Plight Of Taxation: Not Subject To Individual Circumstance

[MirageScience]

This is dumb. You should just pay for what you use instead of choosing to pay or not to pay. What you are promoting is encouraging freeloading.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@MirageScience ''What you are promoting is encouraging freeloading''

No, it specifically works to limit free-loading.

"You should just pay for what you use instead of choosing to pay or not to pay"

Choose to pay or not to pay based on the ability to not free-load off of it. Watch the video response to this before making more irritating comments.

[MirageScience]

@AntiBullshitMan oh I wouldn't want to irritate you *sarcasm*

[HugNow]

good ideas in this vid, however, it is way to hard to implement all the rules and exceptions.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@HugNow

Yeah, certainly wouldn't be easy to sort out all the exceptions (or lack thereof).

FYI: The follow up video I did was more detailed. I posted it as a response to this one.

[lucifael1]

With due respect to your clear and direct erudition I really must strongly disagree. Allowing the populace to run the state by economic proxy is a terrible idea. Specifically because civil services and state amenities become little more than a popularity contest. And what about expensive systems that may be seasonal? No one pays for the schools in the summer so they fall apart and are is dreadful repair when they are needed. Not a defensible stance in my opinion.

[joshd321]

I'm sorry, this is utopian. You don't seem to recognize the nature of power. Governments don't tax in order to provide services. It's the other way around: they provide services so that they can tax. Taxation is violence, period. As long as there is an institution that has a monopoly on the use of violence it will be abused.

[Cailwyn]

Impossible. The state would never allow it because it would cause the state to collapse. I don't even think anti-statists would like this, because in the process of not paying for certain programs, you would be angering those that want you to pay.

This would lead to hyper-factionalisation, so that when the state inevitably did collapse, you would have the worst case scenario of warlordism that would mirror any statist fantasty induced by the utterance of 'anarchy'.

[sharperguy]

Doesn't this beg the question though, can I choose to pay no taxes?

How about if I choose not to pay for a particular state service but instead choose a private alternative? Can I choose private roads, protection, contract enforcement?

Perhaps some businesses might buy up state services because they can now compete within a given area.

[sharperguy]

It seems if this was taken to it's fullest conclusion the end result would look almost identical to anarcho-capitalism anyway. The current state would have to compete like any other business and would no longer be special.

[mihaiguy]

But take it a little further: What is a state when it becomes voluntary like this? Why call it a state? How is it different from collective services run by companies that are subject to competition (since that is one of the defining characteristics of a state). Or if you aren't for making it completely voluntary, why not?

[mihaiguy]

Most refreshing statist evar!

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Good video, man. I'm an anti-statist, but I'd sure take your line-item taxation over what the secretive crap we have now.

[salamirterra]

I think the biggest problem with the "no education tax" thing is that you benefit from the education of others. Even if you don't want your kids to be educated (for instance, if you have no kids and never want any) you are still benefiting from the education of other people's children. The roads are being designed and built by educated people. As much as I hate to admit it; there really is no way except "one big pot".

[AntiBullshitMan]

I elaborate further in the video response to this.

[IntellectualRubbish]

Makes sense to me on some level, but as for education an argument could be made that even if you don't send your kinds you will still benefit from it indirectly and even if your disabled and stay indoors all the time you will need roads to survive etc... but on some other issues this makes perfect sense, it all needs to start from total transparency in government spending's so we can weed out what is necessary and what is not... probably been pointed out already in comments :)

[salamirterra]

Oh for fuck's sake how did I not see the exact same argument directly beneath my own.

[ScienceIsStupid]

... actually that didn't explain what I meant.

By "pointless money transfers", I'm talking about most of the money being paid out to most people doing jobs we don't need.

But everyone needs to be paid otherwise we won't have money to buy things with.

Money = survival = necessity.

So in a way, pointless tax is a good thing

[ScienceIsStupid]

a few things occured to me while watching this interesting video. Most appear to have already been addressed so I'll just mention two I don't see yet.

If one government told the public what they were doing, how would they have secrets? It would be advertising this to everyone else. Knowing an enemy's logistics is an important part of intelligence.

Secondly, tax is a racket. While I can sort of admire your viewpoint, pointless money transfers is the only thing keeping this system working

[jedimasterbooboo]

It is a complete illusion that you are not connected to every single service you pay for. It's also a freaking obnoxious illusion. And the fact that you are being even half way humored in this comment section is frightening.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Typical "you are wrong" post backed up by absolutely nothing. Now I'm really getting sick of your shit.

How am I in any way connected to or benefit from subsidizing fine arts/phys ed?! These are on par & some cases actually receive MORE funding than essential-to-society subjects such as linguistics/shop. Not to mention all the other crucial skills in the industrial arts department that go untaught during HS at the expense of these preference subjects

So make an actual point or fuck off already

[AntiBullshitMan]

What is it with people not reading any comments prior to posting? Your concerns have already been addressed. 95% of the comment section is basically me tackling the same critique over and over (& over).

I specified in the video that we should only get to choose not to pay for privileges we wouldn't want extended to ourselves. So if I ultimately benefit from science classes, I'm obligated to subsidize them.

What the state cannot prove, however, is that I at any point benefit from fine arts.

[SwashYourBuckle]

Reading every comment prior before posting shouldn't be necessary for every video. I mean, do you honestly do that?

And if you do read a significant number of comments before posting, fair enough, but you shouldn't actually expect it from others.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Obviously I don't expect anyone to read 90+ comments. But I would expect someone who plans on posting a predictable criticism to at least quickly glance at a couple of these posts. Especially since in this comment section, all it would have taken is a couple of posts. Anyway, no big deal, I'm just tired of repeating myself.

[SwashYourBuckle]

Aye, we all know that frustration. Fair enough :)

[muttonlock]

I think it was absolutely fair for AntiBullshitMan to say "Us".

He is trying to share his points of view with others of a like mind, and to hold debates with those that understand the method. These people already have substantial thoughts or are trying to rationalize and attain them.

Then there are people who don't understand or care enough to try to, those who have no relevancy, those who have no foundation for their opinions, those who are only here to harass.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Actually there's a context to her comment. When I said "us", I was referring to myself, Gary & a couple of others who bobo used to watch & somewhat enjoy. Then we called her on a few silly aspects of her creationist philosophy & she got really upset with us & said we made her dislike atheists as humans, save for a few weak ones. She vowed never again to step foot in any of our yards because our description of her beliefs disgusted her to such an extent. But she's baaack. Boy howdy is she ever.

[KennethKatona]

When will the tax code stop being re-written all the time?

[jedimasterbooboo]

Okay, I don't want to junk up your page with comments, but I just watched this one. I'm thinking that Mendy could wipe the floor with you on this, and we could get a great video out of him on this one. However, as an observer. commentator I wonder aloud if he would hold back because that last deal is still fresh. And I'm not talking about insults, I'm talking about letting the sparks fly, not personal ones. He's good on stuff like this, and you're just so wrong on this. Trying on a hat maybe?

[AntiBullshitMan]

"wipe the floor with you"

Yeah, especially given his "rock liquid" track record in that department.

Seriously, you really are here just to piss me off aren't you? Did you not read any of these comments where I sufficiently address the typical shit that G would no doubt repeatedly bring up? I suggest you do that before typing another comment.

G even left a comment, the premise of which I explained away.

I don't even get why you still watch these. You've long unsubbed. You were done with us.

[jedimasterbooboo]

You get so mad about everything.

And don't say "us"

Checking over the comments now.

[jedimasterbooboo]

You facepalmed ME.

[AntiBullshitMan]

So I must be doing something right.

But seriously read the comments here before making yet another video misrepresenting my position. Unless of course you do those intentionally just to piss me off (it works).

[jedimasterbooboo]

Well you're kind of stubborn I think. One I'm thrilled if your position is completely separate from clinical depression, that's cool. Two, you might want to take responsibility for where it's fuzzy because even your last comment to me when I was getting clarification, you seemed, again to want to define clinical terms. And for what it's worth, I think, without ill intent toward anyone you did this. But okay, whatever. You know, it's NEVER you is it? You're perfect. I'm a moron that can't listen.

[AntiBullshitMan]

I'm not calling you a moron or saying I'm perfect. I'll request direct contextual quotes of mine to be used if you insist on doing more responses though.

Your response described the symptoms of clinical depression, symptoms I never denied. The point of BTW#20 was directly linked to BTW#19, in which I argue that chemical imbalances result in a lack of basic desire, and how a lack of native alone desire in no way impedes on rational judgment in relation to exercising the option of euthanasia.

[jedimasterbooboo]

Hold on a sec. When we were talking, you clarified for me, then I said, oh dear, can't do it in text. so now I need to quote you? Okay, it's regarding your last text comment to me, in which you said nothing resembling what you are here now. But this video isn't about that, so ...

[jeffersondong]

mate your argument is totally flawed.

[adjohnson916]

AntiBullshitMan, I strongly suggest you look up various forms of left anarchism/libertarianism such as: anarcho-syndicalism, co-op capitalism, etc.

[NordboDK]

Would it still be a tax if it was voluntary?

[echo29x]

There's a sort of silly paradox in this as well: to enact this you would have to have some sort of regulatory body, which would be paid by taxes. What if people wanted to opt-out of paying for this?

On a more serious note, this would also destroy the current democratic system, as there would no longer be any unity of action. Thus, if 30% of the population wanted to go fight a war (and was willing to pay for it), you would have no say in the matter.

[breakbeatkev]

Why are you called antibullshitman ?

with hair ike that you look more like

fullofshitbird more fitting for you i think .

your views are total bullshit .

[mrlowdangle]

Be fucking great if we could find a way of doing that..could work in smaller communities,but keeping track of who uses+pays for what in cities+overpopulated areas could get kinda hectic.

I dont wanna pay tax for our governments to go kill,steal and destroy in other countries,make even deadlier weapons,or give it away to bogus schemes+huge multi-billion£ companies ..but thats probably where most of it goes.

[oojamaflipper]

it is logical that institutions that do not contribute to the running of society should be seperate to essential structures like law, education etc when it comes to funding but to suggest a free choice of tax is just impracticle and, in my opinion impossible to implement.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Ah, the argument from ''can't be done''. Sure stumped me.

And I didn't suggest a complete free choice of tax. I suggested not being a slave to the total package of tax. Also suggested open sourcing so we're actually made aware of where every penny of every one of our collective tax dollars goes into. WTF is it with everyone being so quick to poorly paraphrase it.

You do realize that our trip to Woodstock 2010 is now off...

[oojamaflipper]

yea i was gonna get into why it cant be done but that would been a 3part message. basically it would be real hard to keep trackthat these people are not actually using or benefitting from the things that they have announced they dont want to pay towards.

sorry for the poor paraphrasing, i guess i took it to the Nth to demonstrate why it wouldn't work.

transparency of how tax dollars are bein used is important tho and we do already have this to a good degree,

you're not gettin off that easy

[ArtificialCleverenAI]

Exactly. You might as well just pay for the public service as you use it. Much easier to administer and, um, "police".

[ArtisynSaffryn]

I agree with you, AntiBullshitMan.

I particularly am bothered by the idea that if for some reason, I want to get a job, in supplementing my SSI income, that part of that money is going to go to a school district which screwed me over ten years ago, discriminating me, due to my disability. I shouldn't have to pay them to either give someone much more opportunity than they gave to me, or even for them to screw over more people whom they don't like, for whatever reason.

[ArtisynSaffryn]

Ultimately though, and this is my opinion, this world needs to change over to using a resource-based economy, as endorsed by The Zeitgeist Movement. Getting rid of the state, would be the best option. Yet, like you said, your suggestion is a happy middle. It would be a good thing to allow choice, as there needs to be more choice in this country, for sure.

[TheBigHo111]

I have brought this up in real life before:

A 40/60 system.

40% of your taxes go to the government to do as it will

60% of your taxes will be assignable to generalized categories i.e. education, military, science, medicine etc. You can break your tax donation apart as you see fit.

Like electives of sorts. As science starts dwindling or education falls behind, if it is of important to the mass, they can distribute to what they believe needs the most attention.

[tersse]

none of these ideas will work ffs we have been slowly refining taxasion for 200 years and you fucktards think because you dont like it you can make it better, but for who, you thats about it STFU and just get on with your life and pay you fkn tax, it's cheeper in the long run any other idea will end up with ppl refvolting and killing each other over stupid fkn ideas we died for 200 years ago.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Terrse,

You continue to evade my replies to your comment below. Post one more comment without addressing those specifically and I will destroy it. I'm not wasting time on your repetitive angst that fails to address the issue on a the 3 dimensional level it deserves.

[Sarahon06]

I've heard this sort of idea before. It's been called something like "line item taxation" You choose where the cash goes. However that's not the issue or me. I'd rather hear a good reason why what we call "the state" would HAVE to be in charge of such funding for "public programs" Why must it be one group "collecting" this cash. It's an old idea but it just doesn't work. Those with the option to tax will do so as they see fit.

[SwashYourBuckle]

If we could pick and chose taxation, wouldn't it just be better to put those services into the hands of the private market?

[Servant0fSteel]

Nice idea but it would seem to me that the Gov would still get the same amount of money out of us simply by raising the taxes to make up for the people that opt not to pay certain taxes?? hmmm

[SrRulao]

The state should be a body that strives to work as a whole(taking notice of dissent and difference of opinion, of course).

Your solution feeds an egocentric feeling, myopic even.

Even people without kids should heavily support education. Without education you don't get the absence of kids, you just get the absence of education in kids...

What we need all over the globe is reform in the political systems.

Today, the incentives for politicians to cater to "special interests" is overwhelming.

[SrRulao]

Another huge problem would be irregularity in flux of taxes.

It would be virtually impossible for people to know who was paying for what, and some years you'd get an overflow, and in the next year you might run out of money.

That would be terribly inefficient, and if applied to health or food supply issues the consequences would be dire.

[UnhappyTestTubeBaby]

Businesses deal with this all the time. I won't comment on health care but the food industry handles these demands just fine. Its myopic to think making projections is impossible. What is impossible is making one rule that suites everyone.

[St00sh13]

But businesses in the food industry go out of business all the time. The state cannot go out of business. Who would defend the nation then?

[skinnyjohnsen]

I hope you are just kidding! How can anyone in a big, modern society know what it takes to run a state? This attitude will kill modern life style as we know it.!

[AntiBullshitMan]

We know some things aren't beneficial, things like tax dollars being wasted on church decoration, or extra curricular school activities. There are tons of examples, based on each individual's circumstance.

Also, forcing ''all or nothing'' tax is counter productive to individual motivation to acquire a high salary position. Who wants to slave away in college or uni for 5-10 years only to have over 50% of their earnings legally stolen from them and spent of things beneficial to 0.01% of society.

[SrRulao]

Stolen? Stolen?

You made that money because you worked for it, but, also because society in itself gave you the opportunity to earn it. That society as a maintenance cost.

We don't live in a vacuum, nobody can just "earn" freely. It takes a context, and that context didn't get there by chance.

[tersse]

@AntiBullshitMan if 50% of your ernings was 5 million dollars then your still erning 5 million dollars a year, and how did you get the education that brought you to that place?, stop talking like a fucktard and see the community you were and are part of not just your fucktarded self , shit you sound like a retard with some of your shit.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Tersse,

Your drunken reply video has got to be the biggest strawman, non-sequitur, mischaracterization I've ever been blessed with. In it you call ''my'' American health care system is a failure. Amazing, since I'm European and never even stepped foot in the US or brought up America in the 1st place.

On Education: The institution should be done away with anyway, students can be taught through online courses. Read some comments here before posting a knee-jerkish 8 minute barrage of drivel vid.

[AntiBullshitMan]

At no point did I sum up the entire concept of taxation as ''bad'', so fuck you for the blatant slander. I know you're not completely incapable of understanding the nuance of my position on this. You spent 8 minutes harping on 1 example instead of arguing the other ones. Do you think atheists' tax dollars should be wasted on religious institutions being prettied up... no you don't you fucking cunt, but you won't bring that up, since your mission here was to troll for attention. Well no more.

[ORVX]

ok went back and forth, I subed just becuase "Gary, or donotgod or w/e don't like you. i agree with about 1/2 what he says but that guy in not to bright and and he's a thin skinned bicth

[xXarkyleXx]

If the handicapped people who "don't use bridges and roads and shit" don't have an income they're not paying tax for anything. In fact they're probably being supported by other taxpayers in the form of welfare (at least that's the way it is in Aus).

If the 'pick and choose' system you propose was implemented, how would there be sufficient funding for unpopular things like disability pensions, aged care etc.

Also how do you restrict services from people who don't pay a certain tax?

