Voluntary Taxation - It Can Work!

[jacobins3000]

Umm, wouldn't that mean that the government would be dependent on evil altruism. What kind of person would voluntarily take money out of his own business to fund government programs? Not an objectivist, that's for certain.

[MrCropper]

@jacobins3000 "What kind of person would voluntarily take money out of his own business to fund government programs? Not an objectivist, that's for certain."

You obviously don't know much about Objectivism. Being a philosophy of selfishness, Objectivism holds self-defense to be moral. Paying for police, courts and military services would be selfish.

[jacobins3000]

@MrCropper Not really, because if you give money to the government then you will be paying for the self-defense of millions of your fellow citizens, as well as for yourself. Donating my personal income to the government will not substantially improve my own personal safety, it might only pay the salary of one additional cop, who will likely be working in an different city. Wouldn't the more selfish thing to do be to hire your own personal bodyguard, or to just to rely on the donations of others.

[sybo59]

@jacobins3000 "paying for the self-defense of millions..." Millions? More like your own share, value (your money) for value (the amount of protection you'd like available). I'm not even going into how having your whole neighborhood safe benefits you.

"likely be working in an different city" Yes, that's how taxes work. We take $X from jacobins, and give it specifically to Officer Jones in Compton.

"rely on the donations of others." You know little about Objectivism. Study more.

[Fray2221]

@sybo59 Im simply having some trouble understanding the objectivist position on this issue.What happens in poor neighborhoods where people can't afford their own private security force? Are rich people going to altruistically pay for the security of poor people? or are they selfishly going to allow these neighborhoods to descend into anarchy? Why should a rich person in Beverly Hills pay to protect some bum in Compton? I understand how taxes work and I understand why they are necessary. Do you?

[sybo59]

@Fray2221 Private security forces are an anarchist construct.

The gov't would be reduced to its vital role of protecting individual rights from the initiation of force with the military, police, and courts -- rich or poor. It is not a matter of altruism at all. Think of it like insurance: many people pay to keep the system alive in case they need it, but only a small percent will actually collect. Funding a proper, barebones gov't wouldn't be a problem.

[sybo59]

@Fray2221 Cont. I can tell by the phrasing of your question that you aren't too familiar with Rand's philosophy. It's probably best not to jump right to the political/philosophy of law level without getting the metaphysics, epistemology, and especially ethics first. Agree of disagree with the ideas, it will be easier to grasp "Objectivism in practice" this way. If you have questions on those subjects, PM me and I'll answer or recommend further reading if I have the time.

[Hypertask]

@MrCropper Except that once the system is up and running, anybody can stop donating and nothing noticeable will change for them. It's the free rider problem. Sure if everybody stopped paying then there would be a huge change. But unless the government linked the fees to service (Rand herself suggested the enforcement of contracts) no individual would notice a difference whether they were donating or not - it would be pure charity.

[Hypertask]

@Hypertask The reason why it would seem to violate Objectivist egoism if it was pure charity would be that rather than a normal business, which you pay to get a service provided to you, if you donated to the government you would be paying to get a service provided to everyone. This is why it would have to be linked to services, add to that contract enforcement service (Rand's idea) also protection under criminal law and then people would really have a personal interest to pay!

[TinoTaliTintti]

If taxes were voluntary that would be anarchy. And youve said that anarchy is stupid so youre stupid.

[furyofbongos]

Didn't watch the vid (guilty) but if it's voluntary it's not taxation.

[FreiheitKampfer]

Love it! I'm fine with statists and theists being in the same antagonist boats. After all.. their furious support is built on mysticism in both cases.

Have you addressed the point that modern governments are often defined by their legal hypocrisy.. would 'government' in your view, also has exclusive legal privileges?

If so, how do you justify them?

The SCOTUS rules: polices have no obligations.

Is your 'government' open-entry? There is the common problem of the worst people getting on top.

[randianpole]

Great video. I think people think about this issue incorrectly; they jump to questions such as "how are we going to institute a private means of finance" and "what kind of effects would this have on society", blah blah blah, without even considering the deeper moral principle behind it: governments - that is, cliques of legally-armed bureaucrats and elitists - have no right to seize private property from those who do not want to relinquish their right over it. That's the basic principle!

[soitoldhimno]

A very important thing to remind people of in this topic is that an Objectivist government would most likely always be INCREDIBLY cheap. The only exception I could see to that would be a WWII type situation, where all of a sudden the military would require huge percentages of the GDP just in order to maintain the country's survival. Even in such a case, funding would still have to be voluntary, however, which if the situation is really that bad I don't see as being a problem.

[Sam26100]

I actually never questioned the idea that people can fund a government voluntarily, the problem I still haven't found the solution for is:

What would stop a competing government from emerging, if funding is voluntary.

This is the question that determines if the idea of a voluntarily funded government is just an anarchical system in disguise or not.

I.E. if competing governments can emerge, isn't it just another form of anarcho-capitalism?

Maybe there's a simple solution Im missing

[Twiggy269]

You just need to use different terms. Instead of thinking about it as another "Government" competing for your dollars, (which would only happen if your current government attempted to contradict the "Constitution" that objectivily defines individual rights) think about it as societal revolution, to replace the government that got out of line, wouldn't necessarily be a "Competing Government" it would be an ousting, and a renewal. there may be 2 "Governments" at one point, but it wouldn't last

[MrCropper]

"What would stop a competing government from emerging...?"

Nothing. Mexico could be considered a competing government to the U.S. government.

Or do you mean a competing government INSIDE the border? Anyone trying that would be jailed.

[Sam26100]

I meant inside the border. I think I understand the idea a better now actually and I do believe that such a government could exist without eventually expanding it's power. The tricky part is how to make sure it doesn't. I suppose I would like to see an actual layout of how the objectivist political system would be structured, but perhaps you think such a document would best be written after society becomes fully ready to accept objectivism as it's dominant philosophy?

[MrCropper]

"... perhaps you think such a document would best be written after society becomes fully ready to accept objectivism..."

Not at all. I'm working on the document now. Please see my playlist on my re-written version of the constitution. I'm not done, but if I die tomorrow I think I've contributed something to the principles such a document should contain.

[Sam26100]

I pray you don't die tomorrow, and thanks I'll go check that out.

[hullolife]

Not a bad idea... seriously, if you really think that the US can spend your money in a more meaningful and "helpful" way then you can ... :D give up the goods!

[Beethovens7th]

I believe it's "Government Financing in a Free Society"

[billyjoeallen]

You are an idiot. Wow. I don't know where to begin explaining how stupid you idea is. Let's just pick one at random:

Nobody would buy Chevy's because GM donated police cars. They would correctly assume that they would be subsidizing the police dept. I personally would buy cars from ANY OTHER CAR COMPANY. Want more?

[brainpolice2]

Why not just call it a "user fee" or a "price"? Using the term "voluntary taxation" is counter-intuitive, to say the least.

[grantsinmypants2]

"Tax" - from the Latin "taxo" - meaning: "I estimate."

If I'm the one estimating, then I'm the one volunteering my money.

[chopsky]

People voluntarilly sign up for the US army, directing putting their lives in harms way, to protect their loved ones. If they're willing to go this far, to risk their lives, what reason is there to doubt that people would voluntarily give a small percentage of their income to the government to protect their loved ones?

[Beethovens7th]

Good point, not to mention that people have also bought war bonds en masse in the past to help fund war efforts.

[chopsky]

Uh, that should read "directly", not "directing".

[vaaaliant]

Cant you buy the government that way...

[Joshbuckler]

In a lot of industries, you can already buy the government.

In a voluntary-tax society, you certainly could buy the government, but the government would be a much different animal. A lot smaller, for one, and with less sweeping powers. So you could buy the government, but you wouldn't get a whole lot of bang for your buck. Ideally, anyways.

[Twiggy269]

"Buying" the government becomes a moot point if the government is a rational proper one like we're discussing, they have totally separate from the economy, they simply enforce the law, there would be no "Speical Favors" to lobby for, or buy, all they do is mitigate contracts (for a fee, thanks apluce) and put away criminals and blow up overseas threats to our life, liberty, and property. Stop thinking like a leftist

[Twiggy269]

have = are

[Joshbuckler]

I'm not sure if you're responding to me, or vaaaliant. I think I agree with you. That said, I've yet to see a system that allows every party to act freely rationally all the time. Is one leftist for thinking that there will always be loopholes and corruption in any system? Again though, I think we're agreeing here, because my contention is that, though there would be corruption, it would actually be less severe than what we have in our current system.

[Twiggy269]

I don't want to say that there would be absolutely no corruption in a lassiez faire economy with a strictly rational government that simply protects property and freedom. But there would be 99% less, lets just say. But as for your thought that the richest people in the country wouldn't invest in the government that protected their property is simply ludicrous. That would be like saying, the people with the most money wouldn't want a safe, and poor people would invest in a big steel one.

[Joshbuckler]

If you're talking about "the rich" as a single entity, "oligarchs" or "the elite" if you will, then yes, it makes sense that they would protect their own interests. You do know the parable of the tragedy of the commons, though, right? If we consider the rich as a collection of self-interested discrete parties, then it makes sense for them each to invest as little as possible the security of the state. If chaos increases, then they're better off hiring private security for their specific needs.

[Twiggy269]

the parable you quoted is laughable, and hardly evidence to support your claim. Luckily for us living in this fantasyland government idea that Mr. cropper has laid out for us, its not a communist government, so we don't have to worry about sharing grazing land for cattle. These types of issues only result from a society that doesn't respect the rights of individuals. Read some history about the colony of Jamestown, maybe you'll understand the incentive of private ownership better.

[Joshbuckler]

It's not a communist government? Then how do you explain the armed forces being run by the same people as do contract enforcement, along with whatever powers are still left to this small, albeit still existent, government?

I'm just having a hard time seeing the elites investing in what is essentially a security company over which they have no control. It's an inefficient method of achieving stability and security in their regions of business.

At best, I see them making a small contribution.

[apluce21]

I think you missed her best idea for voluntary taxation which is a voluntary tax on contracts. The legal enforcement of contract is a hugely important service the gov't currently provides for free via the civil courts. Something like a half of a percent voluntary tax on the value represented in the contract to have it enforced by law would probably be plenty to fund a properly functioning gov't. No one would be forced to pay but the vast majority would want to pay for such vital service.

[Twiggy269]

bravo apluce. Wonderful addition to the conversation. I agree 100%

[Signofthedollar]

I doubt there is even one bureaucrat in our government that would agree with you, Mr. Cropper. After all it turn them all into lowly beggers. We can't let that happen! Can we?

[i2aymond]

There are no voluntary taxes, it is a contradiction in terms.

[Twiggy269]

I really want to agree with you on this, but think about it this way.

tax : fee charged by a government on a product, income, or activity.

If you remove the "Income" part of the definition, they other 2 are voluntary actions you choose to do. You can choose to not buy a product, or not do the activity, therby not paying the tax. You have to consciously choose to buy the good, or do the activity, with foreknowledge of the tax, thus you are consenting to it, not being coerced

[Twiggy269]

I'm stretching this pretty thin though. I think a more rational way to resolve this contradiction is to simply change the title of the video to "Voluntary Government Compensation for Services Rendered"

Haha, whaddya think Mr. Cropper?

[i2aymond]

I want to be sure and understand what you are saying so if you could plug your abstraction into a historical event such as the tax on tea, Tea Act, in the British colonies I would greatly appreciate your time. To my understanding this tax would fall under the category of product. Is it your stance that such a tax is voluntary for all peoples living in the realm?

[Twiggy269]

In a certain way yes, Since tea is a product on a market, it is up to you whether or not you choose to purchase it. If you don't want to pay the tax of tea, you simply don't buy tea. Now of course this isn't totally voluntary since the government can simply impose a tax on all goods, and since goods are a necessary part of life you can't simply buy nothing to avoid paying taxes...which is why the response was "thin."

[Twiggy269]

You could also go the black market route, in which producers and consumers trade goods without the knowledge of the government to aviod paying said taxes. I'm sure if the government was in the market of taxing goods that they would outlaw the selling of goods without the governments knowledge. All in all, a tax on goods in a market is not part of a rational government, but as i've attempted, you can almost consider it a "Voluntary tax" since you're not forced to buy goods.

[i2aymond]

In keeping with the definition of tax as being involuntary tribute, such as given to a king, it is hard to agree with you. I suggest that for a tax to be voluntary it must be given freely for example without physical threat making it instead a donation. In keeping with the point, the tax on tea for it to remain voluntary would only be paid at the whim of the various buyers. The price of the product plus the optional tax would therefore be the sum total for the product. Few would donate.

[Twiggy269]

little bit I think you left out in this video is the rationality of donating to the government for protection. Always make the connection between government, and protection/or force. If you're a top 25 business CEO with tons and tons of capital invested in a market, wouldn't you want to make sure that your property is protected by big frikkin guns? It's in every citizens rational self interest to want to donate capital to the government for the basic protections of life liberty, and property.

[Joshbuckler]

@Twiggy269 Just keep in mind that the tragedy of the commons problem comes up. Say you're a top 500 business CEO. Doesn't it make more sense to you to let everybody else invest in the secure environment, while you simply reap the benefits?

[Twiggy269]

hell frikkin no.

A top 500 businessman has A LOT more at stake than an average joe. Thats just a stupid stupid thing to say. You sound like a liberal talking about "Evil Corporations" You got alot of skin in the game, you're going to make damn sure its protected.

[JacobSpinney]

So then why are you against anarchists so much? Coercive taxation is 99% of their argument!

[Twiggy269]

wrong.

Anarchists have contradictions in their fundamentals. If you'll notice, Cropper specifically said that the government cannot compete with the market economy, that is in stark contrast to anarchist position to have competing "Governments" in the market itself. Not only does the "Government(s)" in an anarchist fantasyland compete in the market, but they also get to make the rules (After they win of course) the market operates under.

[JacobSpinney]

So to be consistent with Mr Croppers analogy, instead of churches competing against each other for your donations, we should only have one single church with the right to provide religious services? Any other churches thinking they can offer a better service are surely illegitimate and should be burnt to the ground? Because, goodness knows, if we have more than one single church, it'll be chaos!

[Twiggy269]

this is apples and oranges Jacob. You're not this stupid. Chruches don't apply the law, (i.e. use force) any entity that exists as part of the market is barred from the use of physical force, the government on the other hand is the ONLY entity that is allowed to use force, therby disqualifying from being able to compete in a market. They have an "unfair advantage" over competitors, since they have the guns. Religous services and retaliatory force is in no way analogous to each other.

[JacobSpinney]

Why should the government have the right to initiate the use of force? Self defense is perfectly valid, and so is third-party defense. But if I'm not a government official, then am I illegitimately competing against the government when I defend some lady from having her purse stolen? Why exactly does the government need the right to initiate the use of force in the first place? Why can't it simply have the right of third-party defense just like all of us already have?

[Twiggy269]

I never said anything about barring self defense, or thrid party defense (this term needs further clarification though.) "Why exactly does the government need the right to initiate the use of force in the first place?"

They only need this right if you enjoy having freedom J. If you don't mind being a slave to biggest street gang group of thugs, then government isn't necessary. Those of us who actually want to live in a society that respects individual rights recognize this need.

[Twiggy269]

As relating "Competing Governments in a market" consider this. Suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smiths complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

[JacobSpinney]

So here you are advocating for a one-world government?

Simple solution, if Mr. Jones robbed Mr. Smith on the land that is subject to "Government" A's rules, then it does not matter if Mr. Jones lives in a "Government" B region, since the event took place on "Government" A's property.

If these "governments" did not cooperate, then the minority of "governments" who harbor fugitives will simply be blacklisted from the "governments" that do have common laws against theft of persons and property.

[Twiggy269]

sure, i'd love a 1 world government, as long as it was bound to a single charter of restraints upon the power and scope of what the government could, and should do. I don't understand anarchists, if you're so skeptical about one entity having a monopoly on the use of force, what makes you think having lots of entites that can use force would make things any better? How can you not understand the need to have 1 entity in charge of the super fuckin simple things a govt. should do?

[Twiggy269]

btw, don't respond back, i'm done talking to you about retarded anarchist belief structure. You need faith to assume your system would work, thats why its flawed, you have no objective evidence to support any of your mystical claims about the wonder of supermarket governments clamoring to attract new customers. It ends in mob rule. It ends with a dictator, just like every other stupid government system execept lassiez faire capitalism. Do us a favor and find an anarchist video to jerk to.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Mature.

That you need these things provided for you, rather than you finding them yourself out of your own curiosity or desire to challenge you views, speaks volumes about you.

Icelandic Commonwealth: watch?v=Qk0tlZ2hZiY

(2 parts)

Gaelic Ireland: watch?v=ZZi45Mf6jYY

watch?v=KDb9pTmSWq4 (3 parts)

The Old (Mild)West: watch?v=w5ENtG3B8CQ

(2 parts)

[JacobSpinney]

The same reason I'm for gun rights. The same logic can be used to say civilians should have no right to bear arms. What then protects the civilians from the police and military if they decide to take advantage?

I am against monopolies because of the inherent incentive within them; which is to take advantage of the market they have a monopoly over by increasing monopoly rates and not caring about quality. Competition is what ensures cheap prices and great quality.

[Twiggy269]

there is no such thing as a market until laws are made.

Laws can't be made when you have 100 different groups making 100 different laws that contradict each other. Therfore no market will exist, the only thing that will exist is a bunch of people shooting each other over fear that they're neighbors "government" is going to come by and burn their house down, since there are no objective laws since there is no government. Competing defense organizations is a fancy term for endless war.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Common law, voluntarily adhered to(not legislated) has always arisen in stateless societies.

A market is merely the interaction of people's in relation to goods and services.

[Twiggy269]

force is not a good that can be traded or bought. If you believe it is then you don't believe there is actually right and wrong. You dont believe there is Objective fact in this world. I feel sorry for you.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Ahh, my argument demolished. I am humbled.

Pffft.

A. Security is a demanded service, subject to the laws of the market. Sometimes force is used, but it's often better for all parties to cooperate in any dispute. Almost anything can be traded or bought.

B. But that doesn't mean it should be(coercion, murder). I believe in right and wrong. Simple: don't harm other person's or their property. No objectivity it's just what I feel.

C. Don't tell me what I think.

Save your sanctimony for some1 else

[Twiggy269]

"it's often better for all parties to cooperate in any dispute." - only true if there are objective laws set fourth by a govt. in charge of enforcing the rights of citizens.

"I believe in right and wrong. Simple: don't harm other person's or their property. No objectivity it's just what I feel." - at least you admit there is no objective fact, now I have all the evidence I need to undermine anything you have to say. "You may FEEL that way, but I FEEL differently" is all I have to say now.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

No, because I don't base my arguments on morality, but on practicality. Gov't is simply wasteful, and not efficient in meeting it's goals, providing services, or protecting society's interests. The fact that most people object to violence and the state is inherently violent and responsible for most violence today simply makes my argument easier

"only true if there are objective laws set fourth by a govt. in charge of enforcing the rights of citizens."

No, private parties will often use...

[ThePintsizeslasher]

..DROs to settle disputes as gov't courts are expensive and arbitrary.

You are the one who came up with: "cooperation is most attractive only true if.." so the burden of proof is on you. I already provided historical examples that prove this wrong anyways. Here's a recent study:

ht tp : / / social[dot] fr33agents[dot] com/profiles/blogs/something-b­eautiful

When will you acknowledge the difference between security, arbitration, mediation, adjudication, and violence?

[Twiggy269]

as soon as you acknowledge that the rights of individuals living in a specific geographical area can only be secured by a uniform monopoly over violence that OBJECTIVILY DEFINES the rules that govern a civil society. There can be no peace even among fully rational men without this set of Objective rules that clearly define individual rights. You don't even beleve in property rights Pints, you'd oppress people in a heartbeat if you had the guns, you'd love to be king dictator wouldn't ya?

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Don't tell me what I believe. I got into anarchism because of my belief in individual rights. When Any group is given a coercive monopoly on violence, they will always expand and exploit their powers. And the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU are the one making assertions, that only a state can secure individual rights. I've proven this wrong multiple times.

[truthadvocate]

Twiggy269, why do thousands of computer software & hardware companies produce products that are compatible? Because that's what consumers prefer. Consumers also prefer rules that are compatible. That's why they will visit businesses and use services that adhere to a compatible system of free market rules. I will not step foot in a grocery store that thinks it's cool to murder people. Would you?

Endless war can only be funded by governments that tax entire populations & their decedents.

[Twiggy269]

when are you anarchists going to understand that any analogy you use with a commidity on a market and VIOLENCE committed for money are NOT analogous. the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men is nowhere to be found.Imagine we're in your anarchist society, microsoft has the biggest defense force around. It tells mac it has to start producing windows PC or it'll burn its buildings to the ground. what are you going to do? Not buy a computer? What stops them?

[ThePintsizeslasher]

When will you acknowledge the difference between security, arbitration, mediation, and violence?

Seriously? The "what if one corporation gets a big army" non-argument? I assumed you smarter than that. You should watch LaughingMan0X's video on defense(ALL of it) and this: watch?v=uPiU69WX30M

[ThePintsizeslasher]

MS has little to gain from such (expensive)violence and much too risk. What's to stop Mac from getting their own army? How many amoral soldiers are there to be corporations thugs? W/o Intellectual Property laws, wouldn't PC users be able to copy Windows code(and improve it) and make modifications since Microsoft doesn't "own" it? What's to stop other private defense agencies from "liberating" ppl from MS' aggression and freeing up customers and gaining great PR

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Competition. If you can take your money elsewhere, gov'ts will have to provide a better service to keep your business.

Competition produces innovation.

The things gov'ts do are simple, so I see no reason why they should hold monopoly on them.

Would that one world gov't follow it's charter like the US gov't followed it's constitution?

[JacobSpinney]

A very patriotic speech. But I did not recognize any actual content within it. Why, exactly, does the government need the right to initiate the use of force? Can you offer an example?

[highwind8124]

"Mr. Cropper was shot today while getting his groceries, but the ambulance didn't take his body once they scanned his Social Insurance Number and found out he didn't have enough money. So they left him to bleed to death on the sidewalk and didn't bother to investigate the murder. Back to you, Jim!"

[i2aymond]

"A man rushed into a burning building today to save the life of a child he didn't even know."

For the fifth year in a row a gold coin dating from 1486 has been found in the salvation armys donation box

Someone helped a lady with her groceries.

People have compassion.

I find your story a little disturbing because you actually dream Mr. Cropper being shot.

[highwind8126]

"People have compassion."

So your substitute for tax funded ambulances and tax funded criminal investigations is "compassion". Thank you for the suggestion, but you know where you can stick it.

[i2aymond]

I did not suggest a substitute for anything.

Unless you would rather not talk with me do not talk to me that way.

[highwind8124]

"I did not suggest a substitute for anything."

You sure did, liar. You brought up three examples of compassion in response to a socialized system which offers people ambulance and medical care if they're shot.

It was obviously suggested. Unless you would rather not talk with me, do not lie.

[i2aymond]

My actual suggestion with regards to the current socialized system is free market private insurance, obviously not what we have now.

My main point in stating that people have compassion is the idea of people leaving someone on the sidewalk to bleed to death is absurd.

[MrCropper]

"the idea of people leaving someone on the sidewalk to bleed to death is absurd."

Oh contrare (sort of)`! It happens all the time in places like North Korea, Russia, Ethiopia, the West Bank, etc. To highwind's original point - if you want to avoid catastrophes like that, freedom is the only answer.

[i2aymond]

People who are otherwise free and happy do not leave their neighbors on the streets to bleed to death.

[ForABetterTomorrow]

It has more to do with psychology than with philosophy (the so called "bystander effect"). The more observers of a catastrophe there are, the fewer people you will find taking initiative.

The cause is that people tend to act in a social context like everyone else does.

[onoez2k]

On that note, I'd speculate that it's also due to more people finding it likely that someone ELSE will intervene. That way, they don't have to do anything themselves.

But when everyone thinks that, no-one does anything.

[ForABetterTomorrow]

The solution for a victim is to appoint certain people to help them, i.e. "you there with the blue shirt call an ambulance!".

[highwind8124]

"To highwind's original point - if you want to avoid catastrophes like that, freedom is the only answer."

Who do you think you're pretending to reply to? I never proposed this zero freedom communist system. Reducing the power of government and taxation is fine, but your proposals, as I have pointed out and you did not respond, were rock bottom dumb.

I'm simply being reasonable and realistic. Wipe the egg off your face first before trying to move on to some other badly made point.

[highwind8124]

"I find your story a little disturbing because you actually dream Mr. Cropper being shot"

Prove I dream or want it. By not agreeing with his system which would lead to events of that kind, I obviously don't.

[i2aymond]

I did not say that you wanted it to happen.

[highwind8124]

"This week in 'Fucked Up News', since socialized education has been eliminated, Christianity and Islam have made an incredible come back to fill the void. Churches are teaching intelligent design, and illiteracy is way up, which totally fucks up our democracy since the only way for it work is for the voters to be intelligent enough to know what the fuck is going on."

I can do this all day long.

[i2aymond]

The elimination of socialized education has allowed millions of parents to send their children to the school of their choice. Thus freeing an entire generation to make education choices solely on a voluntary basis. Schools teaching creationism have sprouted but also schools teaching evolution are competing for students time will tell which idea will win out in this free market. The quality of education has improved because each school receives students based on how well it educates them.

[highwind8124]

"The elimination of socialized education has allowed millions of parents to send their children to the school of their choice"

No, it hasn't. You're allowed to send them without it's elimination, liar.

"Thus freeing an entire generation to make education choices solely on a voluntary basis."

I don't want to live in a society where knowing world war II history is optional, depending on people to know on a voluntary basis. That kind of ignorance a healthy democracy cannot afford.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Yeah because the current US education system produces great, well educated people. Oh, wait it's shit, and a time tax, robbing children of childhood and work experience.

The gov't has a near monopoly on education, so that it crowds out competition. 30 kids, 1 teacher, 1 chalkboard. No idea if this is the best method of educating people but it's just how it's been done. It eliminates competition(which would be cheaper) that would produce innovation. It takes forever. 12years for basic calculus?

[highwind8124]

The dumber you let your fellow citizens be, the more fucked up your country will be since a lack of education kills democracy.

Your country agreed to invade Iraq, a country most of your idiot citizens couldn't find on a map if it wasn't labeled, because of ignorance and lies.

You won't have any market if you like having your fellow voters uneducated.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

There is a demand(arguably a need) for educated and skilled labor. There fore, entrepreneurs will capitalize on the demand and compete to supply the best education for the lowest price(of course more expensive "better" education will be available).

Fuck democracy. Why must 9 be catered to where 8 dissent? What is it about larger numbers that gives them more wisdom?

Voting on an issue requires that the issue be effecting all involved-the US is too large for every American voter to be...

[ThePintsizeslasher]

...interacting with each other. There fore, we have nothing to vote on. The state is unnecessary and inherently violent, nothing it provides cannot be provided better by people.

"invasion" requires a large ideologically supporting(of the state not the current issue or political regime) tax base. A reason why I'm an anarchist.

"We" never agreed to crap, the arbitrary assholes in Washington did. WE were attacked BECAUSE of them(Israel, military bases, Iraq).

[ThePintsizeslasher]

cont

Not to mention all the things that you don't need to learn, or get a skewed learning of. History for example. Why aren't we taught that the CIA and MI5 overthrew a democratic Iranian gov't in 1953, which lead to the hostage takings, Saddam, Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War? Because we're taught by the victors. Like being taught about Valdez by Exxon.

[MrCropper]

"... and illiteracy is way up..."

How could it possibly get any higher?

[highwind8124]

"This week in 'Fucked Up News', the government couldn't afford to pay the police force because a private lottery enterprise has out competed them. This has worked out great for rapists, since the police response time has been drastically reduced."

"In other news, the world has run out of clean water because corporations have dumped a ton of toxins in them. The remaining clean water is being sold at ridiculously high prices, and the poor are dying off. Back to you, Jim!"

[Twiggy269]

You have little to no understanding of how corporations make money Simple question, if noboty is alive to buy the corporations goods they produce, how will they stay in business? Therfore, how is it in their rational self interest to "Dump a ton of toxins" and kill off all their customers? Also, your previous post seems to indicate that you think criminals are the ones with money in a free society, please explain that one to me as well. Why are you even watching this? Seems over your head

[highwind8124]

"Also, your previous post seems to indicate that you think criminals are the ones with money in a free society, "

Do research on corporate crime, you dangerous moron.

[Twiggy269]

most of these "laws" that are "Broken" by corporations are illegitimate laws in the first place. Did this corporation make money by A.) commiting an act of force or fraud? If you believe that most of the money in a society is made in this fashion you're an idiot. The mere fact that you think this, is all the evidence I need to dimiss anything you have to say. You clearly have little understanding on how to make money in a free market.

[highwind8124]

You have great faith in Kenneth Lay of Enron.

[Twiggy269]

Thats funny, I just said force or fraud, and you bring up an example of fraud. do you even read posts?

[highwind8124]

You said that criminals are not the ones with money in a free society. I pointed to Kenneth Lay, a criminal with money.

Or how about Halliburton using its influence to lie a country into war and getting no-bid contracts?

There are obviously criminals in our free society who do have money. Your brain is having a hard time processing that.

[Twiggy269]

No you didn't, you pointed to an example of a criminal working a coercive government to defraud others of their money. You can't give me an example of a criminal in a free society because there is no free society to reference. The closest thing to a free society there was, was 1800's northern america. Who was the richest man? John Rockefeller, this is the type of man who becomes wealthy in a(n) (almost) free society.

[highwind8124]

This has got to be the craziest video I have seen all week, and I saw a neo-Nazi vid recently.

This is what objectivism is? This is what it's heading towards? This is what you had in mind when you wanted the system of government to change? Are other objectivists like this?

"Today, the judge's wages are being donated by the prosecuted defendant. Can't restrain the free market. Now cross your fingers and hope justice is served."

[highwind8124]

You want the police to depend on donations for their police cars?

What kind of silly advertisement would GM make out of that? "Our cars work, and we could have proven this to you without donating hundreds of million dollars worth of products and services to the police, but we did it anyway, because we want you to like us. Please support the honor system by buying our cars. Please."

Maybe the police cars can be covered in ads like a race car. That will make people respect the law.

[highwind8124]

Religious institutions get money because they trick people with superstitions to think they will get a spiritual reward for donating.

Encouraging systems to gamble is immoral. Gambling is a social ill, and depending on citizens to gamble to fund the infrastructure which runs the country is silly at best.

Having roads privatized, leaving it to the whims of the owners not to let a speeding fire truck or police car answer a 911 call is insane.

This stuff is hilarious. Tell us more.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

"Having roads privatized, leaving it to the whims of the owners not to let a speeding fire truck or police car answer a 911 call is insane."

Or they can use the other private road to bypass traffic and tolls. This other private road could have a subscription fee or per use fee, using electronic tagging or stickers and cameras. Or use non-profit roads. So the other private road that didn't let emergency responders through would lose their business and gain bad PR, losing more business

[highwind8124]

You're a psychopath.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

That's a new one. Explain.

[highwind8124]

You didn't answer my point at all. I specifically pointed out the obvious reality that a private owner of a road can deny an ambulance or police car access upon a whim.

It was already explained. You were too stupid to get it the first time.

[Twiggy269]

what is the incentive for a private road ownder to deny an ambulance or police car access to his road? You have to provide some proof of gain on the owners part. Anyone can choose self destructive actions, but its not an argument. Thats like me saying, "What if the pregnant girl doesn't eat? What will stop her baby from dying?" well, great, but why wouldn't the girl eat?

[highwind8124]

"what is the incentive for a private road ownder to deny an ambulance or police car access to his road?"

Who cares, you silly twit who can't spell? The mere fact that you would allow the possibility to happen says much of your character.

But I can think of two motivations off the top of my head. Some people are sadistic. Others would want to delay them and haggle for the most money they can get.

"Anyone can choose self destructive actions"

Which is why the McDonald's business thrives.

[Twiggy269]

it's funny hearing you trying to pass judgement on my character, while you sit here and hold the position that the government should be able to steal your property if it happens to need to drive on it. Who's morally bankrupt again?

[Twiggy269]

i'll bet if you were king, you'd outlaw Mcdonalds wouldn't ya? Psycho.

[highwind8124]

No, I wouldn't. Learn to read in context. I pointed to McDonald's when you so moronically inferred that people don't behave self destructively. You don't even have common sense.

"the government should be able to steal your property"

??? If you don't like it, leave the country. Go to Greenland or some island where you can keep your country and not enjoy the government's services, like providing you with security through public access roads that can dispatch police to your area.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Yeah, they can deny them access and their competition/entrepreneurs will lower their rates to attract their mistreated customers. They would lose business was my point.

It was already explained. You were too stupid to get it the first time.

Look up private road associations.

Nothing you stated justifies extortion to subsidize the auto industry and make roads appear "free" so they'll be overused(more pollution).

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Also, you didn't explain why you believe I'm a psychopath.

[highwind8124]

I'll gladly explain it for the third time. Because you're willing to allow private road owners the power to deny access to police cars and ambulances.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

I'm willing to allow people do what they want with their property?

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Not to mention if community sentiment is strong enough, they could simply take over the road with arms. Although this isn't necessary. Look up easement.

[highwind8124]

"Not to mention if community sentiment is strong enough, they could simply take over the road with arms."

You just proposed a violent, bloody shootout in case people "do what they want with their property". This is why you're not in charge of anything.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

I said it was likely to happen I didn't propose it.

[Twiggy269]

I agree with you about private roads Pints. It seems as if you and highwind are assuming posts are directed at you, when they're for the other. I've got a full blown anarchist on 1 side (pints) and a government kool aid drinking collectivist on the other side (highwind) please try and keep your comments separate.

[highwind8124]

You ignorantly assume that the road owners wouldn't have a monopoly in this free market, that there would be competitors.  You do this because you're an asshole.

"Nothing you stated justifies extortion"

It's not extortion. You're free to leave. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Oh, I ignorantly assume that there would not be a monopoly in YOUR badly defined model? My apologies.

Multiple solutions that you refuse to even consider because of your myopic thinking.

There's easement.

Predominantly non-profit private road associations would handle community roads to which there would be no incentive to block emergency responders.

Roads not constricted(like highways) would have competing roads connecting destinations all around. To assume one entity could own all viable...

[highwind8124]

Easement isn't objectivism or libertarianism. It's not "letting people do what they want with their property". You're basically saying: "Hey, you can own it... you just can't do what you want with it. The state can usurp control when it wants."

Considering the possibility of a monopoly is not myopic - it's just being honest. You refusing to consider that this might happen is irresponsibly delusional.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

I'm neither an objectivity nor a libertarian. I'm not advocating it(easement) either. Again I'm saying it's a possible your unlikely constricted model. That's why I called your thinking myopic. Because it's simply a "but what if..."

Monopolies rarely arise from one producer controlling all factors of production.

Railroads tried cartelize in the late 19th century, but then they would just be undercut by another railroad just coming along and dropping prices.

[highwind8124]

"Monopolies rarely arise from one producer controlling all factors of production."

Feel free to look up the word "divestment". The government forces companies to sell when they start to become a monopoly. This is to protect consumers from outrageous prices by ensuring competition. For civility to exist, the market cannot be free. The people who put this system in place (in every first world country in the world) are smarter than you.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

What monopoly has there been that actually arose on a free market? The State does nothing to protect consumers any barriers ton entry are for oligopolies benefit

Altruism? I don't agree with the video. "All it takes is one person to own one road which can cut a city in half." No. Unlikely that busy urban roads will be handled for-profit. Even so they will face competition.

How I think society should work? I know how people interact so I'm advocating the least violent and most efficient system.

[highwind8124]

"No. Unlikely that busy urban roads will be handled for-profit."

You're no better than a Muslim. You're religious. You merely have faith that this will always be the case.  If the only point you have to make is: "I have faith it will work. It's okay to risk it.", then you've already said what you've had to say.

[highwind8124]

"Unlikely that busy urban roads will be handled for-profit"

Or maybe they'll erect a long, concrete wall over the road and if you want to cross at certain points, you have to pay a lot of money.

"I know how people interact."

Yes, I can tell you have a degree in it. Please, teach me, oh wise one.

"I'm advocating the least violent and most efficient system.

Flashback: "if community sentiment is strong enough, they could simply take over the road with arms."

You're dumb.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

When ownership of roads is transferred from state to private hands, do you think businesses in urban centers will simply let someone come in and "buy" the roads around them? They're already paying taxes to maintain the roads, so they'll simply organize to maintain the roads, likely finding funding through adspace/parking meters.

You know how people interact. you do it every day.

[highwind8124]

Oh, for fucks sakes. Before I even begin to read this thing, you lost any credibility of you having intelligence about ten messages ago. I'm not trying to offend you, but please, there's no debate to be had here.

Your whole argument is "lets risk it". It's basically: "Lets just hope things work out." You're just crossing your fingers hoping urban centers buy the roads first and use it a certain way.

This is silly.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

cont

Again I never advocated violence. I said it was likely to happen in your silly model. And the point still stands as your model is so implausible. Any road owner with a geography based monopoly would know that he can't get away with abuse in a society that depends so heavily on road transportation. Other forms of transportation would also likely fill a larger role when roads are not subsidized.

"You're dumb."

Nu-uh!

[highwind8124]

"Any road owner with a geography based monopoly would know that he can't get away with abuse in a society that depends so heavily on road transportation."

In other words, he would fear a violent revolt.

"Again I never advocated violence."

Look, I'm sorry your heart swells with conviction and that your brain has a hard time thinking. I really am. But I'm not your buddy or tutor. At some point I have to ignore you, but my silence won't mean there isn't an obvious, common sense reply.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

"buy the roads first" What's there to buy? Who to buy from? It's just THERE. No ownership right now. And since the businesses/residents around the road will have heavy use of it, they will be the first to decide how to manage it.

"In other words, he would fear a violent revolt."

Just like a despot would now. So? And it doesn't have to be violent. Other businesses can stop trading and supporting him, including roads. Boycott him and anyone doing business with him. He would face market reaction..

[ThePintsizeslasher]

cont

Before social reaction. Again the premise of your model is faulty and unreasonable. no one owns the road, so no one can "buy" or claim it w/o maintaining it, how it's users MUST decide on. Look up Elinor Ostrom and her work on collective ownership of the commons. I gave you private road associations, which you ignored. To claim I am basing my assertions on a hope and a prayer is dishonest.

And I never advocated violence,I said it was a reality to be faced in your poor model.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

When has there actually been a free market? Anti-trust legislation was backed by large corporations in the 19th century. Rroad companies were subsidized and had land grants. Just an example.

Simply because a company has a large share of the market does not mean it threatens to become a monopoly.

Standard Oil held nearly 84% of the oil market at peak but this fell to 60% by the time it was broken up despite no significant legal action.

Watch and links in the description:

watch?v=KyK6e0maOEs

[highwind8124]

You don't have a point to make. Citing Standard Oil obviously does not make it the norm, which you merely wish I believed it was.

[highwind8124]

"Railroads tried cartelize in the late 19th century..."

Blah blah blah. I don't care what they tried to do in the 19th century. All it takes is one person to own one road which can cut a city in half. You're not thinking about this. You're simply adhering to a religious view of how society should work, and defending your dogma no matter who gets killed in the process.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

...land for roads in a given area silly, since this is almost ALL land.

"If you don't like the shakedown's this mafia runs in this city

[ThePintsizeslasher]

...then leave"

No other good/service provider can operate in this territorial based coercive monopoly and not be considered criminal.

It's not an insane idea. Competition produces innovation, cheaper goods, better quality. Why not apply this to good/services like roads?

What makes no since is to give a geographically based coercive monopoly on services and expect them to not be provided in a crap manner.

Voluntarism would get rid of that.

[highwind8124]

"Voluntarism would get rid of that."

When your plan relies on the altruism of volunteers, that's when I wouldn't trust your plan no matter what it is. Crossing your fingers and hoping others will come through for you is not something I would bet people's lives on.

[8daystillmonday]

"Government Financing in a Free Society"