort of like how you want, but without all the humanism (what little you seem to have), and constant bickering about border disputes and international commerce.

Why is that? Because people only had sticks for weapons. Thus crime was a lot easier to commit. A strong government could prevent people from stealing thus allowing a nation to grow more than a nation filled with thieves and beggars who were constantly trying to steal producers' goods. In today's modern world, I could have a country without a government that demands that I pay for things I don't need and yet there may still not be any crime. Why? Who would rob a house when the owner is legally allowed to shoot you down on his property? Now, I'm not a fan of guns or anything, I'm just a proponent of allowing individuals to keep their power. I don't like masses of people voting to steal from people in the name of equality.

Of course there's something people can do about it. I imagine this neighbor has friends or family who wouldn't approve of you murdering him for such a stupid reason. I'm sure they would gather a force to deal with you and prosecute you. There's such a thing as overlapping jurisdictions. Perhaps you decide that your government has ownership over your neighbor's property, but this doesn't mean that they won't fight you back. By saying that I want voluntary governments, I'm not saying that there will be four countries on one street. I'm simply saying that I don't want the USA to vote to take my money from me against my will. Will stopping that cause me to be able to shoot my neighbor and leave you helpless? Of course not! I just want you to stop regulating me so much and taking my money. If what I do doesn't affect you then it should be fine with you. Don't see yourself as the authority figure who has the right to pass universal laws across the country and who has the right to take money from people living hundreds of miles away in the name of equality! What is with you people and this equality thing?

So what if they decide that they want to shoot you first and then take your goods? We're not talking about equality here at all, we're talking about reality. What if a neighboring "nation" decides that they are stronger than your country? What if they agree to a resolution to invade and take over? They aren't bound by your laws. They can step in and do what they like. What you're talking about now is exactly what I alluded to tongue-in-cheek a few pages ago. I said, "What if I wanted a country with no Montagues?" You're opening the door to allowing feuds and problems to be regulated not by the police and army, but by individuals, which leads to chaos. That's what happens in gang warfare and in "Romeo and Juliet." You killed my brother, now I'll kill your brother. You further retaliate and the situation escalates.

We're not saying that we know what is best, we're pointing out what could happen if your world became a reality. How would you people in your world handle aggression from another "nation"? It would basically create a series of shifting allegiances between neighboring "countries" similar to what they had back in Medieval Europe.

Other way around. My way is to live in my own peaceful country, not to go fight a way to force people hundreds of miles away from me to live peacefully. You can't use force to promote peace. To promote peace you must be willing to stop your traditions of stealing from people with the threat of violent force (exactly what our US taxation is). Your system is the violent one, not mine. I hope you realize that. In your system, you and the rest of the liberals decide that it is okay to take my money from me and use it for your own purposes. You say, "Give me this much of your money or else we're going to have to arrest you." I usually say, "Okay, fine, dictator," because I know that if I refuse and refuse to go to jail, then my house will be bombarded violently with guns carried by your law enforcement officers. My only way out alive would be a life sentence in your jail. So, because I would rather live as a slave in your system of tyranny than die I choose to pay my taxes. It's not a willing choice. It's a choice between paying taxes and going to jail, or paying taxes and defending myself to the death in my own home as you come and try to seize me for not obeying your tyrannical rules. Your system is the violent one. Not mine. My system is a system of consent. Rather than you giving yourself to take my money as if I am a slave to society, I ask that you give me power over my own production and let me willingly choose to help out the poor if I so wish. My system is a system of consent, in which everybody is pleased and nobody uses their power to force others to submit to slavery. In my world, should somebody act like you and use the threat of force to demand that I give them something, then the people of my country who see the world as I do would use force to diminish that dictator. I see my society of agreements and voluntary charity to the poor as a peaceful, juster, more prosperous society. Your image of it is obviously skewed, but I'm actually not that surprised seeing as your vision of democracy says that it's okay to steal as long as it's organized and a majority of people support it.

Okay, so far no one has bothered to question your statements about "use of force" = taxation. But that's really not how the system works. Have you ever read Thomas Hobbes or John Locke and Rousseau? They talk about a lot of what we've tangentially discussed. Locke and Rousseau were more or less refuting Hobbes' argument since he advocated for forming a Social Contract similar to the way that you describe, and then selecting a dictator-for-life, the "Leviathan" who could never be opposed once he was granted that authority. Locke and Rousseau refuted that by saying that there were legitimate times when revolution was necessary, but Locke said that it should only come after extraordinary pressure forced it that way. Changing governments arbitrarily leads to fractured and capricious nations.

Taxes aren't the "use of force." They're the cost of living in civilized society. Look at the Python conversation above. It's a social commentary on the anarchists and the like in jolly old England who don't think they owe the government anything...Actually I really shouldn't assert that since the whole point of the movie is to not assert knowledge about other people's intentions if you don't know the circumstances...Hmm, by my own logic, I can't even assert that. If you want clean water, roads, sanitation, protection, etc., you need to pay into the system. To let people arbitrarily change their agreements is insanity.

What if all the billionaires in this country (or in yours) decided to secede and use their money elsewhere? Under your reasoning, they would be completely within their rights to take all of their money out of the possible pool of money being spent and leaving behind whatever void that lack of money creates. What if they create a billionaire's paradise around the corner and use their vast amounts of wealth to bring in produce from the far corners of the world rather than use the industry that you, as their neighbors would be happy to provide? What if they welcome any new members who attain a certain threshold of personal wealth? That would create a permanent sucking of wealth from your country into the billionaires' country and there's nothing that you could do about it using your own devising. Is that fair that they can accumulate that wealth in your community and then take it and spend it in another one? If the amount of wealth you are creating in your country is constantly being drained into another country, those left behind will consequently become more and more destitute as they would have to make up the difference somehow, by using inflation, cutting spending or raising taxes on those still within the community. How would that be a "juster" society? If you have everything, you're sitting pretty. Everyone else suffers.

[unreality]

the book 'snow crash' by neal stephenson actually describes exactly the hyper-fractured capitalist state that UtF is describing. Nations have become "franchised" and 'burbclaves' have sprung up everywhere. Border laws and alliances are complex and shifting. That's just the backdrop though. It's a really interesting read

[Guest]

UtF: 1: I understand that what you are proposing isn't communism. I'm saying that your system will fail for the same reasons communism did.

2: Stop marking liberalism like it's evil. Liberalism is change. That's it. Some people are liberals and want to change taxes the way you do. Others want to change them in a way that me, Izzy, and others are proposing. You can't say that liberalism is causing the problems you want to fix. They were still there during the republican reign, after all.

3: What you said about the dictators: Wouldn't removing them from power be using force to get what you want, their removal, as you claim the government is doing with taxes? What if that country wanted the dictator? Removing him/her would be against there wishes. They wouldn't have a choice if that happened, or if they did, they would just put a new one in power.

1: Did you say what those reasons are? If it's peoples' inherent selfishness then I would disagree with you.

2: I don't believe in good and evil. I'm just saying that I don't like the fact that there are people in this country who think that it is okay to force me to be a slave for society. And I would agree that most Republicans aren't all that conservative after all. They still support forcing me to pay for things that I don't want to. They just generally don't want me to have to pay for as many things as liberals. The same problem exists though. I wish to have say over what I do with my money.

3: Yes, removing them from power using violent force sometimes happens. I'm not opposed to that. My system isn't ending war. I just don't want people like you to pretend that your system in which you force me to pay taxes without my consent is a just or fair system. Rather, I want you to realize and recognize that it's an inherently violent system in which many of its citizens are constantly enslaved (not completely enslaved, but I am enslaved in that you don't give me a choice, but just take my money). I say it's inherently violent in that if I choose to not give away my money then the government law enforcement officers will come violently into my house to seize me. About the dictator thing, if I wasn't a part of the country that wanted dictators then I would most definitely let them be. If I was a part of it then I would try to persuade them to let me out or else would try to persuade them that it's immoral for them to dictate what I do given that I want to retain the choice of what to do with my money. If both of these options failed then I might (if able) choose to hire an army, or something similar, to liberate me by violent force.

[Guest]

the book 'snow crash' by neal stephenson actually describes exactly the hyper-fractured capitalist state that UtF is describing. Nations have become "franchised" and 'burbclaves' have sprung up everywhere. Border laws and alliances are complex and shifting. That's just the backdrop though. It's a really interesting read

Hmmm, I'll consider reading it.

[gvg]

UtF: Did you see dawh's post about the ABCDE thing in which E wasn't implemented? That's what I mean.

[Guest]

It's like the argument in "Monty Python's The Life of Brian."

...

What has the Federal government ever done for the poor rich businessmen other than those things above... A rich businessman is dependent on the community to sell his product. If the community lacks essential services, then they can't support the local businesses. The vast majority of consumption is done by poor people. They need to buy food and pay for housing regardless of how much money they are making. And since there are a heck of a lot more of them than the rich businessmen, they fuel the economy on a far greater scale than the rich businessmen ever could.

I'm not denying that there's a lot the government provides me and others. What I'm saying is that regardless of how great the services are that are provided by the federal government, I do not approve of the fact that a masses-elected group of people has so much power over what I do in my everyday life. Even if they make laws that help me out and help society out, I don't approve of the fact that they have all of the power over me. I want to be able to choose what to do with the money I produce, but instead a lot of the money is taken away from me and there are regulations telling me what I can and can't do with the money I do have. While I think quite a few of these regulations are okay, there are also quite a few that I disagree with and they remind me of the fact that in this current system I am powerless. The majority of people in America have voted, and continue to vote, my power away from me. They continue to have their government take my money away from me against my will. I find that blatantly immoral and I am very much opposed to it. Do you not understand this? You do not have my consent to take my money away from me! Now how do you justify doing so?

Sure, there would be some great "countries" formed under your solution, I'm sure. But among those, there would also be smaller fiefdoms where people came together in an agreement and then someone with more power than the majority of the rest of the people stepped in and broke his promises and used his position of power to abuse everyone below him.

Abuse his power? Like the US government?

Anyways, what is your argument? Who are you arguing for, me? Are you saying that you want to keep me partially enslaved in the US government in order to prevent the possibility that if you let me go I might become much more enslaved under another dictator? If so, I'll take the risk, let me out.

If you're arguing for yourself, then why not let me leave and stay in the United States? You can keep the USA's strong military for your protection and to prevent fiefdoms from forming in your town. But, I want out. What do I have to do with your affairs? Am I helping to prevent fiefdoms in your town or do you fear that if you don't enslave me then I will become a dictator myself and try to enslave you?

Say people are still allowed to leave a "government" when they like.

Not a government, this government! Be my guest and join a government that you're not allowed to leave, but don't force me to be in it too.

Where would they go if they find that the agreement they began in just wasn't their cup of tea? If it was an individual, he may have to join a different government that he never agreed to. What reason would that second government have to take him? He are obviously picky, since he abandoned his first choice. Why should the community take him in now?

What are you talking about? I don't understand. You're supposed to be arguing for why it's not extremely immoral of you to force me to continue giving you my money against my will and yet your argument is that the alternative (letting me and others be free) would result in individuals unable to find a government???

And stop pointing at it because it's a mute point! All other animals in the world are born completely selfish as well! And do they ever form together in bands to take the food from the strong animals so that everybody, even those with genetic defects, has an equal opportunity? Of course not! That's not how the species evolve as a whole to be so efficient. That's not how human society will grow to become more successful either.

More successful than what? We're already the most successful species on the planet right now. You want to abandon the poor and weak, but you refuse to talk about what you would do with them in your perfect society. Poor people will almost invariably exist in your society and since everyone has a choice, as you put it, what if everyone "chooses" to ignore the poor? What recourse do they have then?

More successful than not enslaving people! Is that clear? I happen to believe that by you taxing me against my will in the name of equality not only is very immoral to me, but also hurts society as a whole in the long run. I'm saying that I think that a society where it is not a norm to use the threat of force on an individual to seize their money in the name of equality, is more likely to be successful than a society (like our own) where people do group together to vote to seize rich peoples' production for their own purposes.

What do you mean, what choice do poor people have? What choice do poor animals have? Poor animals are the animals that are born with weak parents or are born with disabilities themselves or are unable to catch enough food to survive for any other reason. Maybe they can choose to try and do something productive or maybe they can choose to beg in which case I'm not going to give them anything or maybe they could choose to just lie down and die. Either way, if their odds don't seem good that doesn't make it right to force strong animals to feed them.

About the rest of your paragraph (not quoted), it really doesn't concern me that if you don't enslave people yourself then others might enslave them. All of that is irrelevant to the point that it's immoral for you to enslave me. Don't steal my money.

Savvy, unscrupulous people would be able to resurrect that concept in your world and hence the formation of the fiefdoms that I've been hammering.

Congratulations, how is that of any significance to the point that you're supporting stealing money from me against my will? You seem to be arguing that if you don't enslave me then others might. ... ... uh.... Or are you worried that those who want to stay in the United States might become enslaved if you stop forcing me to pay for them?

Now that's just arguing from ignorance. The South was totally dependent on the slave trade and cotton production. They really didn't have anything else. All of the major ports were in the North and the vast majority of the manufacturing was in the North. The South's economy was dependent on the slaves and on the North buying their produce. The South was hoping that France would step in and support them the same way that it did when we fought the Revolutionary War against the British. Then, they would get their manufactured goods from France instead and sell their cotton there. It completely didn't work because France wasn't interested. Also, the first act of the South was to violate the Confederate Constitution (or whatever it was called) because they needed money to pay for the war, so they implemented a tax, in violation of the founding document they wrote up. The South fought the war for all of the wrong reasons and Lincoln recognized that allowing them to secede created a dangerous precedent that would have led to a bunch of "Banana Republics" of small handfuls of states, sort of like how you want, but without all the humanism (what little you seem to have), and constant bickering about border disputes and international commerce.

Wow, what was the point of the history lesson? Were you explaining the "ignorance" part? Here's a better way to explain why you claim that my argument is an argument from ignorance: Tell me, if slaves increased the profits of the society 1000 fold, then why in the world are you offering yourself as a slave who doesn't want to be paid? Apparently that's the way to make a society successful....

Seriously, I said that the North shouldn't have gone and fought that war (in other words, if I was living in the North I wouldn't have supported such a war). Then I went on to say that I thought that the North's non-slavery ways would cause northern society to become more successful than the South's slavery ways given some time. Then eventually the South would see that slavery doesn't help out their society as a whole in terms of long term growth and success and possibly would give up slavery on the own without the need for the North to fight a war against them.

...

[Guest]

...

What if a neighboring "nation" decides that they are stronger than your country? What if they agree to a resolution to invade and take over? They aren't bound by your laws. They can step in and do what they like.

This is getting very aggravating that you're making so many false assumptions about my proposal to not enslave people. Then there's a war. Great. Laws have nothing to do with wars. What if the United States decides they are stronger than Canada and want to take Canada over? The United States isn't bound by Canada's laws. They can step in and do what they like.

And anyways, even if these were valid points you were making they would still be irrelevant to the fact that they wouldn't justify you supporting enslaving me in the first place.

We're not saying that we know what is best, we're pointing out what could happen if your world became a reality. How would you people in your world handle aggression from another "nation"?

Seriously!? Your argument is that if you don't enslave me then other people might enslave me? Well they also might not enslave me, but even if they were guaranteed to enslave me, that doesn't make it morally right for you to enslave me.

Okay, so far no one has bothered to question your statements about "use of force" = taxation. But that's really not how the system works. Have you ever read Thomas Hobbes or John Locke and Rousseau?

Yes, gvg has. And yes, it is how the system works. The government demands that I pay my taxes. I then choose to submit because the alternative that they present me with is that they will come into my house with guns and try and seize me to put me in jail. And no, I have not read Thomas Hobbes or those other people. I've only read a little bit in my AP Government and Politics class last year. I've only ever thought about politics in the last year and am not familiar with a lot of ancient experts' views.

Taxes aren't the "use of force." They're the cost of living in civilized society.

That's not how I define civilized society. I define civilized society as a society where it is not the norm to use the threat of force to collect peoples' money.

If you want clean water, roads, sanitation, protection, etc., you need to pay into the system. To let people arbitrarily change their agreements is insanity.

I don't want any of that if it's obtained by the threat of force. Regarding the second statement, ARE YOU KIDDING? Have you interpreted "voluntary government" and other things I have been saying this whole time as meaning that if someone wants to just leave a government at any time then they should be allowed to? Of course not! I've never once said that I want people to allow people to arbitrarily change their agreements. I'm saying that I want governments to be formed on the basis of agreements. If someone agrees to join this United States with the condition that they can't leave it peacefully, then go ahead and keep them in. But, I HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN A CHOICE AND HAVE NEVER AGREED TO BE A PART OF THIS GOVERNMENT. THUS YOUR STATEMENT "To let people arbitrarily change their agreements is insanity" IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. I'm yet to see a decent argument from you. Why are you opposed to letting me decide what to do with my money?

What if all the billionaires in this country (or in yours) decided to secede and use their money elsewhere? Under your reasoning, they would be completely within their rights to take all of their money out of the possible pool of money being spent and leaving behind whatever void that lack of money creates. What if they create a billionaire's paradise around the corner and use their vast amounts of wealth to bring in produce from the far corners of the world rather than use the industry that you, as their neighbors would be happy to provide? What if they welcome any new members who attain a certain threshold of personal wealth? That would create a permanent sucking of wealth from your country into the billionaires' country and there's nothing that you could do about it using your own devising. Is that fair that they can accumulate that wealth in your community and then take it and spend it in another one? If the amount of wealth you are creating in your country is constantly being drained into another country, those left behind will consequently become more and more destitute as they would have to make up the difference somehow, by using inflation, cutting spending or raising taxes on those still within the community. How would that be a "juster" society? If you have everything, you're sitting pretty. Everyone else suffers.

You have been making far too many assumptions... I'm not going to respond to this one until you say something legitimate. I'll just say that I highly doubt that would happen and I'll answer why my society is "juster" than yours: My society is juster than yours because in your society you take things from other people without their consent and regulate them without their consent; my society, on the other hand, is based on the fact that humans are all on the same level and thus no human should declare himself superior than his fellow human and use that as justification to take things from people without their consent and regulating them without their consent using the threat of force. That makes my society far "juster" than yours, regardless of the overall successes of the two societies.

[gvg]

UtF: Then just leave. You are allowed to under laws. It's called emigration. Find a country that you prefer, or go and discover an island unknown previously and instate your ideas. It's legal.

And about your society being "just:" To me, it isn't just to allow a group of people with huge amounts of money, many of which probably came upon it through the luck of having rich parents, to control the rest of those under them. Yes, animals are unlucky sometimes. But humans have been able to separate themselves from other species because of the fact that they work together. Look at apes: They live together in groups. All the members of that group look out for each other, regardless of how weak or seemingly unsuitable they are. The price to be in a group: A version of taxes. The head ape, representing the government, who helps protect the others and lead them, gets part of the food and first dibs. Now, I may be wrong on some of the details, but you get the idea. Have apes not been successful, since we evolved from them?

And plus (please correct me if I'm wrong) isn't all of our money technically the government's money? They create (I'm talking about the fact that a GOVERNMENT agency prints the bills and makes the coins) the money and send it out to be used. They ask for part of it back through taxes, and use the part that is asked back on projects that benefit the people that follow the government. Therefor, what is really happening is that by refusing to pay taxes, you are keeping the government's money from them. Thus, they have a right to get it back.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN A CHOICE AND HAVE NEVER AGREED TO BE A PART OF THIS GOVERNMENT. THUS YOUR STATEMENT "To let people arbitrarily change their agreements is insanity" IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT

Yes, you had no choice in whether or not you lived here; you were born here. But didn't your ancestors? Maybe even your parents. Thus, you are in your position because of forces beyond your control. You find this unfair, correct? Well, that's what I'm talking about economically. Some people are lucky enough to benefit from their parent's actions or economic level (the rich who never have to work because they were born into rich families). Others are unlucky enough to suffer because of the same (the poor who have to work their entire lives and may never get better). There are some who change their positions. Some rich people go bankrupt (in which case it is most likely their fault, but not always) and there are some poor who get rich through their hard work (in which case they are responsible). But both cases aren't common, which is why many, including myself, enjoy stories like that in 'The Pursuit of Happyness' (Yes, that's how happiness is spelled in the title). Many people are simply unlucky. Luck shouldn't play a role in life passed being born with the mindset and ability to work hard. That is why I am OK with the taxes and welfare that you despise

But once again: if you want to avoid all of this, you can move to another country and leave it all behind. Or, if you are lucky (here's that word again) enough to find an area that was previously unsettled and not controlled by anybody, you can make your own country. It's legal.

Edited July 13, 2010 by gvg

[Guest]

All that I (and I think the rest of us too) have been saying is that your "system" institutionalizes and basically guarantees worse enslavement than the current situation in this country. You may find the current system unfair, but it hardly can be called enslavement in any real sense since you get all sorts of benefits from some of what you put into the system. Slaves get the chance to live. Period. You have a life, a computer, a family. You probably have goals and plans for your future. A slave has none of those things.

Your system allows those with money and influence to make the rules will little chance for recompense if they wrong you. For all of its faults, the US government is a thing, not a person. The government can wrong people, I don't disagree with that, but this government, built off the the social contract that is the Constitution, provides clear means of pursuing justice if you are wronged and guarantees the pursuit of justice against an individual. In your voluntary governments, sure you can make all of the same sets of rules, but if every person is allowed to secede from those rules, the entire basis of a social contract is null and void. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau aren't ancient philosopher's, they are the philosophers from the height of the Enlightenment and some of the primary motivators for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

While neither you nor I formally agreed or signed onto the Constitution, I see no problem with people being born into a government provided that it treats all people relatively equally under the law (the purported purpose of the Constitution). I don't see a better option. If each generation has to reaffirm their commitment to their government, then you are likely to see changes every 25 years at least. You remove the stability of government and allow for ridiculous, capricious changes depending on the whims of a generation of people. If we adopted your system, we would basically be forming new governments every time the wind changes direction.

Now that I think about things, it seems more that you are entering the Ayn Randian Objectivist camp and that's really just insane. It's not the basis of any sensible government. There's already only a very narrow chasm between Libertarianism and Objectivism and I have little respect for either. Objectivism is the philosophy of total selfishness. It claims that the most just society is where everyone is allowed to pursue their own personal, selfish ends with no impedance from the government. It sounds great on paper since who wouldn't want to live in a place where government never steps on your toes? But there are numerous reasons having to do with the seemingly inherent impulsive nature of humans that lead an Objectivist community to chaos since there is no longer an overarching authority that can step in to mediate disputes. Every must depend on the themselves or perish (or at least live in squalor). And everyone's looking out for Number 1. That is a terribly unstable system.

At least on my list, one of my goals of good government is stability. Knowing that I can go home to my house without a high risk of being molested by thugs and knowing that my property is generally going to be there when I get home. And knowing that the same will be true in the morning. And the next day. To have a stable government, there has to be rules up front that can't change the moment people want to change them. They need to be reasoned about and considered properly before we jump off the cliff. Once you come of age, you get a vote, you get to choose your representative and while there are problems with the selection process, I doubt you could find many feasible better ones.

The purpose of this thread wasn't to debate your Objectivist dream, it's to discuss the parameters of a good government and what that entails. I'm not sure how your discussion fits into the parameters of the discussion, but we do seem to have been side-tracked from our primary purpose. I'd say more, but I have to go.

I would add that I strongly adhere the the "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" school of thought and that is why I refer to "ancient" philosophers and "history lessons" of the North and South. They provide context of the human experience that we can use to build a better mouse trap.

[Guest]

UtF: Then just leave. You are allowed to under laws. It's called emigration. Find a country that you prefer, or go and discover an island unknown previously and instate your ideas. It's legal.

That would be great, but as you know, essentially all of the land on Earth has been discovered and inhabited (unless an area is not a good place to inhabit, e.g. Antarctica). So as much as I would like to be able to "just leave", I would rather change my government hopefully in a peaceful manner through discussion and agreements.

Despite the fact that I wouldn't typically use a document to argument a political point, I think it would be relevant to quote the Declaration of Independence here:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Now, I'm not sure if anybody meant for "the consent of the governed" to mean "the consent of all of the governed." They likely just meant "the consent of most of the governed" for practicality's sake. So what I want to say is that I think, from my perspective the "consent of the governed" is beginning to lack. I also would like to say that I think that in our modern world with such powerful guns and other weapons, a "revolution" like the Revolutionary War or other revolutions that Thomas Jefferson said the people should wage from time to time whenever their government became too destructive of the governed unalienable rights, would not be a minor turn over of power. In other continents and countries there are still revolutionary wars today. But, I have a feeling that to have another revolutionary war in the United States would be disastrous. The United States is probably the most powerful nation in the world. So, basically, I would like to think when the time comes that most people in the United States are significantly unsatisfied with our government, we will be able to find a peaceful political way to change it. I personally would like to change it now, but most people in the country don't even care that there is no legal way for a state to secede from the union, let alone ways for individuals (like me) who are spread across the country, rather than grouped together geographically.

And plus (please correct me if I'm wrong) isn't all of our money technically the government's money? They create (I'm talking about the fact that a GOVERNMENT agency prints the bills and makes the coins) the money and send it out to be used. They ask for part of it back through taxes, and use the part that is asked back on projects that benefit the people that follow the government. Therefor, what is really happening is that by refusing to pay taxes, you are keeping the government's money from them. Thus, they have a right to get it back.

Well yes, the money is the government's money. But, I wouldn't say that makes it right or moral of them to seize it from you when you got it by producing a product and selling the product for the money. It is illegal (I think) to take the government's money out of circulation. I don't think I'm allowed to burn money, for example, with the intent of removing it from circulation. This is because they want to keep track of how much money there actually is in circulation so they can control all of those rates and whatnot at the Fed (something that I'm not so sure I approve of, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate it). Anyways, if you're yet to read the money speech, I recommend you do:

http://www.working-minds.com/money.htm

So I still think we (as a nation collectively) ought to find a way to give the individual more power over their money and more choices about being taxed. I suppose reducing the size of the government (general view of conservatives) would help out a lot even if there was still some money that was being taken from me. At least this way I and other conservatives would disagree with the government on fewer issues. The new health care bill, for example... Not even knowing exactly what it does, I would look at the fact that not a single Republican voted for it in the final stage of passing it into law and realize that this is not a government that has the consent of the governed. And thus, not knowing all of the details of the health care bill, I'm opposed to it on the basis of this fact alone (note: that's not the only reason, but I think it's terrible that the government can do that with so many people opposed to it).

Yes, you had no choice in whether or not you lived here; you were born here. But didn't your ancestors? Maybe even your parents. Thus, you are in your position because of forces beyond your control. You find this unfair, correct? Well, that's what I'm talking about economically.

Great job at explaining your view. Seriously. But, I still disagree with it. Rather than repeat myself a lot and only say a few new things in an effort to explain why, I will ask you a question as my argument back to you: If it's both unlucky for poor people to be born poor and people like me to be born into a government they want to leave, why do you support giving money to the poor, but you don't support helping me regain the power to decide what to do with my money? Shouldn't you want to help both? Or perhaps helping one hurts the other so you decide to help the poor because you figure their problems are worse than a wealthy person worrying about being taxed? I wouldn't be surprised if this was it exactly. I think I understand your view now and why you hold it. So I suppose society's overall prosperity (for each society type (libertarian side and socialist side)) is significant to the debate. If I could persuade you that a "smaller" government than our current government (thus towards the libertarian side that gives individuals more choice and doesn't force taxpayers to support the poor as much) would be beneficial to the overall success/prosperity of society as a whole, would you possibly change your views to be more conservative? Note that this is a theoretical question more than a practical question. I don't really intent to engage in such a debate, but rather I am just wondering if you would actually want a "smaller" government if you know that such a government was slightly more appealing to the wealthy (less taxes) and slightly less appealing to the poor (less government services for them), and slightly more appealing to society overall in the long run (meaning overall the country would grow to be happier and more productive (economically, etc) over time). Thanks.

[gvg]

UtF: Toushe. And yes, that does seem to be fair. And yes, I do believe that the poor have many more problems than the rich. The poor have to deal with getting food, having shelter, getting through each day, while the rich have to worry about pretty much nothing but how much money they have and taxes. All their needs, and many of their wants, are filled. So you do understand my view. And I understand yours.

To answer your question: I might listen, depending on what shrinking the government would entail. Shrinking the government is also a liberal view; it is change but in the other direction. I do want society to benefit; that is why I want change. It's obvious that the current situation isn't working, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing a new government . I took the bigger gov. approach to change, while you want the smaller approach. If you convince me that it will help society, I will accept it. Would you agree with my idea if I could prove the same? I don't care about how much the tax is; what I want is for the Rich t pay the most and the poor to pay the least. Instead of 30, 10, and 1, it could be 20, 8, and 1.

By the way, the reason the republicans didn't vote for Obama's plan is because they wanted to see him fail. The party system is in such a way that they don't care about the progression of society, they just want to beat the other guy. Thus, i don't care about what either side does or doesn't do for the other right now. It means nothing.

Edited July 13, 2010 by gvg

[Guest]

All that I (and I think the rest of us too) have been saying is that your "system" institutionalizes and basically guarantees worse enslavement than the current situation in this country.

Yeah, I've noticed that. And sadly I have been unable to show you otherwise. My "system" is just trying to give more power to the individual rather than the group of government representatives who sometimes do things that I am very much opposed to. Apparently I seem very extreme in my views to you guys because you interpreted what I was saying as wanting 300+ million countries, etc, but I assure you all I'm not so extreme. Seriously.... I just think that the way things are currently relies on too much faith in the group of government representatives elected by the masses. All I can do is hope that the laws they pass and the money decide to take from me will hopefully do what I want and be what I want. I'd rather have more say myself. I come across as an extreme libertarian because I realize that if we lived in such a world then I could voluntarily choose to join whatever type of government I wanted to. I could even join a socialist nation. That's why libertarianism appeals to me. But, in reality, I just want a little more freedom, especially with what to do with my money. Shouldn't I be able to save for retirement without the government, for example?

In your voluntary governments, sure you can make all of the same sets of rules, but if every person is allowed to secede from those rules, the entire basis of a social contract is null and void.

Perhaps I can clear up this point of confusion. I don't mean for anybody to be allowed to secede from any government whenever. I just think that it would be nice if every individual was given a choice at some point in their lives of what type of government they want. The fact that people are born into governments gives little opportunity for people to make such choices in our current style of government, thus making me believe that individuals ought to retain more power. This isn't the middle ages anymore. In other words, aren't individuals more civilized today than they were in the middle ages? Can't we handle giving individuals the responsibility of more individual power and at the same time still keep society as a whole an orderly, peaceful place?

While neither you nor I formally agreed or signed onto the Constitution, I see no problem with people being born into a government provided that it treats all people relatively equally under the law (the purported purpose of the Constitution).

I don't mind the Constitution really either and I realize that there are far worse societies to be born into, so I am grateful of my circumstances. But, I don't see that as a reason to not want to make my government even better. And by the way, I'll point out that your reasoning is flawed: Just because it "treats all people relatively equally under the law" does not mean that you're fine being born into it. What if everybody was sentenced to death at age 30 under the law? I'm sure you wouldn't want to be born into that country. So there are other reasons worth investigating as well. There's no need to reply and tell me what reasons those are though. Don't bother.

I don't see a better option. If each generation has to reaffirm their commitment to their government, then you are likely to see changes every 25 years at least.

What's wrong with that? Thomas Jefferson envisioned a rebellion "from time to time" to set the government straight so that it continued to preserve the liberties of the people and didn't abuse its power and do things that the governed didn't approve of. I don't know exactly, but I believe that this "from time to time" was approximately every generation at least. If that would help make a society flourish then what would be so bad about giving every generation the opportunity to redesign/construct their government to make it better fit their needs?

There's already only a very narrow chasm between Libertarianism and Objectivism and I have little respect for either. Objectivism is the philosophy of total selfishness. It claims that the most just society is where everyone is allowed to pursue their own personal, selfish ends with no impedance from the government. It sounds great on paper since who wouldn't want to live in a place where government never steps on your toes? But there are numerous reasons having to do with the seemingly inherent impulsive nature of humans that lead an Objectivist community to chaos since there is no longer an overarching authority that can step in to mediate disputes. Every must depend on the themselves or perish (or at least live in squalor). And everyone's looking out for Number 1. That is a terribly unstable system.

Again I would like to point out the fact that if everyone is allowed to pursue their own personal selfish ends with no impedance from the government, then people would be allowed to form together by the millions and willingly and voluntarily sign a contract binding them to a government to form a nation very much like that of the United States.

I will also note that I think that it is interesting that you seem to think that if we were to move to a state of chaos (libertarian society) then we would be stuck like that and unable to form into groups to form our own governments for our own personal benefits. Or maybe you do think we would form into governments, but we would get right back to where we are now and thus you think that conservatives (even moderate conservatives) are really just going backwards in our construction of civil societies.

At least on my list, one of my goals of good government is stability. Knowing that I can go home to my house without a high risk of being molested by thugs and knowing that my property is generally going to be there when I get home. And knowing that the same will be true in the morning. And the next day. To have a stable government, there has to be rules up front that can't change the moment people want to change them.

Again, in a world where people form governments on the basis of agreements (libertarian society) you would be able to find a lot of like minded people (myself included) in which you could form such a country that would do that.

They need to be reasoned about and considered properly before we jump off the cliff. Once you come of age, you get a vote, you get to choose your representative and while there are problems with the selection process, I doubt you could find many feasible better ones.

You know federalism? With state governments and the federal government? Then there are also local governments. It's easiest for an individual to affect his local government, then his state, then his federal, then international affairs. But, what if we increased this fragmentation? We keep the United States as a single nation for security and protection than the vast majority of people like. Yet, we give the federal government power over fewer things. Then we give some of this previously federal power to the states and we give the rest to local governments. We then take some of the state power and give it to the local governments. In other words, why not slide much of the power down from the federal governments to the state level and local level so as to give the individual more power over his own life. I'd bet you're more educated about history than I am so perhaps you're familiar with how the US federal government has gotten more and more power over the years as it used the Commerce Clause to take control of state powers, etc. Do you think this is good or do you think more power at the state and local levels would be preferable? I personally would love to localize the power as much as possible, all the way down to the individual in some towns if it's not a problem.

The purpose of this thread wasn't to debate your Objectivist dream, it's to discuss the parameters of a good government and what that entails. I'm not sure how your discussion fits into the parameters of the discussion, but we do seem to have been side-tracked from our primary purpose. I'd say more, but I have to go.

I would add that I strongly adhere the the "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" school of thought and that is why I refer to "ancient" philosophers and "history lessons" of the North and South. They provide context of the human experience that we can use to build a better mouse trap.

On the subject of the second part of the above quote first, I would say that I very much agree with you. However, if the times have changed (as they certainly have in terms of our technology and perhaps civil-ness, etc), then you can't use a historical example from a time when people fought with rifles to say that my idea of individuals agreeing to join a government would result in complete chaos. I'm not proposing a civil war or anything like that and I don't think that there's any reasonable reason to think that what I'm proposing would result in a civil war or similar periods of war and/or chaos. That's all I was saying.

On the subject of the first part of the quote, I will remind you that you said,

The objective of this thread is to altruistically* design a political structure wherein the needs and interests of EVERY inhabitant of this country are met. (None of this "general public" crap, we should try to make everyone happy. )

My idea that I thought was a great solution would be to allow everybody to control themselves (libertarianism?). Our current system doesn't support the interests of the rich so I thought that was the only solution even if it meant the poor had to live with the little that they were unlucky enough to get. There will always be somebody who is unhappy unless everybody has not only more than enough resources to survive, but more than enough resources to survive comfortably and sometimes luxuriously. How do we get to such a point? Libertarianism.

[Guest]

UtF: Toushe. And yes, that does seem to be fair. And yes, I do believe that the poor have many more problems than the rich. The poor have to deal with getting food, having shelter, getting through each day, while the rich have to worry about pretty much nothing but how much money they have and taxes. All their needs, and many of their wants, are filled. So you do understand my view. And I understand yours.

To answer your question: I might listen, depending on what shrinking the government would entail. Shrinking the government is also a liberal view; it is change but in the other direction. I do want society to benefit; that is why I want change. It's obvious that the current situation isn't working, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing a new government . I took the bigger gov. approach to change, while you want the smaller approach. If you convince me that it will help society, I will accept it. Would you agree with my idea if I could prove the same? I don't care about how much the tax is; what I want is for the Rich t pay the most and the poor to pay the least. Instead of 30, 10, and 1, it could be 20, 8, and 1.

By the way, the reason the republicans didn't vote for Obama's plan is because they wanted to see him fail. The party system is in such a way that they don't care about the progression of society, they just want to beat the other guy. Thus, i don't care about what either side does or doesn't do for the other right now. It means nothing.

Good news. I might be liberal like you, you know. I'm smart enough to realize that the only reason why I'm a libertarian is because when I first started determining my political views (I was clueless about them) I debated with my very smart libertarian friend. He convinced me and I couldn't find a reason to disagree with him (which is quite rate). I disagreed with him on some minor points, but essentially he persuaded me to be a libertarian, as I'm sure you can tell. My brain gets so good at arguing to myself to justify my libertarian views that I'm unable to persuade myself to become liberal. I do notice that my values seem to match up with yours more than my libertarian friend though. I too care about the success of the poor. I've just been persuaded that the best way to reduce poverty in the future is to have a government that supports human selfishness--a libertarian government/society. You guys seem to disagree with me, but I can't persuade myself to agree with you. Well anyways....

[gvg]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure libertarian is within the liberal spectrum.

Also, you asked about the health care bill. What it does is require all businesses with a certain number of employees and up to offer health insurance. It fines corporations that do not, and for small businesses that can't, it gives them money to do so. Yes through taxes on those that make 250,000 dollars per year and above. The workers of the companies have to py part of the cost of the health insurance, and thus are allowed to turn down the offer if they do not want to pay.

That's as much as I know.

Also, read 'Lord of the Flies.' I myself haven't read it yet, although I intend to do so soon, but it supposedly shows what some of us think would happen in something similar to your idea.

Edited July 14, 2010 by gvg

[unreality]

(1) I think I might be a libertarian socialist

(2) I think Use the Force puts too much (almost objectivistic) stake in the value of money, probably above even the value of lives

The truth is that most people don't want to pay their taxes, at least how they are exorbitantly. That's why my philosophy is to cut that as much as possible (again see my post a while back about minimalizing the government and laws as much as possible) but still taxes are necessary for some things that collectively we need but individually we may not think to support. But I agree that we shouldn't use force to take someone's money from them if they are unhappy about their money going back into the government and its programs - these people can leave if they'd like, if another country accepts them.

That doesn't mean they can steal land from the USA or from their neighbors to start their own fractured countries though. I mean they can leave to a country that owns its own land and has a government with rules that person likes better and that accept said person.

Personally I want to leave the USA. I want to live in Europe. I agree with the laws there more. Yes many EU nations have high taxes, but they really turn them around and put the money to good use. And they are more socially liberal (libertarian/freedom) in other areas. So when/if I get a chance, my goal is to potentially leave. It of course depends on where I can get a job but the point is that we do have the freedom to not pay taxes if we don't agree with the laws of the US - we can leave. Your system already exists, to an extent - there are many countries all over the world. Some are in states of anarchy, others are highly structured. It's all a tradeoff of Freedoms and Government Assistance/Infrastructure. You have to find the balance that works for you

[Guest]

It's obvious that we can't seem to meet to some sort of compromise. Perhaps we can agree to disagree? Is there another issue we can discuss? This thread wasn't set up as debate, y'know.

[gvg]

Yeah, you're right. Let's think of something else to argue. We'll put this into our 'constitution' later, although we will have to face it again eventually and find a compromise.

[unreality]

we cannot just put this aside and move to a new topic - clearly there is a fundamental difference in the idea of what a government should be. Use the Force is essentially an anarchist while the rest of you are essentially scattered along the spectrums of what you want out of a government. There is a fundamental separation there that can't be breached.

[gvg]

I'm not saying that we should ignore it. I'm saying that we should make sure that all the other things we want included or fixed in it before we get to this 'Great Compromise' of sorts.

[Izzy]

I'm going to start this by saying I've never taken any sort of government class, and looking at my projected schedule, I don't think there will ever be time. (It would kind of be a waste of time anyway, I know the teacher, and he's this totally rad pot-smoking hippy, but he doesn't teach haha.) Though, I think that may provide some benefit here. I'm not really biased one way or another, I'm just advocating what makes sense. And the anarchy (not libertarianism) that UtF is proposing is scary and will lead to the total demise of the US. You are giving countries permission to act lawlessly, do as they like, and riot like hell. It makes me think of the G20 summits, tbh. Yes, I'm sure we will have our share of good countries, but we can't neglect the needs of the ones that won't be self-sustaining. If world peace is ever to be achieved (give peace a chance!), it won't be like this. Feudalism, communism, slavery, and all the other things we've worked so hard to eliminate in the modern world will return, and no one will step in to stop that. You want people to be free, I get that, I'm with you. But we really need to work on a compromise that isn't anarchy, because all though everything all be smooth at first, powerful dynasties will take over, dictatorships will happen, and history will be repeated verbatim.

Btw, that AIM convo was a joke, not a display of ignorance. However, if you do get your way, I am making a zombie/pirate/jedi Ultimate Frisbee country. ;P

I've already said it: Human nature doesn't allow for voluntary governments without abuses. One would decide to spread it's power because it doesn't like the government of it's neighbors. If the attacker is strong enough, he will succeed. Who will help his neighbors? No one, unless another government has some sympathy. Because of this, eventually, one would reign supreme, and it would be the same as now or worse.

No, that wouldn't happen. Perhaps I haven't been very clear. I'm not saying that I want to force people to disband into 300+ million separate nations (as I think all three of you have said), but rather, I want you all to realize that there are people in the United States who want different things than you. They don't want to give their money to various poor people who they don't even know, for a major example.

Oh, you wouldn't be forcing people to secede, they would do so entirely willingly. Poverty is the result of capitalism, which, is memory serves me correctly relies on a 6% unemployment rate rate function. Without charities and welfare, in your countries, it would only get worse. You're 18, so I'm going to assume you live with your parents, or have for at least the last 17 years. Everything you own is because you were fortunate enough to be born into a well off family (I'm assuming, based on your feelings against the poor), not through any success of your own. You could just have easily been a street urchin sleeping in the streets of New York, stealing food for survival. When you grow up (in thes hypothetical situation), you won't get a fancy job, your life difficulties prevented you from all the studying, because at that point, food > school. You could just as easily be living out of a car, with a lousy job, on a month to month pay check. I think the selfishness of people is apparent when people with literally billions of dollars do little to contribute to the well being of others. Let me ask you this. Have you, ever, personally donated money to charities or volunteered at a shelter for reasons other than yourself (yourself being containing, but not limited to "It's a graduation requirement" or "Oh, this will look awesome on college applications". Very few people do. The same with blood donations, yes, you have your donors who truly want to help people, but the reason blood donations thrive at schools because it lets students skip class, get extra credit, and cool t-shirts. (Also, y'know, if something ever happens to ME, the more _I_ donate, the higher the chances are MY blood will be available). Oh, which reminds me. Homosexuals should be allowed to donate blood, and so should people that shoot up occasionally, as long as it wasn't in the last 6 months (because HIV can't always be detected until that long). All blood is tested for HIV/other diseases individually anyway, and while there will be instances of unusable blood, we're gaining more than we lose. Back to my original point. Humans are inherently selfish, and in a perfect world, your system of government would be almost ideal. What you aren't realizing is the problems an infinite amount of countries will create. No, there won't be 300 million, and I'm not saying make 300 million, but no one will ever agree on every law, and some laws (don't kill, rape, steal, etc.) need to be instilled to keep people in line. As much as I hate to say it, the majority of Americans are stupid and uninformed. At no fault of their own, but their school systems. If suddenly we have a country that teaches its students "Intelligent" Design, another Scientology, and another terrorist extremism (where Gawd WANTS you to blow yourself to bits in the name of da lawd), there is nothing the children learning this bullsh*t can do to protect themselves because they are victims of random geographical location and the will on their ancestors. Maybe I haven't made myself clear. Imagine every single political issue brought up in this thread. Actually, no, I'll make it easier. Let's do the Ten Commandments. For each Commandment, you can either agree or disagree. 2^10 is already more countries than we currently have! It's just ridiculous. It's impossible to please everyone. It's like, where will we have the room for all these countries? United we stand, divided we fall. If, for one reason or another, the USA decided to invade and conquer Jamaica, unless international superpowers step in, there's nothing to stop us. The US is 9,400,000 square miles. For the sake of this, let's pretend the only laws anyone has ever come up with are the Ten Commandments. 9,400,000/1024 = ~ 9200. Granted, we're bigger than Vatican City, but from Google, "The average land area of a country, based on the land area comprising the earth is approximately 767,731 square kilometers (296,422 square miles) - slightly smaller than Turkey but much larger than Chile or Zambia." Dude, if people wanted to invade, we would DIE. That said, our countries aren't going to be 9200 square miles, because we're selfish, and it's gonna be all "This like is my land, this land is still my land, from California, to the New York Island.." There would be insane amounts of disputes about how to distribute the land, leading to civil wars and unnecessary deaths. Are we going to base land ownership off of money? Then again, the rich get everything and the poor get nothing, and we're left with sort of the Rich North vs. The Hillbilly slave owning south all over again. The poor get nothing. You are not helping people by letting them secede, you are creating monopolies and a world in which only the rich will thrive.

So I'm asking you all, what gives you the right to decide what to do with their money? That's it. I personally see money as a tool used to exchange goods and services. Someone produces something and gives it to someone else in exchange for some money with the understanding that he will be able to exchange that money to someone else for another person's goods or services. Thus I see taxing someone against their will (when they never gave their consent to be taxed) is equivalent to tyrannically deciding to take what somebody is producing and giving it to someone else. That's called stealing. That can't be your idea of freedom or justice. That's you deciding that your somehow greater than these other people and thus you're allowed to take what they produce and use it for yourselves. You call that democracy? 100 people get together and 51 of them vote to seize all of the possessions of the 49 minority. That's an extreme depiction of what you're doing. But, that's exactly what you're doing. And I'm say that's wrong.

By agreeing to live in this country, the least you can do for your right to be protected by our police and military and taken care of by our hospitals and drive on our clean streets is to help fund it with your taxes. Now, I think taxes should only go to things used by the public, like roads, schools, etc. If you really are that selfish, feel free to leave, lol. There are plenty of private islands to claim. But on your way out, make sure you don't use the road you didn't help pay for. Oh, and if someone decides to rob your house, don't call the police, you didn't support them.

The problem with optional taxing is that most people will think "Oh, I don't need to pay for this, someone else will and we're good", and when that's the mindset of everyone, nothing gets accomplished. I'm Jedi, (I'm 15, so don't pay taxes, irrelevant) but one day my tax money will help to fund churches. Ick. However, my money will also fund hospitals and teachers, yay. Now, let's say I wanted to build a Jedi temple (this falls under the classification of church, lmao), but in your world, I have to fund this myself, and we Jedi tend to be fairly low in number, especially compared to Christians. My temple, which would be an awesome contribution to society in which children will learn to deal with their emotions peacefully, feel the environment around them, be in tune with themselves and their surrounds, and mostly, love all creatures. This will never get funded. In it's place will be another church telling kiddies they fina go tah hell (...). Without tax payer money, there are so many things we would not have right now. Just look at all the debt we're currently in. If marijuana was legalized and taxed, the revenue would be more than enough to solve our country's problems. Do those 14 cents when you buy a drink really matter?

Dude honestly, I would think it was immoral if tax payers didn't get anything out of it. The money doesn't go to some fat people sitting around in Congress smoking cigars and banging a gigolo. Taxes pay for the necessities that keep us civilized.

..The rich do lose more money, but I don't think they notice it as much. I can't see Bill Gates crying over losing a million dollars, sorry.

Why can't humans' selfish nature allow something like that to continue? Yes, I know that's what led to communism's downfall. You've already tried comparing my libertarian capitalist ideas to communism. Don't you realize that they're exact opposites? Communism takes everyone's money and everyone's production and gives it out equally to everyone. And that doesn't work! I'm advocating the opposite of that! Capitalism! Completely free markets! It's the exact opposite of communism and yet you say that it will fail in the same way that communism did. Wow.

I highly recommend watching Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore. (*sings* I'm watching Michael Moore, expose the awful truth / I'm listening to the Dead Kennedys and Wasted Youth *ends singing*). It clearly demonstrates the flaws of capitalism and does so much more clearly than I can (aside from my mother and I, only three other people were in the theater with us ). Instead, I'll give you can example from history class.

Two people own two different burger restaurants. Two are in China, two are here. (Might be a bad example because it puts communism in a good spotlight, but I'm sure we're aware of the other draw backs.)

In China, the president or whatever says this to the restaurants.

1: I like you, we're friends. You can sell your burgers for $1, and they must have bread, cheese, meat, tomatoes, and lettuce.

2: Meh. Your burgers will be $3, but they can only have bread and meat.

It doesn't matter how much money they make because it's evenly distributed, even thought number 1 probably works harder due to consumer demand.

Now obviously, everyone is going to eat as restaurant one because the overall food is better and the prices are cheaper.

P stands for people.

In Capitalism, there are no rules, but there are two restauraunts.

1: *opens shop* *sells basic burger, just bread and meat* Cost: $2

P: *eat at 1*

2. *opens shop* *sells burger with bread, meat, and cheese* Cost: $2

P: *eat at 2*

1: *adds cheese and lettuce to burger, reduces price to $1.50*

P: *eat a 1*

2: *adds everything you possibly can to a burger* , Cost: $1.50

P: *eat at 2*

1: *does the same, reduces right to $1.25*

P: *reduces price to $1.12*

1: *reduces price to $1.

2: *goes out of business because the cost of the ingredients is more expensive than the profit from selling burgers*

1: *slowly starts reducing burger quality because there is no competition until the food sucks, but people still eat there, even though the price is increase*

That's capitalism. You switch back and forth from crap and awesome stuff at good prices to crappy prices to eliminate competition, and businesses have almost nil chance at survival in an industry where successful businesses already exist. The rich become richer, the poor take the jobs (like flipping the burgers), and the gap between middle and upper class continues to widen. In the end, the 1% of the rich have 90% of the nation's money and restaurants like McDonalds (eww) survive because the competition has been squashed. Hey, welcome to America.

And stop pointing at it because it's a mute point! All other animals in the world are born completely selfish as well! And do they ever form together in bands to take the food from the strong animals so that everybody, even those with genetic defects, has an equal opportunity? Of course not! That's not how the species evolve as a whole to be so efficient. That's not how human society will grow to become more successful either.

Uh bro, yeah they do. Either meet my cats (who steal food from my puppy) or watch some animal planet. As humans, we are pretty civilized and have overcome our inherent animalistic nature, but to a degree, we still do this. That's why the fat kid is always picked last for sports.

Yes, if course it's fair! Why should everybody in the town be forced to pay for the ridiculously long 100 mile road just so that some farmer can drive is corn to market? That's how you tear society down. If I moved to the moon and had children there and asked NASA to build my children a spaceship road so that they could bring their moon rocks to town, would you agree with that? Would you agree to paying for such an absurd thing just to make it fair? That's how you tear society down!

But you know what it eventually leads to? A channel of interconnected roads connecting the moon and planets, giving people to freedom to explore the galaxy. I would totally fund that. That's how you build society up and expand it!

You say that slavery would increase these peoples' profits thousandfold, but would it increase their society's net production 1000 fold? I don't think so. Thus, I think the North would have advanced significantly ahead of the South until the south realized that there way of doing things wasn't working at which point they might learn by the North's example and change their ways.

If our societies are essentially nonexistent because of your proposal, aren't we all poorer? :shrug: Again, people are inherently selfish. If one person can get rich off of slavery in a country with legalized slavery, they will. If the rest of their community is poor and they don't feel like contributing, they don't have to because there are no taxes to force them to. Hence, society declines. If you recall, the only reason slavery ended in the US is because Britain threatened to cut off all trading (gmoz, we need our tea) if we didn't. The US at the time, was a perfectly self-sustaining country, and the elimination of the importation caused a significant upset with an economical decline until solutions were reached and the country eventually built back up again. The country itself was poorer. Admittedly, the slave owners/sellers lost the most, but the price of cotton, tobacco, etc. increased, but overextension on the people (and the country's wealth) caused serious outrage and the dollar was pretty valueless for a bit.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating slavery! I'm merely pointing out a flaw in Force's logic.

Mmm, I got bored of reading and typing. So hopefully this will suffice for now. Bro, you post, a lot. Which is good, yay discussion.

Dawh, lmao, I <3 your Monty Python reference.

Bah. Should probably read the other page and a half now.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Izzy