The problem with voluntary taxes is they're voluntary taxes. Its not like directly funding a program. We elect someone to allocate our taxes, we don't get to choose where it goes because we're not economists. And that alone would deter even the rare charitable superrich like Bill Gates or Oprah. I would support an initiative, however, that allowed people to directly donate to specific government programs and initiatives they supported but require x percent or more of net gains per year be allocated in such a way depending on how much you make, with 250k earners or less being 100% voluntary. So someone with tons of money like Bill has to pay 5 million more dollars in taxes or something, and he can allocate 2/3 of that in the government program of his choosing which for him would probably be education or a teacher's minimum pay raise initiative or something along those lines. and the other additional 1/3 can be allocated by the government themselves to fund whatever.
Welcome to the United Socialist of America
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Damn... Congrats on the 100 posts in one blog :\
"voluntary taxes give me a break, u may wanna pay them but Wall Street would be so happy, they'll have orgies right there on the trading floor"Yeah, we can't make wall street happy! That would be horrible!
Bellum said:
"Why not? Because people should be able to spend their money as they please, and the government should not be stealing it from them. A bare minimum tax should be compulsory, to support the government, then all other taxes should be voluntary. Not all money is useless without governments. I'm not saying abolish the government, because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (although anarchy is not necessarily a bad system in itself).But don't ask the government to hold a gun to the heads of everybody else and force them to hand over money so you can go to college for free or dodge medical bills.
Why not? An educated and healthy population is not only good for the mass of individuals, it is also good for the state. The rich are a members of the government as well. Without a government, all the money in the world would be useless. They benefit from the government, they must contribute to the government. So do I, when I pay sales taxes. I don't like it, but its necessary, so I don't complain.
Voluntary taxes don't work because not enough people would pay taxes voluntarily. All the tax dodging by corporations proves that quite well."
It doesn't matter if voluntary taxes are going to provide the same level of monetary guarantee as compulsory taxes, because they are voluntary. People do them if they want to. The whole point is if people want something enough, then enough of them will pay for it, voluntarily. If not enough people want it, they won't. Forcing people to do charity work with a gun at their head is not the way we should be doing things. If YOU YOURSELF want compulsory taxes, would you not then continue to pay the same level of tax in a voluntary system, for the same stuff we have now?
You're complaining because many rich people won't pay them. So what? You're proposing taking money from people that ARE NOT YOU. The rich in my country (Australia) pay the highest taxes, proportionally, bank roll the majority of taxes, proportion aside, and are also the ones who don't benefit from any fucking thing in it. Why should the poor leech off the rich JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE RICH? The rich are getting nothing from it, and indeed, are being punished just because they are successful. thanatos990 said:
"adam_grif said:ok if "ur" a true socialist then give up all of your property, and send it all to the government. there are no true socialists sorry also give me "ur" money, "u" probably hav more than i do, and if "u" don't then report yourself to the gulag."thanatos990 said:ok if ur a true libertarian go a week without driving on roads, using electricity, and water, all provided by the federal, state and local government, there are no true libertarians sorry also give me ur SSI, i need free money""You disagree with me, therefore, your opinion is wrong. It's true. I saw it on the internet somewhere."
Wow I didnt know there was a handbook on what the government can do.
Thats all personal opinion but I for one love driving on our roads, and making people smarter, and prevent families from going homeless
"
First of all, please fix your spelling and grammar. Secondly, I'm not an anarchist, for flops sake. Did I say I want to abolish the government? No, I did not. Nor did I say that everything that was built with socialist policies should be destroyed when we convert to a libertarian society. Nor did I say that I was not going to respect the laws of my country even though I disagree with them strongly.
Why would a libertarian not use roads that already exist? As a socialist, should you then be denied all technological progress brought about by private companies (i.e. 90% of it in the 20th century)? No, that would be absurd! So would me being denied access to stuff implemented by past socialist policies. Roads could be and are built around the world by private companies, who then charge people a small toll when they go through certain parts of it unil the cost of the road has been payed off. Why is this a worse system than taxing people? The people who use it then pay money for it, and the people who don't don't. Doesn't that sound more fair?
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
"thanatos990 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism"
"adam_grif said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchy"thanatos990 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism""http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism"
Not really seeing what your point is.
"thanatos990 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_jeremy"adam_grif said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchy"thanatos990 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism""http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism"
Not really seeing what your point is."
I do not have one now, but Socialism can be democratic
"adam_grif said:Not really seeing where people said it can't."thanatos990 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_jeremy"adam_grif said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchy"thanatos990 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism""http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism"
Not really seeing what your point is."
I do not have one now, but Socialism can be democratic"
Not all money is useless without governments.
because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (although anarchy is not necessarily a bad system in itself).
The rich are getting nothing from it, and indeed, are being punished just because they are successful.
Adam I have a great deal of respect for your opinion, but here you are wrong. :P
The government is necessary. Without some form of government, there would be no organized economic system, there would be no money, there would be no roads, there would be no health care, there would be nothing. The rich benefit from all of this, oftentimes more than the poor do. The rich are inseparable from this system, they must do their part supporting it.
"Not all money is useless without governments.because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (although anarchy is not necessarily a bad system in itself).The rich are getting nothing from it, and indeed, are being punished just because they are successful.
Adam I have a great deal of respect for your opinion, but here you are wrong. :P
The government is necessary. Without some form of government, there would be no organized economic system, there would be no money, there would be no roads, there would be no health care, there would be nothing. The rich benefit from all of this, oftentimes more than the poor do. The rich are inseparable from this system, they must do their part supporting it."
Le sigh. Private institutions and money (even if it's not in conventional form) can exist without a government. There are historical examples of anarchic societies, medieval iceland for instance, that ran very successfully and operated smoothly. I'm not an anarchist, but I recognize that anarchy is not the worst system out there. I'm a minarchist. I believe government should be as small as possible, protecting people's rights and freedoms, but not doing much else.
And even if "money" and "health care" couldn't exist under anarchy, that doesn't make it an intrinsically worse system, because nowhere does it say that society has too or should have those things. We're just dealing with opinions here.
"Bellum said:Anarchy has worked Amazingly in Africa! *rolls eyes* Now ur just being dumb"Not all money is useless without governments.because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (although anarchy is not necessarily a bad system in itself).The rich are getting nothing from it, and indeed, are being punished just because they are successful.
Adam I have a great deal of respect for your opinion, but here you are wrong. :P
The government is necessary. Without some form of government, there would be no organized economic system, there would be no money, there would be no roads, there would be no health care, there would be nothing. The rich benefit from all of this, oftentimes more than the poor do. The rich are inseparable from this system, they must do their part supporting it."
Le sigh. Private institutions and money (even if it's not in conventional form) can exist without a government. There are historical examples of anarchic societies, medieval iceland for instance, that ran very successfully and operated smoothly. I'm not an anarchist, but I recognize that anarchy is not the worst system out there. I'm a minarchist. I believe government should be as small as possible, protecting people's rights and freedoms, but not doing much else.
And even if "money" and "health care" couldn't exist under anarchy, that doesn't make it an intrinsically worse system, because nowhere does it say that society has too or should have those things. We're just dealing with opinions here."
"adam_grif said:"Bellum said:Anarchy has worked Amazingly in Africa! *rolls eyes* Now ur just being dumb""Not all money is useless without governments.because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (although anarchy is not necessarily a bad system in itself).The rich are getting nothing from it, and indeed, are being punished just because they are successful.
Adam I have a great deal of respect for your opinion, but here you are wrong. :P
The government is necessary. Without some form of government, there would be no organized economic system, there would be no money, there would be no roads, there would be no health care, there would be nothing. The rich benefit from all of this, oftentimes more than the poor do. The rich are inseparable from this system, they must do their part supporting it."
Le sigh. Private institutions and money (even if it's not in conventional form) can exist without a government. There are historical examples of anarchic societies, medieval iceland for instance, that ran very successfully and operated smoothly. I'm not an anarchist, but I recognize that anarchy is not the worst system out there. I'm a minarchist. I believe government should be as small as possible, protecting people's rights and freedoms, but not doing much else.
And even if "money" and "health care" couldn't exist under anarchy, that doesn't make it an intrinsically worse system, because nowhere does it say that society has too or should have those things. We're just dealing with opinions here."
Africa is not Anarchy, it is a series of dictatorships.
Le sigh. Private institutions and money (even if it's not in conventional form) can exist without a government. There are historical examples of anarchic societies, medieval iceland for instance, that ran very successfully and operated smoothly. I'm not an anarchist, but I recognize that anarchy is not the worst system out there. I'm a minarchist. I believe government should be as small as possible, protecting people's rights and freedoms, but not doing much else.
Not an an example I am particularly familiar with. From my five minutes on Wikipedia, I wouldn't exactly describe it as Anarchy. Any organization implies government, for what is government but an organization of the people? Even my example of extremist capitalism, where everything is run by private organizations, is still not anarchy. The natural goal of government, that is, the reason people naturally gravitate toward social organization, is for a certain degree of security, stability, and prosperity. The rich are apart of this system and they must contribute, or else they themselves are the leeches. After all, without some form or organization, they wouldn't be rich. Without some form of law, be it written down or by some other means, there is no property. Nothing is sacred.
And even if "money" and "health care" couldn't exist under anarchy, that doesn't make it an intrinsically worse system, because nowhere does it say that society has too or should have those things. We're just dealing with opinions here.
Sure. There is no right or wrong answer and this is all us silly humans arguing about how we would prefer to live. When is this not the case?
"Anarchists all argue that the state, a central coercive power with authority over a population, is not necessary for a functional or ideal society. They do not have anything against organizations, property, or laws. They oppose only this central power that uses coercive force to enact it's laws. It doesn't really matter what you think Anarchy is supposed to be, because it doesn't really seem that you have the right idea about what it actually is or constitutes. It's really more reasonable than most people give it credit for.
Not an an example I am particularly familiar with. From my five minutes on Wikipedia, I wouldn't exactly describe it as Anarchy. Any organization implies government, for what is government but an organization of the people? Even my example of extremist capitalism, where everything is run by private organizations, is still not anarchy. The natural goal of government, that is, the reason people naturally gravitate toward social organization, is for a certain degree of security, stability, and prosperity. The rich are apart of this system and they must contribute, or else they themselves are the leeches. After all, without some form or organization, they wouldn't be rich. Without some form of law, be it written down or by some other means, there is no property. Nothing is sacred.
"
Here is an explanation of how certain aspects might work (the guy is a little preachy, but he gets his point across):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw
Also, there most certainly can be property and the like. All cultures have property, even ones with no government (Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, the previously mentioned Icelandic society and the like). And again, there may still be popularly agreed upon law, that is not what anarchy is against. Anarchy is against the central coercive power called a "government".
my point anarchy leads to government because people are made to be able to function under governments, Just like Ants, true anarchy doesnt exist, someone alwayz comes out on top
Somalia was the only country in the world without a functioning state.
Looks great, move there
Here is an explanation of how certain aspects might work (the guy is a little preachy, but he gets his point across):So, instead of a single "coercive power" you have several smaller "coercive powers"? I'm really not sure how this is better, or how it solves some imagined problem.
It is also not an example of how the rich are not part of an organized system in which they would be expected to contribute. In the given example, the "DRO fee", basically a mini government that charges money to provide a service, has, as you suggested, a voluntary tax. However, the given example comes with many logistical questions, which Stefbot admits. He doesn't go into them because there are a lot of them and because of his assertion based on logic that really doesn't fit, in my opinion, but these are questions that, in a practical application, must be answered.
But lets assume it works. As it is most practical for organizations built around profit, lets assume that the DROs provide a different degree of service depending on the fee payed. This means, in practice, minimum service for the poor and maximum service for the rich. You might say this is fair, after all, the rich are more productive. However, wealth does not equate to productivity in an organized society. You have people (farmers, builders, etc) who are very important who don't make much money. It isn't likely to be profitable to provide these people with certain services currently provided by the not-for-profit governments, so they will end up spending most of their income getting as many of these services as possible. Their quality of life will drop.
In this example, the rich still pay a higher 'tax', while the poor pay less. Seems to be business as usual, except the poor are now at the mercy of their DRO, and are free to be exploited. Don't really see how this is beneficial to the population so there is little incentive for the people to support it.
Also, there most certainly can be property and the like. All cultures have property, even ones with no government
This is simply contradictory to reality. There is no society without some form of government. Even before history and before the city-state, small communities would have some form of government. Government is not necessarely even a formal organization, it may be informal, but without enforcing property laws, there is no property. All cultures have property because all cultures have property law (be it formal or informal). To restate my inital point, as there is no property without property law, the people who have property must contribute to the organization that gives them these laws, even in the above example.
"Bennyishere said:So its only good for the two most important things huh. That all?"If you actually knew what socialism was, you wouldn't be so afraid of it."Quite the opposite.
Some socialism is desirable. Free health care for the poor, free public education... and that's about it. Fuck everything else."
"The_Ish said:Well, the free health care is stretching it. I don't much care for paying taxes that go to pay for other people's health care if possible, but I believe a proper education is required to truly give every child entering adulthood a chance, an opportunity."Bennyishere said:So its only good for the two most important things huh. That all?""If you actually knew what socialism was, you wouldn't be so afraid of it."Quite the opposite.
Some socialism is desirable. Free health care for the poor, free public education... and that's about it. Fuck everything else."
I don't much care for paying taxes that go to pay for other people's health care if possible
Why not?
"Yes. The single, power monopoly of the state is what anarchists wish to avoid. It's possible that a state-like entity may emerge from an anarchic society, but that isn't really an argument against anarchy any more than "anarchy may come from a statist society" is an argument against statism.Here is an explanation of how certain aspects might work (the guy is a little preachy, but he gets his point across):So, instead of a single "coercive power" you have several smaller "coercive powers"? I'm really not sure how this is better, or how it solves some imagined problem.
It is also not an example of how the rich are not part of an organized system in which they would be expected to contribute. In the given example, the "DRO fee", basically a mini government that charges money to provide a service, has, as you suggested, a voluntary tax. However, the given example comes with many logistical questions, which Stefbot admits. He doesn't go into them because there are a lot of them and because of his assertion based on logic that really doesn't fit, in my opinion, but these are questions that, in a practical application, must be answered.
"
Saying that DRO's are "mini-governments" is also irrelevant, because a government is, by definition, a single coercive power with an absolute power monopoly over a soceity. There is no such thing as a "mini-government", then, only "people with coercive powers" due to wealth and the like. But then, keep in mind that money is only a "coercive force" if the individual wishes to have it. They can always reject contracts or offers made, and if someone tries to take their stuff by force then another DRO can swoop in and tell them to fuck right off.
All questions must be answered? You want me to answer every single logistical claim about ararchism, a system that I don't even support? And if I can't then "I'm wrong" and "anarchy fails"? Please be reasonable. This is all because of one off-handed comment I made about anarchism not being a terrible system. Even if it was, as you say, "just more of the same", why is it so "Bad"?
Bellum said:
"The rich are not paying taxes at all, because a tax is something sanctioned by a government. This whole section doesn't seem to say anything at all. HOw are the rich "being taxed higher than the poor"? Why is this relevant? Why are poor people's quality of life dropping? Why does it matter?
But lets assume it works. As it is most practical for organizations built around profit, lets assume that the DROs provide a different degree of service depending on the fee payed. This means, in practice, minimum service for the poor and maximum service for the rich. You might say this is fair, after all, the rich are more productive. However, wealth does not equate to productivity in an organized society. You have people (farmers, builders, etc) who are very important who don't make much money. It isn't likely to be profitable to provide these people with certain services currently provided by the not-for-profit governments, so they will end up spending most of their income getting as many of these services as possible. Their quality of life will drop.
In this example, the rich still pay a higher 'tax', while the poor pay less. Seems to be business as usual, except the poor are now at the mercy of their DRO, and are free to be exploited. Don't really see how this is beneficial to the population so there is little incentive for the people to support it.
"
Bellum said:
"
This is simply contradictory to reality. There is no society without some form of government. Even before history and before the city-state, small communities would have some form of government. Government is not necessarely even a formal organization, it may be informal, but without enforcing property laws, there is no property. All cultures have property because all cultures have property law (be it formal or informal). To restate my inital point, as there is no property without property law, the people who have property must contribute to the organization that gives them these laws, even in the above example.
"
No, you only think there are no soecieties without some form of government because your definition of government is "anything that has power", apparently. Do you consider your parents to be the "governors" of their home, with them having a despotic rule over their household? No, because the household is not a society. It is a small part of a society. There can be only one government for any society.
Law does not equal government. Property does not equal law. Individuals have been enforcing their own "property laws" for millions of years, as apes. You do it with force. Power. If you can't defend your property, someone else claims it. Societies as a whole tend to fabricate a concept of "ownership" around this fact, and then believe that people "own things" and can only relinquish them volluntarily. Fine. This is true of an anarchic society also, because it's not a government thing, it's a human thing. Remember, government is a power monopoly. You do not need a power monopoly to allow individuals to enforce their "property rights". Individuals can do it themselves, or hire DRO's to do it for them. They might even hire a private military corporation if the problem is big enough.
Whatever it is, the services provided by a government can be provided for by non-government organizations. And society will still function.
"adam_grif said:What a stupid comment, the government has created a system wherby private competitors are at a huge disadvantage. That's like me saying anyone not for laisez fair capatalism must go without using anything made by a private company for a week"thanatos990 said:ok if ur a true libertarian go a week without driving on roads, using electricity, and water, all provided by the federal, state and local government, there are no true libertarians sorry also give me ur SSI, i need free money""You disagree with me, therefore, your opinion is wrong. It's true. I saw it on the internet somewhere."
Wow I didnt know there was a handbook on what the government can do.
Thats all personal opinion but I for one love driving on our roads, and making people smarter, and prevent families from going homeless
"
sorry I missed sooo much of this conversation, but I have a comment on the "free healthcare"
What if.... we had a program where anybody on the receiving end of a "free" social program, was required to pay it back via community hours or some type of work program? I mean, of course, if they are physically able to. Or how about required and "optional taxes" for isntance... required taxes like for roads & infastructure items, defense and other large things that EVERYBODY uses. Then, optional taxes where if you don't put in, you don't get to use that program? Like, If I decide to not pay into a socail heath care, then I don't get that benifit from the goverment?
Hang on, hang on, hang on... people don't want free health care in the US? Is that what I'm picking up? I've heard people have to mortgage their houses just to have a life saving operation. Why wouldn't you want free health care?
The NHS almost works in the UK. Sure you have to plough a lot of money into over your lifetime and there are long waiting lists but on the other hand if you're on the verge of dying you know they're gonna try and save you. And you don't have to sell your house and possessions to stay alive. Why wouldn't you want that?
Am I being incredibly ignorant and stupid? Don't shoot me down just explain.
Gen:
That would not work. Medicare, Medicaid, TANF and Social Security would all collapse overnight. Rich people would avoid this "optional" tax, because hey, they're not going to need to use it. Poor people would be paying themselves, basically. These are transfers to the wealthy to the poor--for the good of our society. (Hard to make money if you're rich when all your workers are starving and thinking about revolting.)
"Hang on, hang on, hang on... people don't want free health care in the US? Is that what I'm picking up? I've heard people have to mortgage their houses just to have a life saving operation. Why wouldn't you want free health care?No such thing as free healthcare. It is paid for through taxes. stop calling it free healthcare, its not free
The NHS almost works in the UK. Sure you have to plough a lot of money into over your lifetime and there are long waiting lists but on the other hand if you're on the verge of dying you know they're gonna try and save you. And you don't have to sell your house and possessions to stay alive. Why wouldn't you want that?
Am I being incredibly ignorant and stupid? Don't shoot me down just explain."
"get2sammyb said:"Hang on, hang on, hang on... people don't want free health care in the US? Is that what I'm picking up? I've heard people have to mortgage their houses just to have a life saving operation. Why wouldn't you want free health care?No such thing as free healthcare. It is paid for through taxes. stop calling it free healthcare, its not free"
The NHS almost works in the UK. Sure you have to plough a lot of money into over your lifetime and there are long waiting lists but on the other hand if you're on the verge of dying you know they're gonna try and save you. And you don't have to sell your house and possessions to stay alive. Why wouldn't you want that?
Am I being incredibly ignorant and stupid? Don't shoot me down just explain."
its cheaper then Americas
Man politics, it IS like religion. Can't talk about it without a massive argument. I will continue to not care, but it is a bit amusing to look at how one blog post has exploded into this. Keep it clean.
