Because The State Loves You

page: 11
266
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug
 


(Without the State, I might walk down the street texting my friend about pot while carrying a shingling hammer, distributing free pamphlets about where to buy raw milk, all while video taping myself in action.
If anyone tried to do that in real life the entire world would implode in an apocalyptic disaster. Only the State can keep us safe from ourselves) Quoted from the OP

I have been thinking about this statement for a few days now and I just realised something

Without the state There would be no street for you to walk on (who would build and maintain it?


Do you understand now?




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperkill
Without the state There would be no street for you to walk on (who would build and maintain it?


Do you understand now?

Why couldn't private builders build and maintain roads and side walks and charge a fee for using them?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thank you for your bullet points emphasizing the recent post.
These two brief articles are being sent to all friends and contacts
on my personal email list. The ones that don't reply at all will be
regretfully transferred to the latter group: may they safely slumber.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
mnemeth1: Thanks. I've really enjoyed your posts. It's nice to see that rational people still exist. Unfortunately, we're not reproducing as quickly as we should be



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by semperkill
Without the state There would be no street for you to walk on (who would build and maintain it?


Do you understand now?

Why couldn't private builders build and maintain roads and side walks and charge a fee for using them?


They do, that’s how toll bridges work. Would you really want to commute to work on roads owned and operated by differing owners and with differing fees. It could end up costing hundreds of dollars to pull a 30 mile commute. A course that has let’s say, 20 different roads with different owners and varying fees, one road could be charging $2, the next $10 and so on. A governing system dose work in our favor to help balance out everyday life for the citizen, as long as it’s maintained and checks and balances are in place.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by minesweeper

Originally posted by Observor
Why couldn't private builders build and maintain roads and side walks and charge a fee for using them?


They do, that’s how toll bridges work. Would you really want to commute to work on roads owned and operated by differing owners and with differing fees. It could end up costing hundreds of dollars to pull a 30 mile commute. A course that has let’s say, 20 different roads with different owners and varying fees, one road could be charging $2, the next $10 and so on. A governing system dose work in our favor to help balance out everyday life for the citizen, as long as it’s maintained and checks and balances are in place.

Not sure how the costs will be different because it is publicly funded through taxation. A private operator doesn't have to charge per use either. They could charge you on a monthly/yearly basis and could even form a consortium to charge and share the revenues. You may not even notice any difference in your usage privileges except you would be paying some money periodically to a private party voluntarily instead of being taxed for it by a government. After all, it is to the advantage of the operators to make it convenient for the users, not to make it miserable for using their services.

I need to point out, I am not a libertarian and I think it is one of the most stupid ideas floating around. However, when you address a libertarian argument, you need to show that it will be worse than what we have today, not that those parts that today exist because of the state would not exist if no state existed.

For example, when roads are privately owned, no person is at liberty to move around anymore, because whenever they are outside their own property, they are on privately owned property and bound by all the conditions the property owner may impose on them for entering their property.

So a private owner of the roads and sidewalks may make the exact prohibitions the state makes and even more and there is nothing you can do about it. At least in the case of the state you can make the state revise stupid rules through public representation. When they are privately owned, there is nothing you can do since, using the roads and sidewalks is not an option.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Sorry I must have misinterpreted your post, I was under the impression you were for a possible free market style privatize system. A system were each section of roads could be possibly owned and operated by a separate entity and the fee for travel was at their discretion. I did kind of come in to this thread halfa$$ed and need to still go through the whole thing. But on another note while speaking of travel and why I brought up checks and balances. When Davis was governor of California he triple the car registration fees, the people shot it down and it was reversed and people were given refunds. The government system can work, it just needs the people to take an active part.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by minesweeper
reply to post by Observor
 

Sorry I must have misinterpreted your post, I was under the impression you were for a possible free market style privatize system. A system were each section of roads could be possibly owned and operated by a separate entity and the fee for travel was at their discretion. I did kind of come in to this thread halfa$$ed and need to still go through the whole thing.

Not your fault. The post of mine that you were responding to looked exactly like it would come from a libertarian. I was playing the Devil's Advocate.

I often wondered how libertarians get away with such really stupid arguments and realised that it is because those who debate them don't get enough into the libertarian mindset to understand them, before rejecting them. So I myself actively reject arguments that libertarians can reject easily. So an argument against libertarianisn that one would have to pay charges to several different private operators during the course of one's day is a weak argument, since there is no reason to expect exactly that is what will happen if the state disappears. Even if one didn't have to pay several road/sidewalk operators during the course of a year, it is cheaper than it still is extremely immoral for any private party to own fundamental mode of travel between individuals.

When a private party owns the road in front of your house, they can refuse to enter into an agreement with you for using the roads (cost is not the criterion, since as the owner of the resource they can deal or not deal with anyone as they please). which effectively puts you under house arrest!

But on another note while speaking of travel and why I brought up checks and balances. When Davis was governor of California he triple the car registration fees, the people shot it down and it was reversed and people were given refunds. The government system can work, it just needs the people to take an active part.

Cost and availability of services are wrong points of attack against libertarians. They are based on assumptions. Libertarian position is logically inconsistent. Liberty requires that you be able to move about freely without anyone's permission. Which requires commons, like roads whether paved or not, over which usage restrictions may be palced but cannot deny usage privileges arbitrarily. Commons require someone managing the commons. Hence a state is a necessary condition for liberty.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by semperkill
 



I have been thinking about this statement for a few days now and I just realised something

Without the state There would be no street for you to walk on (who would build and maintain it?


Do you understand now?

These days there are toll roads that you don't even need to slow down for. Cameras read your number plate and the fee is added to your account which you pay online.

reply to post by minesweeper
 


It could end up costing hundreds of dollars to pull a 30 mile commute.

No it wouldn't. The private sector is far more efficient. You would not pay more than you do now. People would not drive on roads with ludicrous pricing structures.

reply to post by Observor
 


So a private owner of the roads and sidewalks may make the exact prohibitions the state makes and even more and there is nothing you can do about it. At least in the case of the state you can make the state revise stupid rules through public representation. When they are privately owned, there is nothing you can do since, using the roads and sidewalks is not an option.

You make a good point. I am not against a voluntarily funded governance. There is no reason why the same pay per use system (pedestrians free) can't work for a public road network. For any to be able to use freely though would require funding via donations instead. The tradeoff is likely to be quality. Just remember however, that today's system is mostly pay per use. You are not currently free to travel with a motor vehicle without paying as you go.
edit on 14-8-2011 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I would agree with the OP but the State has beaten all of my free thought and individuality out of me.
Along with the media taking advantge of my stupidity to make me a fad and consumer item obsessing sheep.
As well as my having been told that as long as I work hard, I can be anything i want under the auspices of the State.

The problem is not the State per say. The problem is humanity and our dark vices.
The State is made up of people whose greed, arrogance, and megalomania, amongst other things, nd up affecting almost everyone instead of a few people as in the case of common criminals.

Difference is whether a thief or murderer will go to jail for proof of crime, neither the IRS or politicians who order soldiers to pointless wars get punished.
Wait, the IRS is a private corporation. My bad. lolz



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
You make a good point. I am not against a voluntarily funded governance. There is no reason why the same pay per use system (pedestrians free) can't work for a public road network. For any to be able to use freely though would require funding via donations instead. The tradeoff is likely to be quality. Just remember however, that today's system is mostly pay per use. You are not currently free to travel with a motor vehicle without paying as you go.

How the funding for the state should come is a secondary issue. First issue is to acknowledge the need for a state in the matter of individual liberty in a society.

Voluntarily funded state sounds like a good idea until you realise the state will tend to serve those who pay for its upkeep. A rich person/corporation interested in using the state power to his/her/its advantage need only "donate" more to the upkeep of the state.

Liberty is impossible in a society of individuals driven by pure individual self-interest. Only when the people in charge of the state, howsoever they get there, and the rest of the society at large are interested in justice even when it doesn't serve them immediately, can liberty be assured.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 




Why couldn't private builders build and maintain roads and side walks and charge a fee for using them?


I live on a privately owned road and the last place I lived also had privately owned roads. all the roads are well over one hundred years old and maintained by private individuals. We used my horse and harness to haul the stream culvert back into place after it washed out during a hurricane. Some guy donated the gravel and others donated tractors and shovels.....



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



How the funding for the state should come is a secondary issue. First issue is to acknowledge the need for a state in the matter of individual liberty in a society.

IMO it is THE issue because it determines whether the state is fundamentally moral or immoral.


Voluntarily funded state sounds like a good idea until you realise the state will tend to serve those who pay for its upkeep. A rich person/corporation interested in using the state power to his/her/its advantage need only "donate" more to the upkeep of the state.

That is actually closer to today's system than a voluntarily funded system. Big business is running the USA. The only reason the safest recreational and medicinal drug is prohibited is to protect the interests of big business, particularly big pharma and alcohol companies. There are countless other examples of laws designed to protect business at the cost of honest citizens.

For a state to be moral it must be both voluntarily funded and only outlaw actual crimes (those that have victims, the state cannot be a victim). There is very little need for a moral state at all. The free market provides nearly everything. It is not possible for the extremely wealthy to manipulate a state built on these two things (unlike the current system).


Liberty is impossible in a society of individuals driven by pure individual self-interest.

All societies are made up of individuals driven by self interest. A free market prospers in these conditions. When these individuals get into positions of political power is when fairness is reduced. Politicians serve their own personal interests before they serve the peoples. They don't do what is right, they do what will win them votes (or take care of their lobbyists/campaign donators needs). To get to the top in politics you need to look after your own interests. The system does not work. Power corrupts.


Only when the people in charge of the state, howsoever they get there, and the rest of the society at large are interested in justice even when it doesn't serve them immediately, can liberty be assured.

This ideology will never (or very, very rarely) be achieved under the current system. The state is constantly creating unneeded and unjust new laws, while not withdrawing current unjust laws.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug
 




That is actually closer to today's system than a voluntarily funded system. Big business is running the USA. The only reason the safest recreational and medicinal drug is prohibited is to protect the interests of big business,....


Very nicely argued and all true.

There are really only two options.

1. The rights of the individual come first and only when they infringe on another's rights are they to be lawfully curbed.

OR

2. All rights belong to the "Collective" that is the state and only "permission" is granted by the state. The individual has absolutely no rights and is in fact a "slave" whose "rights" can be taken at any time by the state.

The first is what the USA was set up to be. The second with all the licenses and permits and zoning and laws and regulations... the 2008 Federal Register was 80,700 pages long... We are a heck of a lot closer to the second category!



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by Observor
 



How the funding for the state should come is a secondary issue. First issue is to acknowledge the need for a state in the matter of individual liberty in a society.

IMO it is THE issue because it determines whether the state is fundamentally moral or immoral.

It would be immoral only if an individual in a society didn't need a state. No individual liberty is possible without a state. Hence there is nothing immoral about a state asking an individual to make a contribution to its existence which he/she needs for his/her liberty. Yeah, sure an individual who doesn't care about liberty need not pay towards the upkeep of the state. He/she can stay put on his property never stepping on to the commons for any reason. I was assuming no one would choose such a property arrest.


Voluntarily funded state sounds like a good idea until you realise the state will tend to serve those who pay for its upkeep. A rich person/corporation interested in using the state power to his/her/its advantage need only "donate" more to the upkeep of the state.

That is actually closer to today's system than a voluntarily funded system. Big business is running the USA. The only reason the safest recreational and medicinal drug is prohibited is to protect the interests of big business, particularly big pharma and alcohol companies. There are countless other examples of laws designed to protect business at the cost of honest citizens.

What you have today is a mixture of mandatory funding from citizens and voluntary funding from corporations. You take out the mandatory funding, all you will have left is voluntary funding from the corporations and the rich. Exactly what kind of laws do you expect under the system?

For a state to be moral it must be both voluntarily funded and only outlaw actual crimes (those that have victims, the state cannot be a victim). There is very little need for a moral state at all. The free market provides nearly everything. It is not possible for the extremely wealthy to manipulate a state built on these two things (unlike the current system).

That is a tired old libertarian argument, which I believe I have shown to be false. The state is necessary for liberty, even individual existence.


Liberty is impossible in a society of individuals driven by pure individual self-interest.

All societies are made up of individuals driven by self interest. A free market prospers in these conditions. When these individuals get into positions of political power is when fairness is reduced. Politicians serve their own personal interests before they serve the peoples. They don't do what is right, they do what will win them votes (or take care of their lobbyists/campaign donators needs). To get to the top in politics you need to look after your own interests. The system does not work. Power corrupts.

Why is it corruption, if politicians are driven by self-interest like everyone else and which is what is needed for free-market and prosperity?


Only when the people in charge of the state, howsoever they get there, and the rest of the society at large are interested in justice even when it doesn't serve them immediately, can liberty be assured.

This ideology will never (or very, very rarely) be achieved under the current system. The state is constantly creating unneeded and unjust new laws, while not withdrawing current unjust laws.

The current system is what you have when people are driven exclusively by self-interest.
edit on 17-8-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
There are really only two options.

1. The rights of the individual come first and only when they infringe on another's rights are they to be lawfully curbed.

OR

2. All rights belong to the "Collective" that is the state and only "permission" is granted by the state. The individual has absolutely no rights and is in fact a "slave" whose "rights" can be taken at any time by the state.

The first is what the USA was set up to be. The second with all the licenses and permits and zoning and laws and regulations... the 2008 Federal Register was 80,700 pages long... We are a heck of a lot closer to the second category!

So how did it become different from what it was set up to be? Why would anyone expect things to work differently if you set them up again to be what they were once set up to be?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I hardly post on here anymore...but I just HAD to comment about your little ditty. Love your ditty........(in my best Hannibal Lecter voice.....)


As well, I had to mention that my husband and I had an experience where we were arrested for doing nothing but walking down a street in DC, (RIGHT after 9/11), and were arrested for APO(assault on a Police officer).....even though we were covered with bruises and cuts from THEM BEATING US DOWN and WE never touched a soul. We got to spend a weekend in jail with NO phone call......and for what? Looking like "hippies" and "protesters" (we were there for an anti-war protest from IL). Cops can SAY or DO anything they want......and we warned everyone we knew back then about the coming police state...and we were ignored....(we musta done SOMETHING wrong, right?) and now look at the sad state of Amerika........(tsk, tsk) Hate to say TOLD YA SO...but.....

Again....GREAT thread.

d(-_-)b



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



It would be immoral only if an individual in a society didn't need a state. No individual liberty is possible without a state.

That's like saying individuals need food, therefore it is not immoral for anyone to steal food.

There are moral states and there are immoral states. A state that is entirely moral does not steal from its citizens at gunpoint. It doesn't need to. It is giving its citizens entirely what they want, therefore they are happy to contribute.


Hence there is nothing immoral about a state asking an individual to make a contribution to its existence which he/she needs for his/her liberty.

Nothing immoral about asking. It's the taking at gunpoint that's immoral.


Yeah, sure an individual who doesn't care about liberty need not pay towards the upkeep of the state. He/she can stay put on his property never stepping on to the commons for any reason. I was assuming no one would choose such a property arrest.

Paying for what you use and/or relying on the charity of others sounds like a more moral and free system.


What you have today is a mixture of mandatory funding from citizens and voluntary funding from corporations. You take out the mandatory funding, all you will have left is voluntary funding from the corporations and the rich. Exactly what kind of laws do you expect under the system?

Businesses pay mandatory taxes also.

Why would corporations voluntarily fund a moral state? It's not like a moral state would let them create laws against crimes that have no victim in the name of profits. If they want to donate to help the less fortunate to improve their public image (obviously this type of society would value morality) then that's about the only reason. If the rich want to feel good about helping the poor then they will donate. It is not moral to threaten a person with violence because he does not support all the same charities as you.


That is a tired old libertarian argument, which I believe I have shown to be false. The state is necessary for liberty, even individual existence.

A moral state will provide more freedom and more individual happiness.


Why is it corruption, if politicians are driven by self-interest like everyone else and which is what is needed for free-market and prosperity?

Power corrupts because everyone is driven by their own self-interests, whether they care to admit it to themselves or not. Therefore coercively funded political power is such an easily corrupted system. Law makers pretty much go around acting in their own self interest. It is human nature. Under the free market people vote with their wallets.


The current system is what you have when people are driven exclusively by self-interest.

Yes, exactly. It's what people do (and the system does not work and is not moral). It is looked upon as such a social taboo though that people don't like to think of themselves as selfish. I am driven by selfishness and I donate to charity because it makes me feel good to help others. Being robbed does not make me feel good.

edit on 17-8-2011 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug

It would be immoral only if an individual in a society didn't need a state. No individual liberty is possible without a state.

That's like saying individuals need food, therefore it is not immoral for anyone to steal food.

No, it is like saying individuals need food, so they need to pay those providing the food.

No commernce is possible without commons. Since commons are owned by the state, the state has a right to ask those who use the commons to pay for commercial use of the commons. That is the source of the state's right to mandatory taxation. How exactly the commercial use of the commons computed and tax liability of different individuals determined is a matter of detail and convenience.

There are moral states and there are immoral states. A state that is entirely moral does not steal from its citizens at gunpoint. It doesn't need to. It is giving its citizens entirely what they want, therefore they are happy to contribute.

You may or may not be happy paying the price of petrol at the pump. That is immaterial. Equally immaterial is whether you are happy with the extent of taxation the state determines is your share to pay for using the state owned property, the commons.

Neither the price you pay for petrol nor the taxes you pay to the state for your use of the commons is theft.


Hence there is nothing immoral about a state asking an individual to make a contribution to its existence which he/she needs for his/her liberty.

Nothing immoral about asking. It's the taking at gunpoint that's immoral.

As I said earlier, you can claim it is immoral only when you do not use commons. The terms for using the commons are also very clear, paying all the applicable taxes. If you can figure out a way of existing without using the commons, you should put forward a proposal to be exempted from any kind of taxation, since you have no use for the state's property and the state still insists on taxing you then you can call it immoral.


Yeah, sure an individual who doesn't care about liberty need not pay towards the upkeep of the state. He/she can stay put on his property never stepping on to the commons for any reason. I was assuming no one would choose such a property arrest.

Paying for what you use and/or relying on the charity of others sounds like a more moral and free system.

Taxes are paying for what you use, but as determined by the state and not you. It is not any different from a private business either, the business decides what the price is and the terms of payment are, not the consumer. The only difference is you may or may not decide to purchase the goods/services from a particular business, while the choice doesn't exist with a state. But I already have shown that the lack of choice is nothing more than choosing to exist as part of a society.


What you have today is a mixture of mandatory funding from citizens and voluntary funding from corporations. You take out the mandatory funding, all you will have left is voluntary funding from the corporations and the rich. Exactly what kind of laws do you expect under the system?

Businesses pay mandatory taxes also.

Why would corporations voluntarily fund a moral state? It's not like a moral state would let them create laws against crimes that have no victim in the name of profits. If they want to donate to help the less fortunate to improve their public image (obviously this type of society would value morality) then that's about the only reason. If the rich want to feel good about helping the poor then they will donate. It is not moral to threaten a person with violence because he does not support all the same charities as you.

Not sure where you would get a moral state in a society where people care about nothing more than themselves. Why would individuals who care about nothing except their interests be suddenly interested in what is moral and what is not when they become part of the state? Why would businesses refrain from tempting the state administrators to make laws that benefit them?


That is a tired old libertarian argument, which I believe I have shown to be false. The state is necessary for liberty, even individual existence.

A moral state will provide more freedom and more individual happiness.

You can't get a moral state in a society where the ultimate goal of everyone is their own personal advancement.


Why is it corruption, if politicians are driven by self-interest like everyone else and which is what is needed for free-market and prosperity?

Power corrupts because everyone is driven by their own self-interests, whether they care to admit it to themselves or not. Therefore coercively funded political power is such an easily corrupted system. Law makers pretty much go around acting in their own self interest. It is human nature. Under the free market people vote with their wallets.

Again you are not addressing the point. I believe I have shown that it is impossible for any society to exist without a state. If you admit that, then you also have to admit that state will be run by individuals from that society who can be expected to be motivated/limited by the same things as the rest of the society. State will have coercive power, without which it cannot manage its property, the commons.

When the state charges the citizens for the commercial use of the commons through mandatory taxation, whatever the nature, and uses the funds for the state's expenditure the chances that the individuals running the show can be corrupted by special interests is much less than when the only source of revenue for the state is voluntary contributions from interested parties.


The current system is what you have when people are driven exclusively by self-interest.

Yes, exactly. It's what people do (and the system does not work and is not moral). It is looked upon as such a social taboo though that people don't like to think of themselves as selfish. I am driven by selfishness and I donate to charity because it makes me feel good to help others. Being robbed does not make me feel good.

Imagine a corporation in a "free-market" owning all the commons that the state owns today. Imagine this corporation offfering a deal to the public: that they pay exactly what the pay the state today, under the exact terms and also that no customer of the corporation may deal with a non-customer in any way whatsoever. It is a completely "voluntary" deal. Should you enter into the deal would you call paying taxes to the corporation "robbery"? Or would you rather not enter into the deal and stay and rot on your property?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 



No, it is like saying individuals need food, so they need to pay those providing the food.

That is actually what I am describing. The current system bypasses charity towards those who can't afford food and goes straight to robbing people for it at gunpoint (taxation).


No commernce is possible without commons. Since commons are owned by the state, the state has a right to ask those who use the commons to pay for commercial use of the commons. That is the source of the state's right to mandatory taxation. How exactly the commercial use of the commons computed and tax liability of different individuals determined is a matter of detail and convenience.


You make it sound as if paying for the upkeep of commons is the only thing taxes pay for. The determination of the liability of different people is not a matter of detail if you're going to put guns to people to get the money. My taxes go towards much, much more than just the commons I use. Paying for the upkeep of the commons is a tiny fraction. I don't wish to be forced to fund illegal wars for instance. Pretty big chunks of money go there. Is it moral for the state to put a gun to me and demand I contribute to the murder of innocent civilians in a distant country? I am more than happy to pay for the commons I use. I don't wish to be threatened with violence into paying for other peoples too.


You may or may not be happy paying the price of petrol at the pump. That is immaterial. Equally immaterial is whether you are happy with the extent of taxation the state determines is your share to pay for using the state owned property, the commons.

Neither the price you pay for petrol nor the taxes you pay to the state for your use of the commons is theft.

I'm very happy with the price of petrol minus the cut the state takes at gunpoint. What it costs for my use of the commons is not even in the same ballpark to what I pay in tax.

Purchasing petrol is a mutually beneficial transaction leaving both parties better off. Taxation is being robbed at gunpoint. It is theft. Theft is not required to run commons (or for what the majority of taxes actually pay for).


As I said earlier, you can claim it is immoral only when you do not use commons.

Oh so I'm happy for pay for whatever commons I use, therefore it is moral for the state to take half my income at gunpoint and use the majority of it to pay for services I don't want or use?

I also question your assertion that state provided commons provide more liberty than private commons. In private commons you pay as you go. To make profits the people must get what they want, else they will use a competitors commons. The most popular commons will provide freedom to the extent that the individual can do what he wants, provided he is not harming anyone else or their property. Everything listed on the OP goes. What sort of freedom do you get under the current system obeying countless unjust laws?


The terms for using the commons are also very clear, paying all the applicable taxes.

So because I want to use commons, while they have a gun to my head they can start calling out whatever terms they like? I use commons, therefore I must also contribute to illegal wars, other peoples education, an oppressive police force, bank bailouts, government debt, etc. I don't agree to those terms.


If you can figure out a way of existing without using the commons, you should put forward a proposal to be exempted from any kind of taxation, since you have no use for the state's property and the state still insists on taxing you then you can call it immoral.

What about if I calculate the costs of my use, then ask for a refund for 90% of my tax back?


Taxes are paying for what you use, but as determined by the state and not you. It is not any different from a private business either, the business decides what the price is and the terms of payment are, not the consumer.

No, it is very different because consumers have a choice. They are not having a gun pointed at them and forced into the transaction. They can deal with a competitor or no one at all. Therefore businesses must create terms and conditions that are fair. The state can do what it wants.


Not sure where you would get a moral state in a society where people care about nothing more than themselves. Why would individuals who care about nothing except their interests be suddenly interested in what is moral and what is not when they become part of the state? Why would businesses refrain from tempting the state administrators to make laws that benefit them?

That is the current system and it does not work. A moral state would not allow businesses to lobby for laws to benefit them because the state would be unable to make crime out of things that are not crimes (no victim = no crime).


You can't get a moral state in a society where the ultimate goal of everyone is their own personal advancement.

I disagree. That is the current goal of everyone. It is human nature. The sooner we have a system to accommodate that, the better. It's not as if we can change human nature to get it to fit to the current system.


Again you are not addressing the point. I believe I have shown that it is impossible for any society to exist without a state.

IMO a moral state is ideal, but no state is still better than the current system.


If you admit that, then you also have to admit that state will be run by individuals from that society who can be expected to be motivated/limited by the same things as the rest of the society. State will have coercive power, without which it cannot manage its property, the commons.

A state run by selfish individuals must to be allowed to have coercive power. Else those in power use that power and coercion to control others to their own advantage. When people pay for what they use, the power is in the hands of the people (voting for what they want with their wallets).


When the state charges the citizens for the commercial use of the commons through mandatory taxation, whatever the nature, and uses the funds for the state's expenditure the chances that the individuals running the show can be corrupted by special interests is much less than when the only source of revenue for the state is voluntary contributions from interested parties.

The current system is highly corruptible. When people vote with their wallets only services that the people actually want are provided! If people don't want something, there is no funding. The moral state actually governs very little and does not give individuals much political power. The power remains with the masses because they are free to only contribute to what they want or agree with.


Imagine a corporation in a "free-market" owning all the commons that the state owns today. Imagine this corporation offfering a deal to the public: that they pay exactly what the pay the state today, under the exact terms and also that no customer of the corporation may deal with a non-customer in any way whatsoever. It is a completely "voluntary" deal. Should you enter into the deal would you call paying taxes to the corporation "robbery"? Or would you rather not enter into the deal and stay and rot on your property?

I would use the services of a competing organization, as would millions of others. This would mean the original organization would have to create fair terms to attract customers (unlike the state they would be unable to force everybody to pay and obey their terms at gunpoint).

Large monopolies do not exist in the free market.





new topics
top topics
 
266
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join