Society without taxation requested by sythe

So yes, how can a society function without taxation? Is it a voluntary contribution with benefits? Is it Anarchy?

 

You're asking all the wrong questions. You should begin by asking why you're giving your freedom and money away despite the fact that you've never signed a contract and you'll never meet the people benefiting from your enslavement.

 

I was trying to teach him to question his views. Pragmatism is tough to apply to concepts that haven't been practiced without spending a huge amount of time.

I'll try to make my argument more accessible by addressing a few pros and cons.

Let's first look at the function of government. The idea is that we sacrifice our own freedom and resources for the betterment of society as a whole.

Let's look at just a few of your sacrifices.
You're must pay 40% of your income to support the government. If you don't pay, you'll be imprisoned.
You must sacrifice your privacy, in that the government is able to tap into your phone lines, internet history, anything (see Patriot Act).
You must be prepared to sacrifice your property at any time (see asset forfeiture).
You must sacrifice the very freedom to do with your own body as you will (see drug restrictions, anti-SSU laws, incarceration based upon family consent, conscription).
You can't even own your own gun without the government knowing about it.

The penalty for failure to submit to any of these is removal of property, imprisonment, even death, all of which fly directly in the face of the Constitution.

John Locke, the proponent of "life, liberty, and property," the man whose ideas the Constitution was founded upon, would be ashamed of the country in which you live. You can be killed for failure to kill others, removing your right to life. The government prevents you from doing with your body as you will, removing your right to liberty. The government can seize your property without cause, and places restrictions on what you can do with your own land, removing your right to property.

Now that you're aware of a small fraction of your sacrifices, ask yourself what the government does for you.

I encourage anyone to list a few of the government's services and I'll show you that these services would be better rendered (and rendered with less cost to you) without the government.

 

Would it turn into survival of the fittest? Not that most would run around wishing to hurt each other, but think about it.

Start taking away "freebies" that people are used to and they might have to become desperate.


We can give people things 100x faster then we can take them away.

 

The Government can own their own companies and they could become Monopolies. The Government is in place to prevent Monopolies from existing, however, so that they can't take advantage of U.S. Citizens.

A recent example of this would be United and Continental Airlines, who are wishing to merge to create the largest airline in the world. This must first be approved by the Government, however. See below:
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2010/05/03/daily5.html

If it wasn't, then how do we have such things in society as police/fire departments, courts, grants, banks, a set minimum wage, and the like?

What do you mean by this?

 

Playing devils advocate here. What makes you certain that more guns means less crime? What evidence is there that criminals will be less violent in their actions because homeowners are armed. Who is to say they won't parade into dwellings in groups rather than as individuals.

For arguments sake, my questions pertain to our current societal circumstances. Not the idealogical libertarian model. Hence, there would not be private security as you mentioned. Merely the removal of all gun laws and restrictions.

 

Police need guns to fight fire with fire. Otherwise, it'd be a foolish attempt.

Is the increase related to the mentality of the criminals? Being that less armed homeowners makes it less dangerous?

Why would a private security company be any less cowardly? Humans are humans irrespective of their employer. Everybody wants to go home to their wife and family at the end of the night.

 

What came before civilization? Myths

When was the time that myths, governance, and civilization co-existed?

That one time a few centuries ago when one man with a staff inside a building in Italy commanded countless ships and controlled not only the nation; but both worlds.

Your imaginations would play out to look like the Sierra Leone, Rwanda, or even ancient China; people don't behave like you'd imagine when anyone can build thrones out of bayonets.

 

I believe what you are stating. However, are there any case studies on this; ie nations that have attempted to implement it?

No matter the caliber of the security force, they are a reactive unit. They cannot be preventative beyond the measures of a fence etc. So, why would they be any more intimidating. The only intimidating factor I can see is the time in which they arrive. The increase in response time may indeed lead to more sophisticated robberies that are less wing-it and more planned. Surely the criminals would adapt to the conditions.

The criminals could possibly adapt and they themselves enhance their weaponry and tactics. If all sorts of guns are readily available, the criminals would likely arm themselves with what they think to be most sufficient.

 

Evidence to support your claims? The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the accuser.

 

You're.. asking for evidence? As if I'm making these up as I go?

I have two words for you, really, one, but i'll give you two sets of ones should you fancy them:

1. Rodrigo Borgia
2. Sixtus V

 

Private security is for the sole purpose of protection. Police just watch over a broad variety of things. Police in fact do help. Even though they barely are engaged in actual conflicts they maintain order. Private security are paid lotsa money not to be cowardly, policemen are paid to be alive.


Joe schmoe if he sees a burglary is not going to whip out a 9mm and bust a cap. He might hit a bystander and killsome one. I understand that this could occur with police


Sythe are you advocating vigilanties?

 

No. Evidence that his theoretical societies would end up in shambles similar to that of African nations.

I don't need a history lesson.

 

Yes. However, human's have uniform characteristics that are not malleable in nature. All humans have sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. All humans will experience and element of fear.

As I previously stated, all security measures are reactive rather than proactive. One cannot, currently at-least, expect a crime to occur and be on guard at said location.

 

Private security is for the sole purpose of protection. Police just watch over a broad variety of things. Police in fact do help. Even though they barely are engaged in actual conflicts they maintain order. Private security are paid lotsa money not to be cowardly, policemen are paid to be alive.


Joe schmoe if he sees a burglary is not going to whip out a 9mm and bust a cap. He might hit a bystander and killsome one. I understand that this could occur with police


Sythe are you advocating vigilanties?