"Government bad! Free market good! rabble rabble rabble"
How did I know that's where this thread would end up?
How did I know that's where this thread would end up?
You start one, then.
Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 33. (Read 28705 times)
You start one, then.
"Government bad! Free market good! rabble rabble rabble"
How did I know that's where this thread would end up?
How did I know that's where this thread would end up?
I picked "none", but what I really mean, is that "privately" should include the possibility of providing services collectively...
...just as long as one is not establishing a monopoly, especially a territorial monopoly on passing regulations for others to follow, especially one backed by a threat of violence.
Voluntary collectivism, neat. Voluntary monopolies? Sounds unlikely, but if it floats someone's boat... involuntary anything, down with it.
...just as long as one is not establishing a monopoly, especially a territorial monopoly on passing regulations for others to follow, especially one backed by a threat of violence.
Voluntary collectivism, neat. Voluntary monopolies? Sounds unlikely, but if it floats someone's boat... involuntary anything, down with it.
"Private" does include collectively, as long as it's voluntary.
None of the above.
Instead, public control of public services through a mixture of localised government owned democracies and privately owned cooperatives.
Sounds a lot like "Moderate", but could you elaborate more? Maybe I'll add an option to the poll. Instead, public control of public services through a mixture of localised government owned democracies and privately owned cooperatives.
None of the above.
Instead, public control of public services through a mixture of localised government owned democracies and privately owned cooperatives.
Instead, public control of public services through a mixture of localised government owned democracies and privately owned cooperatives.
I picked "none", but what I really mean, is that "privately" should include the possibility of providing services collectively...
...just as long as one is not establishing a monopoly, especially a territorial monopoly on passing regulations for others to follow, especially one backed by a threat of violence.
Voluntary collectivism, neat. Voluntary monopolies? Sounds unlikely, but if it floats someone's boat... involuntary anything, down with it.
...just as long as one is not establishing a monopoly, especially a territorial monopoly on passing regulations for others to follow, especially one backed by a threat of violence.
Voluntary collectivism, neat. Voluntary monopolies? Sounds unlikely, but if it floats someone's boat... involuntary anything, down with it.
And as long as there are people willing to try and take things from people by force, there will be job security for ammunition companies.
Seriously, so what? All of you guys are pounding the table how the government is taking money from you by force through taxation right now. All a bunch of talk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKlWGZHEO7Q
If tyranny fails, then a new government could form that is very polite, yet still persuasive. It will become the new normal.
As long as it isn't backed up with force, you're welcome to knock on my door and offer me services.
And as long as there are people willing to try and take things from people by force, there will be job security for ammunition companies.
Seriously, so what? All of you guys are pounding the table how the government is taking money from you by force through taxation right now. All a bunch of talk.
Only the part of me that you know. You can't know all. Can you regulate the tunnel people in NYC's abandoned train tunnels? Can you regulate the Appalation hillbillly making meth in the woods? I think that you overestimate your capacities as a government.
If a couple slip through the cracks or fly under the radar, so what? As an example, Bitcoins are pretty much flying under the radar right now, but barely. And so the government isn't actually doing anything. But let Bitcoins become the backbone of the economy, and they won't be flying under the radar anymore. Likewise, if everyone becomes an Appalachian hillbilly, then they aren't flying under the radar anymore, but instead are mainstream society, in which case, the means to tax will evolve to handle it.
Again, you and I both know I'm not saying such a police state is desirable. I'm just explaining how things can work. And all those strange methods of taxation I proposed? If tyranny fails, then a new government could form that is very polite, yet still persuasive. It will become the new normal.
Ever hear of survival of the fittest?
That long line would get pretty short, mighty fast.
That long line would get pretty short, mighty fast.
As long as there are humans, and there is a vacuum of power, something will move to fill it.
And as long as there are people willing to try and take things from people by force, there will be job security for ammunition companies.
Ever hear of survival of the fittest?
That long line would get pretty short, mighty fast.
That long line would get pretty short, mighty fast.
As long as there are humans, and there is a vacuum of power, something will move to fill it.
For a little while. Sic Semper...
Oh, you mean where society evolves and a government supersedes the tyranny? Or do you mean the long line of wannabe tyrants waiting to step in after him?
Ever hear of survival of the fittest?
That long line would get pretty short, mighty fast.
Oh, I didn't miss the point. And I don't disagree that taxes can be levied in other ways. There are many other ways to tax than direct taxation of income. I was talking about regulation of Bitcoin or the economy around it. Taxation is but one form of regulation.
Why would I need to regulate Bitcoin? I can just regulate you.
Only the part of me that you know. You can't know all. Can you regulate the tunnel people in NYC's abandoned train tunnels? Can you regulate the Appalation hillbillly making meth in the woods? I think that you overestimate your capacities as a government.
For a little while. Sic Semper...
Oh, you mean where society evolves and a government supersedes the tyranny? Or do you mean the long line of wannabe tyrants waiting to step in after him?
The part where you end up with my money. You still haven't explained that.
Tyrants can be very persuasive.
For a little while. Sic Semper...
The part where you end up with my money. You still haven't explained that.
Tyrants can be very persuasive.
Oh, I didn't miss the point. And I don't disagree that taxes can be levied in other ways. There are many other ways to tax than direct taxation of income. I was talking about regulation of Bitcoin or the economy around it. Taxation is but one form of regulation.
Why would I need to regulate Bitcoin? I can just regulate you.
I ask again, How are you going to collect?
What part of this aren't you getting?
The part where you end up with my money. You still haven't explained that.
I ask again, How are you going to collect?
What part of this aren't you getting?
None of these are regulations upon Bitcoin, or it's economy. This would require the implimentation of a total police state. I don't consider that much of a threat, myself.
Totally missing the point. If I can't monitor your Bitcoins, that doesn't preclude me from taxing you.
I ask again, How are you going to collect?
Jump to: