What happens when one corporation buys up all the other road making companies and then starts saying they need "maintenance fees", or they then say they will start charging membership fees for using the best routes or other ridiculous shit that private corporations do for money. And who is paying the corporations to build the roads?
Not trying to discredit the theory or line of think I'm just thinking about it and these are just some scenarios popping into my head
If somebody was so rich that they bought every asphalt company (I'm assuming that's what you're saying?) and then he started charging a ridiculous amount then somebody would start a new company and charge less. If they somehow couldn't get supplies to make the land they could go to another country to get supplies. Or somebody from say Mexico could come and perform a better service and steal the monopoly mans customers, by starting a new and better company
Although, realistically, there is virtually no chance of this happening in the first place since there will be so many companies making road (probably)
It's slowly happening across all industries. Luckily that Kraft Unilever deal fell through. As corporations gain more power at the political level they lobby for lesser restrictions and regulations on how they are allowed to wheel and deal until you have handfuls of companies controlling everything. You don't need it to be one guy, and that was a poor example for me to use, when you can have 5-10 control all the assets in an industry and agree to non-competitive pricing. And like you say, sure a new company pops up and under cuts the big boys and starts building a brand. Well the benefits of being a big boy is having pockets deeper than the marianas trench. The new little guy is offered a big buy out and his company is absorbed into the big guys, sometimes they will keep the brand sometimes not. If you want a real life example look at the Canadian telecommunications industry.
Canadians pay more for their cellphones than almost anyone else in the world
And if you look at their telecommunications industry the reasoning becomes quite clear. There are only 3 major cellphone companies in Canada. Bell, Rogers, and Telus. The first two being much bigger than the third
As you can see all the major ones are owned by Telus Rogers and Bell with some smaller regional ones being independent but none that have a significant market share of cellphone contracts
Next look at the prices that Bell Rogers and Telus offer. All identical plans. No competition whatsoever
Build the same plan on all three and I guarantee they will come out to with a few dollars of each other. I would just be wary of creating a climate like this for any industry
Canada has strict regulations which is why I can't just move there today and compete with Bell. In my society there wouldn't be regulations to jump over
What regulations specifically? And whatever regulations you're referring don't stop new companies from popping up, they just can't turn down the big buy outs offered to them. Look at the former companies section of Canadian cellphone companies page
Then the customers would get pissed and stop doing business with them, therefore making the company lose money. They will either need to change, or they will go out of business and have to sell assets to another company.
Here's and example that would cover what you said. Scenario:
A greedy company is charging a shit tonne of money for people to cross the bridge. People are pissed, but they need to use it to get to the other side. So, one day a man says "I'm going to create a ferry business, fuck this. I hate my day job anyways.". Approaches some other people to invest and creates a business. Charges people significantly less and brings them to the other side faster. People start using his service, and his company grows from one ferry, to two ferries. He's created jobs and providing competition. He's not taxed, so he and his employees are making all their profits.
The bridge company will have to lower the price, or he will eventually go out of business and then someone else buys the bridge. So, this starts to happen (prices level out). Some people choose the ferry and some chooses the bridge. It's a natural economic correction.
What your saying would happen, if the government was there stealing from the small business and giving incentives and tax breaks to the bridge company. Therefore making it either impossible (regulations) and/or non-profitable (regulations and taxes).
Specifics would be nice, you're not really explaining anything there.
And okay so the idea is that the will/buying power of the people will lead to a fair market?? And corporations free of regulation and accountability won't find away to gain control?
And okay so the idea is that the will/buying power of the people will lead to a fair market
Markets are free, not fair. Huge difference. Same thing with life.
corporations free of regulation and accountability won't find away to gain control
Corporations are responsible to their boards, who rely on their customers. Yes, without government intervention, the people truly have the regulatory power to make or break a business.
May seem not possible, but that's just because we've been brainwashed thinking the US is a Free Market Capitalist country. It's crony-Capitalism and damn near State Capitalism or Fascism.
Okay so this is why I'm asking you specifically to explain to me the details of how that works, for example why does government regulation lead to cellphone market in Canada? You're making a lot of claims but you're not backing any of this up
why do you think boycotts work?
In the Canadian cellphone market there is no boycott option so I need to understand how government regulation allows this market to exist
In the Canadian cellphone market there is no boycott option so I need to understand how government regulation allows this market to exist
The companies and government collude to make it too hard/expensive to start a brand new telecom company. This is the point. They lobby the government, who then create the rules and regulations in which companies have to abide by. How is this not making sense? Don't mean to be mean, or anything. But, it's a pretty basic concept. Corporations want less competition (equals more money), and greedy/corrupt ass politicians want kick backs, money, cocaine, and strippers. Each party profits handsomely from the collusion.
See that's the problem though, brand new Telecom companies do start up in Canada pretty often. These regulations you refer to but haven't listed have not prevented new companies from starting up. Look at the list of former networks, many within the last decade or so have popped up and been bought up.
It's not that I'm not getting the concept. I fully understand your premise. I'm asking you to back it up with factual evidence or comparable situations and you haven't. Show me the specific legislation that leads to collusion. And you underestimate corporate power, even without regulations
How do they get built in the first place? And okay so then what's the payment system? You sign up for a road pass? Again we're back to price fixing then, 10 big road companies all price fix their passes and jack it up. In your world the people get pissed so company 11 opens up and under cuts price and gets all the business. Except the roads are already fucking built. Those corporations own those roads and now you gotta pay whatever they say. Doesn't matter what company 11 starts building roads and offering passes at because the good routes/infrastructure is already controlled. It's impossible that anyone has thought out the entirety of such a system and identified all the outcomes, side effects and products. I'm not saying it's not the way to go but you seem to think you've got the whole thing ironed out wrinkle free but that's a fantasy world just as much as true communism is
Dude I knew you would say that, you just completely missed the part about the good infrastructure routes already being taken. If the 10 big companies own the routes that are needed for everyday American life to carry on then how will they ever go out of business? You can just boycott the roads they are needed, and it would take and insane amount of time and money for the smaller companies to build alternatives, and these alternatives would have to be in places where current roads didn't already exist, precluding pretty much all the best routes. You don't seem to get that you're "world" is far more complex than you think it is. The fact that you think the markets would just right themselves if government was cut out is just insane. I'm not saying government intervention is good, you're just out of it if you think you everything would just sort itself out nice and neatly. Not a chance.
You have just put the minimal amount of thought into things. You thought you had it with the bridges and it just blows my mind that you didn't think about the complexities of infrastructure at all. You come in with preconceived notions, build up a theory around them, and then never show any actual examples of how your system would prevent the issues brought up. The "they would go out of business" doesn't work when you control what's necessary and an alternative is a long shot away
I would rather pay 100 tolls a day to a private road company than to give it to a group of mass murdering psychopaths that bomb and kill people endlessly and needlessly all over the planet.
I'm fucking tired of people being statist apologists and refusing to call government what it is, a fucking criminal organization that murders and steals through force.
If I can pick and choose between different agencies then yes. The government has a monopoly on some services which means they will inherently be less efficient then they could be
So because you don't know of any private monopolies, you don't believe they exist?
The Affordable care act is a mandated service that is provided by several private for profit health insurance companies, so the insurers are not monopolies.
You can't get insurance across state lines. This is a regulation. Insurance will always be ridiculous expensive with regulations like this
Give me an example if a private monopoly. I have waited years to hear of one. They don't exist. If they did, somebody would come along and make a better product meaning it would no longer be a monopoly. Monopolys exist only because of government regulations and taxes
How can buying insurance across state lines reduce the costs?
Do you know there is no data, that is -0-, none, zero, to support that claim.It is just something politicians say.
Did you notice they don't even mention the idea in the Paul Ryan Replacement plan, yet it is something conservatives always mention as a way to reduce costs. If it is such a great idea why didn't they include it in the replacement plan.
You keep jumping off the topic. You and a lot of Republicans have claimed that buying insurance "across state lines," will reduce costs but they didn't include it in their plan.
I'm not a republican. I don't give a damn what republicans say. If you want to debate republicans then go elsewhere. If you want to debate me then debate me. Don't bring up some mythical straw man about some political party that I don't even identify with.
Smooth dodge, that was never the point. My pointwas is there is no evidence "selling insurance across State lines," will produce any reduction in costs. Each state has their own standards and regulations for insurance companies.
For that plan to work there will have to more federal regulation, how would that cause a cost reduction?
I say we get rid of all regulation. every country in history that has lowered taxes and gotten rid of regulations has prospered. there is plenty of evidence.
I say we get rid of all regulation. every country in history that has lowered taxes and gotten rid of regulations has prospered. there is plenty of evidence.
This was your claim. U.S. taxes were not lowered, they were shifted downward and there are taxes in Chile and Switzerland and regulations as well.
Switzerland:
Clarity on Swiss Taxes 2016
4 May 2016
As revealed by KPMG’s Swiss Tax Report 2016, Switzerland remains one of the highest-ranked countries in international tax competition – particularly with regard to corporate taxation. KPMG's Swiss Tax Report 2016 compares the corporate and income tax rates in 130 countries as well as all 26 cantons.
Share
In a perfect society it is not theft if you are paying for something and then gaining something in return. It is theft because there is so much corruption that we can not see our return.
I live in Philadelphia and we just implemented a "soda tax" that is meant to "fund public school programs while encouraging the community (and children) to choose healthier drink options".