[voluntary taxes]
I don't think taxes should be totally voluntary (who'd pay them?), but I think there should be a base amount for all "areas,"
and people can vote or put on their tax return how much extra the "extra amount" should go to.
Another option is basically have three boxes "less ; same ; more" and reduce or increase basic areas a moderate percentage depending on what people choose. For example, I'd put "more" in education and "less" in military.
One exception would be national calamities or emergencies. I don't want to live in a country where people will basically say "screw you, New Orleans flood victims"
Some things like welfare may not be voted on (everyone but the poor would want less) - or maybe put welfare and corporate welfare together and see what happens (we pay more for corporate welfare, btw)
"hair001 said:It's worse. Also Ameericas healthcare market isn't a free market, the government have huge levels of control on it"get2sammyb said:"Hang on, hang on, hang on... people don't want free health care in the US? Is that what I'm picking up? I've heard people have to mortgage their houses just to have a life saving operation. Why wouldn't you want free health care?No such thing as free healthcare. It is paid for through taxes. stop calling it free healthcare, its not free"
The NHS almost works in the UK. Sure you have to plough a lot of money into over your lifetime and there are long waiting lists but on the other hand if you're on the verge of dying you know they're gonna try and save you. And you don't have to sell your house and possessions to stay alive. Why wouldn't you want that?
Am I being incredibly ignorant and stupid? Don't shoot me down just explain."
its cheaper then Americas"
And if I can't then "I'm wrong" and "anarchy fails"? Please be reasonable.I'm not asking you to answer them. I'm merely pointing out that these answers are necessary for any real practical application. If these questions are not answered, then there will never be application.
The rich are not paying taxes at all, because a tax is something sanctioned by a government.Semantics. They equate to the same effect.
HOw are the rich "being taxed higher than the poor"? Why is this relevant?I thought this would be rather obvious. In the theoretical example, the DRO's are companies, their only incentive for providing their service is profit. It is only logical to assume that such an organization would provide different services to people who could pay more. It's how I would do it. In such a purely capitalist society you cannot expect people to act in societies best interest. There are both historical and modern examples of this.
Why is this relevant?I relealise that you are not exactly advocating an anarchist state, but you seem to have a problem with the rich paying more. I'm merely trying to prevent this discussion from derailing completely. :P
Why are poor people's quality of life dropping?Lets use a real world example that I am familiar with. In America, a poor family cannot generally afford great health insurance. If someone gets very ill or is ill for a prolonged period of time, their insurance policy, if they have one at all, may not cover everything, or the cost of further insurance may become prohibitive. When this happens, life for the family becomes extremely hard. The DRO example follows the same principle, but is even more extreme. The poor may not have access to infastructure or police or a great number of things. Their service would essentially be inferior. This is true in current systems as well, because the poor do not necessarely have the resources to get the system moving. In the DRO example, however, the company would have no obligation to act in the best interest of their lowest paying customers, so they wouldn't. The effect would be worse.
Why does it matter?To who? To the universe, nothing matters. I'm sure it would matter a great deal to the people involved, however. A people, I will remind you, that are extremely important for a functioning society, however little credit we give them. It also matters to me.
No, you only think there are no soecieties without some form of government because your definition of government is "anything that has power", apparently. Do you consider your parents to be the "governors" of their home, with them having a despotic rule over their household? No, because the household is not a society. It is a small part of a society. There can be only one government for any society.A society is simply an organization of people. You seem to think this only encompasses the entire state, but this is not the case. Your family, under certain circumstances, can actually be a valid example of a government body (and have in some historical societies, IIRC), but generally isn't in modern societies because they do not have any real degree of autonomy. I live with my mother. Generally, I follow the "rules" of the household because I find them reasonable and because I'm interested in stability. However, I'm a legal adult and am under no obligation to do so. My family cannot, formally or informally, force me to do anything. The only thing they can really do is prevent my access to their property, such as their home. I realize children seem to contradict this, but children are a special case in any situation, and for practical purposes are not usually treated as actual people. :P
In contrast, the town I live in has their own government. They can issue rules that have the force of law, in this case formal.
Law does not equal government. Property does not equal law. Individuals have been enforcing their own "property laws" for millions of years, as apes. You do it with force. Power. If you can't defend your property, someone else claims it.
In a hypothetical world where there is no societal organization, an individual cannot effectively enforce claims to property. In such a world, if we assume that there is some magical force preventing humans naturally coming together, no one would be rich, certainly not by our standards. If someone was found hording too much, someone would kill them, and there would be no consequences for that. The point, as I've already said, is that the rich do owe a great deal to societal organization. To say they do not befit from government is contrary to reality.
Probably a similar reason to why you don't like paying for other people's cars and houses.
That's really too bad. The goal of society isn't to provide you with security, but everyone. Sometimes you have to sacrifice for this goal, but on the whole you profit.
Note that perfectly reasonable governments do provide the poor with housing and transportation. And health care and education. Health care, in my opinion, is even more important than education. Peoples lives should not be held hostage as they are in the current situation here in America.
"Bellum said:But its alright that we pay for there bisnesses and corporations, flawed thinking, I raugher pay for someones chevy then a CEO's BMW"Probably a similar reason to why you don't like paying for other people's cars and houses."I don't much care for paying taxes that go to pay for other people's health care if possible
Why not?"
"adam_grif said:If you don't like paying for a "business" hmmm, then don't every buy anything from them. And if you are looking to buy a Chevy for someone, start with me, I will take a fully loaded 09' Camaro or Vet from you if you don't mind, thanks."Bellum said:But its alright that we pay for there bisnesses and corporations, flawed thinking, I raugher pay for someones chevy then a CEO's BMW""Probably a similar reason to why you don't like paying for other people's cars and houses."I don't much care for paying taxes that go to pay for other people's health care if possible
Why not?"
"The troll returns for day 2.
Hi, troll!"
"The troll returns for day 2.Hi!
Hi, troll!"
When you have something constructive to add, come on back!
"Jayge said:You say that, yet your original post was complete trolling. OK, so since then you've come out with some explanations and un-trolish stuff, but the first post was obvious trolling, so don't complain at other people not adding constructive things."The troll returns for day 2.Hi!
Hi, troll!"
When you have something constructive to add, come on back!"
"Gen_Warbuff said:"Jayge said:You say that, yet your original post was complete trolling. OK, so since then you've come out with some explanations and un-trolish stuff, but the first post was obvious trolling, so don't complain at other people not adding constructive things.""The troll returns for day 2.Hi!
Hi, troll!"
When you have something constructive to add, come on back!"
To be honest with you, I don't use GB a whole lot. When I posted that blog topic, I thought it was going to stay on ... my blog. But then I realized it went on the forum. Does not change the fact, I would have posted it any way.
"thanatos990 said:idoit, I was meaning Corporate Welfare, Tax breaks needless grants, if ur making billions there no way in hell u need a tax break, 800 billion to the banks that screwed us, wow thanks!"adam_grif said:If you don't like paying for a "business" hmmm, then don't every buy anything from them. And if you are looking to buy a Chevy for someone, start with me, I will take a fully loaded 09' Camaro or Vet from you if you don't mind, thanks.""Bellum said:But its alright that we pay for there bisnesses and corporations, flawed thinking, I raugher pay for someones chevy then a CEO's BMW""Probably a similar reason to why you don't like paying for other people's cars and houses."I don't much care for paying taxes that go to pay for other people's health care if possible
Why not?"
Warbuff seems to be the result of massive southern incest, he's dad's slogan was "keep it in tha family!"
I'm not askingyou to answer them. I'm merely pointing out that these answers are necessary for any real practical application. If these questions are not answered, then there will never be application.
So you're asking someone who you're not even talking to for an answer? Amazing. I'm sure any problems you can raise could be circumvented by someone who supported that position.
Semantics. They equate to the same effect.
No. By that logic, buying food is the same thing as a "food tax", and paying for electricity is just an "electricity tax". There are clear distinctions. Could you perhaps clarify what you were even meaning by saying that the rich were paying taxes anyway, since there are no taxes?
I thought this would be rather obvious. In the theoretical example, the DRO's are companies, their only incentive for providing their service is profit. It is only logical to assume that such an organization would provide different services to people who could pay more. It's how I would do it. In such a purely capitalist society you cannot expect people to act in societies best interest. There are both historical and modern examples of this.
Charging higher prices for a better service is not a tax.
Lets use a real world example that I am familiar with. In America, a poor family cannot generally afford great health insurance. If someone gets very ill or is ill for a prolonged period of time, their insurance policy, if they have one at all, may not cover everything, or the cost of further insurance may become prohibitive. When this happens, life for the family becomes extremely hard. The DRO example follows the same principle, but is even more extreme. The poor may not have access to infastructure or police or a great number of things. Their service would essentially be inferior. This is true in current systems as well, because the poor do not necessarely have the resources to get the system moving. In the DRO example, however, the company would haveno obligation to act in the best interest of their lowest paying customers, so they wouldn't. The effect would be worse.
But then, think that families also have more money to deal with because they are not forced to pay taxes on anything. If worst comes to worst, and the treatment is still too expensive, no charities will help them, and someone might die, that does not justify what essentially tantamount to stealing money from rich people to keep paying costs via tax run health care. If people don't want to help other people, you should not be forcing them to. Choosing not to go out of your way to help someone stay alive is not the same as killing them. It may be harsh, but it's reality, and if somebody can not pay for something, it is not the government's place to force other people to do it for them.
This is the anarchist position. My libertarian position overlaps on this issue.
A society is simply an organization of people. You seem to think this only encompasses the entire state, but this is not the case. Your family, under certain circumstances, can actually be a valid example of a government body (and have in some historical societies, IIRC), but generally isn't in modern societies because they do not have any real degree of autonomy. I live with my mother. Generally, I follow the "rules" of the household because I find them reasonable and because I'm interested in stability. However, I'm a legal adult and am under no obligation to do so. My family cannot, formally or informally, force me to doanything.
The only thing they can really do is prevent my access to their property, such as their home. I realize children seem to contradict this, but children are a special case in any situation, and for practical purposes are not usually treated as actual people. :P
In contrast, the town I live in has their own government. They can issue rules that have the force of law, in this case formal.
No, I am perfectly aware that a society is an orginization of people, however anybody with power over an aspect of a society is not a government, because a government is something that has a power monopoly over the whole society. Your mother is not a government. You don't make the definitions.
In a hypothetical world where there isno societal organization, an individual cannot effectively enforce claims to property. In such a world, if we assume that there is some magical force preventing humans naturally coming together, no one would be rich, certainly not by our standards. If someone was found hording too much, someone would kill them, and there would be no consequences for that. The point, as I've already said, is that the rich do owe a great deal to societal organization. To say they do not befit from government is contrary to reality.
Ok, but again, you're arguing against a straw-man version of Anarchy. Anarchy is you are arguing against it is not actually the anarchist position. Anarchy is not "no societal orginization". Anarchy is "no central coercive power with a monopoly over the whole society".
That's really too bad. The goal of society isn't to provideyou with security, but everyone. Sometimes you have to sacrifice for this goal, but on the whole you profit. Note that perfectly reasonable governments do provide the poor with housing and transportation. And health care and education. Health care, in my opinion, is even more important than education. Peoples lives should not be held hostage as they are in the current situation here in America.So sayeth the socialist. The anarchist sayeth otherwise.
Thanatos 990 wrote:
But its alright that we pay for there bisnesses and corporations, flawed thinking, I raugher pay for someones chevy then a CEO's BMW
Woah, slow down there Mr Troll. Nobody in this thread has been advocating taxing the rich less than taxing the poor, and the anarchist and the libertarians especially not. Giving corporate benefits is totally against Anarchy and Libertarianism. Don't argue against a position nobody is taking.
"To be honest with you, I don't use GB a whole lot. When I posted that blog topic, I thought it was going to stay on ... my blog. But then I realized it went on the forum. Does not change the fact, I would have posted it any way."When it asks you which forum you want to attach it to, don't choose one. I'm not certain how it works because I haven't posted a new blog entry recently, but you don't have to attach it to any forums.
"Warbuff seems to be the result of massive southern incest, he's dad's slogan was "keep it in tha family!""
Yes, and that insult came up just like your man hood, a little short!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment