Do you support taxation?

This is true, BUT, who is going to fund the maintenance on motorways, building new roads when necessary? Is a company going to do it and then set up toll booths at every corner? Make driving/walking/cycling to anywhere take 20x as long as normal?

hah! I know not everything is perfect now, but your way will be no better:
In a world with no government there would be many impossible things,
like a currency. Who is going to print the new banknotes? Who is going to smith the new coins? Or are we going to go back to trading items for items?

Roads would be almost undoable (i know it's been mentioned a lot )

Safety would be practically impossible, i mean who is going to step up when you shoot somebody or steal their wallet, many people are evil especially if there are no order-keepers (you know those who live of the money "stolen" from you)? Then it'll be the rich who can afford body guards. And the poor will be robbed/raped and everything. If there would be no police, things would be way worse than they are now.

There are many other things that would be extremely hard to impossible, this is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Apiel06

 

You are living on land owned by a government. I understand the "United States of Amerca" or "Canada" were not around long ago. But as you today, you are living on government owned territory. Therefor you are living on a plot of land which technically is not yours. This really is a whole different discussion though.

So you are saying you want everything government to be privatized? (I.E. government roadways?)

If there were no taxes, government projects would not happen because they have no funds to build. For example, our complex interstate roadways. A private company would eventually take over. This is privatization, which eventually would lead to one powerful company, for example, Google, to take over all the small private sectors. This would eventually lead to a massive, governing, central superpower whom "owns" everything. Sounds a little dangerous, no?

This is why taxes are necessary. To keep privatization from taking over, and let government control everything which should not be privatized. Taxes need to fund these projects. It is just unfortunate they use most of our tax dollars for evil.

 

You asked for this: owkaj when my shoulder got dislocated when i was on holiday in England i got shoved straight into hospital got my arm stuffed back in its socket and the worst of the pain was over and done with less than 1 hour. (the hospitals there are pretty much all paid for by the government)
When i was on holiday in America a few years later my shoulder got dislocated AGAIN and there I had to wait for 4! yes 4!!! hours before they would even start to put my shoulder back in because they had to make sure that they would be paid for it. Those being the 4 most painfull hours of my life I would say that gives a +1 to the government.

The only difference there being that railways/airlines/buslines/tramlines/boats/ are not used by everybody every day.
you can't compare apples with oranges.

(To start with not the full 40% is used for this )
And please do enlighten me with a few of these "simple ways"

well thats a bit mean don't you think ? Did you honestly expect any new ones? As if your counter arguments havn't been used over and over again... and yes most DO have a solution, but they are not always better than the systems now. Also most assume that people are not corrupt. Which they often are.
Now don't come back with "governments now can also easily be corrupt". Because thats why (in most countries) new presidents/ministers come every few years (after being chosen by the people). And there can also be a motion of non-confidence to kick a corrupt person of the chair.


and another point i would just like your vieuw on:
how about smaller cultural things like theater and zoos? They NEED subsidies to keep running. They simply don't run on the price of entrace tickets and the donations. Do you want there to be an elite few of these in the world that are rediculously expensive and let the rest just wither away and die?


And i know you didn't appreciate your puplic school. But these really are effective, otherwise lots of smart poor people simply won't have a chance to develop.

Apiel06

 

Ok basically roads are used everyday by everybody and all the others are only used occasionally by a limited amount of people.
So saying it worked with the other things doesn't mean it will work per definition with roads.

Its not at gun point, its done in a slightly more friendly fashion.
And i think lot's of these little things make it worth it yes, this is my personal opinion. (no need to call me a communist or socialist or w/e, cheers)


And another slight issue for some countries (like mine).
Pensions.

In some countries pensions are sorted out by the government. The people earning money today pay for the pensionned people today.
If we were to suddenly stop this the people who have allready been paying will suddenly lose out on their pension. This will have to gradually die down over large timeframes as to not harm the current day workers too much.
This is something that is definately possible, but it would take a lot of time.

Apiel06

 

Really?

You don't pay, the police show up at your house. They have guns, they throw you in federal prison for tax evasion.


Not at all friendly.

 

I support taxation but I don't support health bill taxation.

 

Oh come on... And when you don't pay the private companies they'll will just say "aah don't worry, we don't care if you pay or not". NO they will come after and make sure they get paid just as much, if not more than governments.

As stated above, your private enterprises will also be "real fucking friendly".

It seems like you use the "taking money at gun point" argument to pretty much anything you don't have any other comback to

You misunderstood me, your desire to destroy people who disagree with you has taken the better of you.
I was merely saying that it would take hundreds of years to sort this out.



Also it has been proven that (moderate) economic egalitarianism results to greater overall happiness. Like in the scandinavian countries.
http://publishing.eur.nl/ir/repub/asset/7220/s10902-005-0003-x.pdf


Enjoy,
Apiel06

 

But what happens when people are unable to pay for these services? Would charities step up to take the bulk of the current welfare system? And if so would there then be charities devoted to aiding the poor in paying their road tolls?

 

Woah cool your jets, I'm just asking a question not trying to incite a debate (untill I understand the system your proposing anyway). But you've answered it in a round about way. Without a government no one would rob you to pay for those services, but you would be unable to access those services and so you may be unable to access roads, your garbage may start to pile up and so on.

As I see it denying these services is an intentional act of harm, which in turn is considered evil and according to your stance on theft, is not to be tolerated.

 

Simple, he doesn't get to drive there.

 

Also I don't accept your premise that tax is theft. You say-
"Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent."

"Taxation is the legal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent."

The term legal makes them different concepts. Regardless of your stance on the legitimacy of the courts, they have power over you and hence you are subject to their "whims" and definitions.