Umm.. if you set up a toll booth on a road and force people to pay who want to use that road.. it.. is.. not.. voluntary.. lol I don't even know where to start on that cluster fuck above.. so let's try this. This will do wonders for your argument. During the thousands of years humans have been around, with the thousands of countries established with billions of people.. if an anarchic system was the most efficient, then there should be at least one example throughout our entire history of an anarchic country that flourished with a good infrastructure. Name it.. cause if you can provide an example of what you're talking about that actually worked, I'll take back what I said about anarchy. This isn't a new idea.. you're not proposing anything original, this line of thought you have has been around for thousands of years. So there should be at least one example of an anarchic country where the people voluntarily provide resources for the entire country's infrastructure to flourish. I highly doubt you'll be able to provide an example.. because it doesn't work! You won't need to create premises that are based on assumptions.. just an example of what you're talking about working. If you can't find an example of a flourishing anarchic (non tribal) country throughout the entire history of mankind, that should tell you something.
I had multiquotes and tried to address individual points bbut by the end I found your wall of babble was really just saying one thing. "Anarchist societies don't exist now, therefore must be impossible" Yay manticore Oh how could I ever argue with such sound logic. Woe is me If i can't find even one single example of a society that doesn't need coercive threat to survive it must be impossible! -yuri
Notice I never said now.. I said throughout the entire history of humanity. Big big big difference.. and here you are, not providing an example. If it was so successful, it would of been done and succeeded.. so therefore you should be able to provide an example. Are you going to try or admit you can't find an example? Remember, you can focus on more than the present.. we have a past too. Surely there should be one account of an anarchic system working if it is a system that would work. Don't think of it for my benefit.. think of it for your benefit to find an example of it working, that way when you go on and on and on about how it will work.. you can point to your example and say 'see.. it worked here'. Like I said, it'd do wonders for your argument. Just a followup on the road/toll booths thing.. aside from that fact that that too would just be forcing people to pay up, you do realize that that would mean roads would end up privatized right? That individual people or companies would privately own the roads and enforce the toll booths. So now instead of being forced to pay to upkeep the entire country's infrastructure, you'll be being forced to pay to upkeep individual roads every time you want to use them. It'd end up no different than what we have now.. except now you'll be forced to pay to benefit individual people with their private roads rather than being forced to pay to benefit the entire country of people.
Society must become enlightened, simply that. Society will exist in it's perfect form when everyone is enlightened.
oh my bad. There has never been an.anarchy "up till now" Therefore impossible Sound logic there I really can't believe an intelligent person like you is trying to argue that angle. Anarchy has NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO TRY.... Your entire argument is based on a false premise. -yuri
My problem isnt so much taxes as it is direct taxes on my wages. As defined by the Supreme Court wages are an equal exchange for money, so it is not an income its a trade. My stocks increasing in value would be an income, but even there i call it theft. Indirect taxes, such as gasolinr or tobacco tax is less of an issue, if i choose no to drive or smoke then i dont pay the tax. Property tax is another bullshit tax, it essentially means i dont own my land if i have to pay a tax for being there. This forces me to engauge in commerce, whether selling goods i produce or selling my time for a service, just to be able to live on a plot of land. What if i want to grow my own food on my own land and produce my own electricity (if i wanted it), i still have to come up with a means to provide the property fee/tax. Is there a particular reason i cannot exist freely in this system or must i contribute even if i dont partake in the services it provides (other than when i voluntarily choose to)?
that's probly the biggest injustice. The entire point of the American constitution is to allow a man to safely live self suffiently on his land. If the never leaves, its no one else's buisness Land tax is a big deal. It discourages self sufficiency -yuri
Dude.. since there has been the idea of a central system that overlooks the people, there have been people wanting no system. It's not that it hasn't been allowed to try.. and if you did a lil searching for an example, you'd see that there have been attempts.. and guess what, they didn't work and if they did work, they sure as shit didn't flourish. There is a chunk of Mexico that was carved out by an independent army set up in an anarchic system, but they don't flourish. There is a community in VA that is trying to set up an anarchic state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia and if you read, even the founder and members say they sometimes feel trapped there because they can't earn and save up money to do anything else.. and it is usually dirty because no one is really made to clean it, so they don't. Anarchy just doesn't work well.. at all. It is a pipe dream, one that people get lost in daydreaming about and hoping for rather than focusing on real issues. People have wanted anarchy since there was government.. people have also tried numerous times, yet there has never been an anarchic state that succeeded and flourished because they won't. The only way anarchy would work is if you advanced neuroscience and fiddled with peoples' brains to make them compliant, and that really wouldn't be freedom. Keep dreaming though.. Because the service you only pay for when you want it will eventually crumble and then it won't be there for you to use when you want to use it..
Will do. I still wish you could see what that's piss poor logic. There is a very good reason a free state doesn't exist. Its not because it doesn't work. Its because it doesn't benefit those with the most, who would not be able to maintain their empires without government puppets. More piss poor logic. This statement only holds true if there is one single consumer. In a society you have supply and demand. If there is demand here will be supply. If there is demand for a specific service, like say security or roads, there will be supply willing to make the money voluntarily -yuri
i think you are free to do that... but your land is protected by our military, which is probably a good thing, because there are a lot of places, where some shit heads will just come in and take your crops and your electricity (with dwelling). so some contribution (in the form of taxes) seems fair ... to offer reasonable protection, wouldn't you agree? but with that said, i don't really agree with some taxes or more importantly with the way money from those collected taxes is distributed. what we need is a modern system, where people can allocate their taxes to certain needs. after all, we are the ones that have to make the choices. hopefully some day irs (or whatever it will be called by then) will acquire this magical technology, which had existed in other fields for decades now.
you are 100% right. But what is the true cost of defending our nation? Do we really need to have a strong military presence globally? Do we really need to be bombing the middle east? Are we really afraid of islamists? Maybe. Maybe not. Which is why when you buy a good or service you have options. With taxes there are no options. -yuri
I think you'd have to be in seriously bumfuck Egypt to not use public services (roads, police, military). Just by buying materials to do anything you get involved in those services. Maybe if you get dropped naked onto your land then build (using materials from your land) from there you could truly say you're living without public services.
i'm sure military spending could be cut to where we are advanced enough to be safe enough. no doubt there. it may be a little off topic and sound crazy... but to be efficient in combat, well soldiers have to actually participate in combat situations. real situations. not training. i doubt there's any amount of knowledge one can poses vs an actual experience of being caught in a gun fight. as fucked up as it may sound, effective military depends on combat experience as much as it does on modern technology. while we certainly shouldn't bomb a lot of places or be in a lot of those places, it could be argued that certain military operations are necessary (although i personally might disagree with them).
Uh.. if they were in a state of anarchy, there would be no government puppets. Those with the most would who want to maintain their empire wouldn't even be part of the anarchic state. Your whole argument falls apart every time you say voluntarily.. cause you obviously are being willfully ignorant about human nature. I already covered this.. those services will end up privatized. Roads will no longer be public, they will end up privately owned and the owners will set the prices and rules. That is an instant monopoly.. cause it's not like there can be another road at the same spot owned by someone else to compete with them. Security would no longer be a public thing, the security forces will be owned by a private company.. which, that might not be that bad of a thing.. but privately owned infrastructure would be way worse than what we have now. Explain to me how roads will remain public and maintained in anarchy.
Hell set up a community facebook page or twitter and let everyone know how much you need for said road and how much has been raised. This is a difficult concept because its so damn foreign from all we know. The problem with humanity is it doesnt trust itself. Look how America exploded between 1800-1900 long before income tax, long before just about every governmental agency. We can do it people (without them).
Come on now.. you really think that is going to work? Doesn't answer the remaining public part though.. cause without a central agency in control of it, all land and infrastructure will slowly become privately owned. Taxes suck.. we all know this, and I'd be down for the government staying a government and taxing things that aren't the people.. but then the government will either have to up the taxes on businesses or single out a business or service to make profit off of that to use for infrastructure and such.. but then the people will complain that the government has a business/service monopolized. Here is my idea of the ideal setup for everyone to be happy.. first, the federal government lays off of weed and let's the state do their own thing how they want, but not hemp. We give hemp to the government for the most part.. they grow it and sell it only in raw form. Let other private businesses spring up for it's processing and distribution.. but no business can grow and sell raw hemp to make profit. All the end profit the government makes goes towards the things the people pay taxes on.. well at first half to the taxes and half to our debt. It would need to be 100% transparent though.. and we start to phase hemp back in as a staple crop in America. I don't think hemp is a miracle plant that will solve the world's problems like a lot of hemp advocates think.. but it would be profitable. We start to phase out the 75ish% corn that is grown nationwide just to feed livestock and feed them hemp seeds.. we start to phase out using trees for paper and move to hemp paper. Lots of different ways it could be used, but the only "business" that can grow it would be the government. On top of that though, I would make it that is a person wants some of that profit at the end of the year, they have to be an active voter.. cause I don't think the people are actually active enough when it comes to enforcing their voice through the proper channels.. and I realize I kind of just jammed it in there all halfassed, but it's a thought I've had for awhile that I've been hammering out details on.. my pipe dream. Basically the government grows and sells raw hemp to hemp based businesses at a fair and flat price, take the profit to spend on things that the people pay for.. and if it reaches a point where they are all paid up, the extra profit goes back to the people provided they are active citizens. With it not being legal right now.. it's not like the people would miss it if the government takes the helm with it. Perfect opportunity for the government to create a business outside of the regular business world to make money off of rather than making money from taxes.
again your entire post is based on a false premise The fact that you are asking how roads can be funded without theft shows you are closed minded. You are so sure its impossible you'd rather trash the idea than realize if it worked it would work better. The argument ended before it started because your mind is closed. Its a shame really. There is some well spoken literature on the subject and its becoming a global movement. Its something that hasn't been allowed to be tried before. You are like those people who say we cant ababolish slavery. Who will pick the cotton? Who will build the walls. It doesn't matter. Your system is a system based on coercive theft. Your entire argument is moot because my claim is fact. Theft is wrong. Period. -yuri
Oh Yuri.. I don't even know what to do with you anymore.. lol Notice I asked how roads will remain public and maintained.. you've already stated several times as to how they would be funded, voluntarily. I am not 100% sure that it won't work.. I just know that based on our history and human nature, that it more than likely won't work. Anarchy sounds great on paper, but in practice.. not so much. And as much as you think your opinion is a fact.. it is a fact that anarchy has been tried numerous times throughout human history and either failed or didn't prosper. You're just letting your conspiracy theorist mind take control of your reasoning ability and creating some fantasy that "the man" is preventing people from creating a functional anarchic state.. and that isn't the case. The reason functional anarchic states aren't created is because they don't function. And why is it that every time you get into a debate.. you keep hitting brick walls and end up pulling out the slavery card to compare it to? I don't know how you even do it.. you did it here and I remember that you did it in the abortion thread and a gun thread. Like.. how? How, or even why, does one relate slavery to the things you relate it to?