LOTS of problems in this new tax. They changed the allocation budget at the last minute so we can't trust where the funding is going or the amount, they implemented the tax on the distributor so businesses are affected directly then pass the tax along and they don't have a proper code for mark up value, other drinks are being included in this tax like alternative milk and "low calorie" drinks that are not in line with them wanting the public to choose healthier options.
Regardless of them taxing the healthier options as well, if their tax is successful and the community spends less money on sugary drinks, wouldn't it reduce the revenue intended for our school programs?
Just from this magnified example I can agree by seeing how many "goods/services" taxes could just be political garbage and flat out theft.
You will call whatever defense agency, or "police", you have subscribed to (if you are poor then you will try to find a friend, family or church member that will pay for you to use their subscription)
A company could specialize in "protection before pay." They can protect and be paid later with interest. If it is as necessary as you say there will be a market
Security companies already exist. But they only serve those with money. So this just punishes the poor.
You mean like a volunteer service? So instead of dedicated trained employees (police) you want random volunteers responding to emergencies on their free time?
So basically you want a society that allows criminals to be able to do whatever they want to do to poor people. Rape, enslave, anything. For that matter wealthy people can do anything they want to the average person. What's stopping them? They will have the best payed militia around.
Defense agencies will abide by the honor system. If a defense agencies let rich people rape people how would the other agencies possibly be ok with this?
There's no way that 80% of people in a society would subscribe to a service that lets rich people RAPE poor people, and if so the society will fail with or without government
If there is no proof, then the same thing that would happen in that case would happen with out without government. It's one persons word against another.
Every court system would be biased towards their own client. Not to mention that hardly anyone would even pay for that service. The. You would have wars between defense companies, that would cause loss of money and life.
Your system would be pretty shitty to live in, and would be run over by a better system real quick anyways.
We have had pockets of society with little government, and this system has never popped up and been successful.
The allocation and misuse of tax dollars is the real problem. Over taxation and under taxation have been problematic as well. Example, corporations making multi million dollars vs low income home owners.
I think your confused on which taxes. State taxes for most part fund social services. Federal taxes and interest are paid to the federal bank. They don't pay for shit. Irs just a collection agency for the Fed.
Interest paid by the US government to the Federal Reserve for the privilege of using their paper and ink is by no means voluntary. It is the main reason income taxes exist.
Its theft. Whether or not you believe its necessary is a different question. It is a third party taking your property by force. Its theft. Period. Stop trying to rationalize it.
The real conspiracy is that most of these taxes don't go to social service, but to pay off the debt from the Federal Reserve banking system, where the government burrows from the "federal" reserve at interest... meaning every cent in existence is debt and can never be paid off. You can only postpone the collapse with ever ending printing and expansion. There's a reason drugs are illegal (raise price floor), they are used to fund a ton of secret government projects, not enough money can be made via legal means.
There were some famous people that stood and to the IRS, they were arrested and sent into the whole and black-out of the media, just like Dread Pirate Roberts from the Silk Road.
Then there's the property tax. If you have to pay a property tax, you don't own it, you're just a tenant renting it from the government. If you think you own your home, try not paying those taxes and see what happens. Supposedly they're to pay public school systems, lol do we have to have a discussion on those big daddy government Prussian model brainwashing prison daycare centers that don't teach kids any real skills?
Then there's the 'social security number'. Which always gave me a weird feeling, like livestock tag. There was a recent big compilation of research posted here regarding the conspiracy of the Birth Certificate and social security numbers belonging to a secret corporation owned by the Rothschilds. Need to look more into that.
The funniest part of all is that they want your tax returns and claim you can get 'refund'. Lawl. They steal your money then give you some pennies back. Fuck you. There was a good Aaron russo clip that claimed women's 'liberation' and the destruction of the family was fueled by the desire to tax the other 50% of the population and increase consumption. That seems to have great merit.
Then there's the Car Registration, a tax disguised as a fee. Supposedly this another scheme like the income tax, enforced with and men with guns to keep the masses compliant. Need to look more into that.
Where I live property taxes on a modest house can top $10,000 easily. Personally I think there is alot of corruption that is involved with that. We also have alot of toll roads high sales tax, state and city income tax, additional taxes on gasoline, fuel oil , cell phones, cable etc. It is almost impossible to actually figure out how much you are paying and that is definitely by design.
If your taxes go for disclosed services, like libraries, or parks, then its not necessarily theft. Most of those services were approved by voters.
If the services are not performed, or services not requested undertaken, then that is graft, fraud, corruption. Since failure to pay taxes is punished, the term extortion is better than theft. Like paying the mafia, only government is the top mafia. A gang of rather skilled operators, only its not criminal because they can make up one set of rules for us, and another one for themselves.
Some places follow a rule of law with citizen control, other places pretend to and have a bunch of propaganda to make us think what they want us to think, and do what they want us to do.
How does the majority have the right to rule the minority?
It happens, right or wrong, correct? Sometimes a minority rules a majority too, correct?
If there are laws that are followed, and people are allowed input to the laws, the laws tend to evolve, based on the character of the people, their values at the time. By definition, its a matter of legal and illegal. In any given society, it may include some good stuff, some bad stuff. I don't believe in religion or god, I have seen how dogs and animals settle stuff. I am not looking for an ideology to believe in. And the killing of Jews is over rated compared to the killing of anyone else.
As far as people who don't mind being robbed on the street, get real dude. Hypothetical silliness is Sam Harris kind of stuff. I am over it. Case law was a step forward, common law. Precedent. You don't have to turn your life over to a rigid absolute. Blind justice doesn't exist, and moral people are the most monstrous of all. All dictators claim to have the moral high ground. All dogs and all people are scoundrels, but some are loyal to their friends.
According to who? If its according to the law, then the statement is "it is illegal to rule over another person" in a particular jurisdiction.
If its not according to the law, then you got nothing, except a belief, a morality, or an ideology. Might makes right is really what you have when you don't have law. The bigger fist will settle matters. And most people will claim to be right, whether they win or lose.
Sure, so if someone owns all the land in the country, and I own nothing but need food and shelter, I will have no choice but to do anything that the owner person would tell me to do in exchange for the scraps from their table.
All the land suitable for growing food and decent shelter is already owned by someone. It is quite conceivable (and quite real already) that there is large portion of the population that owns nothing and has nothing to offer to the owner class.
So if you have a privilege of owning something, you can order those poor saps do literally anything.
Poor people will not be poor for very long if there aren't regulations to stop them from making money
And the biggest regulation of them all are private property laws.
Nothing prevents a poor person from making money more than not having access to any resources that can help them make money, or even survive, when all resources are owned by someone else, and you cannot just wander off into the woods and grow your own food and build your won house, because woods are already owned by someone who does not give a damn about you.
People will move to where there are jobs. They will work and get money. They will drive to work on private roads and make arrangements to use them just like everybody else will.
Re-read my earlier comment. Owner class has absolutely no obligation to provide jobs for everyone. Ideally this problem would be solved by non-owner-class people not lucky enough to be employed creating their own jobs such as growing food and building shelter for themselves.
But there is a catch. You need to own or have access to some land to do that. And if that land is already owned by someone who has no use for you we back at square 1.
Rights are a concept, they don't actually exist. What is and isn't ok to do isnalso subjective. Our society has deemed that we have a right to not be murdered, and that's enforced with tax dollars.
I disagree. I support the theft of your property to fund the government. I also support them taking my property for the same goal. To make this work I support a democracy where our votes can influence how the stolen money is spent.
The alternative to this would make everyone's life substantially worse.
Well luckily for me there is a government in place that will in most cases prevent you from taking my property. I get to live a pretty comfortable life without fear of theft that will harm me, thanks to the government.
That's fine, but you have already had 30 or more percent of your property stolen and that sucks when you could have defended it just as well without it
Not really. I'm an electrician, not a combat specialist. If we didn't have the government to provide policing then I wouldn't be a pile to dedicate my time to being an electrician. Nobody could as we would all have to fend for ourselves. That means society wouldn't be near as prosperous without all the different trades, and that 30% I saved would pale in comparison to the wealth lost in an anarchy society.
Well no tools are in trucks and job sites. What if the thieves wore masks and robbed me at a stop light? Never mind that there wouldn't be stop lights anymore, nor would i ever stop at one.
The security guard will stop you and fine you and if you don't pay you won't be able to use that road anymore and your defense agency will owe the road owner money and you will owe your defense agency
So whomever gathers the most power will rule. The section of society that enforces taxes will be substantially more power, therefore they would over power the anarchic society. Your society was just eliminated.
So a bunch of nuclear armed defense agencies fighting each other. Maybe a government won't take you over, because your land will really quickly become a nuclear wasteland.
Well in our society the government controls the court and oversees all of us, so there is always a peaceful decision. In your society we would have competing courts that would inevitably lead to violence. Explain why my description is wrong.
How would you enforce a neutral court when they would make more money being biased toward their client? That system would weed out neutral courts in favor of biased courts.
And if they ultimately disagree? Also your delusional if you think people wouldnt prefer to purchase courts that would be biased in their favor. Everyone would want that.
Everyone would. If people had a choice between an agency that was impartial to them, vs an agency that would favor them, the vast majority of them would choose the latter. You are completely delusional if you think otherwise.
How am i ignoring that? The client and agency will agree that their court will favor them. If a competing court disagrees with them, they wont pay up. That will escalate into violence, otherwise why would anyone pay up?
Well we found an impasse. You refuse to acknowledge that people would prefer agnencies that favor them. I stated I think you're delusional, but I think that's wrong. I think your lying. You're lying because if you can't find an impartial court system in your society, the whole thing crumbles.
You would have to change the nature of humans for your society to work. It's the same reason communism failed.
Yes i didnt see anything in there that would suggest anything but biased courts would exist. Please tell me how a neutral court could exist considering nobody would want to pay for that.
The defense agencies that don't pay for it will cease to exist because they won't have clients. The ones that do pay for it will be the ones that have clients. It's the free market
Because i as well as everybody else would prefer a defense agency that has a court biased in my favor. Not that mention the defense agency would prefer that as well in order to keep me out of trouble so I continue to pay the defense agency.
Everything about capitalism goes against the existence of a neutral court.
Exactly. All defense agencies with neutral courts will be beat out by biased defense agencies, and none of them will be able to work with each other. Your entire society collapses.
No, because only a few people will be dumb enough to pick biased courts that nobody will work with. Of course, those people wouldn't survive without or without government in the long run
You keep coming back to the place that I've pointed out is an impasse. You think people will drop their human nature and choose the greater good over the cheaper agency that will favor them. There is our disagreement. I believe history and human nature clearly prove you wrong.
Well yes of course. For example they can provide courts that are more neutral than could exist with an anarchic system. Or another example is stop lights. Bot these were discussed.
You have not refuted the fact that humans would choose courts that were cheaper and favorable to them. You have not refuted human nature.
I have gone over the consequences of that many times. You effectively won't have a defense agency. It's your penalty for being stupid and trying to pull one over on another people
Well yeah your society would implode rather quickly. This is why your idea is stupid. Human nature would never allow your system to work, just like communism.
I'm sorry you're mad that your idea was logically obliterated. You now have a choice. Leave this discussion a little more educated, or dig in and let your pride prevent any kind of intellectual development.
I never said I think in the short term nor that everyone thinks like me. I said the vast majority of people think on the short term to save money and protect themselves. This is proven in every aspect in society.
I don't see how any court would exist in your society. People would just buy defense agencies that protect them regardless if any crimes are committed. They will arbitrate between two parties within the same agency, but go to war with opposing agencies.
That's fine we can discuss that. Historically the result would be a society with a government would destroy us quite easily. Now if we got rid of the government today, the. We would be ruled but whomever can gather the most power, and they will most likely not be as benevolent as our current constitutional republic.
My point is I think getting rid of the government is a stupid idea.
Because it comes via democratic representation. Most people in Europe want to pay into national insurance schemes because it's an efficient cost effective way to provide necessary universal public services that support a kind of society you might want to live in. Such as roads, water, hospitals , schools , police and firebrigade. As well as the capacity to regulate private corporations. This is a system that has provided an incomparably better qol than what went before.
The real philosophical question is how is private property not theft and how is inherited wealth and the attachment of enormous wealth to bloodlines considered acceptable to a wider society.
They don't but a majority of people have the right to decide for everyone. It's far from a perfect system but a reasonably proportional system like in Germany with other counter balances such as regional power are the most humane and efficient system we have for sharing space and maintaining a complex civilisation. The sort of naieve economic libertarianism popular with north Americans does not push freedom downwards but pushes control up to global money markets. Things like the quality of your water and air become set by market forces and you get China. Eventually the Chinese middle class will demand taxation is used to improve air quality.
I disagree. I think voluntary participation in some kind of tax is totally welcome but outside of that i think a manority of people could do these things better voluntarily. If we want these things so passionately that we fund an entire government to do them, why couldnt people voluntarily join together to do whatever it is they are forcing on others through governmenment. Our country existed for a long time without the income tax. Its just redistributing slavery from one group of people to everyone. Our taxes arent even plenty enough to pay the interest owed on each dollar created. Its a nonsensical and immoral system.
Let's take a hypothetical, well-off town. I'll call it Socialville. The economy of Socialville looks like this:
Sales tax: 5% (this will come into play later)
Property tax: 2.0%
Median house value: $500,000
Average home insurance plan: 0.3% of the value of the house. (so, $1,500)
The current average rate for a 30-year mortgage is 4%. With that rate, your monthly payment, plus taxes and insurance, would break down like this:
Principal and interest: $1,910
Taxes: $833
Home insurance: $125
Total monthly payment: $2,868
Your balance sheet, assuming you just bought the house and put 20% down, would look like this:
Assets: $500,000
Debt: $400,000
Equity: $100,000
You and a few Ayn Rand types get together, split off of Socialville, and incorporate Libertown, setting the property tax to zero and declaring that all income will come from sales taxes. Nobody votes to change the sales tax. Unfortunately, Libertown can't fund any schools, libraries, or parks with that income, so those go away. But the majority of people in Libertown don't have kids, so they don't care. Further cuts need to be made to the local government, so the police force is trimmed down to a couple of cops (Barney Fife and Officer Barbrady, I presume), social services are reduced to keeping the streetlights on, and the rest of the residents are urged to buy guns, alarm systems, and hire their own private police force.
Sounds great, right? Well, let's look at what happens after those drastic cuts are made to your new town.
The value of your home plummets
Their former $500,000 homes are now only worth $250,000. In an instant, each resident loses a quarter million dollars in equity. Using the example above, your new balance sheet looks like this:
Assets: $250,000
Equity: $100,000
Debt: $400,000
(Congratulations! You're now $150,000 underwater on your mortgage.)
The insurance companies get wind of this, so the home insurance rates in Libertown quadruple. You have a fixed mortgage, so thankfully your principle and interest remain the same. Your home insurance, on the other hand, now eats up almost a sixth of your new monthly payment:
Principal and interest: $1,910
Taxes: $0 (yay!)
Home insurance: $500
Total monthly payment: $2,410
But, you may say: my monthly payment is lower, so Libertown is a success, right?
Not so fast, kid. You forgot the fees.
Don't forget the fees
Libertown has no state hospital access anymore. All ambulances are now privatized. You could pay $10,000 for an ambulance pickup after dialing 9-1-1, but that wouldn't be prudent, so the new private ambulance sells you an insurance plan: for $60 per month, you get one free ambulance pickup per year.
Now you need to pay the private police. Your neighborhood organizes a meeting and finds a private police force that will only charge each household $300 per month for security protection. It only protects your neighborhood, so let's hope those pesky thieves don't have access to a vehicle where they can simply drive out of your jurisdiction after robbing you.
Wait, you forgot the firefighters! Your bank requires you to have home insurance, but your home insurance threatens to drop you if you don't live in a neighborhood without access to a fire patrol. Luckily, Libertown finds a friendly for-profit fire patrol willing to come to your house for a one-time payment of $7,500, or you could buy their insurance plan for $45 per month.
Now your new monthly payment looks like this:
Principal and interest: $1,910
Taxes: $0
Home insurance: $500
Private ambulance insurance: $60
Private security force: $300
Private fire patrol: $45
Total monthly payment: $2,815
Again, you might say: I'm saving $53 per month! Ah, but you're forgetting the roads.
Paving those darned roads
State governments typically hire contractors to pave the roads for small towns. Hell, they use contractors to pave highways nowadays. Those guys don't come cheap. The cost to pave an area the size of a driveway for a two-car garage can approach $6,000 or more. Since contractors typically set their rates based on what they can get from the largest nearby government, Libertown gets no discount.
So, let's say Libertown buckles down and decides to finally fund the maintenance of roads. Sadly, that 5% sales tax can't fund any new roads. Let's raise revenue the libertarian way -- raise the sales tax! It goes from 5% to 10% overnight.
Now you're paying 5% more for goods than the people in Socialville. That $53 you were saving vanishes in less than a week. Worse yet, people in Libertown are venturing into Socialville and buying the goods there to save paying 5% more in sales tax, inadvertently raising revenue for Socialville and starving Libertown into bankruptcy. You can't sell your home because nobody wants to buy a house that isn't in a good school system. You can't walk away from your mortgage because you're underwater.
Endgame
You declare bankruptcy, and the few people who fooled you into joining Libertown buy your property from the bank (with whom they own shares in) for pennies on the dollar, knock it down, and turn it into a private prison, all while laughing at your naïvete.
To me taxation is a situation you will always get when money and greed mix. You always get conspirators and conspiracy,: people prepared to conspire with others to take as much of the tax revenue for themselves as they can. Always has been and always will be. Tribal , governmental, or private money. Labels don't matter. Its humans being humans. Its the price of using money but until someone comes up with something better we are stuck with it.
Just got to be vigilante and stand up against it. Get enough people on your side and your going to get change. When you live in a democracy your supposed to be able to talk about such things and protest about them. You can use the courts our taxes have paid for to file lawsuits, etc... (feel sorry for those who live under totalitarian regimes who can't do this and the only option is armed revolt)
Having a society where there is no taxation and no government is Utopian and has never worked. All you get is dictators/warlords, people who are crooks and will conspire with others to take tax revenue they get for themselves as the government did before them at the rate they demand.
Taxation is essential. Taxes pay for roads, schools, hospitals, police, etc... These big corporations (whose political puppets cry out against taxation so their masters are more profitable with bigger bonuses for executives) wouldn't be as profitable if they had to educate their workforce from scatch, build the roads to supply their customers with their products/services, unable to sell product and services to the goverment due to the institution being broke, etc...
For me, it is politicians promise of tax cuts being the usual form of con game or conspiracy these days. Means big tax breaks for the rich while minimal tax relief for common people while these common people payout more for private schooling for their kids, pay more for their health at private hospitals, pay more for transportation using private toll roads and bridges, etc.. so any miniscule tax relief they received is gone and their paying 200% more for things the government provided freely using taxation to pay for them. The rich people who got the big taxation breaks, any government cutback means nothing as they'd always been able to pay insurance for private hospitals, been able to afford to send their kids to the best private school, etc...
When and where government and politicians publicly tell people they need you to pay X dollars in taxes to do Y thing and then use the tax revenue to accomplish Y thing there is no conspiracy. Sure their may be some small conspiracies involved on the side over trivial matters but if the government delivered you can't call it conspiracy.
It is extortion. It is taxation without representation it is what ever you would like to call it. That is why I just pay the fine and don't file if I have to pay a thousand dollars to stay out of the American prison system I will do it. The are really hanging from our nuts these days and it is just going to get worse.
How does the majority have the right to rule the minority?
It happens, right or wrong, correct? Sometimes a minority rules a majority too, correct?
If there are laws that are followed, and people are allowed input to the laws, the laws tend to evolve, based on the character of the people, their values at the time. By definition, its a matter of legal and illegal. In any given society, it may include some good stuff, some bad stuff. I don't believe in religion or god, I have seen how dogs and animals settle stuff. I am not looking for an ideology to believe in. And the killing of Jews is over rated compared to the killing of anyone else.
As far as people who don't mind being robbed on the street, get real dude. Hypothetical silliness is Sam Harris kind of stuff. I am over it. Case law was a step forward, common law. Precedent. You don't have to turn your life over to a rigid absolute. Blind justice doesn't exist, and moral people are the most monstrous of all. All dictators claim to have the moral high ground. All dogs and all people are scoundrels, but some are loyal to their friends.
Rights are a concept, they don't actually exist. What is and isn't ok to do isnalso subjective. Our society has deemed that we have a right to not be murdered, and that's enforced with tax dollars.
Not really. I'm an electrician, not a combat specialist. If we didn't have the government to provide policing then I wouldn't be a pile to dedicate my time to being an electrician. Nobody could as we would all have to fend for ourselves. That means society wouldn't be near as prosperous without all the different trades, and that 30% I saved would pale in comparison to the wealth lost in an anarchy society.
Well yes of course. For example they can provide courts that are more neutral than could exist with an anarchic system. Or another example is stop lights. Bot these were discussed.
You have not refuted the fact that humans would choose courts that were cheaper and favorable to them. You have not refuted human nature.
256 comments
n/a Discopillar 2017-02-23
Income tax = theft Goods/services and property taxes = necessary
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Have you read any opposing literature to your viewpoint?
Besides, even if it were hypothetically necessary, it is still theft
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
Just curious, is the idea that all infrastructure would be privatized?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Yes
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
What happens when one corporation buys up all the other road making companies and then starts saying they need "maintenance fees", or they then say they will start charging membership fees for using the best routes or other ridiculous shit that private corporations do for money. And who is paying the corporations to build the roads?
Not trying to discredit the theory or line of think I'm just thinking about it and these are just some scenarios popping into my head
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If somebody was so rich that they bought every asphalt company (I'm assuming that's what you're saying?) and then he started charging a ridiculous amount then somebody would start a new company and charge less. If they somehow couldn't get supplies to make the land they could go to another country to get supplies. Or somebody from say Mexico could come and perform a better service and steal the monopoly mans customers, by starting a new and better company
Although, realistically, there is virtually no chance of this happening in the first place since there will be so many companies making road (probably)
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
http://mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/food-brands-map.png
It's slowly happening across all industries. Luckily that Kraft Unilever deal fell through. As corporations gain more power at the political level they lobby for lesser restrictions and regulations on how they are allowed to wheel and deal until you have handfuls of companies controlling everything. You don't need it to be one guy, and that was a poor example for me to use, when you can have 5-10 control all the assets in an industry and agree to non-competitive pricing. And like you say, sure a new company pops up and under cuts the big boys and starts building a brand. Well the benefits of being a big boy is having pockets deeper than the marianas trench. The new little guy is offered a big buy out and his company is absorbed into the big guys, sometimes they will keep the brand sometimes not. If you want a real life example look at the Canadian telecommunications industry.
Canadians pay more for their cellphones than almost anyone else in the world
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3717093
http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/3613139
https://www.google.ca/amp/vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/why-are-canadian-cell-phone-rates-among-highest-in-world/amp
And if you look at their telecommunications industry the reasoning becomes quite clear. There are only 3 major cellphone companies in Canada. Bell, Rogers, and Telus. The first two being much bigger than the third
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Canada
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Communications
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telus
Here's the full list of companies in Canada
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_mobile_phone_companies
As you can see all the major ones are owned by Telus Rogers and Bell with some smaller regional ones being independent but none that have a significant market share of cellphone contracts
Next look at the prices that Bell Rogers and Telus offer. All identical plans. No competition whatsoever
http://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Cell_phone_plans
http://www.rogers.com/consumer/wireless/smartphone-plans
http://www.telus.com/en/on/mobility/plans/
Build the same plan on all three and I guarantee they will come out to with a few dollars of each other. I would just be wary of creating a climate like this for any industry
n/a HelperBot_ 2017-02-23
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 35252
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Canada has strict regulations which is why I can't just move there today and compete with Bell. In my society there wouldn't be regulations to jump over
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
What regulations specifically? And whatever regulations you're referring don't stop new companies from popping up, they just can't turn down the big buy outs offered to them. Look at the former companies section of Canadian cellphone companies page
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
Then the customers would get pissed and stop doing business with them, therefore making the company lose money. They will either need to change, or they will go out of business and have to sell assets to another company.
Here's and example that would cover what you said. Scenario:
A greedy company is charging a shit tonne of money for people to cross the bridge. People are pissed, but they need to use it to get to the other side. So, one day a man says "I'm going to create a ferry business, fuck this. I hate my day job anyways.". Approaches some other people to invest and creates a business. Charges people significantly less and brings them to the other side faster. People start using his service, and his company grows from one ferry, to two ferries. He's created jobs and providing competition. He's not taxed, so he and his employees are making all their profits.
The bridge company will have to lower the price, or he will eventually go out of business and then someone else buys the bridge. So, this starts to happen (prices level out). Some people choose the ferry and some chooses the bridge. It's a natural economic correction.
What your saying would happen, if the government was there stealing from the small business and giving incentives and tax breaks to the bridge company. Therefore making it either impossible (regulations) and/or non-profitable (regulations and taxes).
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
See my reply to show that that is not what happens at all
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
....Because of crony Capitalism and the government. In an alternative system (societal and economic), you would not have an opportunity to do it.
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
Can you show why crony capitalism and the government cause this?
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
In three words: Regulation, Taxation, and Lobbying.
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
Specifics would be nice, you're not really explaining anything there.
And okay so the idea is that the will/buying power of the people will lead to a fair market?? And corporations free of regulation and accountability won't find away to gain control?
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
Markets are free, not fair. Huge difference. Same thing with life.
Corporations are responsible to their boards, who rely on their customers. Yes, without government intervention, the people truly have the regulatory power to make or break a business.
May seem not possible, but that's just because we've been brainwashed thinking the US is a Free Market Capitalist country. It's crony-Capitalism and damn near State Capitalism or Fascism.
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
Okay so this is why I'm asking you specifically to explain to me the details of how that works, for example why does government regulation lead to cellphone market in Canada? You're making a lot of claims but you're not backing any of this up
In the Canadian cellphone market there is no boycott option so I need to understand how government regulation allows this market to exist
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
The companies and government collude to make it too hard/expensive to start a brand new telecom company. This is the point. They lobby the government, who then create the rules and regulations in which companies have to abide by. How is this not making sense? Don't mean to be mean, or anything. But, it's a pretty basic concept. Corporations want less competition (equals more money), and greedy/corrupt ass politicians want kick backs, money, cocaine, and strippers. Each party profits handsomely from the collusion.
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
See that's the problem though, brand new Telecom companies do start up in Canada pretty often. These regulations you refer to but haven't listed have not prevented new companies from starting up. Look at the list of former networks, many within the last decade or so have popped up and been bought up.
It's not that I'm not getting the concept. I fully understand your premise. I'm asking you to back it up with factual evidence or comparable situations and you haven't. Show me the specific legislation that leads to collusion. And you underestimate corporate power, even without regulations
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
And back to previous points. Who gives the private entities the money to build the roads?
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
The people who choose to use those roads ಠ_ಠ..
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
How do they get built in the first place? And okay so then what's the payment system? You sign up for a road pass? Again we're back to price fixing then, 10 big road companies all price fix their passes and jack it up. In your world the people get pissed so company 11 opens up and under cuts price and gets all the business. Except the roads are already fucking built. Those corporations own those roads and now you gotta pay whatever they say. Doesn't matter what company 11 starts building roads and offering passes at because the good routes/infrastructure is already controlled. It's impossible that anyone has thought out the entirety of such a system and identified all the outcomes, side effects and products. I'm not saying it's not the way to go but you seem to think you've got the whole thing ironed out wrinkle free but that's a fantasy world just as much as true communism is
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
Clearly you didn't understand my bridge and ferry business metaphor, and you most likely never will. So... I suppose, agree to disagree...
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
Dude I knew you would say that, you just completely missed the part about the good infrastructure routes already being taken. If the 10 big companies own the routes that are needed for everyday American life to carry on then how will they ever go out of business? You can just boycott the roads they are needed, and it would take and insane amount of time and money for the smaller companies to build alternatives, and these alternatives would have to be in places where current roads didn't already exist, precluding pretty much all the best routes. You don't seem to get that you're "world" is far more complex than you think it is. The fact that you think the markets would just right themselves if government was cut out is just insane. I'm not saying government intervention is good, you're just out of it if you think you everything would just sort itself out nice and neatly. Not a chance.
n/a andywarhaul 2017-02-23
You have just put the minimal amount of thought into things. You thought you had it with the bridges and it just blows my mind that you didn't think about the complexities of infrastructure at all. You come in with preconceived notions, build up a theory around them, and then never show any actual examples of how your system would prevent the issues brought up. The "they would go out of business" doesn't work when you control what's necessary and an alternative is a long shot away
n/a Hambone_Malone 2017-02-23
I would rather pay 100 tolls a day to a private road company than to give it to a group of mass murdering psychopaths that bomb and kill people endlessly and needlessly all over the planet.
I'm fucking tired of people being statist apologists and refusing to call government what it is, a fucking criminal organization that murders and steals through force.
Not being rude to you man, just venting.
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
And paying fees instead of taxes will make you happier?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If I can pick and choose between different agencies then yes. The government has a monopoly on some services which means they will inherently be less efficient then they could be
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
Less efficient ok we have how now had 30 years of privatization, can you name any that are more efficient?
Garbage was privatized early on, do you think garbage collectionismoreefficient?
The workers get paid much less so instead of staying in the community your fees are now sent off to wall street for profits.
And you pay 4 times the price you once paid.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If the government is involved it isn't "privatized"
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
If the service is private, but mandated by law is it privatized?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
That's a monopoly
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
A government mandated service does not mean it is a monopoly, example, the current ACA health care plan.
And monopolies can and do exist without a mandate by the government.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
I've never seen a monopoly without government.
The affordable care act is not private
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
So because you don't know of any private monopolies, you don't believe they exist?
The Affordable care act is a mandated service that is provided by several private for profit health insurance companies, so the insurers are not monopolies.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
You can't get insurance across state lines. This is a regulation. Insurance will always be ridiculous expensive with regulations like this
Give me an example if a private monopoly. I have waited years to hear of one. They don't exist. If they did, somebody would come along and make a better product meaning it would no longer be a monopoly. Monopolys exist only because of government regulations and taxes
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
How can buying insurance across state lines reduce the costs?
Do you know there is no data, that is -0-, none, zero, to support that claim.It is just something politicians say.
Did you notice they don't even mention the idea in the Paul Ryan Replacement plan, yet it is something conservatives always mention as a way to reduce costs. If it is such a great idea why didn't they include it in the replacement plan.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Competition = lower costs
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
That is just another talking point.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Take an economics class.
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
Why didn't the Republican ACA Replacement plan include that in their offering?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Republicans are crony capitalists just like democrats
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
You keep jumping off the topic. You and a lot of Republicans have claimed that buying insurance "across state lines," will reduce costs but they didn't include it in their plan.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
I'm not a republican. I don't give a damn what republicans say. If you want to debate republicans then go elsewhere. If you want to debate me then debate me. Don't bring up some mythical straw man about some political party that I don't even identify with.
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
I am pointing out that the talking point, "sell insurance across state lines," is nothing but bs.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
How? It is a fact that if there were less regulations then insurance would be cheaper. An example is insurance across state lines
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
But not included in any of replacement plans that have been offered by the people who repeated it.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
ok? what do you expect me to do about that?
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
Smooth dodge, that was never the point. My pointwas is there is no evidence "selling insurance across State lines," will produce any reduction in costs. Each state has their own standards and regulations for insurance companies.
For that plan to work there will have to more federal regulation, how would that cause a cost reduction?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
I say we get rid of all regulation. every country in history that has lowered taxes and gotten rid of regulations has prospered. there is plenty of evidence.
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
Please, name these magical mythical countries or at least name few.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
That became successful due to capitalism?
America, Chile, Switzerland
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
This was your claim. U.S. taxes were not lowered, they were shifted downward and there are taxes in Chile and Switzerland and regulations as well.
Switzerland:
4 May 2016
As revealed by KPMG’s Swiss Tax Report 2016, Switzerland remains one of the highest-ranked countries in international tax competition – particularly with regard to corporate taxation. KPMG's Swiss Tax Report 2016 compares the corporate and income tax rates in 130 countries as well as all 26 cantons. Share
https://home.kpmg.com/ch/en/home/insights/2016/05/clarity-on-swiss-taxes-2016.html
Chile:
<https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Tax/dttl-tax-chilehighlights-2016.pdf
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
When the fuck did I say I was talking about 2016? I'm talking about historically...
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
Hey, no problem, show me.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
I just did. Chile freed the markets in the mid 70s and its still the best Latina American country
The United States was prosperous for a reason...
Liechtenstein and Switzerland are very rich and the freest markets in the world
n/a GuruOfGravitas 2017-02-23
No, you told me what you believe you couldn't support it with any evidence. That is ok but don't expect me to agree.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Wat
n/a Discopillar 2017-02-23
In a perfect society it is not theft if you are paying for something and then gaining something in return. It is theft because there is so much corruption that we can not see our return.
I live in Philadelphia and we just implemented a "soda tax" that is meant to "fund public school programs while encouraging the community (and children) to choose healthier drink options". LOTS of problems in this new tax. They changed the allocation budget at the last minute so we can't trust where the funding is going or the amount, they implemented the tax on the distributor so businesses are affected directly then pass the tax along and they don't have a proper code for mark up value, other drinks are being included in this tax like alternative milk and "low calorie" drinks that are not in line with them wanting the public to choose healthier options. Regardless of them taxing the healthier options as well, if their tax is successful and the community spends less money on sugary drinks, wouldn't it reduce the revenue intended for our school programs?
Just from this magnified example I can agree by seeing how many "goods/services" taxes could just be political garbage and flat out theft.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If you are being forced to pay for anything with a gun to your head it has to be theft
n/a Discopillar 2017-02-23
I've never had a gun to my head over anything and I'm pretty sure the IRS is not as blood thirsty as the CIA
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Just stop paying your income tax and see what happens. Or ask people that did it
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
What the hell is the difference? If I own land, why is forcing me to pay the government not theft?
n/a Rockran 2017-02-23
Taxation is necessary to fund society. The issue is where it's spent. But the idea of taxation isn't the problem.
Without taxation, who pays things like emergency services and infrastructure?
If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect to use things that taxes paid for :)
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
The same people who pay for them now.
n/a Rockran 2017-02-23
Do you mean that people should only pay for them when they need it?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Yes they shouldn't be required to pay, and if they want to do pay more for a less fortunate family they can do that too
n/a Rockran 2017-02-23
So if you need to call the police - Who pays for the call out?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
You will call whatever defense agency, or "police", you have subscribed to (if you are poor then you will try to find a friend, family or church member that will pay for you to use their subscription)
n/a Rockran 2017-02-23
Which is a terrrrrrible idea.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
How?
n/a Rockran 2017-02-23
Because if you need to call the police, you shouldn't be forced to deal with the question "Can I afford it?"
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
A company could specialize in "protection before pay." They can protect and be paid later with interest. If it is as necessary as you say there will be a market
Many are willing to help those less fortunate
What is the problem?
n/a Rockran 2017-02-23
Security companies already exist. But they only serve those with money. So this just punishes the poor.
You mean like a volunteer service? So instead of dedicated trained employees (police) you want random volunteers responding to emergencies on their free time?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
No I mean founded through voluntary means
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
And when nobody is willing to help you?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Then go somewhere else with nicer people. The people I know are Christians and love to help people
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
So basically you want a society that allows criminals to be able to do whatever they want to do to poor people. Rape, enslave, anything. For that matter wealthy people can do anything they want to the average person. What's stopping them? They will have the best payed militia around.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
The only poor people would be people who are too lazy or people who are too much of assholes to be helped by somebody.
Unlike now, they could start businesses and rise up easily
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
So a wealthy person can rape your sister and there is nothing you can do about it because their defense agency is stronger than yours.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Defense agencies will abide by the honor system. If a defense agencies let rich people rape people how would the other agencies possibly be ok with this?
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Who cares if they are ok with it. They are weaker so they can't do anything.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
1 defense agency with rich clients VS infinite agencies coming together. I wonder who will win
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
you have to understand, the rich clients make up for 80% of the wealth in the country. Their defense form would obliterate the rest.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
There's no way that 80% of people in a society would subscribe to a service that lets rich people RAPE poor people, and if so the society will fail with or without government
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
The rich person denied the rape.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If there is no proof, then the same thing that would happen in that case would happen with out without government. It's one persons word against another.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Who decides what constitutes proof?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Courts
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Who pays for the courts?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
This is how courts could work:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Every court system would be biased towards their own client. Not to mention that hardly anyone would even pay for that service. The. You would have wars between defense companies, that would cause loss of money and life.
Your system would be pretty shitty to live in, and would be run over by a better system real quick anyways.
We have had pockets of society with little government, and this system has never popped up and been successful.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
When?
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
The American Indians.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
They were all independent tribes so that's a shitty comparison. They were also fighting with each other
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
They all got smashed by a society that had a government.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If they were working together they probably wouldn't have
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
If only they had something to combine their abilities into a more cohesive society. Like a government.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Or a language and an ability to all communicate
n/a 1-800-GOFUCKYOURSELF 2017-02-23
The allocation and misuse of tax dollars is the real problem. Over taxation and under taxation have been problematic as well. Example, corporations making multi million dollars vs low income home owners.
n/a eks91 2017-02-23
I think your confused on which taxes. State taxes for most part fund social services. Federal taxes and interest are paid to the federal bank. They don't pay for shit. Irs just a collection agency for the Fed.
n/a Muh_Condishuns 2017-02-23
It is theft. Collecting interest is also theft.
n/a KickedinTheDick 2017-02-23
Interest on what? If you make a voluntary trade and interest is charged, it isnt theft.
n/a Aluminoti 2017-02-23
Interest paid by the US government to the Federal Reserve for the privilege of using their paper and ink is by no means voluntary. It is the main reason income taxes exist.
n/a KickedinTheDick 2017-02-23
Yes, but that is only one type of interest. I was talking about interest, say, on a loan or mortgage, etc.
n/a ZeePirate 2017-02-23
They made it impossible to due otherwise
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
Interest isn't theft, unless it's agreed up and done voluntarily. I personally think it's morally wrong (usury), but not theft.
n/a KickedinTheDick 2017-02-23
Its theft. Whether or not you believe its necessary is a different question. It is a third party taking your property by force. Its theft. Period. Stop trying to rationalize it.
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
It's the price you pay to live in society. Nothing is free. Let me guess, you're one of these "sovereign citizens" eh?
n/a logicescapesme 2017-02-23
Pass that Keefer over here
n/a ShitOfPeace 2017-02-23
If it was the price for something I would be able not to pay it without being violently taken away.
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
If you don't like US taxes, you're welcome to leave. I'm sure there's some country in Africa where the tax burden is quite low.
n/a ShitOfPeace 2017-02-23
That's not a legitimate argument. It isn't free to leave at all.
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
Fuck you, yes it is.
n/a ShitOfPeace 2017-02-23
I just explained why it isn't, and you failed to give a reason why I'm wrong.
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
"It isn't free to leave at all"
That's your fucking explanation? Really?
n/a ShitOfPeace 2017-02-23
Forcing someone to either pay taxes or leave the place where they have lived their whole life at a cost to them is wrong.
Poor people can't afford to leave if they don't like the tax structure.
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
Poor people don't pay income taxes you dolt
n/a ShitOfPeace 2017-02-23
There's a lot more to it than income taxes. Stop being an asshole. It only works when you're right, and even then it's not the best tactic.
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
Ah, like now.
n/a ShitOfPeace 2017-02-23
Put up an actual legitimate argument and you might be right. Not as of now though.
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
You act like you've provided something of substance. But really, you're just a fucking moron.
n/a ShitOfPeace 2017-02-23
I'm the only one that actually made an argument of some sort. I can't really argue against someone who doesn't put up an argument.
I'm pretty sure it's just because you don't have any logic behind your belief, just name calling.
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
You're extremely delusional. I imagine it'll only be a few years before you finally kill yourself.
n/a KickedinTheDick 2017-02-23
And pay an expat tax
n/a dr_warlock 2017-02-23
The real conspiracy is that most of these taxes don't go to social service, but to pay off the debt from the Federal Reserve banking system, where the government burrows from the "federal" reserve at interest... meaning every cent in existence is debt and can never be paid off. You can only postpone the collapse with ever ending printing and expansion. There's a reason drugs are illegal (raise price floor), they are used to fund a ton of secret government projects, not enough money can be made via legal means.
There were some famous people that stood and to the IRS, they were arrested and sent into the whole and black-out of the media, just like Dread Pirate Roberts from the Silk Road.
Then there's the property tax. If you have to pay a property tax, you don't own it, you're just a tenant renting it from the government. If you think you own your home, try not paying those taxes and see what happens. Supposedly they're to pay public school systems, lol do we have to have a discussion on those big daddy government Prussian model brainwashing prison daycare centers that don't teach kids any real skills?
Then there's the 'social security number'. Which always gave me a weird feeling, like livestock tag. There was a recent big compilation of research posted here regarding the conspiracy of the Birth Certificate and social security numbers belonging to a secret corporation owned by the Rothschilds. Need to look more into that.
The funniest part of all is that they want your tax returns and claim you can get 'refund'. Lawl. They steal your money then give you some pennies back. Fuck you. There was a good Aaron russo clip that claimed women's 'liberation' and the destruction of the family was fueled by the desire to tax the other 50% of the population and increase consumption. That seems to have great merit.
Then there's the Car Registration, a tax disguised as a fee. Supposedly this another scheme like the income tax, enforced with and men with guns to keep the masses compliant. Need to look more into that.
There's probably more I forgot.
n/a EarthquakesVolcanoes 2017-02-23
It is theft
n/a Aluminoti 2017-02-23
Where I live property taxes on a modest house can top $10,000 easily. Personally I think there is alot of corruption that is involved with that. We also have alot of toll roads high sales tax, state and city income tax, additional taxes on gasoline, fuel oil , cell phones, cable etc. It is almost impossible to actually figure out how much you are paying and that is definitely by design.
n/a toastedtobacco 2017-02-23
Move the fuck out of Jersey
n/a rockytimber 2017-02-23
If your taxes go for disclosed services, like libraries, or parks, then its not necessarily theft. Most of those services were approved by voters.
If the services are not performed, or services not requested undertaken, then that is graft, fraud, corruption. Since failure to pay taxes is punished, the term extortion is better than theft. Like paying the mafia, only government is the top mafia. A gang of rather skilled operators, only its not criminal because they can make up one set of rules for us, and another one for themselves.
Some places follow a rule of law with citizen control, other places pretend to and have a bunch of propaganda to make us think what they want us to think, and do what they want us to do.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
How does the majority have the right to rule the minority? If the majority wanted to kill Jews is that ok?
n/a rockytimber 2017-02-23
It happens, right or wrong, correct? Sometimes a minority rules a majority too, correct?
If there are laws that are followed, and people are allowed input to the laws, the laws tend to evolve, based on the character of the people, their values at the time. By definition, its a matter of legal and illegal. In any given society, it may include some good stuff, some bad stuff. I don't believe in religion or god, I have seen how dogs and animals settle stuff. I am not looking for an ideology to believe in. And the killing of Jews is over rated compared to the killing of anyone else.
As far as people who don't mind being robbed on the street, get real dude. Hypothetical silliness is Sam Harris kind of stuff. I am over it. Case law was a step forward, common law. Precedent. You don't have to turn your life over to a rigid absolute. Blind justice doesn't exist, and moral people are the most monstrous of all. All dictators claim to have the moral high ground. All dogs and all people are scoundrels, but some are loyal to their friends.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Nobody has the right to rule over another person
n/a rockytimber 2017-02-23
According to who? If its according to the law, then the statement is "it is illegal to rule over another person" in a particular jurisdiction.
If its not according to the law, then you got nothing, except a belief, a morality, or an ideology. Might makes right is really what you have when you don't have law. The bigger fist will settle matters. And most people will claim to be right, whether they win or lose.
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
Sure, so if someone owns all the land in the country, and I own nothing but need food and shelter, I will have no choice but to do anything that the owner person would tell me to do in exchange for the scraps from their table.
They would, in effect rule over me.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Nobody will ever own all the land.
Except government.
If you are forced to steal a loaf of bread, you can pay that person back the next day times 2.
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
But there are plenty of people who own no land.
All the land suitable for growing food and decent shelter is already owned by someone. It is quite conceivable (and quite real already) that there is large portion of the population that owns nothing and has nothing to offer to the owner class.
So if you have a privilege of owning something, you can order those poor saps do literally anything.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If by someone you mean government.
Poor people will not be poor for very long if there aren't regulations to stop them from making money
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
And the biggest regulation of them all are private property laws.
Nothing prevents a poor person from making money more than not having access to any resources that can help them make money, or even survive, when all resources are owned by someone else, and you cannot just wander off into the woods and grow your own food and build your won house, because woods are already owned by someone who does not give a damn about you.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
What?
People will move to where there are jobs. They will work and get money. They will drive to work on private roads and make arrangements to use them just like everybody else will.
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
Re-read my earlier comment. Owner class has absolutely no obligation to provide jobs for everyone. Ideally this problem would be solved by non-owner-class people not lucky enough to be employed creating their own jobs such as growing food and building shelter for themselves.
But there is a catch. You need to own or have access to some land to do that. And if that land is already owned by someone who has no use for you we back at square 1.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If people don't provide jobs then they won't get anything done. If we slowly changed things in the US everybody would own something
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
They'll provide some jobs. But not jobs for everyone.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
How can you be so sure?
There will be a lot more jobs than there are now, and there really aren't that many unemployed in the US compared to many other countries
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
Only people who own resources can create jobs.
And I see no motivation for them to provide jobs for everyone.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
That's how people survive. Making money. You need people to work for you to make money
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
So I assume you agree with my point that people with the ability to create jobs have no obligation to create jobs for everyone.
Your libertarian utopia is missing the most important freedom, the freedom to create your own job when no one else is giving it to you.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Why can't you create your own job?
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
Because you need resources. You cannot grow food for yourself and your family if you don't have land.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Why won't people have land?
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
Because if you don't have it in the 1st place, no one is obligated to give it you.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Rights are a concept, they don't actually exist. What is and isn't ok to do isnalso subjective. Our society has deemed that we have a right to not be murdered, and that's enforced with tax dollars.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Well whoever this society is has no right to my property
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
I disagree. I support the theft of your property to fund the government. I also support them taking my property for the same goal. To make this work I support a democracy where our votes can influence how the stolen money is spent.
The alternative to this would make everyone's life substantially worse.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
I support the theft of your property to. What it's for is pretty irrelevant. Not a very good basis for society
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Well luckily for me there is a government in place that will in most cases prevent you from taking my property. I get to live a pretty comfortable life without fear of theft that will harm me, thanks to the government.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
That's fine, but you have already had 30 or more percent of your property stolen and that sucks when you could have defended it just as well without it
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Not really. I'm an electrician, not a combat specialist. If we didn't have the government to provide policing then I wouldn't be a pile to dedicate my time to being an electrician. Nobody could as we would all have to fend for ourselves. That means society wouldn't be near as prosperous without all the different trades, and that 30% I saved would pale in comparison to the wealth lost in an anarchy society.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
It takes about an hour to learn how to shoot a gun
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
And when two guys with guns comes and takes all my tools, what then?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
It will be on video camera and your defense agency will find out who it was and take them back
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
How is this non government society gonna video tape every single things that ever happens?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
You and your defense agency will put video cameras in your home. I assume that's where your tools would be
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Well no tools are in trucks and job sites. What if the thieves wore masks and robbed me at a stop light? Never mind that there wouldn't be stop lights anymore, nor would i ever stop at one.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Why wouldn't there be stoplights?
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Who would put them up? Who would enforce them?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
People who own the roads
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Fuck their stop light. Why would I stop at it?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
The security guard will stop you and fine you and if you don't pay you won't be able to use that road anymore and your defense agency will owe the road owner money and you will owe your defense agency
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
I'm rich so I got a defense agency that I'd really powerful. We ain't paying shit and you're doing nothing about it.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
The other agencies will destroy your agency and you will no longer have one to use and you will be toast
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
So whomever gathers the most power will rule. The section of society that enforces taxes will be substantially more power, therefore they would over power the anarchic society. Your society was just eliminated.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
No part of society will enforce taxes
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Yes they will. You're in one right now.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Why don't countries that currently don't have militaries get attacked?
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Like who?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/11/these-22-countries-dont-have-military/98858/
As of 2014, 22
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
You want me to go through 22 countries and explain each of their national defense situation? Cmon ma, ask me a reasonable question.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If they can defend themselves why couldn't my society? I'm not asking you anything
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Most if not all of those countries have a national defense.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
And people with guns are a national defense. And defense agencies with nukes are a damn good national defense
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
So a bunch of nuclear armed defense agencies fighting each other. Maybe a government won't take you over, because your land will really quickly become a nuclear wasteland.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
They won't be fighting each other because they aren't stupid just like Russia and the US don't nuke each other today
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Then how do they settle disputes?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
With courts
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
And when the competing courts disagree?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
What do you mean competing courts?
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Two competing private courts. Each party or defense agency will have their own court.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
That's not what a court is
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Well in our society the government controls the court and oversees all of us, so there is always a peaceful decision. In your society we would have competing courts that would inevitably lead to violence. Explain why my description is wrong.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
One court would decide something between two companies and all courts would have to be neutral
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Who decides which is the ruling court?
How would you enforce a neutral court when they would make more money being biased toward their client? That system would weed out neutral courts in favor of biased courts.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
They would both decide together
They may in the short run make more money but if they are biased no agencies will want to use them
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
And if they ultimately disagree? Also your delusional if you think people wouldnt prefer to purchase courts that would be biased in their favor. Everyone would want that.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Nobody would agree to work with that agency if they would use biased courts and the agency would fail
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Everyone would. If people had a choice between an agency that was impartial to them, vs an agency that would favor them, the vast majority of them would choose the latter. You are completely delusional if you think otherwise.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
You are ignoring the fact that it takes 2 people to come to an agreement
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
How am i ignoring that? The client and agency will agree that their court will favor them. If a competing court disagrees with them, they wont pay up. That will escalate into violence, otherwise why would anyone pay up?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
There will be 1 court per case, not competing courts.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Who chooses what court is used?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Like I said the defense agencies will agree. Since all courts will have to be neutral to get clients it won't matter that much
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Well we found an impasse. You refuse to acknowledge that people would prefer agnencies that favor them. I stated I think you're delusional, but I think that's wrong. I think your lying. You're lying because if you can't find an impartial court system in your society, the whole thing crumbles.
You would have to change the nature of humans for your society to work. It's the same reason communism failed.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
No shit people would prefer agencies that favor them. It doesn't matter
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
What neutral court? Who is paying for this neutral court?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
I already gave you the link that tells you who pays for it. Did you read it?
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Yes i didnt see anything in there that would suggest anything but biased courts would exist. Please tell me how a neutral court could exist considering nobody would want to pay for that.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
The defense agencies that don't pay for it will cease to exist because they won't have clients. The ones that do pay for it will be the ones that have clients. It's the free market
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Because i as well as everybody else would prefer a defense agency that has a court biased in my favor. Not that mention the defense agency would prefer that as well in order to keep me out of trouble so I continue to pay the defense agency.
Everything about capitalism goes against the existence of a neutral court.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Well good luck finding an agency that will even deal with your defense agency
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Exactly. All defense agencies with neutral courts will be beat out by biased defense agencies, and none of them will be able to work with each other. Your entire society collapses.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
No, because only a few people will be dumb enough to pick biased courts that nobody will work with. Of course, those people wouldn't survive without or without government in the long run
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
You keep coming back to the place that I've pointed out is an impasse. You think people will drop their human nature and choose the greater good over the cheaper agency that will favor them. There is our disagreement. I believe history and human nature clearly prove you wrong.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
You think government will do things for the greater good?
I've refuted all of your points.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Well yes of course. For example they can provide courts that are more neutral than could exist with an anarchic system. Or another example is stop lights. Bot these were discussed.
You have not refuted the fact that humans would choose courts that were cheaper and favorable to them. You have not refuted human nature.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
I have gone over the consequences of that many times. You effectively won't have a defense agency. It's your penalty for being stupid and trying to pull one over on another people
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Well yeah your society would implode rather quickly. This is why your idea is stupid. Human nature would never allow your system to work, just like communism.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
A society full of retards will fail regardless
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Crying about human nature doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Says the guy who wants to steal money from people to distribute to poorer people
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
I'm sorry you're mad that your idea was logically obliterated. You now have a choice. Leave this discussion a little more educated, or dig in and let your pride prevent any kind of intellectual development.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
It wasn't. You just refuse to accept that not everybody thinks on the short term like you
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
I never said I think in the short term nor that everyone thinks like me. I said the vast majority of people think on the short term to save money and protect themselves. This is proven in every aspect in society.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Nobody will start a court under the notion that agencies will deal with it if it's biased
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
I don't see how any court would exist in your society. People would just buy defense agencies that protect them regardless if any crimes are committed. They will arbitrate between two parties within the same agency, but go to war with opposing agencies.
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
Taxation is 100% theft. So many people actually defend it, that I'm convinced the masses suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
It's ok if you think it's necessary but I encourage that person to read some literature so they can see that there are alternatives.
But if you can't see that it is theft you do indeed have Stockholm syndrome. It is by definition theft. It's robbery and it's extortion
n/a Putin_loves_cats 2017-02-23
Well said.
n/a commiefishcrotch 2017-02-23
"No taxation without representation."
I haven't seen our government "represent" the values it purports for decades now, not for the 99% This government represents a very narrow minority.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Are children exempt from taxes?
What about immigrants?
I remember making these points in middle school and nobody has an answer!
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Are you suggesting we shouldn't have a government?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
I dare!
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
That's fine we can discuss that. Historically the result would be a society with a government would destroy us quite easily. Now if we got rid of the government today, the. We would be ruled but whomever can gather the most power, and they will most likely not be as benevolent as our current constitutional republic.
My point is I think getting rid of the government is a stupid idea.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Why don't countries without militaries get taken over? What benefit would a country attacking a bunch of independent people have?
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Have you ever read a history book, or know anything at all about history? The main thing is resources.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
So only America has natural resources?
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Yes. America is the only country in the world with natural resources.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
That conflicts with my history.
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
What countries are you referring to?
n/a ChieferSutherland 2017-02-23
What countries are you referring to?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/11/these-22-countries-dont-have-military/98858/
n/a TinyZoro 2017-02-23
Because it comes via democratic representation. Most people in Europe want to pay into national insurance schemes because it's an efficient cost effective way to provide necessary universal public services that support a kind of society you might want to live in. Such as roads, water, hospitals , schools , police and firebrigade. As well as the capacity to regulate private corporations. This is a system that has provided an incomparably better qol than what went before.
The real philosophical question is how is private property not theft and how is inherited wealth and the attachment of enormous wealth to bloodlines considered acceptable to a wider society.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
How does a group of people have the right to decide how the majority live their lives?
n/a TinyZoro 2017-02-23
They don't but a majority of people have the right to decide for everyone. It's far from a perfect system but a reasonably proportional system like in Germany with other counter balances such as regional power are the most humane and efficient system we have for sharing space and maintaining a complex civilisation. The sort of naieve economic libertarianism popular with north Americans does not push freedom downwards but pushes control up to global money markets. Things like the quality of your water and air become set by market forces and you get China. Eventually the Chinese middle class will demand taxation is used to improve air quality.
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
Taxes are theft only in the same sense that rent-seeking is earning
n/a TaruNukes 2017-02-23
Is r/amibeingdetained bleeding over into r/conspiracy now?
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
Not an argument
n/a AlwaysTurning 2017-02-23
It is taking money by force. Its theft.
