Do you support taxation?

[apiel06]

What nonsense. I suppose that you think shopping malls, appartment complexes, and salt mines are built by people who just "volunteer". No they are built by people seeking profit, for their own ends, to provide a good or service on a voluntary basis to other human beings. It's what you do virtually every minute of every day of your working life. Do you not recognize it? It's called trading.

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?

What you need to do is prove to me that violence (i.e. "government") can be used to solve complex social problems. Because all I see is death and destruction out of your so called solution.

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

 

This is true, BUT, who is going to fund the maintenance on motorways, building new roads when necessary?

How is this even a question?

Who funds the maintenance and building of new malls, apartment complexes and salt mines? Entrepreneurs, investors, customers.

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?

Oh please. Look even if they did, it would be infinitely preferable to taxation, which is theft. Look, when, in your experience has something thats provided by the private sector been slower than something provided by "government", so called?

There is already plenty of private road, rail, sea, and air transport around the place and it all runs much more smoothly than "government" infrastructure. Entrepreneurs use a mix of billing methods, much of the time it is e-toll or upfront fee, but it can also be via insurance or advertising or other mechanism.

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?

Currency is literally the easiest thing in the world to solve. It used to be issued by banks in the form of banknotes -- this is why they are called banknotes, and banknotes used to represent gold, which is an emergent standard just as English is an emergent standard in the field of language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

Modern examples of private currency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecunix
http://www.libertyreserve.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_gold_currency

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

Do you even know anything about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_road
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Private_Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_railway

If airlines were owned by the government you'd be shitting yourself insisting that "no company could possibly run and maintain an airline."

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.

Well firstly, no one is there to help you now. Go to the police and see what they do about it. All of nothing. You'll never see your wallet again.

There are many simple ways to solve this problem, but none that are particularly worth getting into here. Suffices to say that if your reasoning is "the 'government' needs to steal 40% of our income to keep our property safe" then you're simply not sane.

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

You think you are the first to raise all these objections?

Go and listen to, or read:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87

There is quite literally no point you will raise in the course of this discussion that has not been raised and quashed and documented in a book 40 years ago. That's how pathetic and repetitive statist arguments are.

 

[Honeo]

See my other thread:
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=940416

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.

What nonsense. I suppose that you think shopping malls, appartment complexes, and salt mines are built by people who just "volunteer". No they are built by people seeking profit, for their own ends, to provide a good or service on a voluntary basis to other human beings. It's what you do virtually every minute of every day of your working life. Do you not recognize it? It's called trading.

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

You have yet to prove this statement.

I need to prove that a territory (by which I think you mean a group of people) can survive without paying extortion money to criminals?

The demand is ridiculous on its face, but you're also asking me to prove a negative, and shifting the burden of proof in doing so.

What you need to do is prove to me that violence (i.e. "government") can be used to solve complex social problems. Because all I see is death and destruction out of your so called solution.

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 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.

A curious claim. I don't see "the government"'s signature on the property deed.

Have you any evidence that "the government" owns my property, or are you just making frivolous claims? Further, have you any evidence that such a thing as "the government" even exists?

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

Yes, for the last time, yes.

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.

So we need a monopoly called "the government" to stop monopoly? Needless to say you don't understand economics, and monopolies have never ever formed anywhere except where government precipitates them through interference in the market. Even often cited examples such as Google and Standard oil are not monopolies. The court system is a monopoly, education is a monopoly, the police are a monopoly. These are the monopolies; they are government run.

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.

So you need to rob people on behalf of a monopoly, to stop monopoly projects, by creating more monopoly projects?

Have you even thought about the content of your argument... at all? It is the purest nonsense I have yet seen in one of these threads.

 

[apiel06]

Look, when, in your experience has something thats provided by the private sector been slower than something provided by "government", so called?

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.

If airlines were owned by the government you'd be shitting yourself insisting that "no company could possibly run and maintain an airline.

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.

There are many simple ways to solve this problem, but none that are particularly worth getting into here. Suffices to say that if your reasoning is "the 'government' needs to steal 40% of our income to keep our property safe" then you're simply not sane.

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

You think you are the first to raise all these objections?
Go and listen to, or read:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87

There is quite literally no point you will raise in the course of this discussion that has not been raised and quashed and documented in a book 40 years ago. That's how pathetic and repetitive statist arguments are.

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

 

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.

If you are trying to articulate an actual argument here then you're going to have to explain it a little better.

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

http://mises.org/daily/4683

Dispute resolution organizations, communitarianism, insurance, private law courts, private police, anti-theft technology, legal charities.

Google any.

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.

The counter-arguments have not been invalidated, so of course they will be used in defense to the same tired invalid arguments from your side.

Now don't come back with "governments now can also easily be corrupt".

No, you misunderstand. Individuals doing business as "the government" are corrupt by nature. It's the same as the mafia. The nature of the organization is fundamentally anti-social. How do I know? It's funded through extortion, commonly called "taxation."

how about smaller cultural things like theater and zoos? They NEED subsidies to keep running.

Does this justify taking people's money at gun point?

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.

Does this justify taking people's money at gun point?

 

[apiel06]

If you are trying to articulate an actual argument here then you're going to have to explain it a little better.

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.

Does this justify taking people's money at gun point?

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

 

[Itz Me]

Its not at gun point, its done in a slightly more friendly fashion.

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.

 

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.

Does you desire for free roads justify taking money from people at gun point?

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)

If you don't pay them, they will issue a summons.

If you don't respond to the summons they will send a man in a blue costume to kidnap you.

If you defend yourself against kidnap they will shoot you dead.


Real fucking friendly.

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

Does you desire for free pensions justify taking money from people at gun point?

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

I don't know what planet you live on but these "state-run" "pension" schemes match exactly the definition of a ponzi scheme, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary.

Are you saying, then, that you want to hold a gun to my head in order that you might operate your ponzi scheme with my money?

Figure 1 - Black's Law Dictionary 8th Ed., pg. 1198: Definition of "Ponzi Scheme"

 

[Spray21]

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

 

Just wondering, for the people who don't support tax - you would rather pay a private organisation to use their services every time you use it?

Yes, obviously.

And the converse is the absurd position:
Would you rather rob someone everytime you need to catch a bus?

 

Wouldn't you think if private groups owned such services as public transport, health care, schooling they would raise the prices enormously? Causing (in some cases) you to pay more per year in services than paying a fix amount and cheaper services.

Even if they did, this doesn't justify theft.

You need to research price competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_(economics)

Here is an article on airline competition to give you an idea of how this economic principle actually works:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/06/airline_competition

 

[apiel06]

Does you desire for free roads justify taking money from people at gun point?

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.

If you don't pay them, they will issue a summons.

If you don't respond to the summons they will send a man in a blue costume to kidnap you.

If you defend yourself against kidnap they will shoot you dead.

Real fucking friendly.

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

Does you desire for free pensions justify taking money from people at gun point?

I don't know what planet you live on but these "state-run" "pension" schemes match exactly the definition of a ponzi scheme, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary.

Are you saying, then, that you want to hold a gun to my head in order that you might operate your ponzi scheme with my money?

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

 

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.

Sorry I don't even know to what you are referring with this comment or anything else in your post.

My position is simple. Taxation is theft. You think theft is wrong then you cannot support the government.

Are you able to address this, or are you just wasting everyone's time?

 

[Niini]

Yes, obviously.

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?

 

But what happens when people are unable to pay for these services?

Well what does happen? Do you come and rob me to pay for it?

Are you going to setup a system of institutionalized theft to pay for your paupers? (Which is just your pet project -- it could be anything, global warming, animals, rain-forests, you name it.)

Think for yourself. Here is a problem X; a solution requires intellectual expenditure of effort. Theft is not a solution. Violence is not a solution. Use your own mind and come up with something.

Or are you going to tell me that you can think of no way to feed and shelter paupers that doesn't involve going door to door robbing people at gun point. I mean I can't help but laugh at how lost the world is if that's what you're telling me.

 

[Niini]

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.

 

[Schnell]

No you misunderstood me. I mean if the individual is unable to pay for a service such as tollways what happens?

Simple, he doesn't get to drive there.

 

[Niini]

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.

 

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.

This is unbelievable. Are you so thickheaded that when your garbage starts piling up it would not occur to you to pick up the god damn telephone and call a private garbage collection agency to come take your trash away?

God help you if your toilets ever back up; You'll just let the bathroom flood with sewage until the plumbing industry is nationalized...

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.

Who provides services? People provide services.

So effectively you're saying that unless X, Y and Z are enslaved to provide these services to you free of charge, you are being intentionally harmed!!!

So I guess you are in support of slavery too?



If you really want to understand the position:

Libertarian manifesto:

Free audiobook:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87

Free text:
http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf