| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RueTheDay
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 2418
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.
No. Theft is unjustifyable under any circumstance.
Taxes are not the same as theft. It's like dues for a club. You generally don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to be part of the American club and give up your citizenship and move away. Though in another post someone pointed out that in certain limited circumstances, you may owe taxes if even if you leave, which I thought was a little troubling and closer to theft.
But if you want to be part of the club, you have to pay the dues. But that's not theft.
The State != a club. A club is a voluntary organization and you can leave at any time (a club doesn't commit mass murder as well). I never consented to the taxes that were taken from me, I don't know about you but anything that is taken without consent is theft. And just because I live here means jack s**t, I still never consented to taxes because I live here.
Are you arguing that you cannot leave the club US at any time and that you are involuntarily detained in the US? This isn't the Soviety Union. I disagree with your point on consent. By living in the US and being an American you are implicitly consenting to abide by its laws and pay taxes, or suffer the consequences. You generally don't have to pay US taxes if you leave the country, with some exceptions.
When I said "leave" I ment secede, and the government thinks it owns my property anyway.
How does living here mean I consent to the government? Is it because of the social "contract"?
Whatever you want to call it. I am pointing out why IMO taxes are not the same as theft. Theft is an involutary parting of property. You generally only have to pay US taxes if you want to live in the US, be a US citizen, or earn money from US sources. Whether you do those things is a voluntary choice.
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Brooklyn
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 1054
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: (a club doesn't commit mass murder as well).
Have you ever heard of MS13? A club? Yes. Commit murder? Yes as well...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Katsumoto
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2003
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
RueTheDay wrote:
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it.
No we just want the freedom to choose our benifits on a free market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Free Thinkr
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 12876
Location: Northwest Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it.
No we just want the freedom to choose our benifits on a free market.
While ignoring that a free market wont exist in a state of anarchy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gus
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 7609
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well so long as you contract the defense of your rights to the government, it'll charge whatever it pleases. If you don't like it, kill the contract (stop paying taxes). Just be prepared to defend your rights because the government won't need to. Better camp out in your moat with a machine gun if you want those precious "property" rights--they don't come naturally. I think I can bet who would be the first to come knocking at the door--the tax collectors, though your rights aren't under their protection anymore so they aren't obligated to protect them :). |
|
| Back to top |
|
Iriemon
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 621
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it.
No we just want the freedom to choose our benifits on a free market.
You have the freedom to invest in the free market now. Open an IRA or 401k. I highly recommend it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LeopardPM
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 1226
Location: Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iriemon wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it.
No we just want the freedom to choose our benifits on a free market.
You have the freedom to invest in the free market now. Open an IRA or 401k. I highly recommend it.
Wrong. I do NOT have that freedom to do so with my money as a portion of it goes to the SocSec. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Katsumoto
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2003
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it.
No we just want the freedom to choose our benifits on a free market.
While ignoring that a free market wont exist in a state of anarchy.
Is that a fact? How on earth did you prove that theory without any historical examples of true anarchies available to test it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Katsumoto
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2003
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iriemon wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it.
No we just want the freedom to choose our benifits on a free market.
You have the freedom to invest in the free market now. Open an IRA or 401k. I highly recommend it.
There are no free markets in the world today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Free Thinkr
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 12876
Location: Northwest Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it.
No we just want the freedom to choose our benifits on a free market.
While ignoring that a free market wont exist in a state of anarchy.
Is that a fact? How on earth did you prove that theory without any historical examples of true anarchies available to test it?
True anarchies? Would those be the anarchies that have never existed? Want to venture a guess why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Katsumoto
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2003
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it.
No we just want the freedom to choose our benifits on a free market.
While ignoring that a free market wont exist in a state of anarchy.
Is that a fact? How on earth did you prove that theory without any historical examples of true anarchies available to test it?
True anarchies? Would those be the anarchies that have never existed? Want to venture a guess why?
social evolution hasn't taken us that far yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Free Thinkr
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 12876
Location: Northwest Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: True anarchies? Would those be the anarchies that have never existed? Want to venture a guess why?
social evolution hasn't taken us that far yet.
Nor will it ever, as people will never be in full enough agreement on property rights that they wont need any kind of enforcement. Jeez, you can't even get people to agree on pizza toppings half the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Katsumoto
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2003
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: True anarchies? Would those be the anarchies that have never existed? Want to venture a guess why?
social evolution hasn't taken us that far yet.
Nor will it ever, as people will never be in full enough agreement on property rights that they wont need any kind of enforcement. Jeez, you can't even get people to agree on pizza toppings half the time.
Never say never. And why do people have to agree?? You live in your georgist paradise with other georgists and you can all collect land rent from eachother, and I will live in my own way on my own terms among people who share my beliefs.
Simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Free Thinkr
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 12876
Location: Northwest Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: True anarchies? Would those be the anarchies that have never existed? Want to venture a guess why?
social evolution hasn't taken us that far yet.
Nor will it ever, as people will never be in full enough agreement on property rights that they wont need any kind of enforcement. Jeez, you can't even get people to agree on pizza toppings half the time.
Never say never. And why do people have to agree??
Because, without complete agreement, those with power will enforce their personal will on those without.
Quote: You live in your georgist paradise with other georgists and you can all collect land rent from eachother, and I will live in my own way on my own terms among people who share my beliefs.
Simple.
Mmmhmm. Put yourselves on an island and see how well your non-existent system of land management works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Katsumoto
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2003
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: True anarchies? Would those be the anarchies that have never existed? Want to venture a guess why?
social evolution hasn't taken us that far yet.
Nor will it ever, as people will never be in full enough agreement on property rights that they wont need any kind of enforcement. Jeez, you can't even get people to agree on pizza toppings half the time.
Never say never. And why do people have to agree??
Because, without complete agreement, those with power will enforce their personal will on those without.
Says you?
Quote: Quote: You live in your georgist paradise with other georgists and you can all collect land rent from eachother, and I will live in my own way on my own terms among people who share my beliefs.
Simple.
Mmmhmm. Put yourselves on an island and see how well your non-existent system of land management works.
Gladly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Free Thinkr
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 12876
Location: Northwest Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: True anarchies? Would those be the anarchies that have never existed? Want to venture a guess why?
social evolution hasn't taken us that far yet.
Nor will it ever, as people will never be in full enough agreement on property rights that they wont need any kind of enforcement. Jeez, you can't even get people to agree on pizza toppings half the time.
Never say never. And why do people have to agree??
Because, without complete agreement, those with power will enforce their personal will on those without.
Says you?
Says both common sense and history. Look no further than the 'wild west.'
Quote: Quote: Quote: You live in your georgist paradise with other georgists and you can all collect land rent from eachother, and I will live in my own way on my own terms among people who share my beliefs.
Simple.
Mmmhmm. Put yourselves on an island and see how well your non-existent system of land management works.
Gladly.
Good luck with that. You'll find that government will come quickly; if you're smart, you'll manage land either via the LVT or like Hong Kong does it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pyrophasma
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 591
Location: Georgia
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The government's job is to manage land? |
|
| Back to top |
|
LeopardPM
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 1226
Location: Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Free Thinkr wrote:
Says both common sense and history. Look no further than the 'wild west.'
what 'wild west' are you talking about? You garner 'facts' about history from hollywood? The west was not so wild, and in fact many private methods of dealing with problems worked effectively... without government. The old west is a good example actually of how people can and do function peacably without some jack-boot government at their throats.
Quote: Good luck with that. You'll find that government will come quickly; if you're smart, you'll manage land either via the LVT or like Hong Kong does it.
there is nothing wrong with governance, just MONOPOLY BY FORCE government. People can freely choose to govern themselves, or voluntarily abdicate to another entity to govern themselves without forcing an entire arbitrary geographical area to subscribe to the same system.
I totally believe the Georgists should be entitled to not have to subscribe to any system of taxation outside of whatever they themselves desire, and that goes for everyone else as well: the socialists can progressively tax and redistribute, the anarchists can not have a tax system, and the libertarians can try their 'nightwatchman' state.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Katsumoto
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2003
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: True anarchies? Would those be the anarchies that have never existed? Want to venture a guess why?
social evolution hasn't taken us that far yet.
Nor will it ever, as people will never be in full enough agreement on property rights that they wont need any kind of enforcement. Jeez, you can't even get people to agree on pizza toppings half the time.
Never say never. And why do people have to agree??
Because, without complete agreement, those with power will enforce their personal will on those without.
Says you?
Says both common sense and history. Look no further than the 'wild west.'
The wild west wasn't as wild as the movies make it out to be. It was a lot more peaceful than the east... that is until the government started showing up.
Quote: Quote: Quote:
Mmmhmm. Put yourselves on an island and see how well your non-existent system of land management works.
Gladly.
Good luck with that. You'll find that government will come quickly; if you're smart, you'll manage land either via the LVT or like Hong Kong does it.
No, I believe anarchy will be the culmination of a general process of worldwide "balkinization" as more and more poeple begin to demand autonomy and freedom from nationstates they no longer identify with. In the near future that means states will get smaller, but eventually the State will become obsolete in the face of more efficient market alternatives. People will form communities based on common interests, faith, culture, or kinship ties, but it will be the general evolution of human conciousness that will eventually eliminate the need for a coercive State.
I think anarchy is a long way off for most of the world, but there are always opportunities for societies to break ahead and lead the way (as America did with the creation of the first enlightened constitutional republic). |
|
| Back to top |
|
RueTheDay
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 2418
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Right. These so-called Anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron if there ever were one) want all of the benefits of living in a modern nation like the US or a European country, but they don't want to pay for it.
No we just want the freedom to choose our benifits on a free market.
While ignoring that a free market wont exist in a state of anarchy.
Is that a fact? How on earth did you prove that theory without any historical examples of true anarchies available to test it?
True anarchies? Would those be the anarchies that have never existed? Want to venture a guess why?
Correct.
It's amazing to me how much these anarcho-capitalists sound like doctrinaire Marxists when making this argument.
"The world has never seen TRUE communism. Just give it a chance. It would work. Everything would be so much better. Really. Trust me."
"The world has never seen TRUE anarchist capitalism. Just give it a chance. It would work. Everything would be so much better. Really. Trust me."
What neither side realizes is that they are comparing what actually exists in the real world to their fantasized utopia and then remarking on the fact that their fantasy looks better than reality. Duh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
