NationStates Jolt Archive

snip some stuff.


Nicea Sancta, my dear man, your whole utopian free market vision fails to take into account one very important thing: Humans are greedy selfish arseholes

Whereever theres people, theres arseholes, and there will be arseholes in those PA's you keep mentioning, and the whole system of non violence will come crashing down as soon as the first PA attacks the territory of some other PA.

When I first saw the phrase "America is a nation of rugged individualists" I assumed it was a typo and meant to read "America is a nation of drugged individualists".

In reality, the theft is logically prior to the services; the services would not exist without the theft. Stop the theft, and there are no services to enter into: your logic is circular. Should the government announce its intentions to generate a pay-for-use program, and fund these programs only through donated monies and usage costs, this would be acceptable, but this is not what currently exists today.
Actually it would have started from a group of people agreeing to form a community body (A family, tribe, company, group of landholders, revolutionaries, etc),which in turn would create the services later on, with other people/territory/money providers joining later.

Don't get me wrong here. I don't deny being a socialist, or using a socialist analysis. I deny being a state socialist. I'm a socialist anarchist, so naturally I get a little touchy when someone suggests that I trust the state.

I come on, join in the fun of being a state socialist, it's toasty and warm here :p. Anyway, you can (generally) trust the state and distrust the people running it, but that's an argument for another thread.

Nicea Sancta (not sure if he/she is still here) I have a question for you: What if a megacompany owned all the industry and simply hired everyone? Would you have a problem with having an additional charge on all products so that money draining systems (health care, sustaining transport systems for the area, research into new products, techniques, keeping security staff on hand to stop misuse/taking of property, etc) could be funded?

Well the only real 'right' the government has to your money is because if you don't pay, they come put you in prison. Or of course you can just leave the country - no big deal, as I'm sure all the "LOL LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!" crowd can testify how simple it is to uproot and leave for some mythical alternative choice nationstate. (I was also amused to see the "or you can found your OWN country!" 'alternatives' proposed once or twice. Hello people, reality is not NationStates.net.)

So it's not so much about rights as 'might makes right.'

The only way the 'taxation contributes to society, and if you don't pay taxes you're anti-social and MEAN!' argument would work if you actually deliberately ignored all the things that a government (any government) does with its income. La la la, those weren't internment camps, those were Society Smiles camps!

Your argument in the first paragraph applies to minimalist/anarchial (mainly anarcho-capitalist) solutions (maybe even to a greater extent).

And no, reality is not like nationstates, and we are the poorer for not having Colossal squid roam around in our medows.

You're forgetting that humans are social creatures, and that society has developed itself into a state.

Well the only real 'right' the government has to your money is because if you don't pay, they come put you in prison. Or of course you can just leave the country - no big deal, as I'm sure all the "LOL LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!" crowd can testify how simple it is to uproot and leave for some mythical alternative choice nationstate. (I was also amused to see the "or you can found your OWN country!" 'alternatives' proposed once or twice. Hello people, reality is not NationStates.net.)

So it's not so much about rights as 'might makes right.'

The only way the 'taxation contributes to society, and if you don't pay taxes you're anti-social and MEAN!' argument would work if you actually deliberately ignored all the things that a government (any government) does with its income. La la la, those weren't internment camps, those were Society Smiles camps!

Oh look, Trostia is trying to troll again. How cute.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will?

Might.


who are you to make me?

The ones with the guns.


I'm not trying start a big argument

Sure ;)

Oh look, Trostia is trying to troll again. How cute.

I'm sure you'll find at least one moderator who agrees with you. Go do so, and then your opinion on whether I'm trolling or not will actually mean something!

Sadly, you won't, and so it doesn't.

Nice attempt to completely dismiss my legitimate comment on the subject of the thread though.

Just skimmed the first 2 pages, so pardon me.

So what about the people that abuse the systems meant to help the poor? I personally know many hillbillies around these parts that abuse the hell out of disability and medicaid and others just because they're lazy and don't mind being poor.

Or what about the Iraq war? Or Real ID? Or projects that are putting up CCTV cameras everywhere? Or building bridges to no where?

Now what I think should be done is there is a basic tax for the necessities; roads, crews for the roads, things that people use everyday. Then once a month the citizens have the option of choosing to help pay for things they support; the war, medicaid, etc. That in turn entitles them to use of a certain program, or maybe a nice mug saying they support it or some other bs.

I don't agree with the fact that I help pay for many things that I don't support.

So what about the people that abuse the systems meant to help the poor? I personally know many hillbillies around these parts that abuse the hell out of disability and medicaid and others just because they're lazy and don't mind being poor.

Or what about the Iraq war? Or Real ID? Or projects that are putting up CCTV cameras everywhere? Or building bridges to no where?


We're supposed to ignore the existence of such things so that we can claim that opposing taxation means you dislike fire departments, police departments, and cute kittens.

Now what I think should be done is there is a basic tax for the necessities; roads, crews for the roads, things that people use everyday. Then once a month the citizens have the option of choosing to help pay for things they support; the war, medicaid, etc. That in turn entitles them to use of a certain program, or maybe a nice mug saying they support it or some other bs.


Choosing? Sorry that sounds a bit idealistic to me.

Nice attempt to completely dismiss my legitimate comment on the subject of the thread though.

your comment on the subject of the thread was just as poorly thought out, half baked, and utterly devoid of understanding as it was when you made the exact same thread about a week ago.

But go ahead and cry about how mean I am to you.

I'm sure you'll find at least one moderator who agrees with you. Go do so, and then your opinion on whether I'm trolling or not will actually mean something!

Sadly, you won't, and so it doesn't.

Nice attempt to completely dismiss my legitimate comment on the subject of the thread though.

get used to it---if you're not already.

your comment on the subject of the thread was just as poorly thought out, half baked, and utterly devoid of understanding as it was when you made the exact same thread about a week ago.

Well, if it's so poorly thought out, half baked and utterly devoid of understanding, you'd have no problems pointing out just how this is so.

But you seem instead only to concentrate on an inaccurate accusation of "trolling."

And I never made "the exact same thread," but I guess when you're Neo Art reality is just another obstacle to be overcome through sheer force of smarmy cheek.

But go ahead and cry about how mean I am to you.

Right, because that's exactly what I was doing. Right. Any other details you'd like to share on this fantasy world of yours?

We're supposed to ignore the existence of such things so that we can claim that opposing taxation means you dislike fire departments, police departments, and cute kittens.


Except that if you DO oppose taxation, then you oppose funding services like fire departments and police departments. And anyone insane enough to actually support alternatives, like setting the police forces up as private companies, must really have it in for those services.

So what about the people that abuse the systems meant to help the poor? I personally know many hillbillies around these parts that abuse the hell out of disability and medicaid and others just because they're lazy and don't mind being poor.

Just because there are faults with the system doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Or what about the Iraq war? Or Real ID? Or projects that are putting up CCTV cameras everywhere? Or building bridges to no where?

Well first off that's two separate arguments. "taxation is theft" is very different from "I don't like what my taxes pay for." But in the end that is the inherent flaw in the system, we end up paying for things we don’t want to pay for. The problem is, however, coming up with alternatives. Anarcho capitalism is a horrendous idea, and libertarian “pay as you go” systems are only slightly better. You’re not going to hear me say that our current tax scheme is a perfect system, it’s not. What we have is certainly a broken system.

It’s just less broken then the alternatives. But believe me, if you can come up with a better one, you'd have my support. I've just never encountered a better one.

We're supposed to ignore the existence of such things so that we can claim that opposing taxation means you dislike fire departments, police departments, and cute kittens.


Kudos for not reading my entire post.

Except that if you DO oppose taxation, then you oppose funding services like fire departments and police departments.

That's sort of like saying 'if you do support taxation, then you support the Iraq war.'

That's sort of like saying 'if you do support taxation, then you support the Iraq war.'

No it isn't. You can support the premise of taxation, whilst not supporting where SOME of the tax money is going. However, if you do not support even the premise of taxation, that means you do not support publicly funded organisations like health care and the police force.

It’s just less broken then the alternatives. But believe me, if you can come up with a better one, you'd have my support. I've just never encountered a better one.
I'd like the idea of greater transparency and surveillance of those in power.

Just because there are faults with the system doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Meh it's an ugly baby anyway. And I do mean that because I really didn't have a solid argument. I'm basically saying there's a lot of good programs that are very highly abused.

Well first off that's two separate arguments. "taxation is theft" is very different from "I don't like what my taxes pay for." But in the end that is the inherent flaw in the system, we end up paying for things we don’t want to pay for. The problem is, however, coming up with alternatives. Anarcho capitalism is a horrendous idea, and libertarian “pay as you go” systems are only slightly better. You’re not going to hear me say that our current tax scheme is a perfect system, it’s not. What we have is certainly a broken system.

That fact that this hood is stealing my car is very different from me saying "Hey I don't think I said I'd let you borrow that":p

It’s just less broken then the alternatives. But believe me, if you can come up with a better one, you'd have my support. I've just never encountered a better one.

Yeah I agree with you, but there has to be a better way.

No it isn't. You can support the premise of taxation, whilst not supporting where SOME of the tax money is going.

Now how exactly does that work? Iraq war is funded by taxation, is it not? Just like fire departments. If we're treating taxation as an all-or-nothing thing there's no middle ground for either of us.

However, if you do not support even the premise of taxation, that means you do not support publicly funded organisations like health care and the police force.

Maybe one doesn't support the current means of funding them, that doesn't mean one doesn't support the concept of health care.

That's sort of like saying 'if you do support taxation, then you support the Iraq war.'

Not at all. You can support a taxation scheme without supporting some things that the taxes currently pay for. However, if certain institutions rely on taxation to exist, arguing against taxation is, de facto, arguing against their existence.

Arguing for taxation doesn’t mean arguing for ALL things that taxes fund. However arguing against taxation, by implication, DOES argue against all things that those taxes fund.

We can have a system of taxation without a war in Iraq. We, however, can not have police, fire response teams, emergency medical services, and many other things without taxes.

Maybe one doesn't support the current means of funding them, that doesn't mean one doesn't support the concept of health care.

in this, you are correct IF you accept as a premise that things like health care for the poor can be funded WITHOUT taxes. If, however, you disagree with that premise as I do, then the implication is such that disagreeing with taxation schemes is fundamentally arguing against all things that depend on taxes to exist.

That’s the problem. You’re right in saying that arguing against taxation is not per se arguing against all those good things, but if those good things can ONLY be funded by a taxation scheme, and no other practical way, then by implication, that’s exactly what you’re doing.

I'd like the idea of greater transparency and surveillance of those in power.

sure, absolutely, I'm all for that. But that has nothing to do with taxes

Now how exactly does that work? Iraq war is funded by taxation, is it not? Just like fire departments. If we're treating taxation as an all-or-nothing thing there's no middle ground for either of us.


The premise for the moral argument of taxation is that the government will take a certain amount of resources from its citizens and re-allocate it into positive organisations that benefit the society. You can support this, whilst not supporting what one SPECIFIC government is doing with the money.


Maybe one doesn't support the current means of funding them, that doesn't mean one doesn't support the concept of health care.

Universal healthcare is all about the concept of all of its citizens providing resources in order to assure all its citizens can receive healthcare.

Now see if we had the right to choose where our taxes go, there'd basically be no Iraq war (if polls are correct). It would also act as common people having a vote.

Meh it's an ugly baby anyway. And I do mean that because I really didn't have a solid argument. I'm basically saying there's a lot of good programs that are very highly abused.

Sure, but again, that's an argument in favor of fixing flaws in the programs, not an argument against taxes per se.

Yeah I agree with you, but there has to be a better way.

Without any hint of sarcasm or condescension I say, if you have one, not only would I love to hear it, but you would have my support for a Nobel Prize.

Now see if we had the right to choose where our taxes go, there'd basically be no Iraq war (if polls are correct). It would also act as common people having a vote.

but we DO have a right, we elect the people who budget the taxes. It may not be as immediately responsive as direct democracy, nor so closely reflecting the public will, but direct populace control of a multi trillion dollar budget has its own pitfalls and perils.

in this, you are correct IF you accept as a premise that things like health care for the poor can be funded WITHOUT taxes.

Indeed. But as I said in the "exact same thread," just because I don't have a solution doesn't mean I can't oppose the problem. Taxation as coercion for governments of questionable moral value is something to be opposed even if, like most people, you don't have the easy answer to all things.

If, however, you disagree with that premise as I do, then the implication is such that disagreeing with taxation schemes is fundamentally arguing against all things that depend on taxes to exist.

I still don't see why the opposite wouldn't be true. That if you support taxation schemes you are fundamentally supportive of all things that taxation supports (like the Iraq war). Frankly, I don't see the point, it's all an attempt to turn the argument into "You hate firefighters, and kittens!" instead of a discussion on what taxation actually is.

That’s the problem. You’re right in saying that arguing against taxation is not per se arguing against all those good things, but if those good things can ONLY be funded by a taxation scheme, and no other practical way, then by implication, that’s exactly what you’re doing.

Right - if I agreed with you that 'good things can only be funded by a taxation scheme' then I would certainly agree with you that I am a terrible monster who despises both heroic firefighters and dying cancer patients. Trouble is, I don't, and I don't see the point in trying to turn the argument into how horrible the other poster is.

However, it's better than passing accusations about trolling and so I will give you credit and thanks for not continuing along that threadjack.

sure, absolutely, I'm all for that. But that has nothing to do with taxes

I just wanted to be involved :( (I was talking about a solution to the 'my money is being wasted on inefficient projects bit you were talking about).

I still don't see why the opposite wouldn't be true. That if you support taxation schemes you are fundamentally supportive of all things that taxation supports (like the Iraq war). Frankly, I don't see the point, it's all an attempt to turn the argument into "You hate firefighters, and kittens!" instead of a discussion on what taxation actually is.

Because I can recognize that taxation does, overall, more good than harm, without supporting each and every thing that tax dollars are used for.

I’d much rather that my tax dollars NOT fund the Iraq war. I’d much rather fund far better things. But while I hold the opinion that I don’t want this war, I can simultaneously recognize that a system that ends up funding things I don’t like is still better than the alternatives.

Right - if I agreed with you that 'good things can only be funded by a taxation scheme' then I would certainly agree with you that I am a terrible monster who despises both heroic firefighters and dying cancer patients. Trouble is, I don't, and I don't see the point in trying to turn the argument into how horrible the other poster is.

Well I think this becomes the meat of the problem, and is the true sticking point of the entire debate. If you, or anyone else for that matter, can come up with a system that rids us of the current flaws in the tax system, without simultaneously replacing it with a whole slew of far worse flaws, it’d have my support.

And I’m sure you don’t ACTUALLY want to disband police and firefighters and the rest. You and I may not always see eye to eye, but one thing we have agreed on, I think, is that fucking over the poor is generally a bad thing to do.

The problem is, I just don’t see the alternatives. I don’t LIKE the current system, I just think it’s the least broken one there is. Now, hell, maybe I’m wrong. I’m certainly no real economist, I’m no nation planner. Maybe there is a better way. I know far better minds than mine tackle that issue daily. Just, for my sake, I have yet to encounter one that passes scrutiny. Doesn’t mean there isn’t one, and I’d love there to be.

I just don’t think there is. But again, what the fuck do I know? This is hardly my area of expertise.

Without any hint of sarcasm or condescension I say, if you have one, not only would I love to hear it, but you would have my support for a Nobel Prize.

Well like I said in my first post on this topic, There should be a flat tax for everything that everyone uses. This would be determined by the fact that people who have licenses pay a tax for road use and the DOT, have a state wide budget for firehouse and ambulance, pay tax on the local police force (the size of the area police is determined by the number of taxpayers). Electricity and water being privatized, if you don't want it, you don't get it. Waste, you really wouldn't have an option, it'd have to be the way it is now. Postal service, something between stamps and a use tax, I'm not sure how that could work out.

But now for other programs where your tax money is divided into programs to help the needy and such, that would be strictly a use tax. Say I'm near poverty level, and may need a program in the future, I'd sure as hell allocate some of my money towards those programs that I may need to use so I'd be allowed to use them in the future if needed. If I don't, well that's tough shit for me, I should have put some money in there instead of being greedy.

This would essentially remove a great deal of abuse from the system, such as able bodied people being on disability for accidents that happened years ago. They'd have to meet with a doctor every six months, and if the doctor says they're healthy, they're off the program and need to get a job. If they need to be in, then they're in as long as they paid into the program before. This way any person coming into the work force for the first time would pay into the system that they want, or think they may need in the future, and would essentially keep the ball rolling.

That's just a rough outline, I typed it really quick, but I need to be getting to work. I'll post more later if anyone would like, or just have at it with this outline because I'd really like to hear some ideas too!

But now for other programs where your tax money is divided into programs to help the needy and such, that would be strictly a use tax. Say I'm near poverty level, and may need a program in the future, I'd sure as hell allocate some of my money towards those programs that I may need to use so I'd be allowed to use them in the future if needed. If I don't, well that's tough shit for me, I should have put some money in there instead of being greedy.

The problem there is, that's just basically replacing taxation with charity, with an extra layer of bureaucracy tacked on to it. You basically require a level of foresight, responsibility, and compassion in the average person that I'm unsure exists.

Well like I said in my first post on this topic, There should be a flat tax for everything that everyone uses. This would be determined by the fact that people who have licenses pay a tax for road use and the DOT, have a state wide budget for firehouse and ambulance, pay tax on the local police force (the size of the area police is determined by the number of taxpayers). Electricity and water being privatized, if you don't want it, you don't get it. Waste, you really wouldn't have an option, it'd have to be the way it is now. Postal service, something between stamps and a use tax, I'm not sure how that could work out.

But now for other programs where your tax money is divided into programs to help the needy and such, that would be strictly a use tax. Say I'm near poverty level, and may need a program in the future, I'd sure as hell allocate some of my money towards those programs that I may need to use so I'd be allowed to use them in the future if needed. If I don't, well that's tough shit for me, I should have put some money in there instead of being greedy.

This would essentially remove a great deal of abuse from the system, such as able bodied people being on disability for accidents that happened years ago. They'd have to meet with a doctor every six months, and if the doctor says they're healthy, they're off the program and need to get a job. If they need to be in, then they're in as long as they paid into the program before. This way any person coming into the work force for the first time would pay into the system that they want, or think they may need in the future, and would essentially keep the ball rolling.

That's just a rough outline, I typed it really quick, but I need to be getting to work. I'll post more later if anyone would like, or just have at it with this outline because I'd really like to hear some ideas too!

Umm what about those in such abject poverty that they can't afford to pay anything into any programs that may need in the future. Should we then just forget about them, not rich enough to help them selves, 'forgedaboutem'?

Because I can recognize that taxation does, overall, more good than harm, without supporting each and every thing that tax dollars are used for.

I’d much rather that my tax dollars NOT fund the Iraq war. I’d much rather fund far better things. But while I hold the opinion that I don’t want this war, I can simultaneously recognize that a system that ends up funding things I don’t like is still better than the alternatives.


Well, this comes down to whether you believe it does 'more good than harm' or more accurately, more good than acceptable harm. This is a pretty personal thing that's hard to qualify, but for me, the death and destruction caused by things like the Iraq war outweigh the benefits.

Especially when things like firefighters are funded mostly by city and state taxes, which tend to be much lower rates than federal income tax.


Well I think this becomes the meat of the problem, and is the true sticking point of the entire debate. If you, or anyone else for that matter, can come up with a system that rids us of the current flaws in the tax system, without simultaneously replacing it with a whole slew of far worse flaws, it’d have my support.

And I’m sure you don’t ACTUALLY want to disband police and firefighters and the rest. You and I may not always see eye to eye, but one thing we have agreed on, I think, is that fucking over the poor is generally a bad thing to do.

The problem is, I just don’t see the alternatives. I don’t LIKE the current system, I just think it’s the least broken one there is.

Yes, just like representational democratic government. But that doesn't mean it can't be improved ... somehow.

I've never claimed to be a source of anything but generally unhelpful criticism though. It's kind of like how I really, really dislike rape but don't exactly have a master plan to cull it from humanity.

Now, hell, maybe I’m wrong. I’m certainly no real economist, I’m no nation planner. Maybe there is a better way. I know far better minds than mine tackle that issue daily. Just, for my sake, I have yet to encounter one that passes scrutiny. Doesn’t mean there isn’t one, and I’d love there to be.

I just don’t think there is. But again, what the fuck do I know? This is hardly my area of expertise.

My main point is demolishing the idea that taxation is entirely good and that it should be accepted on that basis. I'm not saying it's evil either, but just that it is, in effect, coercion and that people pay taxes not to help society but because if they do not, they get punished.

What the hell clomata, of course there is a solution to your particular problem. Have the government spend the money sensibly, and not spend it on wasteful wars etc... It really is quite simple. Your solution is akin to shooting a man who has a broken leg, sure it will relieve him of the pain, but it will relieve him of a lot of other things too.

My main point is demolishing the idea that taxation is entirely good and that it should be accepted on that basis. I'm not saying it's evil either, but just that it is, in effect, coercion and that people pay taxes not to help society but because if they do not, they get punished.

Well, sure, but the point I was trying (perhaps not so successfully) to make in the earlier thread was that, when you get right down to it, ALL law is really coercion.

I'm sure most don't pay taxes gladly with a song in their heart because it helps improve society, and most do it because of fear of punishment. But likewise, I'm sure there are some people out there who don't murder for fear of punishment, and not for any love of humanity.

In the end, some people will follow the law because they think it's the right thing to do, and need no fear of punishment (and this is true for both not murdering people and paying taxes, though I admit there are probably far more people who don't kill due to moral feelings about it, than there are people who gladly pay taxes because it's the "right" thing) some follow the law only in fear of punishment for disobeying. In the end, tax law is not really any different from every other law in that regard, all law tries to enforce certain conduct through fear of punishment. The law doesn't care whether you LIKE it, only whether you DO it, and that's true for taxes and murder.

So is it coercion? Sure, yeah, it is. But then again, society needs a little coercion to function. We need the hand of the Leviathan to smack people around and say "don't do that" when they break the law. And if we believe, as I do, that 1) taxes are necessary and 2) people won't pay them voluntarily, then that coercion is necessary for society to function. Not good, not bad, just needed.

But now for other programs where your tax money is divided into programs to help the needy and such, that would be strictly a use tax. Say I'm near poverty level, and may need a program in the future, I'd sure as hell allocate some of my money towards those programs that I may need to use so I'd be allowed to use them in the future if needed. If I don't, well that's tough shit for me, I should have put some money in there instead of being greedy.

This would essentially remove a great deal of abuse from the system, such as able bodied people being on disability for accidents that happened years ago. They'd have to meet with a doctor every six months, and if the doctor says they're healthy, they're off the program and need to get a job. If they need to be in, then they're in as long as they paid into the program before. This way any person coming into the work force for the first time would pay into the system that they want, or think they may need in the future, and would essentially keep the ball rolling.

That's just a rough outline, I typed it really quick, but I need to be getting to work. I'll post more later if anyone would like, or just have at it with this outline because I'd really like to hear some ideas too!

This seems like a nice idea on the surface, but lets use Bob over here as an example.

Bob is 18 and not the smartest of cats at the best of times, so he isnt going to college, hes going to get a job in construction. Now, Bob's uncle is a pretty smart fella, and he clues Bob into the pay in advance scheme your proposing. Bob doesnt really see the point, but he thinks that paying for disability treatment in advance might be usefull.
six months later, disaster strikes, a cable breaks ond drops a massive T-beam on Bobs legs, crushing them both.
Now Bob has only paid 6 months into the disability treatment scheme, but hes disabled for life.

How is Bob going to live under your scheme?

The whole "Income Tax is Extortion" rant has been done to death plenty of times on NSG. Let it rot like an Uwe Boll film, please.

I really dislike the "Deal with it or leave" mentality..
Well if you want to be part of the society, be part of the society. If you DON'T want to be part of the society, don't.

It's not so much "if you don't like it, leave, we don't want you" as "if you don't like the terms of the deal, make another you prefer."

Well if you want to be part of the society, be part of the society. If you DON'T want to be part of the society, don't.

It's not so much "if you don't like it, leave, we don't want you" as "if you don't like the terms of the deal, make another you prefer."

Hermits are cool. :)

What about the services I don't consume? Do I have to pay for them too?
Yup. Just like retirees pay for the schooling you've had as a child, you get to pay for their medical care.

did you read the whole example that you just quoted?---or are you trying to be absurd? :confused:
So... you can earn money without people (ie society) to give it to you in exchange for services or goods?

Fascinating.

I see no reason why such a place would be impossible.
If it's not impossible, it exists.

Go find it. We'll wait.

Not quite armies, but similar. Private police forces.
We are not the British, and would not, under this system, have a strong government in control of the actions of the PAs. They would be self-regulating, based on the principles of the free market.
In other words, they would answer to no one and could, in fact, use force to extort money from whomever they pleased.

Why would other PAs get involved? It's infinitely more profitable to extort from your own group -- and in fact eliminate rival extortionist groups.

See that mafia you keep bringing up -- and how they eliminate rival families.

Or if nobody is going to pay them for anything -- like if nobody needs whatever goods or services they have to offer their neighbors in their little utopia -- then where will they get the money to pay for their PAs? And if nobody wants to or can afford to pay the PAs for protection, then what will the PAs do to feed themselves -- try to fit into other professions which may not have room for them? Or just use the strength and guns they've already got to take what they need from the people who stopped paying them?

You DO know what Utopia literally means, correct?

No place. As in, cannot exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

Or, "Hey, these guys are starting to get really power-hungry... how long before they start turning it on me? I think I'm getting out while the gettin's good. I'd steer clear of these guys."
That's laughably naive.

This thread was fun while it lasted, but I think it has basically run its course. With any luck, Nicea will begin a period of introspection and really think about what he's advocating.
Except, he won't. He'll just keep insisting that this wonderful world -- which does not exist and cannot exist -- should exist.

And so on, and so on, and so on.
And the people who agree with him will make the same declarations and not back it up with any kind of argument or sources either.

Unless you dug up some gold with your bare hands it isn't your money it was made by society to make everyone's life better. By yourself you probably couldn't even make a piece of string or a pot or a toilet... The reason we have lots of nice shiny things that make our lives better is because of people working together. Individualism in this day and age is a childish fantasy.

Unless you dug up some gold with your bare hands it isn't your money it was made by society to make everyone's life better.
Even then most of the value of gold is due to other people wanting it, hence society gives it value.

Even then most of the value of gold is due to other people wanting it, hence society gives it value.No, you could sell it in a different society, like Pakistan, just like Auric Goldfinger.

No, you could sell it in a different society, like Pakistan, just like Auric Goldfinger.

:confused:

No, you could sell it in a different society, like Pakistan, just like Auric Goldfinger.

wtf?

:confused:
wtf?
You can export it, thus not removing money from your society, nor would your society be providing the value. More of an absurd example. Carry on.

It's not so much "if you don't like it, leave, we don't want you" as "if you don't like the terms of the deal, make another you prefer."
And how exactly is one to do that?

You can export it, thus not removing money from your society, nor would your society be providing the value. More of an absurd example. Carry on.

Though a society would still be giving it value.

Though a society would still be giving it value.
But not the one you pay taxes in.

And how exactly is one to do that?
They call it "voting with your feet" or "emigrating" for short.

Basically, Jesus and Batman appear to the founders of every new nation and give them the official word that taxation is ok. As humble citizens, you do not have the right to question your divinely sanctioned leaders and system.

Have army? Have police force? Have right.

The benefit of a liberal democracy is that you get some redress at the ballot box. You also have the right to be politically active without being locked up. Consider yourself fortunate.

But not the one you pay taxes in.
I was just talking about society giving things value.

Anyway, that society would be trading with your home society, so both societies would need to be supported by their home groups.

I was just talking about society giving things value.In the context of giving back to society for the benefits you receive. This is not so much the case with the global society, as there's no global tax.
Anyway, that society would be trading with your home society, so both societies would need to be supported by their home groups.Actually, taxation would occur with tarriffs. In the example that I gave but didn't elaborate, Auric Goldfinger (from the epynymous book and movie) circumvented said taxes that ensure that gold that is bought for the English or Pakistani price is still as valuable when it is sold in the other country, by smuggling it.

Besides, as soon as you export you are creating an association between source and destination. All you are doing is spreading society.

They call it "voting with your feet" or "emigrating" for short.
I don't see how emigrating solves the problem.

There is no nation on this planet where I can emigrate to and dictate the terms of my welfare, tax-paying, etc.

I don't see how emigrating solves the problem.

There is no nation on this planet where I can emigrate to and dictate the terms of my welfare, tax-paying, etc.

You can't dictate but, in some countries, you can vote once you become naturalised.

Actually, in some places you might be able to become dictator. Didn't a Japanese bloke come close in South America?

I don't see how emigrating solves the problem.

There is no nation on this planet where I can emigrate to and dictate the terms of my welfare, tax-paying, etc.There's always some rock in the Atlantic.

There's always some rock in the Atlantic.
Ahh yes, quite the options there: live according to governmental rules or die on a rock.

A free choice, one could say...

I don't, unlike some peeps in this thread, object in all ways to taxation by the State, but I totally reject the bullshit notion that one is 'free' to leave citizenship of a nation and find somewhere perfectly suited to one's beliefs.

Pure tripe.

There's always some rock in the Atlantic.
Then you'd be stuck trying to find something for export by yourself (and if you hired people you'd just be a quasi-feudal island ruler) or you'd most likely be gobbled up by the nearest state.

Ahh yes, quite the options there: live according to governmental rules or die on a rock.

A free choice, one could say...

I don't, unlike some peeps in this thread, object in all ways to taxation by the State, but I totally reject the bullshit notion that one is 'free' to leave citizenship of a nation and find somewhere perfectly suited to one's beliefs.

Pure tripe.

Well you could always try another planet...

Ahh yes, quite the options there: live according to governmental rules or die on a rock.

A free choice, one could say...Depends. Those that want to be rid of taxation would be, and those that are unwilling to give up the benefits of society they enjoy to be rid of taxes should perhaps rethink their positions on taxation when offered the possibility.
Then you'd be stuck trying to find something for export by yourself or you'd most likely be gobbled up by the nearest state.Your fault for not wanting to pay taxes to support an armed force to protect your rights.

Well you could always try another planet...
I rest my case, m'lud.

Depends. Those that want to be rid of taxation would be, and those that are unwilling to give up the benefits of society they enjoy to be rid of taxes should perhaps rethink their positions on taxation when offered the possibility.
My point being, that isn't a free choice, and emigrating won't solve dick.

My point being, that isn't a free choice, and emigrating won't solve dick.None really are. They all have consequences. Being faced with the one I postulated can get you to reevaluate just how nice roads, schools, retirement homes, and a military to protect you are.

None really are. They all have consequences. Being faced with the one I postulated can get you to reevaluate just how nice roads, schools, retirement homes, and a military to protect you are.
Then don't insult my intelligence, or the intelligence of others, by suggesting I have a free choice in the matter; "oh, you could always go off and die".

This is an honest question I have. Lets say I do not use a service that my tax money provides, and I do not want to pay. For example, Medicaid. What the government is doing is taking my money and giving it to someone else against my will, and if I resist I am labeled as a tax evader and thrown in prison. That sounds like a clear cut case of extortion if I've ever heard one. I understand a service that I use; i.e. roads. I like roads; in this instance the government is just a means of citizens pooling their money to better their lives, while medicaid is taking my money and bettering someone else's life with it. In principal, it's extortion even if legally it isn't.

Whether I personally am for or against medicaid is irrelevant, you understand my point. This could be applied to lots of things, like the government bailing Freddie Mac or Fanny May or the Iraq War.

So, I want to know, what gives the government the right to take my money against my will? I know what most people will say, that they have less than I do and I should help them out. Sure, I should, but who are you to make me? Or that a government has an obligation to its citizens. Ok, but I don't have an obligation to my fellow citizens.

I'm not trying start a big argument, I just want a satisfactory answer to my question.

Death and taxes, bud, death and taxes... But I also say that armed robbery is illegal, unless you're the IRS.

Then don't insult my intelligence, or the intelligence of others, by suggesting I have a free choice in the matter; "oh, you could always go off and die".Never said your choice was free, merely that you had one. If taxation really was such an atrocious crime, an American would likely have the opportunity to move to a rock in the Atlantic and renounce their citizenship in order to shape their perfect society.

Your fault for not wanting to pay taxes to support an armed force to protect your rights.
Wait, are you arguing for/against taxes? Or just trying to state the realities of what would happen?

I don't see how emigrating solves the problem.

There is no nation on this planet where I can emigrate to and dictate the terms of my welfare, tax-paying, etc.
pretty much

those few souls who want to live as rugged individuals making their own living in the wilderness are pretty much shit out of luck.

there are ways to (legally) avoid taxes but they give you the kind of lifestyle that few would choose.

Never said your choice was free, merely that you had one.
Quite, but many present the choice (as Kat did) as if the second option is in any way desirable.

Sorry if the previous post came of as harsh btw; didn't mean it to.

Wait, are you arguing for/against taxes? Or just trying to state the realities of what would happen?Kind of in favor. I don't particularly like taxes, but I prefer them to dirt roads, no healthcare, and Russians telling me to sew clothes for them.
Quite, but many present the choice (as Kat did) as if the second option is in any way desirable.It isn't. Most people that don't want taxes aren't willing to give up the benefits they receive (though plenty certainly are willing to give up the benefits others do). The "Get out if you hate it so much," is an attempt to get the individual to reevalute the tradeoffs of taxation by confronting them with a scenario where there is none.
Sorry if the previous post came of as harsh btw; didn't mean it to.'s cool.

Quite, but many present the choice (as Kat did) as if the second option is in any way desirable.

Sorry if the previous post came of as harsh btw; didn't mean it to.

It is actually a choice it is just that you would need enough like minded individuals to be able to defend some territory. The trouble is that the kind of people who have that particular viewpoint aren't very good at playing nicely together. That is not the fault of society in general. Hence the reason you have no country you could go to is that nobody has been able to create one like that which lasts.

Kind of in favor. I don't particularly like taxes, but I prefer them to dirt roads, no healthcare, and Russians telling me to sew clothes for them.
Quite.

I'm just a bit tetchy from one too many bullshit 'social contract' arguments.

pretty much

those few souls who want to live as rugged individuals making their own living in the wilderness are pretty much shit out of luck.

there are ways to (legally) avoid taxes but they give you the kind of lifestyle that few would choose.
Or they give you the kind of lifestyle that most can only dream of attaining. There are two kinds of people who can legally avoid paying taxes -- the desperately poor who have nothing to tax (or eat), and the astonishingly rich who know where all the tax shelters are.

Ironic, ain't it? Extremely rich or extremely poor, both end up dependent upon shelters.

Or they give you the kind of lifestyle that most can only dream of attaining. There are two kinds of people who can legally avoid paying taxes -- the desperately poor who have nothing to tax (or eat), and the astonishingly rich who know where all the tax shelters are.

Ironic, ain't it? Extremely rich or extremely poor, both end up dependent upon shelters.

And each tries to tear down the other's shelter.

Or they give you the kind of lifestyle that most can only dream of attaining. There are two kinds of people who can legally avoid paying taxes -- the desperately poor who have nothing to tax (or eat), and the astonishingly rich who know where all the tax shelters are.

Ironic, ain't it? Extremely rich or extremely poor, both end up dependent upon shelters.
i suppose so but the available slots for "amazingly rich people living in a country where that lets you avoid all taxes" are far more limited than those for "people living on the street and eating out of dumpsters so no tax is assessed"