No Taxation...Donation! - page 6. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Because this is a flood of posts, my important statements:

Stealing stuff doesn't create or destroy wealth (ok sometimes it does destroy wealth, because you have to break in), it only changes the one who has it.
There is an important difference between creation/loss of work and the distribution of it.

Quote

So, where you live, men with guns force people to accept obligations they don't have to. Your point?

They have to. That's the point. If you watch someone die and could have helped without problems you can be taken to court for it.
And I have no problem with this, because basically you are an asshole if you do so.
Would you let some random stranger die, if there was no risk involved in rescuing him?

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:32:10 AM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:06:06 AM

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

No, you're not. No obligation can be created that forces action, without voluntary acceptance of that obligation. I'm obligated not to turn on the switch that kills you, but not obligated to turn on the one that would save you.

To illustrate this, what is the first thing you would say to someone who had flipped the switch to save you?

"Thank you ... for not neglecting a very obvious responsibility you have, unlike some that try to uphold some very childish beliefs about radical freedom"

or maybe

"Thank you ... for have the mental capacity to figure out that if action or inaction has such grave consequences you do have an obligation and it being "forced" has nothing to do with anything"

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:40:53 AM

So, where you live, men with guns force people to accept obligations they don't have to. Your point?

They have to. That's the point. If you watch someone die and could have helped without problems you can be taken to court for it.
And I have no problem with this, because basically you are an asshole if you do so.
Would you let some random stranger die, if there was no risk involved in rescuing him?

Quote

Kindly answer the question I have posed: What is the first thing you would say to someone who flipped the switch to save you?

I would thank him. What's your point?

Quote

Except they weren't being paid, now were they? That's the point.

I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your mind, but you are blinded by your imagination of this perfect society.
You have created the problem that they aren't paid in the first place.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:44:45 AM

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 11:41:32 AM

Taxation is the most efficient way to pay for services like police, fire, defence and the like. Unless you are a bureaucrat yourself, you would have no interest in creating parallel billing systems for such services.

Really? Voluntary subscription plans, which do not require an entire agency to enforce, are less efficient?

Yes. That's why they are only used for small communities.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 11:41:32 AM

Taxation is the most efficient way to pay for services like police, fire, defence and the like. Unless you are a bureaucrat yourself, you would have no interest in creating parallel billing systems for such services.

Really? Voluntary subscription plans, which do not require an entire agency to enforce, are less efficient?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 11:23:18 AM

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 11:02:30 AM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 10:38:25 AM

...snip...

Inefficient? Paying $75 a year in subs is hardly complicated.

The car on my drive is paid for too, but that doesn't mean get to threaten me if I don't chauffeur you around in it.

Its inefficient on 2 levels:

1. The value of the house has been lost - for all you know the owner had senile dementia or was illiterate or had some other perfectly valid reason for sucking at paperwork. So wealth has been destroyed for no good reason.
2. its cheaper to collect things like the costs of police, roads, fire service, schools and health through the tax system than to have separate bureacracies for each. So even if everyone pays the $75, its still inefficient.

1. If they had paid their $75, they wouldn't have lost their house. If they needed advice, they should have requested it - even the state could help them to pay their voluntary $75, rather than just demanding it.

2. Stealing stuff may be easier for the thief, but it removes the choice of the victim. It may be more efficient for me to come and take your car, rather than earning + buying one from a dealer too. I assume you are against such actions?

BTW, there are many inefficient state departments which would never survive in a voluntary model. I don't know where you get the idea from that the state is efficient, tbh.

Again, there may have been a valid reason for the person not paying $75. You want to make this a morality play - it's not.

Taxation is the most efficient way to pay for services like police, fire, defence and the like. Unless you are a bureaucrat yourself, you would have no interest in creating parallel billing systems for such services.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 11:34:30 AM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:32:10 AM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:06:06 AM

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

No, you're not. No obligation can be created that forces action, without voluntary acceptance of that obligation. I'm obligated not to turn on the switch that kills you, but not obliged to turn on the one that would save you.

To illustrate this, what is the first thing you would say to someone who had flipped the switch to save you?

In my country this is wrong. It's in the law. I don't know if it's the same for you.

So, where you live, men with guns force people to accept obligations they don't have to. Your point?

Kindly answer the question I have posed: What is the first thing you would say to someone who flipped the switch to save you?

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 11:38:53 AM

Quote

You can't just demand people to do stuff for you - that's slavery. How about the loss of time to the fire fighters? How about their loss of life if they are killed while fighting the fire?

It's the job they accepted to do and are paid for (at least in our society), so it's not slavery.

Except they weren't being paid, now were they? That's the point.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote

If the person had paid for people to put the fire out, the house wouldn't have been lost. The cost of the loss falls on the home owner too, who now no longer has a home, because they didn't pay a small fee.

community wealth - 1 house. And it will not be the only one.
"If's" aren't gonna change that.

Quote

You can't just demand people to do stuff for you - that's slavery. How about the loss of time to the fire fighters? How about their loss of life if they are killed while fighting the fire?

It's the job they accepted to do and are paid for (at least in our society), so it's not slavery.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:32:10 AM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:06:06 AM

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

No, you're not. No obligation can be created that forces action, without voluntary acceptance of that obligation. I'm obligated not to turn on the switch that kills you, but not obliged to turn on the one that would save you.

To illustrate this, what is the first thing you would say to someone who had flipped the switch to save you?

In my country this is wrong. It's in the law. I don't know if it's the same for you.
(I would thank the nontheless of course)

Traktion

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 10:40:22 AM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 06:55:14 AM

The firemen didn't destroy anything - the fire did. The firemen didn't start the fire either.

The firemen are not slaves of foolish home owners. If home owners want them to labour on their behalf, using their equipment, then they should pay the firemen to do it.

Moreover, they should take steps to avoid their house burning down. Fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire buckets/blankets, not smoking in doors etc - all would reduce their premium. Not asking for people to pay for insurance creates a free rider problem - why should they invest in ways to prevent fires, when they can just call someone to put it out for 'free'?

Requesting insurance and/or subscriptions to service providers is hardly disorganised. It is voluntary and allows people to pay for what they need.

This is exactly one of the points I have a problem with.

Yes the fireman didn't destroy anything.
Do you know the term "non-assistance of a person in danger"?
There is a reason for it to exist.

If you watch the house burn over a $75, you have lost the worth of the house for your society.
You can claim they were stupid all that you want, the work this house with built with is destroyed and lost.

Quote

You have to view voluntarism for its core - the rejection of using aggression to gain advantage. How things are arranged after force is removed is a matter of negotiation. While you (or I) can ponder endlessly about how things could work, it doesn't change the principle behind the philosophy and better ways will probably thought of by others anyway.

Despite my problems with it, I would like to see one state working like this to see if it can work out/what problems it has.

If the person had paid for people to put the fire out, the house wouldn't have been lost. The cost of the loss falls on the home owner too, who now no longer has a home, because they didn't pay a small fee.

You can't just demand people to do stuff for you - that's slavery. How about the loss of time to the fire fighters? How about their loss of life if they are killed while fighting the fire?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:06:06 AM

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

No, you're not. No obligation can be created that forces action, without voluntary acceptance of that obligation. I'm obligated not to turn on the switch that kills you, but not obligated to turn on the one that would save you.

To illustrate this, what is the first thing you would say to someone who had flipped the switch to save you?

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 11:06:06 AM

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

Quote

1. If they had paid their $75, they wouldn't have lost their house. If they needed advice, they should have requested it - even the state could help them to pay their voluntary $75, rather than just demanding it.

Lost is lost, it doesn't matter why. This wealth is gone from your community now.

Quote

2. Stealing stuff may be easier for the thief, but it removes the choice of the victim. It may be more efficient for me to come and take your car, rather than earning + buying one from a dealer too. I assume you are against such actions?

Stealing stuff doesn't create or destroy wealth (ok sometimes it does destroy wealth, because you have to break in), it only changes the one who has it.

There is an important difference between creation/loss of work and the distribution of it.

Traktion

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 11:02:30 AM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 10:38:25 AM

...snip...

Inefficient? Paying $75 a year in subs is hardly complicated.

The car on my drive is paid for too, but that doesn't mean get to threaten me if I don't chauffeur you around in it.

Its inefficient on 2 levels:

1. The value of the house has been lost - for all you know the owner had senile dementia or was illiterate or had some other perfectly valid reason for sucking at paperwork. So wealth has been destroyed for no good reason.
2. its cheaper to collect things like the costs of police, roads, fire service, schools and health through the tax system than to have separate bureacracies for each. So even if everyone pays the $75, its still inefficient.

1. If they had paid their $75, they wouldn't have lost their house. If they needed advice, they should have requested it - even the state could help them to pay their voluntary $75, rather than just demanding it.

2. Stealing stuff may be easier for the thief, but it removes the choice of the victim. It may be more efficient for me to come and take your car, rather than earning + buying one from a dealer too. I assume you are against such actions?

BTW, there are many inefficient state departments which would never survive in a voluntary model. I don't know where you get the idea from that the state is efficient, tbh.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 10:38:25 AM

...snip...

Inefficient? Paying $75 a year in subs is hardly complicated.

The car on my drive is paid for too, but that doesn't mean get to threaten me if I don't chauffeur you around in it.

Its inefficient on 2 levels:

1. The value of the house has been lost - for all you know the owner had senile dementia or was illiterate or had some other perfectly valid reason for sucking at paperwork. So wealth has been destroyed for no good reason.
2. its cheaper to collect things like the costs of police, roads, fire service, schools and health through the tax system than to have separate bureacracies for each. So even if everyone pays the $75, its still inefficient.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 06:55:14 AM

The firemen didn't destroy anything - the fire did. The firemen didn't start the fire either.

The firemen are not slaves of foolish home owners. If home owners want them to labour on their behalf, using their equipment, then they should pay the firemen to do it.

Moreover, they should take steps to avoid their house burning down. Fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire buckets/blankets, not smoking in doors etc - all would reduce their premium. Not asking for people to pay for insurance creates a free rider problem - why should they invest in ways to prevent fires, when they can just call someone to put it out for 'free'?

Requesting insurance and/or subscriptions to service providers is hardly disorganised. It is voluntary and allows people to pay for what they need.

This is exactly one of the points I have a problem with.

Yes the fireman didn't destroy anything.
Do you know the term "non-assistance of a person in danger"?
There is a reason for it to exist.

If you watch the house burn over a $75, you have lost the worth of the house for your society.
You can claim they were stupid all that you want, the work this house with built with is destroyed and lost.

Quote

You have to view voluntarism for its core - the rejection of using aggression to gain advantage. How things are arranged after force is removed is a matter of negotiation. While you (or I) can ponder endlessly about how things could work, it doesn't change the principle behind the philosophy and better ways will probably thought of by others anyway.

Despite my problems with it, I would like to see one state working like this to see if it can work out/what problems it has.

Traktion

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 08:46:09 AM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 06:55:14 AM

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 06:08:51 AM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 05:06:50 AM

...snip...

If they were mortgage free and didn't pay, well, that's pretty dumb isn't it? If someone ends ends up losing their house due to such stupidity, they only have themselves to blame.

Really, this sort of stuff isn't complicated.

Blaming people for a mistake is fine. Destroying their home over a $75 fee is not. It may feel clever to say "Sucks to be you" but that is not a valid basis for organising a society.

The firemen didn't destroy anything - the fire did. The firemen didn't start the fire either.

The firemen are not slaves of foolish home owners. If home owners want them to labour on their behalf, using their equipment, then they should pay the firemen to do it.

Moreover, they should take steps to avoid their house burning down. Fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire buckets/blankets, not smoking in doors etc - all would reduce their premium. Not asking for people to pay for insurance creates a free rider problem - why should they invest in ways to prevent fires, when they can just call someone to put it out for 'free'?

Requesting insurance and/or subscriptions to service providers is hardly disorganised. It is voluntary and allows people to pay for what they need.

Its also the most inefficient possible way of doing things. The fire truck was paid for - it was at the fire - it watched the home burn down because someone wanted to make a point.

Inefficient? Paying $75 a year in subs is hardly complicated.

The car on my drive is paid for too, but that doesn't mean get to threaten me if I don't chauffeur you around in it.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 06:55:14 AM

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 06:08:51 AM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 05:06:50 AM

...snip...

If they were mortgage free and didn't pay, well, that's pretty dumb isn't it? If someone ends ends up losing their house due to such stupidity, they only have themselves to blame.

Really, this sort of stuff isn't complicated.

Blaming people for a mistake is fine. Destroying their home over a $75 fee is not. It may feel clever to say "Sucks to be you" but that is not a valid basis for organising a society.

The firemen didn't destroy anything - the fire did. The firemen didn't start the fire either.

The firemen are not slaves of foolish home owners. If home owners want them to labour on their behalf, using their equipment, then they should pay the firemen to do it.

Moreover, they should take steps to avoid their house burning down. Fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire buckets/blankets, not smoking in doors etc - all would reduce their premium. Not asking for people to pay for insurance creates a free rider problem - why should they invest in ways to prevent fires, when they can just call someone to put it out for 'free'?

Requesting insurance and/or subscriptions to service providers is hardly disorganised. It is voluntary and allows people to pay for what they need.

Its also the most inefficient possible way of doing things. The fire truck was paid for - it was at the fire - it watched the home burn down because someone wanted to make a point.

xcsler

full member

Activity: 227

Merit: 100

Quote from: gollum on April 26, 2013, 01:46:00 AM

Quote from: xcsler on April 25, 2013, 02:57:14 PM

Over the past several years of paying my "fair share" of taxes and studying Libertarianism, Voluntarism, and Austrian economics I have come to the conclusion that taxes are essentially collective theft and inefficient.

Did you know that many authorities are deliberately inefficient? They spend more money and resources than they need for a simple reason: otherwise their budget might decrease. So when time goes the public sector only gets bigger and more inefficient. The only way to fight this waste is to starve the government by paying less taxes so it has to shut down unnecessary functions.

Yes, I believe this to be true. This also occurs in the private sector just not to the same degree.
The issue is that when it occurs in the public sector we pay for the inefficiencies but when it occurs in the private sector we don't.

Traktion

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 06:08:51 AM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 05:06:50 AM

...snip...

If they were mortgage free and didn't pay, well, that's pretty dumb isn't it? If someone ends ends up losing their house due to such stupidity, they only have themselves to blame.

Really, this sort of stuff isn't complicated.

Blaming people for a mistake is fine. Destroying their home over a $75 fee is not. It may feel clever to say "Sucks to be you" but that is not a valid basis for organising a society.

The firemen didn't destroy anything - the fire did. The firemen didn't start the fire either.

The firemen are not slaves of foolish home owners. If home owners want them to labour on their behalf, using their equipment, then they should pay the firemen to do it.

Moreover, they should take steps to avoid their house burning down. Fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire buckets/blankets, not smoking in doors etc - all would reduce their premium. Not asking for people to pay for insurance creates a free rider problem - why should they invest in ways to prevent fires, when they can just call someone to put it out for 'free'?

Requesting insurance and/or subscriptions to service providers is hardly disorganised. It is voluntary and allows people to pay for what they need.

Topic: No Taxation...Donation! - page 6. (Read 4642 times)