Paying taxes -- Patriotic duty or extortion?

Quote: MathExtremist

Except as that society evolves, that voluntary nature evaporates because the clever realize that the most efficient path to profit is monopoly. Under monopolists, the ideal of freedom is merely illusory because you have no actual choices. Antitrust laws are necessarily a restriction of freedom, but they prevent an even greater restriction of freedom.

Well, to me this is the problem with all versions of hard right-libertarianism. Adam Smith understood right off the bat, that those at the top would be corrupt. Hard core socialists have an identical blind spot.

This is a result of allowing the whims of semantics to dictate what happens in the world. You work 18 hours a day to purchase food at the company store and rent a bed in the corporate dormitories. This is good because it is "voluntary" and you are "free" to go off and starve. (As already observed, you are pretty much free to go off into the wilderness and starve anyway).

A union or a government regulation gets you a 40 hour work week. This is bad because it involves "coercion."

If corporations took over the roads and you could no longer afford to use them, you'd actually be freer. etc.

I think being an AP in either form of anarchism would be hard, if not impossible.

Quote: rudeboyoi

However using your argument if you purchase gasoline you already pay for the roads.

Not even close. Federal gas tax is 18-cents / gallon. If you buy 500 gallons of gas per year you've paid for $90 worth of roads.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Likely what would happen is residential property owners would pay to have the roads built up near their residences.

For $90 you could buy around one-inch of road. So after 100 years, you would almost have enough road to find a place to put your car, but no where to drive to.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I think being an AP in either form of anarchism would be hard, if not impossible.

If there's no gaming regulator to enforce a fair bet, there won't be any fair bets. We already know some people will bet on anything and virtually nobody knows the odds. People voluntarily play 15%-hold slots and 50%-hold lotteries. What's to stop me from offering a bet that has a 99% edge? I'm sure I could design one that people would play.

In a perfectly free society, nobody would stop a mad chemist from designing a drug that increased your brain function, muscle abilities, and even made you feel good while taking it, but had the physical side effect of a slow death if you stopped taking it for more than a week. Lots of people are willing to try drugs, even though they're widely known to cause addiction, so that mad chemist could amass an army of thralls even though each one was a willing consumer of the substance. Is that a just outcome?

What if the mad chemist already did his evil deed? Beware the dangers of DHMO!

Quote: Wizard

Amen. Anarchists do a good job complaining about taxes and government but I'd be interested to hear their alternative.
.

While I'm a skeptic, I'd be happy to watch a live experiment tried out somewhere. Maybe those Koch brothers might fund such an experiment -- getting it off the ground,

Quote: rxwine

While I'm a skeptic, I'd be happy to watch a live experiment tried out somewhere. Maybe those Koch brothers might fund such an experiment -- getting it off the ground,

That already happened in 2008 -- Peter Thiel invested in the Seasteading Institute to create a libertarian utopia on a manmade floating island in international waters. In 2015 the founders basically gave up because they realized it wouldn't work in the external fashion they intended:
https://www.wired.com/2015/05/silicon-valley-letting-go-techie-island-fantasies/

There will always be experimentation in different forms of government (much like Thiel's investment, much like this thread), but it's the current form of government that allows us to do that. Progress, when it comes, will come on the wings of enhancing people's lives, not diminishing them.

Quote: MathExtremist

If that's true, then isn't government the natural outcome of any society that starts from a state of perfect freedom and experiences unequal wealth accumulation?

It depends on what each society deems spiritually relevant. Tribalism [US] lasted nearly 14 thousand years, each tribe had it's own form of welfare and social security, customs and a set of checks and balances. Of course there was conflict, but they worked it out. The problem isn't government as much as it is the size of government.

Just as what happened to the "beautiful people", the same would happen under anarchy. Nature will not allow a vacuum. The tribes wouldn't band together, and the Europeans overran them.

People are going to migrate towards the path of least resistance. If I had the choice, I would prefer a benevolent dictator. Bhutan measures it's GDP in it's happiness index. http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/

I am not plotting to take over the world any longer, I am trying to reach acceptance with the one that's here.

Quote:

In other words, if you eradicate governments, won't they spontaneously recreate themselves (just as they have in the past)?

In the end, there can be only one. It seems any ruler of significance was psychopathic. Mao, Genghis Khan, etc. Beware of those that lust to power. Power doesn't corrupt them, it attracts those that are already corrupted.

Quote: petroglyph

In the end, there can be only one. It seems any ruler of significance was psychopathic. Mao, Genghis Khan, etc. Beware of those that lust to power. Power doesn't corrupt them, it attracts those that are already corrupted.

And that's why the Founders tried to spread out the power of government across as many people as possible. They may not have gotten it perfectly right (if that's even attainable), but it's often argued that they did a better job than any past attempt. If you have a government that requires more people to run than there are psychopaths, at least some of the government will be run by those who aren't.

Ironically, that may be a pretty good argument for "big government" -- the ultimate in small government is an absolute tyrant.

Government itself is a monopoly. A monopoly on violence first and foremost. Laws, regulations, permits, taxes create monopolies that otherwise wouldn't exist under amarchy. They provide barriers of entry to others that would willfully participate in the market but are unable to do so. Some real world examples are cities that don't want Uber coming in upsetting the monopoly taxi companies have on teansportation. Another example are laws/regulations that make it illegal for car manufacturers to sell new cars directly to consumers instead they have to sell them through dealerships which creates a middleman that wouldn't be necessary and adds an extra layer of cost all because of the laws/regulations put into place.

Also another reason monopolies would not last long under anarchy is that there is no such thing as intellectual property. Patents do not exist. Once someone else figures out how a product is designed they are free to produce. There is no barrier put in place preventing others from doing so. So in tilly if someone brings a new product to the marketplace they'll be able to charge a premium for it but it won't last for long as others figure out how to design the product themselves driving the price down through more competition.

That's a great way to kill innovation. If people don't have some reasonable expectation that they can make back their investment and even some profit, then they won't bother trying.

Quote: Dalex64

That's a great way to kill innovation. If people don't have some reasonable expectation that they can make back their investment and even some profit, then they won't bother trying.

I'd argue the opposite. To make larger profits you have to constantly be innovating. You can't just sit on your ass collecting knowing no one else can compete with you. Without government interfering with the marketplace who knows how far advanced our technology would be right now. We could be driving around in flying cars or even living on mars.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Government itself is a monopoly. A monopoly on violence first and foremost. Laws, regulations, permits, taxes create monopolies that otherwise wouldn't exist under amarchy.

Sure they would, they'd just be created organically and without any guidelines or boundaries. There has never in the history of any mammalian society been a stable non-hierarchical social structure. Ever. If you were to impose one upon all of humanity, hierarchy would self-organize. And since monopoly is a local (if not global) maximum for that self-organization, you'd end up with a monopoly anyway. The question is this: if we're doomed to suffer under a monopoly in any event, which is the most good? I propose that the monopoly that is government of, by, and for the people is superior to a monopoly that is not.

Quote:

Also another reason monopolies would not last long under anarchy is that there is no such thing as intellectual property.

Now you're hitting me where it hurts: I derive virtually all of my income from intellectual property in one manner or another.

How do you propose to deal with the following scenarios, all of which involve blatant theft:
a) Copyright: A songwriter pens a song and plays it at an open-mic night. A music-industry executive hears the recording of the performance from a cellphone video and has its in-house musicians reproduce the song and distribute it widely. It becomes the number one single and earns the publisher five million dollars. The songwriter earns nothing.
b) Trade Secret: A janitor at the Coca-Cola headquarters turns out to be a spy for a foreign company. He steals the formula for Coke and reports it faithfully to his true employer, who enters the cola market with an identical product. Coca-Cola loses 50% of its market in a year.
c) Trademark: Three executives from Pepsi start a new cola company with a food scientist who turns out to be a terrible cola developer. Their product is awful, but they call their new company Pepsi and produce their cola in cans that look identical to the first Pepsi's cans. Due to market confusion, the new Pepsi reaps a significant amount of sales, while the original Pepsi's brand image is tarnished because of the awful product under the same name.
d) Patent: After years of chemical and electronics study, Tesla develops a powercell the size of a fist that is capable of powering a car for a year without recharging. Ford buys a Tesla with this battery, reverse-engineers it, and includes it in every one of its new cars. So does Toyota and GM. Tesla goes out of business.

In my opinion, each of those scenarios is manifestly unjust to the party whose intellectual property is being infringed (under current IP laws). Please rebut.

Edit: I just came up with two more related issues:
e) Identity theft: Someone creates a new user on WoV named "rudeboyoi" and begins posting about the benefits of a totalitarian dictatorship. They also, posting under that username, confess to several deviant sexual habits. You are outraged and embarrassed (or at a minimum, inconvenienced).
f) Defamation: Knowing that they are false statements, someone publicly accuses you of having leprosy and of murdering kittens.

Should all of (a) through (f) be allowed in a just society?

Quote: rudeboyoi

We could be driving around in flying cars or even living on mars.

Which government school/space program told you that Mars is terra firma rock that can be landed on? All I see is a light in the sky. How do propulsion systems work in a vacuum, anyway? The idea of space creates a lot of jobs and tax money doe.

In response to MathExtremist (too hard to quote and respond to all that via my phone).

None of those are theft. Some may be shitty things to do to other people. But none are theft. You can't own an idea. You can try to hide your idea but once it's out its out. Think of the recent plaza promo. The promo was more valuable when other people didn't know about it and it decreased in value as more people found out about it. But that was not theft when more people found out about it. It was still just an idea.

I have no problem paying taxes. My problem is the amount is unjustified, and it is spent on BS like paying interest to the federal reserve, which is not the government. It is a private corporate institution.

I've read so many threads, on different forums, about problems in the government. Most of us can see the BS in it all. But why have we not done anything about it yet? I expect we are not far from the tipping point.

Quote: RoulettePhysics

I've read so many threads, on different forums, about problems in the government. Most of us can see the BS in it all. But why have we not done anything about it yet? I expect we are not far from the tipping point.

As far as actual tax reform and or tax simplification, we seem to be stuck in only two modes. One is too toss everything, or the other is few small changes and then our congress gets distracted on to some other issue.

Someone needs to propose a ten year plan, or something big like that and keep it rolling.

Quote: rudeboyoi

In response to MathExtremist (too hard to quote and respond to all that via my phone).

None of those are theft. Some may be shitty things to do to other people. But none are theft. You can't own an idea. You can try to hide your idea but once it's out its out. Think of the recent plaza promo. The promo was more valuable when other people didn't know about it and it decreased in value as more people found out about it. But that was not theft when more people found out about it. It was still just an idea.

I completely disagree with any notion that having no government at all would ever work; every society needs some kind of rules to keep order...I do think government should be minimal and reigned in by the governed (we are failing at that but not nearly as bad as many other countries). I also think that not having a right to protect--own--your ideas would lead to less ideas, not more. Why work and study hard, put together an idea, get it to where it could earn some money, and then have everyone steal it? Just become the best at stealing ideas and making money from them!

I am reading and listening, however, and I'd like to understand how things like rape, murder, robbery, battery, etc. would be handled in a society without a government. Would they just not be crimes? Would the individual harmed be able to carry out his own punishment?

Quote: MathExtremist

If there's no gaming regulator to enforce a fair bet, there won't be any fair bets. We already know some people will bet on anything and virtually nobody knows the odds. People voluntarily play 15%-hold slots and 50%-hold lotteries. What's to stop me from offering a bet that has a 99% edge? I'm sure I could design one that people would play.

Yeah. In right, anarcho-capitalism, I think there would be a fair amount of gambling and casinos, and they'd often be crooked. Though, online casinos exist almost in this state and some of them seem to be more or less honest. What you might see though, is that they would just declare APs to be cheaters and treat them accordingly. Regular gamblers wouldn't care, so they wouldn't lose any business they wanted.

Left, libertarian socialism, probably wouldn't have a lot of casinos. If they did, they would be collectively owned, or perhaps for charity and might easily justify a similar approach.

Nobody is really going to be sympathetic to your desire to live without working via gambling, so without the protection of laws, casinos would just screw APs whenever they found them. Maybe give them the hammer too, "Casino" style.

I think the way to go would be to host a poker game and/or be a bookmaker.

Quote: rudeboyoi

In response to MathExtremist (too hard to quote and respond to all that via my phone).

None of those are theft. Some may be shitty things to do to other people. But none are theft. You can't own an idea. You can try to hide your idea but once it's out its out. Think of the recent plaza promo. The promo was more valuable when other people didn't know about it and it decreased in value as more people found out about it. But that was not theft when more people found out about it. It was still just an idea.

The Plaza promo was public information. The formula to Coca-Cola is not. Neither is the source code to Facebook's analytics engine. If you believe that trade secret misappropriation is okay then we're at an impasse. I will never accept the position that it is okay to misappropriate the fruits of another's labor simply because those fruits are intangible.

Quote: MathExtremist

The Plaza promo was public information. The formula to Coca-Cola is not. Neither is the source code to Facebook's analytics engine. If you believe that trade secret misappropriation is okay then we're at an impasse. I will never accept the position that it is okay to misappropriate the fruits of another's labor simply because those fruits are intangible.

People do tend to vote their pocket book.

Once it is broadcast, it is fair game.

Online gaming could/is an interesting experiment in lack of regulation or what gov might do.

My whole problem with it, is just like a long term scam, there's little way to know even if honest at first, they are just reeling you in for later kill. I feel like someone has to do regulation as a third party.

As to other non-gov regulation-- about when were the air bag makers going to come forward that their bags were killing drivers? How many would die before they got motivated?

Quote: Wizard

Amen. Anarchists do a good job complaining about taxes and government but I'd be interested to hear their alternative.

Let me guess, the alternative is sponge of taxpayers like me and complain at the same time.

To ask the anarchist to describe what a world without government looks like misses the point entirely.

The whole criticism of statism is that the market process is critical to the creation a just society. The information and ideas needed to construct the best system cannot possibly be contained in the brain of one man or one organization. The institutions that arise need to be shaped and disciplined by the preferences of individuals as expressed by millions of individual choices about where to do business. Government institutions are immune to this force which is why they are inevitably bureaucratic and inefficient. Even if the smartest people in the world tried to shape government institutions they could not correct this problem without the feedback provided by the marketplace.

That said, many of us believe that something like the "dispute resolution organization" model would be a rough starting framework. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

I can tell you this much, it beats the hell out of congress deciding for themselves how much of your money they are going to take out of your wallet every year.

Quote: bigfoot66

That said, many of us believe that something like the "dispute resolution organization" model would be a rough starting framework. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Isn't this like tossing out the pols and filling the world with lawyers?

I'm not sure I have enough guns for that...

Quote: MathExtremist

We don't live in a central planning society, not the way that phrase is normally used.

You make a number of lucent, nuanced points. It is refreshing and enjoyable to debate with someone who is intelligent and respectful as you are. I cannot address them all but will address the core issues to try to get to the larger point.

My point is that the modern creation of law is most certainly a central planning model. Common law arose through an approximately free market system. Modern legislation, regulation, judicial review, etc are all a central planning model. The idea is roughly "let's get the best, brightest people to figure this thing out and dictate the rules to the whole country". I agree that we do not have wheat production quotas like the soviets did, I am speaking specifically about the creation and enforcement of law.

Quote: MathExtremist

Once you accept that the rule of law (in some form) is required for a functioning society, you necessarily accept that some manner of coercion is required.

You keep making this claim but not supporting it. Your argument seems to be "People need rules therefore coercion." I would agree that people need incentives to follow the rules, but those incentives need not be coercive. There is very little coercion available to make people pay debts but the completely non-coercive credit reporting system does a pretty good job enforcing contracts. Perhaps if you are a known thief private property and road owners will not allow you on their roads until you satisfy your victim? You are effectively banished from society until you make things right with your victim through the exclusion rights of private property owners looking out for their own self interest. In my opinion this is not only a more moral approach to criminal justice but it is also likely to be more effective.

Quote: MathExtremist

Nozick wasn't an anarchist, he was a libertarian. The gist is that "slavery," as Nozick uses the word, isn't always as bad as you think it is.

There is a joke in our circles....what is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? 6 months. Obviously not true of Nozick but certainly true of most anarchists....

I think you are looking at the slavery thing with rose colored glasses. Humans have a very powerful tendency to accept the status quo as good, proper, and correct. The fact that we are slaves to the government and still have unbelievably good lives by historical standards does not make the slavery morally acceptable. Furthermore governments are responsible for 100,000,000 dead people in the 20th century. Where is the moral outrage?

Quote: RonC

I completely disagree with any notion that having no government at all would ever work; every society needs some kind of rules to keep order...

I don't think Rude is campaigning for a lawless society as in "no rules".

If I was picking up what he was putting down the last time we talked, his ideal used a system of shunning. The idea was that, sure, you could rip off your neighbor with no repercussion, but humans are a social animal. Unless you want to live a life where your entire existence is based on simply existing (surviving), you're going to need other people. So you could pillage with impunity, but would soon find yourself adrift without a raft, so to speak.

It does have merit, IMO, or at least it's not total crap. I felt as though I knew intimately what he meant when he originally wrote it, and now I got it - the Amish. Their way of life is strikingly similar to some of the things he says. They similarly have no written rule, no constitution, no courts, and do indeed use the system of shunning. It can be as simple as not trading with a particular family and rises all the way up to excommunication. Each of these "punishments" surely help to keep the peace.

BUT, they keep the peace because the Amish are clannish. They want to be where they are and with their kind. In order to get what they want (inclusion) they must act accordingly. And it works. No police, no courts, and they do just fine.

But while they are still stuck in 1420, the rest of us are in 2016. And in 2016, I could be in Vegas before the sun sets, steal Wiz's unicycle, and be back in WNY in time to go to work. Oh, Wiz and teliot, and DRich shun me now? Who cares? I'm 2,000 miles away and do no business whatsoever with them or their town. What then?

Small scale it's a beautiful thing. A family, a club, a commune, it could totally work. It does work. But nationally?

I ain't in the upper 50% of intellect, but I damn sure ain't in the lower half when it comes to physical prowess and penchant for violence. All these soft, pampered, fat Americans? They would write songs of my pillaging and pirating in a lawless America. I'm drooling just thinking about it...

Quote: Rigondeaux

I read a bunch of this stuff in college and am probably even rustier than you. However, I find it all very interesting. There are two basic branches. One is right-wing, anarcho capitalism. This seems to be the camp of rudeboi and bigfoot, and bigfoot mentioned some advocates. There's also a guy on youtube named Stefan Molyneux who is roughly in this camp and has a big following. I don't know if it's fair to say he represents the camp well, or not. I think he's fun to watch but not very convincing.

As far as I understand it, the right wing response to those who are weak, gullible etc. being constantly exploited by the clever is that it is OK because everything is voluntary. Maybe consistent exploiters get a bad rep and more honest and fair dealers get a good rep. I think these views have become more plausible with the internet and the ease of accessing information, which is one reason they are more popular.

I am a big fan of the Mises Institute which I believe you would call right wing anarcho capitalist. Molyneux scares me, he is bright (smarter than me!) but his thinking can be a bit sloppy, and his organization feels like a cult.

I would say that you give a good defense against the exploitation thing through reputation. I would also add that we need to compare anarchism to reality. I am sick of people turning the government into a unicorn: The government does a terrible job of protecting people from swindles. I would argue that the government itself is the greatest swindler in the history of man. What 21st century Ponzi could possibly compete with the madness of Social Security, for example? Regardless, the fact that freedom is imperfect is irrelevant. The question is which system of human organization is the best? A system where a violent monopolist takes your money and imposes his will at his own discretion, OR a system of human freedom?

Quote: SOOPOO

I live in the real world. As imperfect as governments are, anarchy would be far worse. Just witness what happens, for example, during a blackout when there is even just perceived anarchy.

From your mouth to God's ears. You have declared it to be bad (without any support), therefore it is.

Seriously though you are smarter than this, you are a Doctor. Come on. No one is saying that if we pushed a button and eliminated all government that life would be better 3 hours from now than it is now. It would take some time for the noncoercive institutions that would replace the existing government to evolve. As a matter of fact, your example of a blackout is actually an example of government failure, not the failure of the free market. The government, whose agents regularly claim that our safety is their top priority, fail to control the people for the period of the blackout, correct?

Quote: bigfoot66

The government, whose agents regularly claim that our safety is their top priority,...

It is. The problem is most people don't understand to the "our" or "we" is, when the words are used by the gov. They are absolutely concerned with their own safety.

Quote: MathExtremist

Sure they would, they'd just be created organically and without any guidelines or boundaries. There has never in the history of any mammalian society been a stable non-hierarchical social structure. Ever. If you were to impose one upon all of humanity, hierarchy would self-organize. And since monopoly is a local (if not global) maximum for that self-organization, you'd end up with a monopoly anyway. The question is this: if we're doomed to suffer under a monopoly in any event, which is the most good? I propose that the monopoly that is government of, by, and for the people is superior to a monopoly that is not.

Now you're hitting me where it hurts: I derive virtually all of my income from intellectual property in one manner or another.

How do you propose to deal with the following scenarios, all of which involve blatant theft:
a) Copyright: A songwriter pens a song and plays it at an open-mic night. A music-industry executive hears the recording of the performance from a cellphone video and has its in-house musicians reproduce the song and distribute it widely. It becomes the number one single and earns the publisher five million dollars. The songwriter earns nothing.
b) Trade Secret: A janitor at the Coca-Cola headquarters turns out to be a spy for a foreign company. He steals the formula for Coke and reports it faithfully to his true employer, who enters the cola market with an identical product. Coca-Cola loses 50% of its market in a year.
c) Trademark: Three executives from Pepsi start a new cola company with a food scientist who turns out to be a terrible cola developer. Their product is awful, but they call their new company Pepsi and produce their cola in cans that look identical to the first Pepsi's cans. Due to market confusion, the new Pepsi reaps a significant amount of sales, while the original Pepsi's brand image is tarnished because of the awful product under the same name.
d) Patent: After years of chemical and electronics study, Tesla develops a powercell the size of a fist that is capable of powering a car for a year without recharging. Ford buys a Tesla with this battery, reverse-engineers it, and includes it in every one of its new cars. So does Toyota and GM. Tesla goes out of business.

In my opinion, each of those scenarios is manifestly unjust to the party whose intellectual property is being infringed (under current IP laws). Please rebut.

Edit: I just came up with two more related issues:
e) Identity theft: Someone creates a new user on WoV named "rudeboyoi" and begins posting about the benefits of a totalitarian dictatorship. They also, posting under that username, confess to several deviant sexual habits. You are outraged and embarrassed (or at a minimum, inconvenienced).
f) Defamation: Knowing that they are false statements, someone publicly accuses you of having leprosy and of murdering kittens.

Should all of (a) through (f) be allowed in a just society?

If you are serious about this it is relatively easy to bat this stuff down. See the fine work of Patent Attorney Stephan Kinsella. http://www.stephankinsella.com/

Watch a video of one of his talks.

Maybe I am missing something. Without government, what is to prevent what I now call thugs, to kill me and my family and take my possessions? Now they at least have the fear of the 'government' locking them up.
I understand the concept of 'no government', I just think it does not work in the real world for regular law abiding citizens, nor would it ever.
I must make myself clear.... I feel I am overtaxed for a plethora of things I don't want, and of course would prefer to pay less taxes. I don't want to pay 'no taxes', because there are an abundance of things I do want the government to provide.

Quote: Face

Isn't this like tossing out the pols and filling the world with lawyers?

I'm not sure I have enough guns for that...

More like insurance companies than attorneys. I'll give you that it is still not an attractive option unless you compare it to the current system.

Quote: SOOPOO

Maybe I am missing something. Without government, what is to prevent what I now call thugs, to kill me and my family and take my possessions? Now they at least have the fear of the 'government' locking them up.
I understand the concept of 'no government', I just think it does not work in the real world for regular law abiding citizens, nor would it ever.
I must make myself clear.... I feel I am overtaxed for a plethora of things I don't want, and of course would prefer to pay less taxes. I don't want to pay 'no taxes', because there are an abundance of things I do want the government to provide.

Yes, we could still punish murderers without have a monopoly provider of that service. As a matter of fact, the government does a profoundly bad job of punishing murderers. Hell, they don't even solve 2/3's of MURDERS!!! What do you think their success rate is on less serious crimes? If a mugger stole your wallet what are the odds they would catch and punish that person? I would guess less than 1%, but that is just a guess.

Their laws do not really stop much crime, their police don't catch most real criminals (unless you believe drug use is a crime). They provide you with far less security than you think.

You said that you want the government to provide some things and are willing to pay for those things: This proves that the government and taxes are unnecessary. IF you were able to get these same services at a similar price from a non government provider you would be OK with that too, right? If you believed that all of these services could be provided by your fellow man absent coercion then you would be an anarchist, correct?

Quote: petroglyph

It is. The problem is most people don't understand to the "our" or "we" is, when the words are used by the gov. They are absolutely concerned with their own safety.

Brilliant :)

Quote: bigfoot66

No one is saying that if we pushed a button and eliminated all government that life would be better 3 hours from now than it is now. It would take some time for the noncoercive institutions that would replace the existing government to evolve.

How do you "non-coercively" prevent any group of people deciding they want to reestablish government in a more familiar form?

By the way, one is lucky if 60% of the people end up liking the way things are running for any length of time.

You can find people who like the freedom of "Burning Man" and others who don't see the appeal of it. What's going to change here?

Quote: rxwine

How do you "non-coercively" prevent any group of people deciding they want to reestablish government in a more familiar form?

By the way, one is lucky if 60% of the people end up liking the way things are running for any length of time.

You can find people who like the freedom of "Burning Man" and others who don't see the appeal of it. What's going to change here?

If you want to live in a world with a coercive government I think that is very good for you. But it is absolutely immoral for you to put a gun in my ribs to make me part of your government. This is the beauty of human liberty. You can create a western democracy style society over there, the commits can create a commune over there, and us capitalists can create a more free area in another location. The point is that all of this must be voluntary. As ME has pointed out, we are all slaves under the current system.

It's fairly easy to argue for government. All you have to do is look at societies. The problem of course with people is that we each have our definition of what's fair. Remove the competition via gunfire. You just have to look at pre-government societies that still exist today. How many hunter-gatherer societies have advanced beyond ours? How many successful anarchist societies have managed to exist. Zero.

The argument is foolish. As soon as a decision is made to have a compromise on anything and elect someone to be the head of anything, you effectively have government.

Roads are fairly easy to argue about. What about sewers, pipelines, and power grids where complex easement decisions have to be made. What about transit?

Plenty of monopolies and near-monopolies exist. Without anti-competition laws, we'd all be sitting on Windows 3.1 right now because Bill Gates would have bought off all of his competition and charged everyone $500 for windows and simply bought off Apple and any other interesting competition that came up. You would have giant mega-corporations charging you an arm and leg for whatever they wanted to, because they would own everything, from the supply chain to the supply itself. There would be one browser.

You can complain about the government being inefficient, and they are. So are monopolistic corporations. There is no proof that anarchy creates competition.

Quote: bigfoot66

That said, many of us believe that something like the "dispute resolution organization" model would be a rough starting framework.

Sounds like government to me.

Ron, when people stand in line at the checkout, that's the result of people doing what they know is right. Government is not needed for that.

I dont think government is a necessary thing at all. It has a good side, and a bad side. One thing I think we can all agree on is the government is certainly over-reaching authority. They are supposed to serve us, but especially at the top levels, they serve big business.

One simple rule should be: you are allowed to do whatever the hell you want, provided you dont harm anyone or affect the free will of others. In other words, freedom to be however you are. You have no right to control others, and they have no right to control you.

Regarding dispute resolution, what do you think a court is? It's just a public service, albeit more a monopoly of big business. Hiring private mediators is a common thing. The problem is then the enforcement of a ruling.

Know what the problem with enforcement is? We expect police to enforce our will on other people, but we dont like it when the will of other people are enforced on us.

The solution? If you dont want to be controlled, stop trying to control others. In a case like if you are scammed, you just need to learn from it unfortunately. The alternative is give up part of your freedom, be able to use police to enforce your will on others, but allow others to do the same to you. There is a balance in the decision. Its an example of how we think comes back on our own lives.

The US government was designed to be as non-governmental as possible by brilliant men, especially Jefferson. It was full of what the gov't CAN'T do and provided almost no power to the gov't on purpose. People desirous of power and money have been gumming it up with legislation authorizing them to DO stuff ever since.

Including income taxes. The D of I was about getting rid of taxes, not creating ways to collect them. The gov't was deliberately starved of funding so they couldn't do stuff.

It would be something to start over. Mulling...

But I can't really advocate that. I think there is much to be said for taxes and what they provide collectively. Roads, bridges, and runways. Military, public health, education standards. Social security and other safety nets. Clean air, water, and waste management. Police, firefighters, air traffic controllers. I might argue methodology or priorities, even pork and corruption . But not that a lot of it is well-used.

Quote: RoulettePhysics

I dont think government is a necessary thing at all. It has a good side, and a bad side. One thing I think we can all agree on is the government is certainly over-reaching authority. They are supposed to serve us, but especially at the top levels, they serve big business.

I wouldn't mind trying the direct hiring and firing of Congress and the President.

The President would be "hired" not elected, and so forth on down. Now how the details of it would work, I don't know. Lots of people like to try the market place idea to improve something, and I like to see actual working models, rather than theory.

Don't know that it would even work at all. And Rude and Big would declare it unnecessary, I assume.

Quote: boymimbo

How many hunter-gatherer societies have advanced beyond ours?

That depends on what you call "advanced".

A duck swimming in a pond is less advanced, or is it?

It doesnt need to work. It doesnt pay tax. It's nobody's slave. It has everything it wants and needs.

I'm not suggesting go swimming in ponds. And i'm not saying grab a stick and chase rabbits for dinner. There is a middleground where we can use technology to enrich lives, without being slaves to the banks. Food grows from the ground, and water falls from the sky. We have solar electricity. Much more affordable buildings. Enormous masses of un-used land. But instead we are crammed into cities and suburbs, living in premium cost housing to be close to a job that pays for the premium housing. society is a complete mess. We are NOT "advanced".

Admins, I hope you dont mind me posting this but I run non-profit sites that address these kind of issues.

I used to be heavily into energy research, because I saw free energy would have an enormous impact on everyone's freedom. And it would. But eventually I realized that energy was already free. Plant a seed in the ground and you get free energy. And solar electricity is free once you have the equipment.

While energy is still a big issue, a much bigger issue is US. We are the problem. Not the governments, not the banks. It's always us. Our perception is what needs to change.

I came to understand that the most important resource is land. From it we get food and energy. But the government controls the land and what you can do with it. This is probably THE biggest problem. Anyone who wants to be free cant just buy cheap land with others and build on it and live free. You need government approval and a lot of red tape to get through. You could live on your own in the country, but starting a community and making it affordable is a different story.

Anyway so it comes back to land, and basic technology to live happily and comfortably. It's not about wealth accumulation. You are going to be dead one day. Who cares what you "had".

To address land sharing, I created landsharing.org. And to address simple technology, I created yourway.org.au. These are non profit sites so I hope you dont mind them being here.

As for the "corrupt governments", where do you think they get their power? From US. From what we spend money on. From the lifestyles we choose. the more of us that become independent, the less power they have. We enormously outnumber them. The change does not require "everyone" to participate. Only just enough for critical mass to be reached. Then enough people will see the better way, and will follow.

Quote: rxwine

I wouldn't mind trying the direct hiring and firing of Congress and the President.

The President would be "hired" not elected, and so forth on down. Now how the details of it would work, I don't know. Lots of people like to try the market place idea to improve something, and I like to see actual working models, rather than theory.

Don't know that it would even work at all. And Rude and Big would declare it unnecessary, I assume.

I dont know exactly what "system" would work best. But clearly the current system has big holes.

I think any huge changes could be catastrophic, even if only temporary. I think the best way to change everything for the better is for everyone to start working on their independence from the system. Start with something small, like your own vegetable garden. Share fruit and vegetables with your neighbors, and when the government tells you that would be illegal, that's when you tell them **** off. That's where you draw the line.

My one favorite "free person" situation is this:

A "free person" (anarchist if you will) one day landing on a alien planet.

On arrival (he/she) declares, I am a free person not subject to your way of life, customs, laws, etc.,

...

So, they just vaporize him.

~

Well yeah, violence does resolve issues. For one side. At least the visitor wont pay tax.

Quote: RoulettePhysics

Well yeah, violence does resolve issues. For one side. At least the visitor wont pay tax.

Well I think it illustrates one issue with the "free men" position, which is, the rejection of what anyone before you has bothered to put together long before you. Not all of it is negative.

And the position declares your arrival to the scene as the only important thing. Even if you may immediately benefit from the land cleared, crops planted, paths made for you to travel, and other benefits.

This being thinks it's all about him and declares it. No negotiation, no recognition of what came before and the work involved and what everyone lives by. So, they vaporize him as almost an annoyance.

Math I usually respect you immensely , and although yes it was public information, dark selectively shares info, look back and see if he has ever shared any information that would effect his bankroll? The answer no.....
So this on his part was very hypocritical, the other websites post info in what I think are unmoderated advertisement and not forum, however I may be wrong on that.

I could go on and on about this, and yes I would feel differently if he posted about things that could effect his pockets but he doesn't so thus he effected mine literally so clearly I think he was wrong....

Quote: bigfoot66

If you want to live in a world with a coercive government I think that is very good for you. But it is absolutely immoral for you to put a gun in my ribs to make me part of your government. This is the beauty of human liberty. You can create a western democracy style society over there, the commits can create a commune over there, and us capitalists can create a more free area in another location. The point is that all of this must be voluntary. As ME has pointed out, we are all slaves under the current system.

Do you have children? Did they consent to being born to you, under the government you live in? If not, aren't you a hypocritical progenitor of slavery?

It's all well and good for a group of anarchists to go live in the woods and attempt to live under an egalitarian, non-coercive society. But it's impossible for a large, multi-generational group to live in a non-coercive state. First, there are children and it's your *job* as parents to coerce them. Second, even if you could get a large number of people to buy into your political philosophy and agree to live by the "I'm free to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt you" credo, you will always fail because there are two groups of people who won't. One group is the criminals (cheaters). These people intentionally break the societal norms because they've decided the benefit from cheating outweighs the harm from being shunned or whatever the punishment is. The other group is the psychopaths. These literally don't care what the societal norms even are. Psychopathy is a well-studied psychological abnormality and has a prevalence of about 1% in the general population. For a psychopath, the moral value you place on a non-coercive society is irrelevant.

In other words, there are enough people who aren't morally outraged by the coercion you perceive that you'll never get everyone to fall in line out of the goodness of their own hearts. Coercion is required.

Coercion is also inherent. We've been discussing the monopoly problem, and I haven't really heard any good rebuttals, but here's a different way to look at it. From a game theoretic standpoint, forming cartels and monopolies is obviously the optimum solution to any unregulated commerce. They arise naturally and, once established (even if through legitimate competition) can easily squash any other competition by alternately price-gouging and under-cutting upstarts. In the end state, if your evaluation of the morality of a society is maximization of freedom via minimization of coercion, regulation of monopoly does a better job at that than letting monopolists persist. Regulation is itself coercive, but unregulated monopolists are more so. You can't ever eliminate coercion, so the question is "given that some coercion must exist, what's the best way to manage things?" I submit that the evolution of human governments -- and the history of rebellion, uprising, and revolution -- indicate that the US is doing a decent job. And I don't know how you feel about intellectual property, but as I indicated before, any society that freely allows one person to steal the work of another is morally bankrupt. The only difference between intellectual property theft and forced labor is that the slave saw it coming.