Interview Game Banshee does Fallout and Wasteland Revisited

[sheek]

Erm, no.

Once you've recieved your income then it is no longer income. It is wealth, it is property.

Before the income is recieved it is not your money... and cannot be property. (It does not exist)

To go further (not to confuse you), 'income before you recieve it', is not income either. It is the wealth/property of another person.

These are just basic definitions.

Income is not of the same nature as wealth and doesn't have legal status - except as part of a contract of course.


Also, in theory you could run a government without taxation. If the government has the right to emit credit... In that case it uses the interest from the credit it has emitted. On a large scale it would lead to basically a mixed economy or an economy of mixed ownership.

Libertarians would be horrified by the idea but it is the only realistic way to run a serious government without any taxes at all.

 

[Bradylama]

But your income taxes can also be seen as being used to regulate commerce, as well as regulating the businesses you depend on for income, not to mention protecting your person, enforcing the contracts oh so dear to you guys and pretty much everything else you benefit from in a society.

But the government doesn't regulate income. It's an agreement between two parties that they have absolutely no claim to, since they don't even guarantee it. They can't guarantee it.

I never said they weren't, I said that relying only on mercenaries is not providing national defense.

Italian City States would have probably begged to differ on that, since mercenary armies were the only way they could maintain independance.

Even if that's not quite right, you still have to pay the mercenaries so you will still need taxes which is the point.

I'm not arguing that. I've never argued against that. What I argued was that taxation was a form of coercion, a concept which you still refuse to understand, and no half-assed hangover-induced metaphors can prove otherwise.

I could probably choose to leave the country, but is that any more of an option than ignorant white trash "choosing" not to be poor ignorant white trash?

It isn't. Of course, if it is, then your rhetoric only validates the so-called "Libertarian" argument that poor people choose to be poor.

"It's an ideology that was fabricated by a bunch of aristocrats and oligarchs in the 18th century"

Yeah, I suppose if we re-classified Enlightenment thinkers as "aristocrats and oligarchs" that's excuse enough to disprove every principle this nation was founded upon.

I feel I have the most to benefit from Libertarianism, since as an educated and skilled worker, the principle of owning my labor maximizes my potential, and that the reduction of government makes it more accountable to me and less corruptible by the actors you assume would destroy a Libertarian society due to more focused scrutiny.

There's also an inherent flaw in assuming that an ideological extreme is automatically teh sux. Unless you have real-world data that disproves the practicality of a proposed ideological system, all criticism is based on the grounds of conjecture. Simply because you say it'd be a "fact" does not make it so.

 

[Faustus]

I didn't read that anyone suggested a government can exist without a form of revenue. Most libertarians I know are for small non-intrusive government and LOW tax. US Federal excise taxes are more than enough to fund a government whose sole purpose is to protect the rights of its citizenry.

Does anyone have any idea how much the government pays in interest on the national debt?

 

[sheek]

"It's an ideology that was fabricated by a bunch of aristocrats and oligarchs in the 18th century"

Yeah, I suppose if we re-classified Enlightenment thinkers as "aristocrats and oligarchs" that's excuse enough to disprove every principle this nation was founded upon.

What is 'Enlightenment' anyway? It doesn't mean shit, it's just a label made up to intimidate the average person. "Hmm those guys must have been enlightened, and I'm just a poor schmuck, can't argue with them"

I have a lot of respect for the founding fathers of the USA but they were not influenced by the thinkers that fall under 'Enlightenment'. Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu etc... Nor by the so-called libertarians (ie propagandists of the British 'East India Company') Locke, Bentham, Hume etc.

In reality the US is founded on the ideas of the Platonic school which is much older and more universal than the 18th century 'thinkers'. That is why the Declaration of Independence says "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", not property (the maxim of Locke, Adam Smith etc).

Ancient Greece and Christianity are real the foundations of democracy.

I feel I have the most to benefit from Libertarianism, since as an educated and skilled worker, the principle of owning my labor maximizes my potential, and that the reduction of government makes it more accountable to me and less corruptible by the actors you assume would destroy a Libertarian society due to more focused scrutiny.

What was the policy pursued by the first governments of the USA? George Washington, Hamilton, Madison etc were definitely not for free trade. The USA expanded and revolutionized the world while Europe stagnated precisely because it set up tariffs, commercial regulations and incentives for entrepreneurs.

It was the reason why the USA grew a strong middle class and could never seriously be threatened by Marxism.

From the beginning of the 20th century the USA went back to 'laissez faire'... it led to the 1929 Depression which destroyed the middle class. It took Franklin Roosevelt's policies, the Bretton Woods and Marshall Plan for the world to recover.

Today with globalization and deregulation every country is seeing it's middle class shrink once more...

I agree that in the 20th century government was taken too far. 50% taxation is never necessary, there is overlegislation and the social security system of Europe is insane. But it is also evident a certain amount of government is necessary to maintain a skilled workforce and a healthy social environment.

There is a correct balance to achieve.

There's also an inherent flaw in assuming that an ideological extreme is automatically teh sux. Unless you have real-world data that disproves the practicality of a proposed ideological system, all criticism is based on the grounds of conjecture. Simply because you say it'd be a "fact" does not make it so.

I don't care about philosophy. Philosophy is worse than statistics, it can be made to legitimize any kind of bullshit... if you have ever been in a philosophy 'class' at school or college you will know what I am talking about.

All my opinions come from having studied history...

 

[Sarvis]

But the government doesn't regulate income. It's an agreement between two parties that they have absolutely no claim to, since they don't even guarantee it. They can't guarantee it.

They don't regulate income? Then what's the minimum wage? They don't guarantee it? Then I guess you have no options if your employer just stops paying you, right? Or can you maybe SUE them for your wages if they were withheld unfairly?

I
Italian City States would have probably begged to differ on that, since mercenary armies were the only way they could maintain independance.

A few cities maintaining independance from a nation counts as <i>NATIONAL</i> defense? No, it counts as independant communities having standing armies.

I'm not arguing that. I've never argued against that. What I argued was that taxation was a form of coercion, a concept which you still refuse to understand, and no half-assed hangover-induced metaphors can prove otherwise.

Well then you've once again completely failed to follow the discussion. Not surprising really.

The fucking point is that Libertarians believe the only real role a government has is to enforce contracts and <i>provide national defense</i>. If that cannot be done without taxes, which are considered <i>theft</i>, then fundamentally Libertarianism is flawed because it's most basic premise is based on a fucking contradiction: That the government should not steal or coerce, yet should provide national defense.

 

[Bradylama]

In reality the US is founded on the ideas of the Platonic school which is much older and more universal than the 18th century 'thinkers'. That is why the Declaration of Independence says "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", not property (the maxim of Locke, Adam Smith etc).

Ah yes, Plato's Republic, aka the meritocracy.

The Declaration of Independance isn't an actual legislative document. More Enlightenment influence is found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights than what come from Plato. The possession of property is an ends possessed by the means of liberty. If everybody had a right to property, then it would create a system of co-ownership. People merely have the right to possess it.

In reality the US is founded on the ideas of the Platonic school which is much older and more universal than the 18th century 'thinkers'. That is why the Declaration of Independence says "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", not property (the maxim of Locke, Adam Smith etc).

The same implementation of these tarrifs also came back to bite Americans in the ass when the forced inflation on foreign goods meant that they no longer competed with American manufacturers, giving them leeway to jack up prices.

Your ignorance of history is astounding, though, so allow me to correct you.

Laissez-fare was an active governmental policy up until the Civil War, when reconstruction got the Federal government involved in direct economic building. They didn't do it very well, but the point is that they got their foot in the door.

From there on you've had a slowly increasing amount of Federal Power to this day.

The Great Depression didn't occur because of the Free Market, it did so because people stopped buying products. When everybody has a refrigerator and a Model-T and that shit runs forever, then there's no point in getting a new one. When demand goes away, so does the supply, and factories shut down, and people lost their jobs. That loss in demand created the stock market crash, which was augmented by the practice of buying stocks on margin. That, coupled with the drought, or "Dust Bowl" created the most desolate time in American history.

Milton Friedman also argued that it was interventionist policies instituted by Popularists in the early 20th Century that lead to the Great Depression, and that Roosevelt's New Deal actually prolonged the Depression by weakening the market, and that it took a war economy to ultimately pull us out of the rut. That is, of course, arguable.

It was also Laissez-faire policies that pulled Germany's economy out of ruin following the Austrian School, by not setting prices, and Hong Kong's economy has been Laissez-Faire since the 50's, has the highest Economic Freedom Index, and makes about $37,000 dollars GDP per capita.

But it is also evident a certain amount of government is necessary to maintain a skilled workforce and a healthy social environment.

Yes. I would maintain that such an amount of government is at its most minimal.

I don't care about philosophy. Philosophy is worse than statistics, it can be made to legitimize any kind of bullshit... if you have ever been in a philosophy 'class' at school or college you will know what I am talking about.

It's not philosophy, it's objective reality. You insist that a minimalist-intervention market would have meant that we'd all be shoveling dirt and claimed it as "fact" when it has never been so.

They don't regulate income? Then what's the minimum wage? They don't guarantee it?

They guarantee a minimum wage, yes, but at the same time they don't guarantee your income. What, though, if I don't earn minimum wage? Does the government have a claim to that?

Yes, you could sue an employer if they witheld wages unfairly. However, a lawsuit is far from regulative, since lawsuits are based on case-by-case bases. If you are fired, for instance, you no longer have an income. If the company cannot afford to pay you, then you have no right to claim it from them. It's immaterial, it cannot be guaranteed, and therefore the government has no claim to it.

A few cities maintaining independance from a nation counts as NATIONAL defense? No, it counts as independant communities having standing armies.

The very concept of a nation-state didn't even develop until the, as sheek puts it, so-called "Enlightenment." How can you claim that states maintain independence from Nations when the concept of a nation being one with the state didn't even exist?

"National Defense" is a figure of speech which implies that one is acting in the defense of a nation. National boundaries are not tied into common language or culture, but are now set by the state which exerts authority in that nation. Ultimately, what is being protected is the state, not the nation, since national identity extends beyond government. Take a look at the Palestinian movement, for example. Palestine lacks a state, but they developed a sense of nation under Israeli occupation. Do we automatically associate nationality to ancient cultures based on the end results of their interaction? Would an 18th Century American think of himself more as an American than a Virginian?

The fucking point is that Libertarians believe the only real role a government has is to enforce contracts and provide national defense. If that cannot be done without taxes, which are considered theft, then fundamentally Libertarianism is flawed because it's most basic premise is based on a fucking contradiction: That the government should not steal or coerce, yet should provide national defense.

And as has been pointed out, this is entirely possible.

The Justice Department and Police Force are funded by fines and fees. A military could be easily created through a volunteer force.

Because Libertarians still support methods of taxation does not discredit Libertarianism as an ideal, but means that we're realistic enough not to take it into the extreme in an environment where we are constantly competing politically and economically with the world.

 

[sheek]

Won't answer all of your post but just the bit about supposed libertarianism of early America. If you knew your own history you would know that up until after the Civil War most of the time the USA had a/ the highest tariffs in the world, and b/ was the only country, then and now, to have totally nationalized banks.

Go back and read point b again. Yes, there were hardly any private banks for the first third of American history. That meant all monetary policy was in the hands of the elected government... This is how the US government could intervene in the economy without high taxation or over-riding 'State rights'. Franklin Roosevelt got out of the Depression partly in this way (although officially there was no National Bank), partly the social-democratic European way.

So either you have high taxation, public spending etc, or you have a nationally coordinated financial policy under democratic control. The latter is the only way to have 'minimal government' which semi-functions.

 

[Bradylama]

I didn't imply that early America was Libertarian but Laissez-Faire.

The first thing the United States tried to do since its inception was expand the powers of the Federal Body.

The Bank of America wasn't established to intervene in the economy, but to act as a fiscal arm of the government, and to establish a national currency. It was a means of gaining extraction without coercion, and is another alternative to tax.

In 1838, however, when New York passed the Free Banking Act, anybody could set up a bank so long as they followed a state charter. The practice caught on until The National Bank Act of 1863 which nationalized the practice.

Even when banks were regulated by the state, they weren't actually controlled by it until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Well in advance of the Depression.

Until the FDA, there was no Federal Bank since 1836, when Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of its charter. Because of the FDA, however, all banks were Federal until the 80's when the Reagan Administration tried to half-ass deregulate it.

 

[Sarvis]

And as has been pointed out, this is entirely possible.

The Justice Department and Police Force are funded by fines and fees. A military could be easily created through a volunteer force.

So what are you going to do, fine the invaders so you can fight them?

Because Libertarians still support methods of taxation does not discredit Libertarianism as an ideal, but means that we're realistic enough not to take it into the extreme in an environment where we are constantly competing politically and economically with the world.

If you recognize that it is impossible to have even the basic government services you believe in without taxes, then you should also recognize the impossibility of not having taxes. If there is no possibility of not having taxes, there is no coercion any more than you are being coerced into breathing.

 

[Bradylama]

If you recognize that it is impossible to have even the basic government services you believe in without taxes

I didn't say that. I've just given you examples where those services can be provided without taxation. The problem, however, is that with the current state of the Military Industrial Complex, it'd be impossible to support the military we possess and accomplish its objectives without taxation.

The idea, then, is to reduce the size of the government to a point where we can also afford to reduce the size of the military, until we have a small, completely voluntary force that is funded through interest, bonds, or other revenue. If the government insists on maintaining roads, then people should pay to use them. We already pay for them through our taxes, why should we be coerced into paying for a property that we use voluntarily?

If there is no possibility of not having taxes, there is no coercion any more than you are being coerced into breathing.

The problem with this analogy, however, is that we can live without government. The Spanish proved it, as did millenia of pre-recorded history. You can't live without breathing.

 

[Sarvis]

I didn't say that. I've just given you examples where those services can be provided without taxation. The problem, however, is that with the current state of the Military Industrial Complex, it'd be impossible to support the military we possess and accomplish its objectives without taxation.

No you gave examples of <i>other services</i> that <i>you claim</i> can be provided without taxation. Even if you show that police can be provided purely on the profit from fines, that doesn't apply to a standing military which has nothing to levy fines against.

The idea, then, is to reduce the size of the government to a point where we can also afford to reduce the size of the military,

The size of the government and the size of the military are unrelated. The size of the military depends on the size of the nation (ie. the land area being defended) and the aggressiveness of the government. (A very small government can still have a large military if they intend to fight a lot!)

until we have a small, completely voluntary force that is funded through interest, bonds, or other revenue.

If the government is going to invest money and use the dividends to pay for the military, it still needs an initial source of income or it has no wealth to invest. Where will that come from?

If the government insists on maintaining roads, then people should pay to use them. We already pay for them through our taxes, why should we be coerced into paying for a property that we use voluntarily?

You use roads. Even if you don't drive, you use things that were brought to you on roads. Your company almost certainly uses roads to generate it's profits, whith which it pays you.

The problem with this analogy, however, is that we can live without government. The Spanish proved it, as did millenia of pre-recorded history. You can't live without breathing.

No society in history has been without some form of government. Even the most primitive tribes, fuck even pack animals have a leader.

 

[Bradylama]

Even if you show that police can be provided purely on the profit from fines, that doesn't apply to a standing military which has nothing to levy fines against.

Then the military is funded through bonds, or interest collected by a National Bank. Perhaps the military could do its own fund drives and make supporting the military a voluntary action. We've got a bunch of military nuts in this country, I'm sure they wouldn't be too wary about sending a couple of bucks every now and then to the boys in uniform.

The size of the government and the size of the military are unrelated. The size of the military depends on the size of the nation (ie. the land area being defended) and the aggressiveness of the government. (A very small government can still have a large military if they intend to fight a lot!)

The two largest militaries in the world belong to the United States and The People's Republic of China. Iraq, however, used to possess the third largest standing army in the world. The size of an army depends on the funding available to it, not the size of a nation state.

If you reduce the size of a government, you're not just increasing funds available to the military, but also reducing the need for extraction. As taxes become lower and lower, it comes to the point where their eventually abolishment becomes feasible, and after a previous campaign of "downsizing" it becomes much more politically expedient to reduce the military industrial complex and military itself.

If the government is going to invest money and use the dividends to pay for the military, it still needs an initial source of income or it has no wealth to invest. Where will that come from?

The National Bank, revenue gained from government businesses and services, etc.,

You use roads. Even if you don't drive, you use things that were brought to you on roads. Your company almost certainly uses roads to generate it's profits, whith which it pays you.

And those people that use roads would pay for their use. Roads facilitate commerce, but simply because I've engaged in commerce does not mean that I've used a road. If a delivery company wanted to factor the price of shipping into my good (what they already do) then paying for that cost is a voluntary action, since I've agreed to the deal.

No society in history has been without some form of government. Even the most primitive tribes, fuck even pack animals have a leader.

Of course, there are always actors that attempt to exert authority. Ultimately, however, taxation remains an optional function. Leaders simply need the consent to excercize their authority, they don't need taxation to facilitate it. It's how tribal relations functioned for years, and it's how Spanish Social Anarchists were able to function through a government of taboo.

Taxation is nothing like breathing.

 

[sheek]

I didn't imply that early America was Libertarian but Laissez-Faire.

etc

Sure, the US government didn't intervene as much as it could. My point is that the US government has intervened in economics and felt responsible for the economy for as long as it has existed. It managed to produce a policy which is non-'laissez faire' and anti-free trade without becoming socialist (high taxes, over-regulation etc).

So the dogma the average rightist spouts off has little to do with American history. Historically it comes from an ideology which was promoted by aristocrats and oligarchs mostly from Europe.

Also about the history I remember Lincoln resurrected the Bank during his time, that's why I said until after the Civil War.

But from your last posts I don't think we have any serious disagreement.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Which laissez-faireists were aristocrats? Seriously, I can't think of any off the top of my head. In England the aristocrats were generally Tories and the free-marketeers Whigs. In France the "liberals", like J.B Say and Bastiat railed against the nobles and churchmen constantly. Even free-market anti-capitalist mutualist-anarchist "left libertarian" Kevin Carson who regards minarchists & anarcho-capitalists as fundamentally dishonest "vulgar libertarians" whose main crime is ignoring the enclosure acts has a clearer understanding of the time period in which that (and other) ideologies arose. By the way, Smith had no love for the corporations of his day. Exemplified by the British East India company (of which he said "The difference between the genius of the British constitution which protects and governs North America, and that of the mercantile company which oppresses and domineers in the East Indies, cannot perhaps be better illustrated than by the different state of those countries."), they were generally mercantilist creations and arms of the state. Smith, if you recall, advocated letting the american colonies secede during the revolution and when someone said it would be the ruin of England he famously replied "There is much ruin in a nation".

For a correction common myths including some on U.S economic intervention in the past, see here. The degree to which the government intervened in the 18th and 19th centuries varied, although it was never completely laissez-faire.

The great depression has been mentioned here before, and I've said this before: the 1919 depression was even more severe, but it was over within a year. The remarkable thing about the great depression was how long it lasted. There was even another recession inside the depression. There are some who say that World War II got us out of it, but only in the same sense as the Soviet economy can be said to have been racing past the U.S during the cold war. See here. Like Harding reviving the economy by removing the shackles Wilson had put on during the War Planning phase, the removal of restrictions is what made the post-war boom possible. Hoover, unfortunately couldn't let go of the amazing efficiency he had imagined he created when he was one of Wilson's planners and of his actions as president Roosevelt man Rexford Tugwell said 'We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover had started.". For the best overview I know of on what caused it, read America's Great Depression.

 

[Sarvis]

Perhaps the military could do its own fund drives and make supporting the military a voluntary action.

I can imagine the last days of Minerva now: "Oh shit, Tonga is invading!" "Quick, hold a bake sale!"

(That would be a comic if I had any artistic talent whatsoever... use your imagination!)

We've got a bunch of military nuts in this country, I'm sure they wouldn't be too wary about sending a couple of bucks every now and then to the boys in uniform.

Actually aren't most of the military nuts out there specifically worried about our army trying to take away their freedoms? Somehow I don't think these people would be sending money to the guys they are worried about!

The two largest militaries in the world belong to the United States and The People's Republic of China. Iraq, however, used to possess the third largest standing army in the world. The size of an army depends on the funding available to it, not the size of a nation state.

The size of an army depends on several factors. The size of the nation is most certainly a factor, but the point was that it does NOT depend on the size of the <i>government</i> as you had erroneously stated earlier.

If you reduce the size of a government, you're not just increasing funds available to the military, but also reducing the need for extraction. As taxes become lower and lower, it comes to the point where their eventually abolishment becomes feasible, and after a previous campaign of "downsizing" it becomes much more politically expedient to reduce the military industrial complex and military itself.

Bwahahaha! You're silly. Most likely the money from any programs that were cut would just end up in the military budget, or as corporate welfare, result in more raises for government officials or end up on some senator's pet project.

The National Bank, revenue gained from government businesses and services, etc.,

Ah, so you want the government to be run as a business. Logically that's somewhat sound, however as Libertarians are very fond of saying the only responsibility of any business is to make money. I'm sure that a large organization who is only concerned with profit and is the sole provider of military services would never, ever abuse such power. Right?

You use roads. Even if you don't drive, you use things that were brought to you on roads. <b>Your company almost certainly uses roads to generate it's profits, whith which it pays you.</b>

And those people that use roads would pay for their use.

Well then you do, with taxes on your income that your company generates using those roads.

Roads facilitate commerce, but simply because I've engaged in commerce does not mean that I've used a road. If a delivery company wanted to factor the price of shipping into my good (what they already do) then paying for that cost is a voluntary action, since I've agreed to the deal.

How is that different from sales tax, which yo uwere saying earlier proved you could not chose to not pay taxes? Just because the price is rolled into a product does not mean it isn't there, it <i>just has a different fucking name</i>.

Of course, there are always actors that attempt to exert authority.

More to the point, there is always need for leadership and a clear direction to keep groups of people from working at cross purposes. These leaders always benefit from this, even in the most basic animal societies. In any herd it is only the leader who gets to breed, and often they get the first meal after a kill. It is only our more advanced human societies in which the leadership has started to use their taxes to spend on improving society and infrastructure.

Maybe you'd prefer to let only politicians screw, but I'd rather pay taxes to improve the infrastructure of my country.

 

[Bradylama]

Actually aren't most of the military nuts out there specifically worried about our army trying to take away their freedoms? Somehow I don't think these people would be sending money to the guys they are worried about!

There's a difference between military enthusiasts and militiamen. That being said, paramilitary types only fear the military because it's an arm of force wielded by the government, which they fear tramps on their rights. Wouldn't a Libertarian society with near-absolute freedom eliminate the cause for fear?

The size of an army depends on several factors. The size of the nation is most certainly a factor, but the point was that it does NOT depend on the size of the government as you had erroneously stated earlier.

This can also be disputed. China and the United States have some of the largest, most beurocratic governments in the world. Iraq was a fascistic dictatorship in which anybody of any skill or function was a member of the Baath Party.

Currently, the five largest militaries in the world belong to China, the United States, Russia, India, and North Korea, none of which are particularly known for "small government." source

Bwahahaha! You're silly. Most likely the money from any programs that were cut would just end up in the military budget, or as corporate welfare, result in more raises for government officials or end up on some senator's pet project.

None of which involves a "reduced government." If the responsibilities of government are reduced then the demand for lowered taxation becoomes impossible to ignore.

Ah, so you want the government to be run as a business. Logically that's somewhat sound, however as Libertarians are very fond of saying the only responsibility of any business is to make money. I'm sure that a large organization who is only concerned with profit and is the sole provider of military services would never, ever abuse such power. Right?

Do you mean to imply that it doesn't already? Consider it this way. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders, but governments are accountable to their citizens (in theory). Therefore, it's impossible for governmental power to be used at the detriment of its constituents. Otherwise, they'll use private alternatives.

If government business makes a profit, those business come under increadible scrutiny. There's massive pressure to re-invest those profits in the expansion of infrastructure and an improvement in the quality of service. What did you think the government would use profits for, anyways?

Well then you do, with taxes on your income that your company generates using those roads.

Rephrase this so it doesn't sound as retarded.

How is that different from sales tax, which yo uwere saying earlier proved you could not chose to not pay taxes? Just because the price is rolled into a product does not mean it isn't there, it just has a different fucking name.

It's not just a different name, but a different beneficiary. When you consider the presence of a sales tax there are three parties at work: the buyer, the seller, and the extractor of the sales tax. At no point in time has there been an agreement made between the first two parties and the latter, therefore the latter has no claim whatsoever to the transaction.

If the fee for using a road is factored into the price of a product that's the cost of production, not a tax.

It is only our more advanced human societies in which the leadership has started to use their taxes to spend on improving society and infrastructure.

That's merely an extension of the responsibilities involved with leadership. If the Emperor didn't keep up with maintaining the roads, he was assassinated. If a herd leader doesn't ensure the survival of the pack, then its status as Prime is constantly challenged.

Your own strawmen lack consistancy.

 

[Sarvis]

That being said, paramilitary types only fear the military because it's an arm of force wielded by the government, which they fear tramps on their rights. Wouldn't a Libertarian society with near-absolute freedom eliminate the cause for fear?

Not if the government still fielded a large military, because they understand what you don't: A few people in control of a large force are likely to use that force to exert power. It really doesn't matter if the government's only function is to provide national defense... in fact, that probably makes it worse.

This can also be disputed. China and the United States have some of the largest, most beurocratic governments in the world. Iraq was a fascistic dictatorship in which anybody of any skill or function was a member of the Baath Party.

Currently, the five largest militaries in the world belong to China, the United States, Russia, India, and North Korea, none of which are particularly known for "small government." source

So the third largest military was fielded by a country with a fairly small, tightly controlled government? You don't say. I'd also note that China and India on that list have the largest populations of any country, so it's fairly easy for them to have a large military regardless of government size.

None of which involves a "reduced government." If the responsibilities of government are reduced then the demand for lowered taxation becoomes impossible to ignore.

Cutting projects doesn't mean reduced government now? Where did you learn english exactly?

The point is that if you cut welfare, road maintenance, FBI, CIA, Public Education and everything else you just end up spending more on military, more on Bridges to Nowhere, more on paying down our national debt, and finally more in the politicians pockets.

We really need to fix that other stuff first, rather than eliminating the programs which actually provide a benefit to our society.

Do you mean to imply that it doesn't already? Consider it this way. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders, but governments are accountable to their citizens (in theory).

Heh... accountable. First, the government is accountable to everyone in the country. A corporation is only "accountable" to a very small group of people who own stock in the company. Moreover, if the company can increase profits by means of force or shady business practices, the shareholders will benefit from the increased profit which means they have no motive to object.

Do you think investors in the East India Trading company, which GGP linked to earlier, objected heavily when the company started forming a military? I know you're going to point out that they had a government charter which allowed them to become so powerful, but considering we're talking about a National Bank used to fund all government services I really wouldn't expect anything to turn out differently.

Therefore, it's impossible for governmental power to be used at the detriment of its constituents. Otherwise, they'll use private alternatives.

That's why Hussein had such trouble controlling Iraq, right? Government power has been used all to often towards the detriment if it's constituents. We're getting away from that partly by having the government actually be answerable to the people. Turn the government into a corporation funded by investors, and in sole control of national defense and we lose that.

Well then you do, with taxes on your income that your company generates using those roads.

Rephrase this so it doesn't sound as retarded.

All the money used to pay you is generated by useage of federally provided roads and federal encouragement of commerce. The government uses taxes on your income to pay for those services. Taxes are paying directly for services which benefit you directly, even if you do not directly use them.

It's not just a different name, but a different beneficiary. When you consider the presence of a sales tax there are three parties at work: the buyer, the seller, and the extractor of the sales tax. At no point in time has there been an agreement made between the first two parties and the latter, therefore the latter has no claim whatsoever to the transaction.

No, it isn't a different beneficiary. Either the money goes from you to the people who maintain the roads, or the money goes from you to the company, then to the people who maintain the roads. It's an extra step and that's about it.

If the fee for using a road is factored into the price of a product that's the cost of production, not a tax.

Either way you have the same choice as to whether or not you pay it. From the buyer's perspective there is absolutely no difference, except that the extra cost is hidden within the price instead of being listed on top of it.

That's merely an extension of the responsibilities involved with leadership. If the Emperor didn't keep up with maintaining the roads, he was assassinated. If a herd leader doesn't ensure the survival of the pack, then its status as Prime is constantly challenged.

Generally, if an emperor was assasinated it was because someone else wanted to be emperor, not because he didn't maintain the roads. In fact, the populace at large historically had very little luck affecting policy at all.

Your own strawmen lack consistancy.

How so?

First, there are no strawmen here, just possibly bad analogies. Second, none of it is inconsistent.

 

[Bradylama]

Cutting projects doesn't mean reduced government now? Where did you learn english exactly?

At school, where you obviously didn't learn Government. Money being funnelled into Senator's projects and other programs don't actually represent a reduction of government but a re-focusing.

Not if the government still fielded a large military, because they understand what you don't: A few people in control of a large force are likely to use that force to exert power.

Right, so even in the case of a small military they'd still be paranoid about it, because the number of actors haven't actually reduced. Thus rendering this whole thing pointless.

First, the government is accountable to everyone in the country.

Wake the fuck up. The government is only accountable to those that put the cash in treasury, which means bond holders (the wealthy), bribes (the wealthy), and campaign financiers (the wealthy). The voting bloc has been divided for centuries now based on a trivial Red vs. Blue mentality where the end result is a choice between parties whose only difference is posturing.

In an environment of national apathy and ignorance you think the government is honestly accountable to voters?

The opposite would hold true for a business which is not only accountable to its stock holders, but its customers. If a business abuses its customers they'll begin buying elsewhere, and the same would be doubly so in the case of government operated business.

The idea that people would support a domestic service raising its own private army is ludicrous, especially when the East India Company wasn't a State venture but a private corporation. There's a reason the American colonies began as Proprietaries and not Royal Colonies. The East India Company also operated in an environment far from the effective reach of the Royal Navy, so of course such a venture would easily justify a private army.

That's why Hussein had such trouble controlling Iraq, right? Government power has been used all to often towards the detriment if it's constituents. We're getting away from that partly by having the government actually be answerable to the people. Turn the government into a corporation funded by investors, and in sole control of national defense and we lose that.

The government is already controlled by "investors," the difference becomes, then, that the government actually has to work for its funding as opposed to extracting it. Government businesses also can't have State monopolies, since it eliminates any incentive to compete with private industries, and lands us back at a point where programs are bloated and ineffectual.

All the money used to pay you is generated by useage of federally provided roads and federal encouragement of commerce. The government uses taxes on your income to pay for those services. Taxes are paying directly for services which benefit you directly, even if you do not directly use them.

Which is the justification for roads. However, I was arguing on the basis of roads being a pay-to-use service than something funded through extraction.

How would you justify, though, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, any other New Deal dinosaurs that don't benefit anybody until there's a need to use them? Is it right to force somebody to pay for a service that they don't use?

No, it isn't a different beneficiary. Either the money goes from you to the people who maintain the roads, or the money goes from you to the company, then to the people who maintain the roads. It's an extra step and that's about it.

Other than the fact that paying for roads becomes an act of consent, and that funding road maintenance is no longer a practice of coercion. The whole fucking point of having people pay to use roads.

Either way you have the same choice as to whether or not you pay it. From the buyer's perspective there is absolutely no difference, except that the extra cost is hidden within the price instead of being listed on top of it.

The point of the whole process is that I'm not being forced to pay for roads. It's an active form of consent, and the fact that you can't recognize that is astounding. If I'm forced to pay a sales tax then there is no choice, but if I pay for the cost of a good, that is a choice.

That the roads recieve funding isn't the fucking point, it's the method. But ho no, I'm focusing too much on method again, aren't I?

Generally, if an emperor was assasinated it was because someone else wanted to be emperor, not because he didn't maintain the roads. In fact, the populace at large historically had very little luck affecting policy at all.

Of course they didn't. However, the Plebes had to be kept happy. If the Plebes weren't happy then there was a significant danger of revolt. Caligula wasn't murdered because of shadow and cloak conspiracy, he was assassinated because he scared the shit out of everybody in the Empire.

Generally Emperor's weren't assassinated because of an individual's desire to become emperor, but conspirators would support a candidate for Emperor because he would serve their purposes better. If leadership meets one's needs and expectations there is no incentive for change.

It's an extension of survival instinct, and calling it "civilization" and "noble" is just glorifying what is at base an animalistic motive.

How so?

They can't even debunk a half-truth.

 

[sheek]

Is it right to force somebody to pay for a service that they don't use?

Let me rephrase and ask that back to you:

Does anybody have a right to have money?

Explain to me where this 'right to property' comes from. I don't believe in it. Convince me that I should... And then you will realize that you're a slave to ideology.

The only purpose of laws to respect private property is that in general they are in accordance with the general interest of the whole population.

Like the right to vote, the right to free speech etc it is not an absolute right. It is a 'right' derived from the good of everybody.

Common sense: If there is a big war or crisis of some kind any or all of these rights can be suspended.

I genuinely hope you'll try to understand what I mean.

 

[Oarfish]

You have it backwards. Rights are not granted by the government, they are natural rights - people will own property and speak freely in the absence of government. The correct way to govern is to restrict what the goverment may control, not grant magical rights to its citizens.

 

[Claw]

Oh, but people don't actually own property unless so defined by a governing authority. They just possess things.

 

[Bradylama]

You don't need a governing authority to establish something as your property. Pioneers established their property with the barrel of a gun.


Something becomes your property when you claim it as yours, and others recognize it as so. You don't need a governing authority for that.

Does anybody have a right to have money?

That's not the issue. Imagine if VD came by, pointed a gun in your face and ordered you to contribute to the development of AoD. You might like the idea of AoD, but you don't particularly like Vince coming around your house, pointing a gun in your face, and taking your money, especially since you don't know if you'll actually play the game.

Of course, the Tax Man doesn't physically come to your house pointing a gun in your face. The methods of extraction are much more friendly, that still doesn't mean that the act doesn't amount to extortion.

So explain to me why my money should go to handouts for people I've never met and a multi-million dollar bridge in Alaska for 200 people?

 

[sheek]

You don't need a governing authority to establish something as your property. Pioneers established their property with the barrel of a gun.

Something becomes your property when you claim it as yours, and others recognize it as so. You don't need a governing authority for that.

Does anybody have a right to have money?

That's not the issue. Imagine if VD came by, pointed a gun in your face and ordered you to contribute to the development of AoD. You might like the idea of AoD, but you don't particularly like Vince coming around your house, pointing a gun in your face, and taking your money, especially since you don't know if you'll actually play the game.

Of course, the Tax Man doesn't physically come to your house pointing a gun in your face. The methods of extraction are much more friendly, that still doesn't mean that the act doesn't amount to extortion.

So explain to me why my money should go to handouts for people I've never met and a multi-million dollar bridge in Alaska for 200 people?

Simply because most of time that tax money is used for your own good.

Yes it's coercion, you didn't explicitly agree and sign a contract. So why is that bad?

Truth is that most people are like sheep or lambs. They don't know what's going on in the wider society/world and don't want to. They need to be told what to do, by a government (aka, people who's full time job it is to think about wider issues)... most mature adults accept this.

And yes, I consider myself as one of the sheep.


And about the gangster analogy... obviously it's only superficially the same. Sure, some governments are mafias... mainly in places like Albania. There are a few crooks in every government (usually at the top!) but by and large in developed countries they are counterbalanced by many more (relatively) honest, competent and well-meaning people.

 

[Bradylama]

Simply because most of time that tax money is used for your own good.

There's no possible way of knowing that.

Tax dollars go into part of a lump sum and its distribution isn't determined by you, it's determined by Congress, and then by the departments. For all I know, my tax dollars could be used to find out how to kill babies and turn them into jello pudding.

The insistance that the government knows what's best with my money is bullshit. I know what's best to do with my money.

I didn't become an adult just to trade Mommy and Daddy in for Uncle Sam.

And yes, I consider myself as one of the sheep.

Then wallow in your ignorance, but don't fuck me up.

There are crooks in government but by and large in developed countries they are made up of (relatively) honest, competent and well-meaning people as well.

That's because most governments are more local than ours. Smaller nations have an easier time with their citizens following politics because the effects of policies made on a national level are more likely to affect them at home. That's why our own Senators are getting away with all of this shit and selling out the country because of people like you that never know what's going on, and don't think there's a reason to care.

 

[sheek]

Simply because most of time that tax money is used for your own good.

There's no possible way of knowing that.

Tax dollars go into part of a lump sum and its distribution isn't determined by you, it's determined by Congress, and then by the departments. For all I know, my tax dollars could be used to find out how to kill babies and turn them into jello pudding.

The insistance that the government knows what's best with my money is bullshit. I know what's best to do with my money.

I didn't become an adult just to trade Mommy and Daddy in for Uncle Sam.

I have to disagree with that. There is no way an average person with a full time job can know how everything about how a country should be run. You have to delegate your time and money to other people who will represent you. If you've elected an idiot or a crook that is then of course it will be badly used. You don't throw away the whole system.

I'm not saying it's simple or your fault as an individual. The fact people keep electing bad representatives is the result of deeper social and cultural problems.

That's because most governments are more local than ours. Smaller nations have an easier time with their citizens following politics because the effects of policies made on a national level are more likely to affect them at home. That's why our own Senators are getting away with all of this shit and selling out the country because of people like you that never know what's going on, and don't think there's a reason to care.

For the record, I'm not American.