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
And rent-seeking is extortion.
n/a AlwaysTurning 2017-02-23
I disagree. I think voluntary participation in some kind of tax is totally welcome but outside of that i think a manority of people could do these things better voluntarily. If we want these things so passionately that we fund an entire government to do them, why couldnt people voluntarily join together to do whatever it is they are forcing on others through governmenment. Our country existed for a long time without the income tax. Its just redistributing slavery from one group of people to everyone. Our taxes arent even plenty enough to pay the interest owed on each dollar created. Its a nonsensical and immoral system.
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
Sure, but then don't ask government to protect your private property rights either.
n/a AlwaysTurning 2017-02-23
I wont because most of the time the police show up way too late. Volunteerism is the way to go.
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
Right, but when a group of people decide that you own too much and come to take it away, you either fight them or come to some sort of an agreement.
And I am sure that agreement would be contingent on the fairness and merit of how you acquired your property.
n/a AlwaysTurning 2017-02-23
That would not be all to common but i still think the occassional potential or force is better than constant subtle force on everyone.
n/a ShitOfPeace 2017-02-23
So let's put it in the hands of the government instead. That's an even more uneven accumulation of money.
n/a Positive_pressure 2017-02-23
This does not change the fact that rent-seeking is extortion, no matter who does it.
So taking money from rent-seekers is not theft.
n/a theirmoss 2017-02-23
Let's take a hypothetical, well-off town. I'll call it Socialville. The economy of Socialville looks like this:
The current average rate for a 30-year mortgage is 4%. With that rate, your monthly payment, plus taxes and insurance, would break down like this:
Total monthly payment: $2,868
Your balance sheet, assuming you just bought the house and put 20% down, would look like this:
You and a few Ayn Rand types get together, split off of Socialville, and incorporate Libertown, setting the property tax to zero and declaring that all income will come from sales taxes. Nobody votes to change the sales tax. Unfortunately, Libertown can't fund any schools, libraries, or parks with that income, so those go away. But the majority of people in Libertown don't have kids, so they don't care. Further cuts need to be made to the local government, so the police force is trimmed down to a couple of cops (Barney Fife and Officer Barbrady, I presume), social services are reduced to keeping the streetlights on, and the rest of the residents are urged to buy guns, alarm systems, and hire their own private police force.
Sounds great, right? Well, let's look at what happens after those drastic cuts are made to your new town.
The value of your home plummets
Their former $500,000 homes are now only worth $250,000. In an instant, each resident loses a quarter million dollars in equity. Using the example above, your new balance sheet looks like this:
(Congratulations! You're now $150,000 underwater on your mortgage.)
The insurance companies get wind of this, so the home insurance rates in Libertown quadruple. You have a fixed mortgage, so thankfully your principle and interest remain the same. Your home insurance, on the other hand, now eats up almost a sixth of your new monthly payment:
Total monthly payment: $2,410
But, you may say: my monthly payment is lower, so Libertown is a success, right?
Not so fast, kid. You forgot the fees.
Don't forget the fees
Libertown has no state hospital access anymore. All ambulances are now privatized. You could pay $10,000 for an ambulance pickup after dialing 9-1-1, but that wouldn't be prudent, so the new private ambulance sells you an insurance plan: for $60 per month, you get one free ambulance pickup per year.
Now you need to pay the private police. Your neighborhood organizes a meeting and finds a private police force that will only charge each household $300 per month for security protection. It only protects your neighborhood, so let's hope those pesky thieves don't have access to a vehicle where they can simply drive out of your jurisdiction after robbing you.
Wait, you forgot the firefighters! Your bank requires you to have home insurance, but your home insurance threatens to drop you if you don't live in a neighborhood without access to a fire patrol. Luckily, Libertown finds a friendly for-profit fire patrol willing to come to your house for a one-time payment of $7,500, or you could buy their insurance plan for $45 per month.
Now your new monthly payment looks like this:
Total monthly payment: $2,815
Again, you might say: I'm saving $53 per month! Ah, but you're forgetting the roads.
Paving those darned roads
State governments typically hire contractors to pave the roads for small towns. Hell, they use contractors to pave highways nowadays. Those guys don't come cheap. The cost to pave an area the size of a driveway for a two-car garage can approach $6,000 or more. Since contractors typically set their rates based on what they can get from the largest nearby government, Libertown gets no discount.
So, let's say Libertown buckles down and decides to finally fund the maintenance of roads. Sadly, that 5% sales tax can't fund any new roads. Let's raise revenue the libertarian way -- raise the sales tax! It goes from 5% to 10% overnight.
Now you're paying 5% more for goods than the people in Socialville. That $53 you were saving vanishes in less than a week. Worse yet, people in Libertown are venturing into Socialville and buying the goods there to save paying 5% more in sales tax, inadvertently raising revenue for Socialville and starving Libertown into bankruptcy. You can't sell your home because nobody wants to buy a house that isn't in a good school system. You can't walk away from your mortgage because you're underwater.
Endgame
You declare bankruptcy, and the few people who fooled you into joining Libertown buy your property from the bank (with whom they own shares in) for pennies on the dollar, knock it down, and turn it into a private prison, all while laughing at your naïvete.
n/a Granite66 2017-02-23
To me taxation is a situation you will always get when money and greed mix. You always get conspirators and conspiracy,: people prepared to conspire with others to take as much of the tax revenue for themselves as they can. Always has been and always will be. Tribal , governmental, or private money. Labels don't matter. Its humans being humans. Its the price of using money but until someone comes up with something better we are stuck with it.
Just got to be vigilante and stand up against it. Get enough people on your side and your going to get change. When you live in a democracy your supposed to be able to talk about such things and protest about them. You can use the courts our taxes have paid for to file lawsuits, etc... (feel sorry for those who live under totalitarian regimes who can't do this and the only option is armed revolt)
Having a society where there is no taxation and no government is Utopian and has never worked. All you get is dictators/warlords, people who are crooks and will conspire with others to take tax revenue they get for themselves as the government did before them at the rate they demand.
Taxation is essential. Taxes pay for roads, schools, hospitals, police, etc... These big corporations (whose political puppets cry out against taxation so their masters are more profitable with bigger bonuses for executives) wouldn't be as profitable if they had to educate their workforce from scatch, build the roads to supply their customers with their products/services, unable to sell product and services to the goverment due to the institution being broke, etc...
For me, it is politicians promise of tax cuts being the usual form of con game or conspiracy these days. Means big tax breaks for the rich while minimal tax relief for common people while these common people payout more for private schooling for their kids, pay more for their health at private hospitals, pay more for transportation using private toll roads and bridges, etc.. so any miniscule tax relief they received is gone and their paying 200% more for things the government provided freely using taxation to pay for them. The rich people who got the big taxation breaks, any government cutback means nothing as they'd always been able to pay insurance for private hospitals, been able to afford to send their kids to the best private school, etc...
When and where government and politicians publicly tell people they need you to pay X dollars in taxes to do Y thing and then use the tax revenue to accomplish Y thing there is no conspiracy. Sure their may be some small conspiracies involved on the side over trivial matters but if the government delivered you can't call it conspiracy.
n/a Hambone_Malone 2017-02-23
END THE FED!! RON PAUL 20.....Wait it's 2017 and it's now a dystopian hellscape. The revolution never came....😢
n/a Iloveliberaltears 2017-02-23
It is extortion. It is taxation without representation it is what ever you would like to call it. That is why I just pay the fine and don't file if I have to pay a thousand dollars to stay out of the American prison system I will do it. The are really hanging from our nuts these days and it is just going to get worse.
n/a Rockran 2017-02-23
So if you need to call the police - Who pays for the call out?
n/a rockytimber 2017-02-23
It happens, right or wrong, correct? Sometimes a minority rules a majority too, correct?
If there are laws that are followed, and people are allowed input to the laws, the laws tend to evolve, based on the character of the people, their values at the time. By definition, its a matter of legal and illegal. In any given society, it may include some good stuff, some bad stuff. I don't believe in religion or god, I have seen how dogs and animals settle stuff. I am not looking for an ideology to believe in. And the killing of Jews is over rated compared to the killing of anyone else.
As far as people who don't mind being robbed on the street, get real dude. Hypothetical silliness is Sam Harris kind of stuff. I am over it. Case law was a step forward, common law. Precedent. You don't have to turn your life over to a rigid absolute. Blind justice doesn't exist, and moral people are the most monstrous of all. All dictators claim to have the moral high ground. All dogs and all people are scoundrels, but some are loyal to their friends.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Rights are a concept, they don't actually exist. What is and isn't ok to do isnalso subjective. Our society has deemed that we have a right to not be murdered, and that's enforced with tax dollars.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Not really. I'm an electrician, not a combat specialist. If we didn't have the government to provide policing then I wouldn't be a pile to dedicate my time to being an electrician. Nobody could as we would all have to fend for ourselves. That means society wouldn't be near as prosperous without all the different trades, and that 30% I saved would pale in comparison to the wealth lost in an anarchy society.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
I'm rich so I got a defense agency that I'd really powerful. We ain't paying shit and you're doing nothing about it.
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
If by someone you mean government.
Poor people will not be poor for very long if there aren't regulations to stop them from making money
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
No part of society will enforce taxes
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
This is how courts could work:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/11/these-22-countries-dont-have-military/98858/
As of 2014, 22
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
And people with guns are a national defense. And defense agencies with nukes are a damn good national defense
n/a ysrdog 2017-02-23
I already gave you the link that tells you who pays for it. Did you read it?
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-23
Well yes of course. For example they can provide courts that are more neutral than could exist with an anarchic system. Or another example is stop lights. Bot these were discussed.
You have not refuted the fact that humans would choose courts that were cheaper and favorable to them. You have not refuted human nature.