Taxation isn't needed until there are services that are needed by most, and infrastructure. If you're going to need roads, sewers, street lights, garbage dumps, etc, you're going to have to get the money somewhere.

If most of the people have children, or might still have children, logistically it gets hard to apply a school tax to only those that have kids, may have kids, or will have grandchildren that might go to school from their house. Or a renter of their house has kids. To apply it only to people that actually have kids of school age, there would have to be an intrusive census every year, and people don't like those.

Do the nine other people besides John have a legitimate right to do this to John?

He works hard. He should be able to keep what he makes. There's only 9 others, if they want what he has, they should work harder and longer. If some of the people didn't have the skills to do stuff, then maybe if he was a nice guy, John could teach some of what he knows. Trade the teaching of the skills for dinners or back massages

Does John have a right to defend his property from the other nine people?

Yes, certainly, it's his stuff.

Taxes shouldn't be to move money around from the wealthy to the poorest, but in a civilized society it isn't nice to let people starve or be homeless either. If the person isn't working because they're lazy, then they shouldn't get anything. Eventually, they'll go to work if they want food or shelter.

If the person isn't working because they've been injured and/or are unable, they should be looked after. It's what civilized people do. Society. Crap happens, and sometimes people need help.

If someone has paid into a fund for unemployment insurance, or retirement, that fund is there for a reason. It shouldn't be called "entitlements" in a sarcastic way, the way the media is portraying it. People are forced to pay into these funds from their paycheques so they should be entitled to the money when it's needed and they shouldn't be made to feel guilty about it.

I've been trying to figure out the deal with the infrastructure problems in the US. I hear people saying they don't want their taxes paying for it, but how else does it get done? Isn't that one of the main reasons people pay taxes? To have roads, and schools, and sewers, water treatment, dams, parks, buses, trains, etc.?

Up here we've even managed to fit medical into our taxes, and from what I've been learning on here, we don't pay much more in taxes than Americans, plus our corporate rate is only 16.5%, which is apparently way lower than the US.

Originally posted by snowspirit
Taxation isn't needed until there are services that are needed by most, and infrastructure. If you're going to need roads, sewers, street lights, garbage dumps, etc, you're going to have to get the money somewhere.

If most of the people have children, or might still have children, logistically it gets hard to apply a school tax to only those that have kids, may have kids, or will have grandchildren that might go to school from their house. Or a renter of their house has kids. To apply it only to people that actually have kids of school age, there would have to be an intrusive census every year, and people don't like those.

Do the nine other people besides John have a legitimate right to do this to John?

He works hard. He should be able to keep what he makes. There's only 9 others, if they want what he has, they should work harder and longer. If some of the people didn't have the skills to do stuff, then maybe if he was a nice guy, John could teach some of what he knows. Trade the teaching of the skills for dinners or back massages

Does John have a right to defend his property from the other nine people?

Yes, certainly, it's his stuff.

Taxes shouldn't be to move money around from the wealthy to the poorest, but in a civilized society it isn't nice to let people starve or be homeless either. If the person isn't working because they're lazy, then they shouldn't get anything. Eventually, they'll go to work if they want food or shelter.

If the person isn't working because they've been injured and/or are unable, they should be looked after. It's what civilized people do. Society. Crap happens, and sometimes people need help.

If someone has paid into a fund for unemployment insurance, or retirement, that fund is there for a reason. It shouldn't be called "entitlements" in a sarcastic way, the way the media is portraying it. People are forced to pay into these funds from their paycheques so they should be entitled to the money when it's needed and they shouldn't be made to feel guilty about it.

I've been trying to figure out the deal with the infrastructure problems in the US. I hear people saying they don't want their taxes paying for it, but how else does it get done? Isn't that one of the main reasons people pay taxes? To have roads, and schools, and sewers, water treatment, dams, parks, buses, trains, etc.?

Up here we've even managed to fit medical into our taxes, and from what I've been learning on here, we don't pay much more in taxes than Americans, plus our corporate rate is only 16.5%, which is apparently way lower than the US.

You don't need taxes to fund schools.

And if someone needs a handout because they are disabled, does that entitle them to use force against their neighbor in order to collect the "handout?"

the amount of people doesn't matter, its the situation that matters.

the first scenario isn't realistic because in that situation everyone would be trying to get off the island, not hoarding wealth.

carpooling can be a kind of taxation. people putting together their resources for the benefit of the group. everyone drives less and uses less gas.

1. no

2. yes

As to my opinion,

resent the wealth that John had created for himself

All these A-holes are doing is getting jealous that John is a creator, and then attributing wealth or assumed/imagined wealth. All the products he uses and fashions with are all just as available(i would assume) to him as the others. These people formed a government because they have no true value in the real world, as they see one guy in the same situation who in not encumbered at all. It's sad but 90% of people add nothing significant to those around them, they just consume and have sex wasting resourses of those who could better utilize things.

If John wanted to, he could coerce 2 males to do his bidding and rule the island as a mini tyrannt. However, he took most reasonable route simply asking for fair trade, as time cannot be gotton back. Instead, they destroy liberty and try to enslave the fellow(a nice demonstration of what democracy really is).

You don't need taxes to fund schools.

OK, take the school out of the equation, the school could be user pay, but then if the population gets large, and many people cannot afford the user pay system, then society could end up with too many uneducated people. Civilization should have educated people.

People could take turns contributing time teaching so their children can have an education, that might work.
It gets harder to manage as the population grows....

And if someone needs a handout because they are disabled, does that entitle them to use force against their neighbor in order to collect the "handout?"

No, force shouldn't be used, and neither should property theft.
Maybe someone nice will take in the person who is disabled, or maybe we can figure out another way they could contribute to the society. This only works if the society is small enough that the person disabled doesn't get forgotten about, and left to freeze and starve.

Maybe the disabled person could teach at the school, then they're contributing

I don't know what population size that people should start to be taxed. It would depend on the people's willingness to work together.

Originally posted by snowspirit

You don't need taxes to fund schools.

OK, take the school out of the equation, the school could be user pay, but then if the population gets large, and many people cannot afford the user pay system,

Why?

Why would things suddenly change with a large population?

Would things change because the government destroyed the economy and was preventing people from creating jobs?

You'll need to explain to me why things would suddenly change to where people could not get a job to pay for their kids education. People create jobs. Jobs are not something that the government provides. The only reason people can't create jobs is if the government is getting in their way.

As for the disabled people - they typically have families who can care for them. And for those very few disabled people who don't have families, there are a lot of very generous rich people who would take care of them through charity.

Prior to the welfare State we have in America today, the church took care of almost everything. The church ran the soup kitchens, the homeless shelters, the charity hospitals, the schools, and a host of other services. All provided for free through charity.

Size does not matter.
Authority does.

If you were taking about a land,
where one could go,,
and the land and the labour you produced
on that piece of land
given free to you, with no incumburences, leans or mortgages
no oaths to swear,
no tax too pay,,
just maintain the land, and be fruitfull and multiply,
and from your own bounty,
if you wished too give,
part of what you had,
too others,
freely,
would you go?
and would you stay even,
if the tax man showed up
for a piece off
your bounty?
And would you pay,
be killed
or go?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by snowspirit

You don't need taxes to fund schools.

OK, take the school out of the equation, the school could be user pay, but then if the population gets large, and many people cannot afford the user pay system,

Why?

Why would things suddenly change with a large population?

Would things change because the government destroyed the economy and was preventing people from creating jobs?

You'll need to explain to me why things would suddenly change to where people could not get a job to pay for their kids education. People create jobs. Jobs are not something that the government provides. The only reason people can't create jobs is if the government is getting in their way.

It made sense to me when I wrote it down, but you're right. Even a lemonade stand can be a good business if government rules don't shut them down
Politics is getting in the way these days more than ever.

As for the disabled people - they typically have families who can care for them. And for those very few disabled people who don't have families, there are a lot of very generous rich people who would take care of them through charity

Prior to the welfare State we have in America today, the church took care of almost everything. The church ran the soup kitchens, the homeless shelters, the charity hospitals, the schools, and a host of other services. All provided for free through charity.

I have to admit, I forgot all about the church....

I voted yes to every single one of your poll options. As far as I'm concerned rights exist only where a person or people has the capability and the will to enforce them. In other words, might makes right.

For example, in the first scenario if the nine others decide that they want to tax John, they have the right to do so, provided that they can enforce this tax. John of course has the right to resist their attempts to tax him, provided he can back up this right with force if necessary.