[AntiBullshitMan]

The handicap folk example was one I just thought of on the fly. And you're right, they would be the exception since they have no income anyway. So admittedly, a bad example on my end. An actual applicable example would be schools using taxpayer money for non-essential subjects such as music & phys ed. Surely you can see how that should be a "pay as you use" tax.

[xXarkyleXx]

Music is an expensive subject to run as it requires a lot of expensive equipment. If learning it required that your parents paid an extra tax or fee (which would probably be quite hefty given that it is not shared with the rest of the population) then musical education would only be available to those who could afford it. Furthermore, the reduced funding would mean it could not be offered at as many schools thus restricting access further.

I do agree religions should not be assisted by taxes

[AntiBullshitMan]

It would be a shame if less kids were given the opportunity to pursue their music interests early on. But the sad reality of the fact is that music doesn't make the world go around, as much as we all love to indulge in it. So making it an equal tax obligation to "mandatory to society" subjects like science or social studies, is going overboard.

[St00sh13]

"music doesn't make the world go [a]round"

Yes it does.

It is absolutely essential. As is phys ed.

Did you have a really bad music or phys ed teacher by any chance?

[AntiBullshitMan]

Probably, but that alone still doesn't put these preference subject(s) on the same level as the well accepted fundamental ones.

Come on, do I strike you as someone who'd incorporate his personal mush into his commentary?

[ORVX]

but the state CAN'T do it in a RESPNSOBLE WAY, they have to be checked at every move. The more liberal you vote the more you are against "cherry picking" where your taxes go. The concept plays out with charity, the more these bastards, aka democrats tax us, the less people GIVE to other shit they might prefer to in the form of Charity. What BIG state allows to be tax exempt in the form of 501 C yaya ya aya is a whole other mess.

Summation: BIG GOV LIBERALS SUCK DICK!

[St00sh13]

It is precisely to stop cherry picking that taxation exists.

No-one wants to HAVE spend money on roads/jails/sewer systems, but taxation, quite rightly, makes them pay.

Can you imagine a society without these things?

Can you imagine there being charities for such things?

[ORVX]

actually I can, as it has been done. Regardless, I never said get rid of the state, I implied that it needs to be LIMITED GREATLY. REGARDLESS, Did you listen to the video, I was addressing what he said. And finally Im not really in the mood to have a conversation about as indebt as I would have in a 7th Grade poli sci/macro economics class.

I could punch a million holes in his "cherry picking" or a communist state, but this is u boob, and im tired, good night.

[cryingsoftly]

I'm sure you never wanted to go through school yourself. You never were a kid right?

[ElizabethIsabelle]

Ignorance costs society far more than the cost of a good education, provided that a good education is gotten with those dollars.

An educated, physically and psychologically healthy citizen will help support society. If someone is uneducated or unhealthy, they become a burden on society. Even if they never collect welfare when they can no longer contribute at all, they are a drain by committing crimes or unpleasantries to survive. - these are why we pay for that which we don't use.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Agreed. Education was just an example I thought of on the fly. Tell ya what, just imagine I brought up the mandatory taxing for Romanian church renovations instead, as per Criss' comment below. Now that one is 100% useless. You gotta admit that at least a few of these shouldn't be mandatory.

[ElizabethIsabelle]

Agreed, that would be a bad tax. Churches are exempt from taxation and donations to churches can be tax deductable, but other not for profit organizations get the same deal AFAIK. Where there are tax expenditures that are not in the general interest of the community, the community needs to protest those specifically. Today, the most effective way to do that is to convince a local media watchdog that this is unfair, and he or she will do a news piece on it.

[ZOMGitsCriss]

I agree that SOME taxes shouldn't be mandatory if you truly have no use for them, for instance I shouldn't be forced to pay for renovation of churches and for supporting religious cults.

On the other hand, even if you won't have kids, you do benefit from other people being put to schooling, because some of those people will become an asset to society due to their education.

Handicaps should pay for roads because their food, clothes, etc need roads to be transported... etc

[oojamaflipper]

@ZOMGitsCriss you took the words out of my mouth.

[ZOMGitsCriss]

So I heard you're taking me to Woodstock 2010 eh ?

[echo29x]

The problem with this is that it is very hard to distinguish how much people use a certain common good. For instance, with roads, a person who never leaves their house, or doesn't own a car might seem to not use roads, but at the same time they buy food that is shipped on roads they are unwilling to pay for. A person educated at private school still gets the benefit of living in a society where other people are educated in public schools. How do you assign value to that?

[AntiBullshitMan]

In most cases, yes. But a self-sufficient farmer, for instance, doesn't use roads whatsoever. So there are exceptions. Just keep in mind that there's a context to everyone's circumstance and currently there is zero regard for that by the state.

[echo29x]

That's pretty much due to practicality though. The number of completely self-sufficient people is very low, and even people who are mostly independent are in the vast minority. If you allow people to opt-out of certain taxes, that would necessitate extensive regulation to enforce that, or the system would soon become bankrupt.

[UnhappyTestTubeBaby]

People have always been adept at finding ways to keep tabs on these sorts of things. And its something that's becoming easier every day. With today's technology there are more and more things being automated all the time. Take automated tolling on highways or cell phone roaming charges for example.

This would add some cost but I would argue that it would more than be made up for by the data collected. If we knew what people were voluntarily opting for, we would know what was valuable to them.

[UnhappyTestTubeBaby]

The examples you gave aren't problems at all. Those costs would be included in the price of the commodity at purchase. Grocery prices include shipping costs and educated individuals are payed by the value they offer.

[chrisficki]

You already have a form of selective taxation with the taxes you pay on what you purchase. Also, we have a representative government and the people you have elected to represent you are making the decisions for you, and they have decided to help the rich and tax everyone else. Welcome to the NWO....now pay up sucker.....

[esteban0321]

My problem with paying taxes for education is that government in U.S. is terrible at education. Even if I never have kids I wouldn't mind if part of my contribution goes towards educating the children of other people because I feel if they are properly educated it enhances my life because I can live in a world with educated people as opposed to ignorant savages. The problem in the U.S. is that the more government gets involved the worse the education become. That's why I prefer privatization.

[aunicornist]

Why not push for comprehensive reform of the school system? Plenty of other countries have great school systems, why can't we do the same?

[AntiBullshitMan]

With education, I should have specified that it's mostly to do with the extra curricular junk; The sports fields & music lessons being on par with the fundamental subjects in terms of tax payer money spent. So yeah, big subjects -- no problem. But school run tennis lessons?! Sorry, that's asking too much.

[angeliaparish]

limited government limits taxes!

[AntiBullshitMan]

Except I'm not for some ambiguous "limited taxes for all" solution, which can't work unless contribution (and thereby stroke) of privatization soars.

I'm simply for the individual's right to fund, through the state, money in proportion to what will be in his/her own best interest, instead of perpetuating the archaic "all or nothing" tax dichotomy.

Better?

[DoNotGod]

This idea has been flopping around forever (as long as I have been alive). The practical problem is too few people will voluntarily pay and in turn the bite becomes so heavy on the volunteers that they bailout to. If we had a better constitution, the majority would not be allowed to "excessively" tax dissenting minorities, and tax burdens would be more proportional to behavior and benefits gleaned (wealth). This video walks towards a slippery slope that goes nowhere socially progressive.

[AntiBullshitMan]

It hasn't been discussed much on YT, that's for sure.

It's still worth a shot, despite the tiny bump you mentioned. You already know how I feel about inheritance and interest. Do away with those and the (potential) benefit the wealthy may glean from this proposal will be minuscule and thus worthy of accepting when you put it on the scale contrasting the current suppression of individual rights by "pay all or die" taxation. Also, this kind of excessive taxation impedes motivation to succeed.

[hitssquad]

@ABM "inheritance and interest. Do away with those"

Do you ever consider the effects of your policies on people's motivations? Money is only worth to people what they can spend it on. If you make it illegal for people to buy some of the things they want to buy (such as rental of money, and endowments of the vehicles of genetic and cultural transmission) then they won't be as enthusiastic about producing the goods on which the value of your society is based.

[hitssquad]

Another issue is that individuals inherit the profits or losses from the persons they were the day before. Given that, you you nstitute mandatory 100% daily taxation, wherein everyone's possessions would be entirely seized on a daily basis.

That way. everyone would start out every morning with zero capital inherited from the day before. No money. No goods. no house. No apartment. Just naked.

One problem would be that they would still have inherited their bodies. At least their limbs could be

[hitssquad]

hacked off, in order to minimize bodily inheritance. Tongues, ears, eyes, and noses would have to go, too. Hair, of course, would have to be shaved, but paradoxically a daily haircut could also be considered an inherited good. That would be a problem -- for a society in which inheritance is supposed to be prohibited.

I don't know. Are you sure this inheritance-prohibition thing is such a good idea?

[AntiBullshitMan]

I think 21st Century Man is intellectually mature enough to understand that having money shouldn't make you more money, since money alone isn't productive & the only way to make a profit out of its investment is to glean it from a worker's productivity. As for birth right & nepotism, I think if most people actually heard the argument against it, they'd be humiliated at ever having craved the thought of giving their kid a head start halfway down the track (or an inch away from the finish line).

[AntiBullshitMan]

Just saw your 2 follow up posts to the 1st one I actually bothered replying to.

Seriously, the argument from the body/money analogy?!

I'm sure you're just being funny. Cute.

[hitssquad]

@ABM "I'm sure you're just being funny."

No. Maybe I'm just better at philosophy than you.

[AntiBullshitMan]

I should hope that you are, the more of us the better. Unfortunately, a quick visit to your channel has left me disappointed to find no videos of your own which may provide in depth commentary. Links are good, but it's a video site.

Again with the investment stuff, you keep denying that sitting on capital alone does not create more of it, you have to squeeze it out of productive workers. So how is it not just glorified gambling + exploitation?

& why divert from the point of the video so much?

[hitssquad]

@ABM "how is [investment] not just glorified gambling"

If investment success were based purely on luck, then, over the long term, no one would win consistently, and no one would lose consistently. Is that the case in real life?

We can observe that "consumers" invest every time they make a purchase, for every purchase decision is an investment decision. When we pick and choose which products to purchase, from among competing products, we aim to invest well so as to receive the best payoff from

[hitssquad]

the investment (the purchase). Once it is in our possession, we nurture the investment (be it car, toothbrush, bicycle, John Deere tractor, tankful of fuel, etc.) so that it may provide the most value for us.

How is that not gambling? Or, if you realize that buying commodities is indeed not entirely a random process, how is it not a form of investment?

"how is it not [...] exploitation?"

It is exploitation. Every member of society naturally wants his assets exploits. If he owns a tractor, he

[hitssquad]

wants it exploited either by he himself, or by others who he can rent or sell it to. Same with an arable field. People either exploit their fields directly, or indirectly by renting them out to others who may exploit them. The owner of a piece of land might exploit his own ingenuity in making it into arable land (cut the trees, blast the stumps, drain the swamps, add nutrients to improve the fertility of the soil, add irrigation canals, etc.).

Why would one *not* want his own assets exploited?

[AntiBullshitMan]

You do realize that there is such a thing as a professional gambler? It's not pure luck. Veteran gamblers tend win more often than not. Ever stepped foot inside a casino?

Much like investment, there are plenty of right and wrong ways to go about it.

[hitssquad]

@ABM "Ever stepped foot inside a casino?"

Yes. Have you ever invested or attempted to learn what it is that investors do to create new value? Do you watch Dragon's Den? Try the ddrepeat channel here on YouTube.

If investing, like gambling, were a zero-sum game, then how could successful companies be worth more in the future than at the point of investment? How could the products of investment - consumer goods, and comfort, leisure, and health - be ever more plentiful and cheap to buy?

[AntiBullshitMan]

More importantly, how do you manage to post 10 comments on this video without once offering your take on the actual subject matter of it?

My last reply to you since the subject of investment is irrelevant to the video: They create new value for themselves by exploiting worker labor. Whatever outside benefit may result from this, does so as a by product of their "profit on capital" motive, & can also be achieved when instigated by non-profit businesses, with the only goal being meeting demand.

[hitssquad]

@ABM "money alone isn't productive"

Doesn't the investor create new wealth for his society when he successfully filters the bad investment opportunities from the good? And doesn't he also create new wealth when he nurtures-well the ventures he invests in?

You think government should make those investment decisions instead, based on its great track record in that regard?

google. com/search?q=government+boondo­ggle

[DoNotGod]

"the tiny bump"

killing publicly subsidized health care, education, libraries, national parks, space programs, museums, EPA, ... then there's the whole problem of national defense and constructive world intervention. ( obviously we are not always very constructive, but to lose the potential to be would not be a good thing)... you really should of put the part about abolishing inheritance and balancing wages in the video because that's the only way this idea could work.