Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

503 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

UTF :

After rereading my last post I realized I didn’t fully explain the difference between taxation and theft. So here goes.

First off you claim taxation is theft and theft is violence. Ok in the example you give but theft through stealth does not require the use or threat of violence so I have to disregard even that correlation, but on to the main point, why taxation does not equal theft.

Taxation you have to pay for services the government offers. They may not be services you need/want or can even still something is offered in exchange. In theft you get nothing but perhaps a cracked skull. Please note that not all theft is violent. If you’re neighbour comes over and takes your rake when you are out but never returns it. That is theft, perhaps he just forgot but still there is no violence involved.

Now the services offered by the govt can be placed in 3 broad categories:

1. Passive

2. Active

3. Passive/Active

Passive: These are services that you receive either directly or indirectly but require no effort from you to obtain them. Roads are an example. Whether you drive a car or not you benefit from the roads, if from nothing else than goods/services being able to reach you. Also most business require the use of the road infrastructure to exist. Water and sewage are also examples of this passive service.

There are many more the FDA makes sure (or tries to) that the food you eat meets certain requirements, that the medicines you take will aid and not harm you etc. this is also a passive service.

Active: These are services where you actually have to seek out the govt to receive the benefit. Welfare/Medicare are good examples of these benefits. But passports diplomatic problems when visiting foreign countries are also good examples.

Passive/Active services are ones that can be either. Police are a good example. The presence of police is one reason criminals aren’t in complete control of everything. But if you do have an issue you can go see the police and (try) and get justice. Firemen are also passive/active. Mostly active as they come when you have a fire but also they visit schools and give lectures to young children about fire safety. Which brings us to schools you have to go until a certain age and it requires you actively enrol your children but it is fairly automatic.

Now when it comes to the passive services you benefit from them regardless of what you do it may be direct or indirect, either way every day you are benefiting from some govt service. Without roads there would be extreme constraints on commerce/personal movement. Without sewers there would be huge sanitation problems (you might not have even survived this long due to disease) the list goes on and on. So if you take a gun to the taxman for refusing to pay taxes your basically the thief using violence as you are refusing to pay for a service that you receive and threatening VIOLENCE to avoid paying.

Active services are a bit closer to what you are talking about because you may, in fact probably WILL, never use most of them. Thus you are paying for a service (possibly) not rendered. But again unlike true theft the service is there so it is closer to an insurance type policy. You can make a case against these taxes but the social contract under which we all live requires a certain amount of aid thy neighbour. This is the one area where I believe you can make some inroads and get politically active to reduce the number of these services (read govt expenses) thus alleviate some of your tax burden. I am not a Yank but it seems to me this is the main thrust of the tea party movement.

The passive/active services because they contain some element of the passive, are very hard to claim are theft, though like all govt agencies there is undoubtedly waste.

I hope this will explain why I refute your claims to equating taxation to violence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And not for nothing, but.... it is the government's (actually the Fed's, which is a private bank, but that's another issue) money. So in essence, they are being nice, and by you not paying taxes, you are the thief.

Just another way to look at it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

gvg, great minds think alike. :D You touched on a lot of points that I'm going to cover here (plus some that I wanted to cover, but decided weren't important enough (e.g. Walmart, or as my family prefers: Mal-Wart, Your Place for Cheap, Plastic Crap. I don't think we can take credit for that one, but we like to use it. :lol: )).

I brought up water utilities for a reason. I can live a long, fulfilling life without ever buying a single train ticket, but I can't live for very long without access to affordable, clean water. So that is one significant difference between the railroad scenario and the water utilities situation. Since people can survive in a world without using trains, if the prices go up, demand will go down and the basic principles of the "free market" can work. However, water is a necessity for life. So the same rules do not apply. If everyone starts raising prices on water, the people can't refuse to pay it. Demand can decline to an extent (Australians, stuck in a severe drought, have been forced to cut back on their water usage to keep it available for only essential needs), but people can't forego all water sold by monopolizing companies in the long-term. Sooner rather than later, they'll have to relent and pay the higher price in order to survive. So I would say that the train situation is a poor comparison to the water utilities.

I don't think you understand how monopolies operate. They won't always charge the "monopoly rate." Looking at the railroad example, let's assume that we've reached the situation where the one company owns 90% marketshare versus the one hold-out that now holds 10%. The smaller company may feel that it's in a strong position since it's highly desireable to the larger company (so they should be able to get a good price if they wanted to sell). But since the company getting 90% has a greater revenue stream than the 10% one, it can afford to lower prices more than the 10% company. They can start offering tickets at a loss or near-loss for a longer period of time than the smaller company can afford. The smaller company would be pushed into a situation where they either take whatever the larger company offers for their marketshare (at a pittance of what they could have gotten originally), or they go bankrupt completely (either way, they're influence in the market is eliminated).

So while people temporarily will be getting a better deal, once the competition has been eaten or slain, the new monopoly can charge whatever it wants and the populace can't do anything about it. If any new entrepreneurs enter the field, hoping to get in the door with a cheaper price, the monopoly can just repeat what it did before to kill the competitor. Eventually, potential venture capitalists will give up on anyone who tries to compete with the monopoly and capital will dry up, leaving the monopoly triumphant.

This isn't guaranteed to occur, but is there any reason why it couldn't occur easily in a stateless society? If there's no anti-trust laws or no entity with enough muscle to prevent a larger company from driving a smaller company out of business, what would prevent the above scenario from occurring once one entity controls the majority of the market? :huh:

Your view is tied to the mostly-debunked economic theory of diminishing returns. The view holds that two competing companies in an open market may fight each other for marketshare and it might waver one way or the other for a while, but eventually it will shift back in the other direction, no matter how far it goes in one direction. But that's not how it works. Look at VHS vs Betamax (and more recently Blu-ray vs HDDVD) for a prime example. When the technologies first came out, they were considered more or less equal and there were some people that bought one kind and others that bought the other variety. But as VHS (and Blu-ray) got ahead in marketshare, it became harder for Betamax (and HDDVD) to make up the ground and win new contracts. Eventually, both technologies were driven out (even though many argue that they were the better technology in terms of performance and capability).

I think that part of the problem we are having derives from an ambiguity in terms of the definition of words. You've been saying that taxation and violence is "immoral" (and I touched on my confusion regarding your use of the word in a non-theological context). But Quag, myself and others contest your use of the term "immoral." Looking it up, I would classify this argument as belonging in the "descriptive ethics" category (which I would generally just call "ethics"), rather than the "normative ethics" category, the one you seem to be using (which is how I generally define "morality").

Using my definition, from an ethical standpoint, you are supporting "Right's Advocate" ethics, where the rights of every person should be respected even to the detriment of the whole, while we're taking more of a Utilitarian approach, where the rights of a few sometimes must be infringed for the benefit of the whole. This is a common point of view that people argue both for and against. Ethics and morality are both abstract human constructs derived from human attempts to explain the human condition. By invoking "Morality" you seem to be jumping into the "Absolute Truth" vs "Truth is Relative" argument. I don't see how someone can really be invoking morality in the way that you are without supporting the AT camp.*

I think that you made the best argument for why your position should be described as utopian:

That is why Molyneux imagined a system where everyone is on the DRO map/grid. If someone goes to your store and tries to buy something, you ask for the DRO identification and he says he doesn't have one, that's a BIG thing.

There's no practical way to implement DROs in such a way get "everyone...on the DRO map/grid." Unless everyone is on the grid from the start, the system doesn't have a hope of working. Someone tossed out of the DRO system could continue on in another one. There would have to be a mass consensus to change to this system (one that through apathy or antipathy would be inertially inhibited) if it were to have any chance of working. Since that's not likely to happen any time soon, it could only happen "no place" or in a utopia.

gvg was talking about the movie October Sky (one of those things I was already planning to mention :) ), which recounts the true story (Hollywoodized of course) of a couple of high school boys in a 1957 mining town. The mentality of the situation was that you were born in the town and you died in the town. Very few people were able to leave due to low wages and high prices from the company store.

The last thing I want to bring up at this point is the basis of your society. Whether you realize it or not, it's basically derived from Objectivism. It more or less boils down to the requirement that the vast majority of agents in the system (to couch things in engineering terms, my apologies) must all be acting in their own "rational self-interest." Now I use the term "rational self-interest" in particular because there are a lot of different kinds of self interest that are not all derived from rationality. If a small child wants a candy bar, it's in his self-interest to get it (he's hungry and he wants something sweet), but it's not a rational basis for why he should get the candy bar.

If we could expect people to all act in their RSI, then it's possible (I don't claim that it's likely) that the system could work. However, I find the chance that that would actually come to pass, to be enormously unlikely. Looking through history, there are many examples of people acting in what they believe to be their own self-interest, only to discover after the fact that they were wrong. I don't have any specific historical examples off-hand, but anyone who's ever given their bank account information to a Nigerian banker would work. :rolleyes:

Your system requires all agents to be rational and to act rationally. But should something go wrong, what restitution can you get? How could DROs handle Enron, or Bernie Madoff? They managed to steal billions of dollars from people before anyone was able to put the pieces together and put a stop to it. How could economic ostracization possibly rectify a situation of that magnitude?

And there will always be con men. People who create fake IDs and they pop up in a community, steal a bunch of people's money (that was given to them willingly originally) and then they disappear (a man using the pseudonym Bobby Thompson did just that with a fake Veteran's charity and as far as I know, he's still at large). Unless you found a way to create an ID that couldn't be faked (and no one's managed to do that yet), there will always be Bobby Thompson's in the world, ripping people off. Can a person get restitution from a DRO for that kind of fraud?

I think that a society of people like you, me, quag, gvg and most of the people on this site could get along in a DRO-based system, but the main problem is that there are enough people who are not like us in the world that they would destabilize it and cause it to fall apart. You keep treating everyone as though they would behave exactly the same way that you would in any given situation. But I think that most people would react in completely different ways from you and Molyneux. Neither of you seem to take that into account.

Finally finally (I know what I said :P), there's more to the money situation just whether it can work on a small scale. I can see no way that any money system that might work for a single community (or company) could scale to a global economy without "Statist" intervention. You just sort of jumped past my questions regarding counterfeiting. Without statist powers, how could someone deal with counterfeit money? If it gets into the market, who has the authority to remove it? Who gets to determine if it's genuine? At this point, I still think that you need a State to keep it properly regulated.

How does a stateless society deal with someone who operates outside of the norm? Monday's Daily Show (5/16/11) made a good point for my argument. How do you deal with psychopaths? They are incapable of operating in RSI and they aren't necessarily easily identifiable. They can corrupt the system more than anyone. I would also suggest reading the book

Conservatives without Conscience by John Dean as I think that it in many ways chronicles the mindset of psychopaths in a political setting.

*Note: I modified my argument in these two paragraphs, so they might not make a perfectly coherent argument due to my efforts to properly incorporate the definitions of ethics and morality in mid-construction.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To quickly touch on why you can't just let random people leave a system whenever they feel like, society can only advance with stability. We would never have gotten to the moon (or even into space) without a stable society. We wouldn't have computers or the Internet without a stable society. We couldn't be having this discussion right now without a stable society.

If people are allowed to "opt out" of their system of government just because they don't agree with aspects of it, you lose all stability in the system and progress founders. Philosophers like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all recognized that. Hobbes rectified it by saying that you couldn't change the social contract once it was enacted (a novel way for him to justify absolute monarchy), while Locke and Rousseau rejected that argument. They felt that if the situation got to be too corrupt and imbalanced, then it would right itself with occasionally violent overthrow of the government to create a new contract (a gross oversimplification of the argument, but I'm trying to be quick). That's also from where the oft-quoted Jefferson quote derives, "The Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time."

If you can justify that this government is too corrupt and broken, to the point where it can only be fixed with a completely new form of government, then you have Locke and Rousseau on your side. But until you do, you're just blathering into the wind. Political philosophy has been discussed throughout the ages. I would highly recommend you read parts of Plato's Republic, Aristotles' Politics, Hobbes' Leviathan and the Social Contract by Rousseau. Any others that interest you by Locke and Hume, or Hegel and Kant would also be good (be advised that a lot of it is pretty dense, but the first few are pretty straightforward in part (if meandering at times). I feel that before you can really competently argue a point, you have to have at least examined the works of those who came before.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Good post Dawh,

Just two points start with the fastest. The books you mentioned, I've read all but aristotles politics (never found it) however, Platos republic is a joke! Read it to see logical fallacies at work.

About the immorality of taxation If you reread my post I am stating that when it comes to some if not most of the passive services offered by the govt. UTF IS recieving the services/benifits directly or indirectly and his refusal to pay taxes would, in this case at least, make him the one perpetrating a theft. Thus placing him on the opposite side of his own argument and the descriptive or normative ehtics dilema is irrelevant.

Edited by Quag
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Good post Dawh,

Just two points start with the fastest. The books you mentioned, I've read all but aristotles politics (never found it) however, Platos republic is a joke! Read it to see logical fallacies at work.

About the immorality of taxation If you reread my post I am stating that when it comes to some if not most of the passive services offered by the govt. UTF IS recieving the services/benifits directly or indirectly and his refusal to pay taxes would, in this case at least, make him the one perpetrating a theft. Thus placing him on the opposite side of his own argument and the descriptive or normative ehtics dilema is irrelevant.

I didn't say that the suggestions in the books were good ideas, merely that they would serve as an example of the ideas that have come before. Knowing the solutions that people have offered/tried in the past, we can be better equipped to make decisions going forward. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Actually Dawh the Republic would be the one best suited to this discussion. Basically in the Republic Plato starts of with a false analogy then goes on from there to try and logically explain why a certain system of govt is the best one possible. UTF is using the false analogy of equating taxation to violent theft. Of course I think his other points dont hold up too well either but I think it is best to attack the original mistaken premise rather than attack the following points.

I called the Republic a joke because, unlike the other books, he tries to promote a system where philosophers would be at the top. In other words it is an attempt by Plato to explain why he should be King. The other books do not seem to have this blatantly obvious self serving agenda to them.

Edited by Quag
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Who is stealing from you??

Taxation is not stealing.that statement is wrong and untrue.

Now i dont like taxes any more than the next person but to say that it is stealing or violence is absurd.

I still strongly disagree. Taxation and stealing are essentially the same thing and I would say they both require violence (or at least the threat of violence). Let me explain by showing you what's wrong with what you said next:

lets look at in another way. if you own a car do you think you should have to pay for the gas? of course. should you have to pay for the roads? that is taxation.

Note: Just because I own a car does not mean that I am obligated to buy gas. I am not obligated to buy gas regardless of whether or not I have a car.

If I do buy wish to buy gas from you, however, then yes, you can require that I pay your price before you give me the gas. But, if I don't want to buy gas from you, it would be immoral/theft/taxation for you to give me the gas anyways (even though I don't want it) and then take my money from me in the name of "You have to pay for the gas I just gave you."

That would be a form of taxation/theft. You're essentially forcing me to buy the gas (you're not giving me a choice: you're giving me the gas and taking my money using force) and is thus the same as forcing me to buy roads (taxation) even I don't want to. A similar situation to these two situations would be if I met you while walking along and said, "Hey, here's a bottle of water and gave it to you." You might say thanks, maybe not, but imagine if next I took out a gun and pointed it at you and said, "Now give me five dollars for that bottle of water." Perhaps you'll pay, but maybe you'll say, "No, I don't want to buy the water from you" and not want to pay me. I'd remind you that I was pointing a gun at you and you would likely pay. Wouldn't you say that my actions were immoral, however? Wouldn't you say I was using violence? Wouldn't you say I stole five dollars from you? I think you would say yes to all of these. Isn't it taxation also? To this you say no, but I say yes. Why is it not taxation? You're giving me money as compensation for the bottle of water that I give you in the same way that I give the government money for the roads and wars it gives me. You don't want to buy the water and I don't want to buy the roads and wars. And yet you justify the government's taxation of me as non-violent and moral by saying that because the government gives me roads and wars means I should I have to pay for them. Well, what if I don't want to buy those things? Isn't it identical to me justifying forcing you to buy my bottle of water for five dollars in the name of "I gave you the water so now you have to pay for it!" Both justifications are wrong and I don't consider them actual justifications to steal my money to pay for roads and wars, or stealing your money to pay for the water bottle. It's the same thing. If I don't agree to give you my money and you use force to seize my money from me anyways, then it is called theft (/taxation) even if you give me a good or service as compensation for taking my money. The fact is you don't have my consent, so taking my money is stealing and immoral, regardless of the roads that you build around my house.

For the road issue specifically you might argue that I DO use the roads, so I am essentially buying them (you might compare it to taking gas from a gas station and using it). The difference is that it is because the roads are surrounding my house and exist almost everywhere else around me and so I have little choice but to use them. A similar analogy would be this: Imagine you're a slave in the 1800s in the USA. Your master gives you a meal and then forces you to pay for it by forcing you to work for him (e.g. tend his crops) (the labor is essentially equivalent to money). Wouldn't you consider that immoral? Wouldn't you consider it immoral that he was forcing you to pay for the meal that he gave you and that you ate? Of course. The fact that you ate it didn't actually mean you were "buying" it in the same sense that the fact that I use government roads does not mean that I am actually "buying" the roads. In that sense, it is wrong of you to justify taxing me for the roads just because I happen to use them. I really have no other reasonable choice but to use the roads in the same sense as the slave has no other reasonable choice but to eat the meal his master gives him. So giving a slave a meal and using that as justification to take his money (i.e. force him to work for you) is just as immoral as giving someone a bottle of water and forcing them to pay for it or giving someone roads or wars and forcing them to pay for it. That's what taxation is an it's also stealing; it's also violent; it's also immoral.

Your argument of "should you have to pay for the roads? that is taxation" is the same as "should you have to pay for the bottle of water? that is taxation." They're both examples of taxation and theft. The fact that I give you a bottle of water doesn't mean that my act of pointing a gun at you demanding a dollar suddenly changes from an act of theft to an act of taxation. They are the same thing. It may be taxation, but it's also theft.

In fact if you do not wish to you need not pay almost any taxes.

You pay income tax? well why not make less than the cut off rate? why because you choose to, you are not forced to

... Use your brain: If I were to come to your house, point a gun at you and say, "Give me $100 dollars," you would consider that theft, but if I were to come to your house, point a gun at you and say, "Give me $100 dollars because you choose to make at least X dollars" would you really say, "Okay, I made the choice; you're not forcing me to give you $100; you just gave me the choice to either make at least X dollars and give you $100 or not make X dollars and not have to give you $100. I chose to make $X so you're now justified in taking $100 from me. You're not stealing from me; you're taxing me." You would never say that, would you? And yet, I would be taxing you and I would be stealing from you. They're the same thing. If you say it's stealing, but not taxation because I'm not providing you with roads then I'd hand you a bottle of water or let you know that I was going to go shoot some mean people on the other side of the world. Would you consider that a justification then? I sure hope not, but that is what taxation is. It's stealing and it's taxation. It's wrong because you never agreed to give me your money; I just took it from you forcefully. It doesn't matter that I give you roads or water or war.

dont like gas tax? dont own a car or ride a bus.

dont like property tax? hmm last time i checked real estate was not an obligation.

only tax that is really hard to avoid is sales tax and as i understand it not all states have one, even then you could use a barter system if you wanted to. currency comes from govts. those links you posted are all for useless systems dotn get me started on calgary dollars.So once again Taxation is not violence or theft!

This is the same thing as my paragraph above. Despite your assertion that it was my choice and not an obligation to pay taxes, you are in fact forcing me to pay you money anyways in the same sense that I would be forcing you to give me $100 in the above paragraph.

I am sorry your starting on a false premise. ie taxation does not equal violence,

MAFIA uses violence to take your money, govt uses taxation not the same thing.

Of course it's not a false premise. The two things are identical. The mafia using violence to take your money and the government using violence to take your money is the same thing. Just because all the mafia offers is protection money while the government offers roads doesn't mean that the government isn't using violence against you. In either case, if the person doesn't wish to buy protection from the mafia or roads from the government, they shouldn't have to. Using violence to seize their money as compensation for the protection or roads that they never wanted to buy in the first place is violent and wrong.

Now please answer me why will the mafia become less violent if there is no police to try and keep them in check??

There's no way I would waste my time answering this question for you unless I thought you had achieved a decent understanding of the concepts of violence, theft, and taxation first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

GVG:

"I call bullsh*t. First, what the F is a gov. monopoly?"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

mo·nop·o·ly

   [muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA

–noun, plural -lies.

1.

exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2.

an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.

the exclusive possession or control of something.

Ask yourself your question again.

I assume you were referencing my statement, "company also has to be responsive to it's customers, not only its shareholders as you said. This is very important, because customers aren't forced to buy from private companies (unlike how they are forced to buy from the state monopoly) so in order for the company to profit, people must still choose to buy its products."

I think my use of the phrase "state monopoly" is justified by the fact that the state has many monopolies, such as its monopoly on roads (roads for one example, among many others). In my statement, I was arguing that in a free market, because companies have to be responsive to their customers they would be less likely to form into monopolies than states because customers get to choose if they want to pay for the company's products/services unlike how people are violently forced by the government to buy state roads etc, even if they don't want to buy the roads. So the state's monopoly on roads I think is largely due to the fact that it has the power to violently force people to buy its roads from it against their will.

I also would say that the state's "monopoly" on violence is the reason why it has a monopoly on so many other things (e.g. roads). If the state didn't have that monopoly on violence it couldn't force people to buy its roads, etc, and as a result I don't think I would be calling the government a monopoly (or even a state) any more. The result of getting rid of the state's monopoly on violence would in fact yield a stateless society, so long as you're not giving that monopoly over to some other entity, in which case I would likely call that entity the state).

I spotted a lot of nonsense in your reply to the first of my two large posts in reply to dawh.

Rather than comment on all of it, I will comment on the following which stood out as something I should deal with first:

"Government isn't violence! This is getting annoying" and "Taxing isn't violent, for the reasons Quag pointed out (and the additional reason that if you give to charities or non-profit organizations then you get tax breaks)"

I replied to Quag about that. I thought he was the only one on this thread who didn't understand that his position was a violent one, but apparently you do to. (I suppose I should check: dawh? Do you consider taxation coercive/violent?)

You should deal with that basic understanding before going on to the rest of what I've been talking about. If you don't understand that as a statist you are advocating using violence against me for a great many things that I strongly consider non-crimes (e.g. not paying for any of the state's programs) then I really can't (and don't want to) go on discussing the details of how a stateless society might go about solving some of the societal problems we've mentioned without using violence.

"a private court system is ridiculous"-gvg

"Gvg's above statement is ridiculous"-Use the Force

"Peacefully dealing with a friend who did something you thought was immoral rather than pointing a gun at him and forcing him to do what you wanted as punishment for it is ridiculous"-Something Use the Force wouldn't be surprised if gvg said

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

For the road issue specifically you might argue that I DO use the roads, so I am essentially buying them (you might compare it to taking gas from a gas station and using it). The difference is that it is because the roads are surrounding my house and exist almost everywhere else around me and so I have little choice but to use them.

Exactly my point you cannot avoid using the roads so why do you think you shouldn't have to pay for them? don't want to pay for the roads? Then move somewhere where there are no roads. You see you can avoid using them and paying for them if you really wanted to. The govt does not decide where you live, you do. You made the choice to live there and refusal to pay for the privledge of the roads would be equivalent to theft.

A similar analogy would be this: Imagine you're a slave in the 1800s in the USA. Your master gives you a meal and then forces you to pay for it by forcing you to work for him (e.g. tend his crops) (the labor is essentially equivalent to money). Wouldn't you consider that immoral? Wouldn't you consider it immoral that he was forcing you to pay for the meal that he gave you and that you ate? Of course. NOT!

The fact that you ate it didn't actually mean you were "buying" it in the same sense that the fact that I use government roads does not mean that I am actually "buying" the roads. In that sense, it is wrong of you to justify taxing me for the roads just because I happen to use them. I really have no other reasonable choice but to use the roads in the same sense as the slave has no other reasonable choice but to eat the meal his master gives him. So giving a slave a meal and using that as justification to take his money (i.e. force him to work for you) is just as immoral as giving someone a bottle of water and forcing them to pay for it or giving someone roads or wars and forcing them to pay for it. That's what taxation is an it's also stealing; it's also violent; it's also immoral.

WTF I mean WTF! Are you insane, I sorry for the yelling but seriously WTF!

A slave is not given employment he is a slave, you are not there is no comparison. A slave cannot refuse to work or quit for another job because they dont like the working conditions. They can't do anything but accept the conditions of the master or face the consequences. Can a slave say, hmm I want to make less money and pay less taxes to the master so i'll take a lower paying job? Or even decide I think ill go work for the farmer over in the next field he offers better pay or working conditions? I can't believe you would even begin to think there is a possible analogy here! You are free, a slave is not. A slave is given food only because without it he/she would die and be a total loss to the master. Slavery is wrong and immoral but if i put a meal in front of you and you eat it of course I expect you to pay for it, if you don't then you are a THIEF.

The fact is even if you never walk on a road you receive the benefits of the road by the low food prices you pay etc access to emloyment etc. You cannot avoid receiving these benefits, ie the passive ones. You cannot opt out you will receive them directly or indirectly. There is no comparison to the bottle of water except in the sense that water comes into you house and the businesses you enter. You can try and refuse to drink the water but eventually you will die without it. In North America at least the govt also gives you CLEAN water. That is something else you would lose in an anrchistic society. If no govt existed, perhaps a private company would step in but good luck thinking they will make sure the water is clean without govt regulation/oversight. Something that is done with TAX money that is NOT stolen from you. Yes if we all lived in small villages we could use rivers and streams but when you have cities in the millions that just doesnt work. The sanitation problems alone would be increadible.

This is the same thing as my paragraph above. Despite your assertion that it was my choice and not an obligation to pay taxes, you are in fact forcing me to pay you money anyways in the same sense that I would be forcing you to give me $100 in the above paragraph.

Nope it isn't! think about it.

Of course it's not a false premise. The two things are identical. The mafia using violence to take your money and the government using violence to take your money is the same thing. Just because all the mafia offers is protection money while the government offers Quag, on 20 May 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

roads doesn't mean that the government isn't using violence against you. In either case, if the person doesn't wish to buy protection from the mafia or roads from the government, they shouldn't have to. Using violence to seize their money as compensation for the protection or roads that they never wanted to buy in the first place is violent and wrong.

Not even close to the same thing. YOU directly benefit from roads and other govt services, refusal to pay in your world would be violence against the state not the inverse. MAFIA offers you nothing but violence. It is physically impossible to not benefit from the roads/water supply etc. You cannot opt out. well you can but then you would be basically removing yourself from society. You would find that living in the middle of nowhere with no income you would not be paying taxes. If you wish to live in civilization you will have no way of avoiding the benefits. To refuse to pay for those benefits would be exactly like eating the meal and refusing to pay. YOU WOULD BE A THIEF!!

Quag, on 20 May 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Now please answer me why will the mafia become less violent if there is no police to try and keep them in check??

There's no way I would waste my time answering this question for you unless I thought you had achieved a decent understanding of the concepts of violence, theft, and taxation first.

Please try to answer the question as nature abhors a vacuum, I can't imagine how an anarchisitic system won't very quickly become a dictatorship under the rule of the mafia or other criminal orginizations who WILL use violence against you, for any and every reason imaginable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

personally I have come to the conclusion that you are Trolling UTF, but as i'm bored i'll go along with it.

Ok govt doesnt have a monopoly on roads. In fact there exist many private roads where you need the permision of the owners to go on them. Here in canada we even have a private highway, the 417 in toronto, it is a toll road that i have myself used, though i found it gave me no advantage over the public highway. Also here in canada and the northern states at least, who does the snow removal on the public roads? govt be it local/state/provincial/federal, thats who. Now if you live on your nice cosy road in the winter should everyone have to clear the snow in winter in front of their house? what if someone goes away on vacation? What if no one owns the land the road goes through? The simple fact is, as I will state once again, YOU recieve the benefits directly or indirectly therefore you should pay.

Rather than comment on all of it, I will comment on the following which stood out as something I should deal with first:

"Government isn't violence! This is getting annoying" and "Taxing isn't violent, for the reasons Quag pointed out (and the additional reason that if you give to charities or non-profit organizations then you get tax breaks)"

I replied to Quag about that. I thought he was the only one on this thread who didn't understand that his position was a violent one, but apparently you do to. (I suppose I should check: dawh? Do you consider taxation coercive/violent?)

Your reply was completely off the mark and my statment stands taxation is NOT violence.

You should deal with that basic understanding before going on to the rest of what I've been talking about. If you don't understand that as a statist you are advocating using violence against me for a great many things that I strongly consider non-crimes (e.g. not paying for any of the state's programs) then I really can't (and don't want to) go on discussing the details of how a stateless society might go about solving some of the societal problems we've mentioned without using violence.

The lack of basic understanding isnt by us UTF ;)

"expecting that everyone would ALWAYS solve all of their problems peacefully rather than resort to violence would only occur in an anarchistic society as psychopaths/sociopaths and just plain bad people would never exist if there was no govt." is somehting i would expect UTF to say :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

personally I have come to the conclusion that you are Trolling UTF, but as i'm bored i'll go along with it.

I read this now before reading any of your previous post. I'm not sure what you said in the post, but I'm not going to reply to what you said unless I decide I think it will help gvg along or someone else. So I'm done haveing any discussions with you.

Edited by Use the Force
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There's no way I would waste my time answering this question for you unless I thought you had achieved a decent understanding of the concepts of violence, theft, and taxation first.

UTF You were Very insulting with that statement and completely backwards so either I presume you are trolling or you really are lacking basic understanding of the concepts involved and insulting at the same time, ori presuem you are trolling for some laughs. I chose the lesser of two options.

Simple fact is:

Option 1 you cant give a coherent answer, as it doesnt exist.

Option 2. you avoid the question as it will end the game.

Once again I will state for anyone to read so they arent sucked in by UTF's fallacious reasoning

TAXATION IS NOT VIOLENCE.

Please don't anyone think that I like taxes, of course i don't. fact is I'd like to have a ferrari too but i dont want to pay for one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

UtF:

The reason I say that a private court system won't work is as follows:

You seem to think that having courts compete to give the best possible... would pay-back be the word to use here?... is a good idea. i find it scary. let me tell you why.

First off, you seem to think that people would stop doing business with known criminals. I have an example to show you you're wrong: People are still doing business with Wall Street. Now, it is true that those who do have no choice to do otherwise, but you seem to have a different, more positive view of human nature than I do. This is a big difference to take into account.

I instead see the following occuring: The store owner says "I will sell to you, but you have to pay X times the oriiginal price." if the criminals rich, well, there's no issue. All you've done is really punish the poor criminals only. And even if that didn't happen, what stops the criminal form killing the store manager? Then there's anothe DRO hearing, the criminal says "Screw you," and will continue to kill people who refuse to sell stuff to him or do business with him until people are scared into doing it anyway. Then what'll you do? Lynch him?

Also, you say DRO's will compete through who gives the best rulings. Where the hell, first off, is the law code that they go by? I may have missed this if you wrote it, but that's important. What if everyone works on a different law code? how could you justify punishing someone who has a different law code than the supposed victim, and both parties have supporters? What happens then?

Plus, i think punishments will actually get harsher than what they currently are through this system. Let's say DRO one gives rulings on, say, stealing an eraser that is equal to paying back the price of the eraser. But what if DRo 2 bases it on 1,000,000 times that price? WHo would they choose? Obviously, the second one, who gave their victim more money. But is it just? And I'm sure that you oppose the death penalty. Who says that a third DRO won't promise that the perpetrator of the theft is killed and all his/her stuff is given to the victim? I can easily see injustice run rampant in this system. (Obviously, my examples are exaggerration, but you get the point).

And i just realized.... once one DRo takes over the region because the people enjoyed it's policies most.... and it effectively becomes a law enforcing monopoly... then it's a government! A very decntralized, unstable government yes, but a government nonetheless. Effectively destroying the anrachaic system.

Also, you never answered the rest of my stuff. What about the examples of monopolies i gave you? And my other points? Please reply.

And taxation is not the same as theft. You can choose to make no money, grow your own food, and accept welfare chaecks from the gov. (effectively then forcig them to supply you with money according to the governments own laws), and not pay any taxes, while on top of that using the roads and schools you are no longer paying for. Now, i would personally love to rat these people out of the system, but the point is, taxation is those who can afford to give helping those who can't, and to make it better, a progressive tax system works better. But the point is, you can technically opt out of taxation, and not theft.

You don't want to have to pay for wars, for roads, etc.? Vote for people who won't make you! Yes, our voting system is in need of reform, but it is there to allow you to tell the gov. the type of people you want in control.

Also (i know this is irrelevant, i just thought it was interesting), the two happiest nations on earth, Denmark and Canada (Or is it Sweden? Maybe they're third...) are social capitalist states with a progressive tax system and no wars on their hands (That I know of, unles they got involved in the US's mistakes). Again, i know it's irrelevant, just a fun fact =)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Also (i know this is irrelevant, i just thought it was interesting), the two happiest nations on earth, Denmark and Canada (Or is it Sweden? Maybe they're third...) are social capitalist states with a progressive tax system and no wars on their hands (That I know of, unles they got involved in the US's mistakes). Again, i know it's irrelevant, just a fun fact =)

Canada is in Afganistan though we will be ending our combat mission this year. We sent 1 squadron of planes to Libya though I'm not sure theyve actually done anything. We did manage to avoid Iraq YAY! 1 point for Canada :)

As to the tax system, I live in Montreal which places me in the highest taxed jurisdiction in all of North America. Though I believe we are taxed less than the Swedes. No i'm not happy I pay more in taxes here than anywhere else but I'd rather live in Montreal than Toronto, Vancouver is nice but expensive and my wife refuses to move that far away from her family. Point is I have a choice, I choose to live where I do because after weighing the pros and cons my wife told me this is where I want to live.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'll do blue:

UtF:

The reason I say that a private court system won't work is as follows:

You seem to think that having courts compete to give the best possible... would pay-back be the word to use here?Our current system is a system of "punishment" where the US locks people up for committing crimes. Yes, they ask for money first, but if the criminal doesn't want to pay up then the US locks them up. I wouldn't support doing such things to criminals even if they didn't want to pay the fines that we give them for their crimes. Locking them up doesn't achieve much at all and costs a lot.... is a good idea. i find it scary. That's not really what I meant if that's what I said. What I mean really is that laws should be supported bsed on how just they are, not on what organization's laws they are. Just because the US government deems something doesn't mean I consider it a crime. I agree with many of the U.S. government's definitions of crimes, but I disagree with a lot also. I think they best DROs would be those whose rulings reflected the most fair laws in the eyes of the public. For example, the US considers possession/use of marijuana a crime, but in our culture many people would disagree with that. What happens when the law enforcement officers catch someone with a lot of marijuana? They seize it; fine the person/arrest them, right? Well, what if that person decides they're not going to submit to the US's unfair laws and decides to defend themselves and their marijuana? What does the US do next? They use the force that they were only threatening to use before. This doesn't happen too often because most people care about their lives too much to go into a losing battle against the mighty US law enforcement, but when it happens I look at it and see how terrible of a system it is. Why advocate using violence against such non-criminals? Just because it's part of the overall system that you support? You probably advocate fixing the system more, but I know that there will always be some things that I deem non-crimes and yet the government will use violence against people for anyways. let me tell you why.

First off, you seem to think that people would stop doing business with known criminals. Not necessarily. I was just suggesting that as one way for people to deal with crime who wanted to deal with it without using violence against criminals to lock them up, etc.I have an example to show you you're wrong: People are still doing business with Wall Street. Now, it is true that those who do have no choice to do otherwise, but you seem to have a different, more positive view of human nature than I do. This is a big difference to take into account.

I instead see the following occuring: The store owner says "I will sell to you, but you have to pay X times the oriiginal price." if the criminals rich, well, there's no issue. All you've done is really punish the poor criminals only. And even if that didn't happen, what stops the criminal form killing the store manager? Then there's anothe DRO hearing, the criminal says "Screw you," and will continue to kill people who refuse to sell stuff to him or do business with him until people are scared into doing it anyway. Then what'll you do? Lynch him? Again, don't forget that I'm not advocating non-violent self defense. By all means, if this guy is a murderer then point your guns at him to make sure he doesn't hurt/kill anyone else and lock him up if you're not sure how else to protect yourself from him. I'm not against death sentences or anything either. As for the X times the original price thing, I would certainly treat any business man who knowingly sold his product to the murderer as a serious criminal himself. I would also advocate putting measures in place to make sure that businesses couldn't easily deal with criminals (like send in anonymous people without DRO memberships and have them offer to buy the product for X times the original price and if the seller sells then tell the DRO about the seller selling to a criminal. Sure, it would be difficult to stop people in the black market, but that just means that my treatment towards those people who I did find out dealt with criminals would be that much stronger. It would certainly be close to a zero tolerance policy.

Also, you say DRO's will compete through who gives the best rulings. Where the hell, first off, is the law code that they go by? I may have missed this if you wrote it, but that's important. What if everyone works on a different law code? how could you justify punishing someone who has a different law code than the supposed victim, and both parties have supporters? What happens then?The DROs make up their own "law codes." They can of course borrow others' ideas and ask the public for suggestions, etc, but what it comes down to is they make up their own rules and make their own rulings and then people decide to either abide by the rulings or not. Remember that these DROs don't use force against the criminals to punish them (that is, unless the criminals first agreed to having that force used against them. For example, if you're an employer and your employee says "how do I know that you'll pay me?" then the employer will say, "Here, I'll put down in our contract with this DRO that if I don't pay you this much by this time, then the following payment plan will be followed, and if I fail to come up with payment for you with X reasonable exceptions defined here, then I give permission for the DRO to use force against me if necessary to seize X property of mine (whether it be money or material goods) to give to you." So in this case, if the employer decides to just not pay the employer because he feels being a criminal or something, then the DRO would use force against him to seize his property and pay them employee with what the employer and employee originally agreed upon. But, if we're talking a crime not related to breaking a contract or something, like stealing someone's car or something, then the DRO wouldn't use violent force against the criminal. In this way, the DRO's don't initiate force against others without their consent and thus you need not fear any DROs competing to make any rulings that you might be afraid of. If people don't like a ruling they just don't have to follow theat DROs declaration of X criminal as an actual criminal.

Plus, i think punishments will actually get harsher than what they currently are through this system. Let's say DRO one gives rulings on, say, stealing an eraser that is equal to paying back the price of the eraser. But what if DRo 2 bases it on 1,000,000 times that price? WHo would they choose? What do you mean "who would they choose?" Who is choosing what? People choose if they want to follow a DROs ruling or not in every day life. And Dispute Resolution Organizations decide if they are going to revoke their members' memberships for not following their rulings, etc. So, given this exaggerated example, most people would probably see the DRO's ruling asking for a million dollars for the theft as absurd and thus wouldn't recognize it. Either they wouldn't recognize the DRO completely or would ask for the DRO to reconsider the case or something else. But, I'm sure that the eraser-stealer would be able to find a prominent DRO to recognize him as a non-criminal (especially if he replaced the dude's eraser) in which case he would be able to go to the store and buy things, sell things, get employed, etc, without any problems. Meanwhile, the DRO that ruled for the eraser-stealer to pay a million dollars or whatever absurd amount, would surely make the news and its members would likely have the DRO explain why it made such an absurd ruling (perhaps it was just an employee gone bad and the DRO could release an updated ruling rescinding the absurd first one) or perhaps it really was an act of corruption, etc, trying to get extra money or something in which case its members (at least I would any other reasonable person I would think) would switch DROs to another DRO that is known for not ruling that eraser stealers have to pay so muchObviously, the second one, who gave their victim more money. But is it just? And I'm sure that you oppose the death penalty. Who says that a third DRO won't promise that the perpetrator of the theft is killed and all his/her stuff is given to the victim? I can easily see injustice run rampant in this system. (Obviously, my examples are exaggerration, but you get the point). As I said, the DROs don't use violence in the way the state does. They would only use violence if the person agreed before to have violence used against them in the case that they do X crime. So, while a DRO could rule that someone should be put to death for stealing an eraser, nobody would actually kill the person in the same way that if any lunatic on the street today yelled out "He stole my eraser: kill him!" nobody would. And, if someone did kill him for stealing the eraser as the DRO ruled, then given how nearly everybody in society would find this extremely immoral, whoever killed the eraser-stealer would be declared a murderer by all the prominent DROs in the society and charges would be brought against him. Also, people/DROs would of course charge the original people behind the original DRO that put the death sentence on the eraser-stealer as giving death threats, etc, which certainly most people consider immoral (even in our current society... although there are those crazy media people who don't get arrested who say things like the Wiki Leaks guy should be hanged, etc) and would be asked to rescind their ruling that the eraser-stealer should be put to death / would likely be asked to pay some price if the ruling caused any significant problems.

And i just realized.... once one DRo takes over the region because the people enjoyed it's policies most....Just a note: I imagine that I might have a different DRO than my next door neighbor (and the neighbor on the other side might have yet another DRO) and yet I might have the same DRO as a person living 100 miles from me. Unlike states, the rulings don't have to be about geographic region and you can certainly (and should certainly I would say) have many DROs in a single geographic region. and it effectively becomes a law enforcing monopoly... then it's a government!Good try, but no :) Remember again that these DROs aren't like government law enforcement businesses. They don't have officers with guns (police) or armies. They would be composed of secretaries, lawyers, etc. Normal people like any normal business. Now don't get me wrong, there certainly would be people with guns and organizations that have people with guns that offer security services, etc, but I would think the DROs would hire other organizations to use force against people (in the rare instances that it would happen) because the people voluntarily agreed to have that force used against them should they commit a defined crime. Of course, these DROs are basically just ideas at the moment as they don't really exist yet in real life, but I would this way would make more sense. Certainly people wouldn't fund a DRO that built up a police force or army that they thought might be able to take control over them (becoming a government of a sort). A very decntralized, unstable government yes, but a government nonetheless. Effectively destroying the anrachaic system.I know it seems there are many objections to getting such a system work at first, but after spending some time thinking about all of them I think it could work great. I'll give you some reading on this subject if you would like because the questions you are asking are the questions most people are asking. A very common objection is that a DRO would grow into a state, which really seems absurd once you have a better understanding of what a DRO is, but it takes time to get a good grasp of the concept.

Also, you never answered the rest of my stuff. What about the examples of monopolies i gave you? And my other points? Please reply.Sorry, what monopolies were these? Steal and coal back in the day? My knowledge of those are limited to what I learned briefly in high school and frankly I want to research the history more before getting back to you on those What I will say first is that it would stink to be born into a place where its difficult to move out of and the only jobs there you can get are from a terrible coal mining company with terrible pay and working conditions or from a steal factory with the same bad conditions but even given some parents bad decisions to raise kids into such settings, I wouldn't use that as justification to use violent force against the coal company to require that they give better pay and make their working conditions better, etc. Even if things like strikes are ineffective and not working for the only business in town (the coal company) would mean a very harsh life, I still wouldn't justify forcing the company people to pay more, etc. I'll look into the history of this stuff more though and get back to you though. Remind me again in a week if I haven't by then.

And taxation is not the same as theft. You can choose to make no money, grow your own food, and accept welfare chaecks from the gov. (effectively then forcig them to supply you with money according to the governments own laws), and not pay any taxes, while on top of that using the roads and schools you are no longer paying for. Now, i would personally love to rat these people out of the system, but the point is, taxation is those who can afford to give helping those who can't, and to make it better, a progressive tax system works better. But the point is, you can technically opt out of taxation, and not theft.So you're saying you're giving me a choice to not pay you in which I don't have to fear someone locking me up if I don't pay. Okay... but, since when is it a crime to be productive (and thus make money)? You're essentially saying that it's okay to steal from rich, productive people because they could choose to be poor if they wanted to in which case you would refrain from stealing from them. Am I right? Isn't that at least a little odd to you? Anyways, what if I'm a charitable rich person, but I just don't think the government's road programs or welfare programs or road programs are very efficient and would rather pay for my own programs that do those same things. In that case you certainly wouldn't say i was being a criminal for not paying these public services because I would be paying for them, just not through your government. Might I note also that you can't deduct all of your taxes through charitable contributions (I think it's something like 50% max). Anyways... I shouldn't be arguing like this. Even with all that stuff... if you let me not pay any taxes so long as a gave a certain amount of money to X causes, I would still be opposed to it simply because I don't consider what you would consider a crime: not paying for the government's programs even if you make a lot of money. You're saying you don't think it's a crime for the government to steal money from people because the government uses that money towards causes you support and because the government only steals money from people who make enough money that they can afford having this money taken from them without their standard of living suffering much, but I don't think that's enough to merit using force to seize money from these people against their will. So while you're right in that people do have a choice to not make a lot of money and thus not have to pay taxes, you're NOT giving people a choice to be productive and make a lot of money and not pay taxes, which, even though they may be making millions of dollars and they may not be very charitable, I still don't support violently forcing them (at jail point / gun point / seizing their property (wealth) point) to pay money for your taxes anyways. And by the way, would you support me if I wished to declare myself a government and go around collecting money from rich people forcibly so long as I spent the money well and efficient on charitable public societal things?

You don't want to have to pay for wars, for roads, etc.? Vote for people who won't make you! Yes, our voting system is in need of reform, but it is there to allow you to tell the gov. the type of people you want in control.You seem to be missing something. Voting doesn't allow me to not pay for roads. I can vote for my entire life for such candidates and how much do you want to bet they'll still force me to pay for roads? A bet you a million dollars to one... you give me one dollar if I'm right and I'll give you a million if I'm wrong. Democracy supports the majority. Minorities, like the minority of candidates in Congress who vote to abolish spending/taxation for roads, get no say. Instead, the government guns get pointed at taxpayers forcing the taxpayers to pay for what the democratic MAJORITY says people should be taxed for. People often say that in a democracy, the government is at the hands of the people (like all the people), but really it's only at the hands of the majority. In a dictatorship, sometimes one man has power that he gets to exercise for his own desires, often at the expense of the many. In a democracy, the democratic majority has that same dictatorial power. The difference is that it exercises its power generally on less than half the population of the geographic region (although a democratic majority isn't always a numeric majority of people) because of our representative system) I think it would make sense for those who advocate for minority rights to become anarchists, not supporters of democracy, that is, unless your concept of a minority is people with black skin, or females.

Also (i know this is irrelevant, i just thought it was interesting), the two happiest nations on earth, Denmark and Canada (Or is it Sweden? Maybe they're third...) are social capitalist states with a progressive tax system and no wars on their hands (That I know of, unles they got involved in the US's mistakes). Again, i know it's irrelevant, just a fun fact =)

It might not be entirely irrelevant, but yes, it's not very related to what we have been talking about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And by the way, would you support me if I wished to declare myself a government and go around collecting money from rich people forcibly so long as I spent the money well and efficient on charitable public societal things?

You mean like Robin Hood? I love the guy =)

Yes, in fact, if you set up such a gov., I would support you. Especially if your gov. prevented monopolies like the standard oil company, prevented the crimes commited by Wall Street, etc.

Ah yes, what would a DRO do in the case of Wall Street? You think they care about economic ostra... whatever? (I can't spell =)) They can afford to live off their wealth that they collected,, often illegally (Hence the view of many, including myself, that the perpetrators should be jailed and massively fined). And when they die, what're you gonna do, continue the 'punishment' upon their children, who obviously did nothing wrong?

The rich would get away with more.

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow, or some other time. I am sleepy now =)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You mean like Robin Hood? I love the guy =)

Yes, in fact, if you set up such a gov., I would support you. Especially if your gov. prevented monopolies like the standard oil company, prevented the crimes commited by Wall Street, etc.

Wait, did read me correctly? I said: "And by the way, would you support me if I wished to declare myself a government and go around collecting money from rich people forcibly so long as I spent the money well and efficient on charitable public societal things?"

The key word is forcibly.... I'd make people donate some money whether they wanted to or not. Would you still support what I was doing then?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm going to try and explain the difference between taxation and theft again.

A similar situation to these two situations would be if I met you while walking along and said, "Hey, here's a bottle of water and gave it to you." You might say thanks, maybe not, but imagine if next I took out a gun and pointed it at you and said, "Now give me five dollars for that bottle of water." Perhaps you'll pay, but maybe you'll say, "No, I don't want to buy the water from you" and not want to pay me. I'd remind you that I was pointing a gun at you and you would likely pay.

I would say forcing me to take the water would be the act of violence teh demanding of payment would just be an additional offence.

here is a far better analogy:

There is a bar that offers a live show, admission is free but there is a 2 drink minimum. You enter the bar and decide not to watch the show and say you dont drink and thus you need not buy the 2 drinks. Is this right? You are not forced to enter the bar, you chose to, but whether you watch the show or drink the drinks you should still have ot pay. You are at the bar because of you enjoy spending time with your friends who are their or perhaps they have a nice buffet. whatever the reason is you decided to be there and now should pay. Society is the same, you want to be part of it you have to pay the price, you are not forced to be part of society you choose to. Should you decide to opt out you should not recieve the benefits of society.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

UtF: Um, that's what Robin hood did, no?

Look, i know you want me to say no, and then you'll turn around and say "Well that's our gov." Truth is, emphasising the word forcibly is really not that scary. i have no issue with what you're saying, as long as you don't go communist and say "It's all mine." That's different. But if you take, say, 66% (Reagan's tax on rich), which would basically mean (in my book) 66% of, say, 1 or 2 mil (my 'rich person' cut off), leaving that guy with plently of money to have his basic needs and still buy a beautiful car, and you would then use that money to fund medicare, fund our schools, etc. which would help a hell of a lot more people, then you know what? No, i have no problem with it. Because the money you took would help more people than it would have if that guy had instead kept it and invested it in, say, the stocks of a company that was outsourcing our jobs or in the midst of becoming a monopoly (AT&T is actualyy very close to coming under the juristiction of our anti-trust laws, since they are merging with T-Mobile).

So basically, i would support you. Even if it was me that the money was being taken from. I would support you. Because that money would do far more good to far more people than it would have if I selfishly keep it in my pocket. Because once again, it's not even our money if you think about it. It's the fed's, which prints our money and is a private bank. So, yeah.

To me, whatever does the most good for the most people is the best choice. If you had to kill me to save the lives of 3 people, I'd be OK with that. So on and so forth.

Read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html

Humanity can't work in an anarchaic system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

UtF: Um, that's what Robin hood did, no?

Look, i know you want me to say no, and then you'll turn around and say "Well that's our gov." Truth is, emphasising the word forcibly is really not that scary. i have no issue with what you're saying, as long as you don't go communist and say "It's all mine." That's different. But if you take, say, 66% (Reagan's tax on rich), which would basically mean (in my book) 66% of, say, 1 or 2 mil (my 'rich person' cut off), leaving that guy with plently of money to have his basic needs and still buy a beautiful car, and you would then use that money to fund medicare, fund our schools, etc. which would help a hell of a lot more people, then you know what? No, i have no problem with it. Because the money you took would help more people than it would have if that guy had instead kept it and invested it in, say, the stocks of a company that was outsourcing our jobs or in the midst of becoming a monopoly (AT&T is actualyy very close to coming under the juristiction of our anti-trust laws, since they are merging with T-Mobile).

So basically, i would support you. Even if it was me that the money was being taken from. I would support you. Because that money would do far more good to far more people than it would have if I selfishly keep it in my pocket. Because once again, it's not even our money if you think about it. It's the fed's, which prints our money and is a private bank. So, yeah.

To me, whatever does the most good for the most people is the best choice. If you had to kill me to save the lives of 3 people, I'd be OK with that. So on and so forth.

Read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html

Humanity can't work in an anarchaic system.

Well I find that insane, if you don't mind me saying. You find stealing moral as long as you steal only part of a rich person's wealth and spend it on other people who aren't as wealthy? Why? What if the rich person doesn't want you to steal his money? Will you really say too bad and point a gun at him to make him give it up? I'm sorry, but that's insane.

As for quag saying "I would say forcing me to take the water would be the act of violence teh demanding of payment would just be an additional offence" I reply with the analogous statement "I would say forcing me to take the roads would be the act of violence teh demanding payment would just be an additional offence" ... both of you are seeming quite wacko at the moment to be honest.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Humanity can't work unless you initiate force against non-criminals like myself?

I don't see what the point of the link you sent me was....

Coincidentally I was just discussing my sister's high school psychology experiment with her on the subject of the bystander effect. She was testing to see if someone needing help was more likely to get at least one person to help her if there were more of less people in the area. If there was only one person nearby they would almost always seek help, but sometimes with over a dozen people nobody would help at all. According to the results at the link for the bystander effect, with only 1 person they reacted 85% of the time, while with 5 people they reacted 31% of the time. The author of the cracked.com article took this to mean that the person would be less likely to get help if there were 5 people aware of the seizure than just one person, but I think the author miscalculated. If each person helps 31% of the time then that is an average of 1.55 people helping versus only .85 people helping on average if there is only one person aware of the seizure. My sister's data is slightly different, however, but then again her experiment isn't that large.

Anyways, what's your point with all that? Why did you have me read it? Was it because you wanted to tell me that you're using human nature as a reason why you think society "won't work" without a coercive state? Because I already knew that is what you thought and I'll say again: Claiming that people are too dumb to function without you pointing guns at them to take their money, etc, is no excuse to use violence against me or any other people who don't want you forcibly stealing their money, etc.

Edited by Use the Force
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Humanity can't work unless you initiate force against non-criminals like myself?

I don't see what the point of the link you sent me was....

Coincidentally I was just discussing my sister's high school psychology experiment with her on the subject of the bystander effect. She was testing to see if someone needing help was more likely to get at least one person to help her if there were more of less people in the area. If there was only one person nearby they would almost always seek help, but sometimes with over a dozen people nobody would help at all. According to the results at the link for the bystander effect, with only 1 person they reacted 85% of the time, while with 5 people they reacted 31% of the time. The author of the cracked.com article took this to mean that the person would be less likely to get help if there were 5 people aware of the seizure than just one person, but I think the author miscalculated. If each person helps 31% of the time then that is an average of 1.55 people helping versus only .85 people helping on average if there is only one person aware of the seizure. My sister's data is slightly different, however, but then again her experiment isn't that large.

31% of the time meant that in 100 tests with 5+ people around only 31 tests saw someone (at least one not all 5+) getting help. Simplifying it to 1 person in 5 helping out 31% of the time would be 31/500 = 0.06 people helping on average. In the bystander experiments I've seen all 5+ people didn't go to help only one to maybe a few.

----

One thing I do not recall seeing is what happens when two people with different DRO have a disagreement? Which DRO is used?

I think it likely that a person is going to want the DRO that is more likely to side with them. How do you choose? If it is defendants choice then you are forcing the accuser to go to a DRO they might not want to use. Same if it is the accusers choice. Or you end up forcing them to pick the same one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I brought up water utilities earlier because I think that they are the most obvious example of how and why monopolies would develop in an anarchistic society. Let's see if I can provide an adequate demonstration:

Let's say a group of anarchists get together and buy a plot of land somewhere and prepare to build a city from scratch. They contract a company to build water utilities for delivering clean water and removing sewage from the houses (built by some other company that isn't important to this discussion). I assume that this is how you would envision something like this occurring, right? :unsure:

So as the houses and other buildings get built, the water utilities company comes in and adds their plumbing under the roads (also privately built) and hooks them into their water purification plant and their sewage treatment plant. Everything is going smoothly in Anarchtopia and everyone is getting along. :)

For whatever reason, there's a change of management at the water company and they begin to raise prices for maintaining the water service to the town. What remedy could the people find to avoid these monopolistic practices? :huh: They use the company's pipes in the ground attached to the company's water filtration system. A competitor would have to come in and either set down new pipes (dealing with the road-building company to tear up the streets) or buy the rights to the pipes going to the buildings (and they would still have to reconnect them into their own service plant). In any case, they would have to make some kind of deal with the monopoly in order to even get a foot in the door. If the monopoly refuses to cooperate, no one can compel them without violence. In the meantime, people cannot refuse to use the water system "owned" by the company because they are dependent on it for their own survival.

I don't see a feasible way to prevent abuse in situations where many people depend on shared infrastructure. Everyone could build their own self-contained water system, but it's not an efficient use of resources since you would have to have one for every house and business, rather than one central system that serves everyone. And then, there would be no guarantee of a consistent supply for each household. Everyone would have to work on their own to make sure they will be getting enough water for their needs. The expense of such a system could prove to be beyond the means of many people, leaving them at the mercy of the company.

If the government controls water and other utilities, they can ensure that everyone in the community gets cheap access to water and other necessities for modern society. An "every man for himself" system could (and I say could in the very theoretical sense) only work if everyone is already well-to-do (and remains that way).

To change the subject significantly, you seem to be advocating a system that requires every individual to be an expert at devising contracts and everyone would have to be vigilant in paying attention to the behavior of the DROs. The system is grossly inefficient and convoluted if it's working, so far as I can see.

In order to buy groceries, I can't just walk in, select the produce I want to buy, give the shopkeeper money and walk out with my goods. First, I have to have a contract with a DRO. Then that DRO needs to have a contract with the store. If they don't, then they need a contract with a DRO that does have a contract with the store. In order for me to buy goods from that store, all of those contracts need to be verified and any time an entity in the chain changes, it may require a renegotiation for any/all of the contracts. Contract lawyers would love this system. :rolleyes:

One of the features of modern government is that it abstracts the red tape of most mundane contracts out of our daily lives. (An oversimplification) The store applies for a corporate charter with the government. Once granted, I, as a citizen of the government, am free to do business with the store without worrying about any of the contractual obligations arranged to allow the transaction to happen. I simply offer the storekeeper my government-issued currency and he gives me the produce in exchange. My contract with the government is implicit in its social contract or Constitution with the people.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As for quag saying "I would say forcing me to take the water would be the act of violence teh demanding of payment would just be an additional offence" I reply with the analogous statement "I would say forcing me to take the roads would be the act of violence teh demanding payment would just be an additional offence" ... both of you are seeming quite wacko at the moment to be honest.

You are not forced to use the roads, you choose to, that is my point. I cannot understand how you think your CHOICE of living in a certain spot is the same as someone FORCING your to drink a glass of water. Yes your CHOICE of where you live FORCES you to use the roads, but again that obligation comes around only due to the previous CHOICE of living arrangements.

If you cannot see the difference between a CHOICE you make and something you are FORCED to do then you are compeltely unclear on the concept and are in fact the WACKO

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.