Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 59. (Read 33901 times)

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:09:59 PM

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:05:37 PM

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

You will. You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax. You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads. Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

So, what you're saying is, you'll only contribute to society if forced to, and only if others are forced to as well?

What a good little socialist.

im saying shit could get ugly, if stuff does not gets handled from a "central"-point.

its essentially game theory, there are no simple solutions.

And I'm saying there are better ways than this:

to get the money for roads. For instance, it could be ad-supported. It could be a toll road. One could even imagine a system where the road company goes onto a site like kickstarter, and asks for the money. When enough has been gathered, the road is built/repaired/etc.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:17:30 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 15, 2013, 04:15:54 PM

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

And what will you do when I refuse to pay your toll? Kick my ass? Ha ha ha!

you would be trespassing on my private property. American laws(which we have not accepted, i know) says i could shoot you.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:09:59 PM

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:05:37 PM

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

You will. You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax. You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads. Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

So, what you're saying is, you'll only contribute to society if forced to, and only if others are forced to as well?

What a good little socialist.

im saying shit could get ugly, if stuff does not gets handled from a "central"-point.

its essentially game theory, there are no simple solutions.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

And what will you do when I refuse to pay your toll? Kick my ass? Ha ha ha!

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:09:59 PM

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:05:37 PM

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

You will. You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax. You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads. Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

So, what you're saying is, you'll only contribute to society if forced to, and only if others are forced to as well?

What a good little socialist.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

it would be much better, if we all just decided to make roads, and then force people to pay.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:09:59 PM

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:05:37 PM

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

You will. You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax. You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads. Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: kokjo on April 15, 2013, 04:03:51 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 15, 2013, 03:52:39 PM

Rights are reciprocal agreements. You cannot expect to get that which you do not give.

i just did.

in anycase then, consider taxes then. I want all people to pay taxes, and i will pay too, and we(the people) will decide what to do with the pile of money.

Actually, you will select someone to decide what to do with the pile of money. If he decides something that you disagree with, you'll have to wait until the next election to select someone else. You could have decided what to do with that money, but you gave up that ability when you gave it to the government.

What's worse, the more people who are doing the selection of who decides, the less your opinion matters to whether or not the right guy gets picked, no matter how much money you have contributed.

In a Libertarian society, you could select, directly, which programs you wished to fund. No middle-men, no democratic process in which your voice may (almost certainly) be completely ignored. Just you, and the people you choose to support. Doesn't that sound better?

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:05:37 PM

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

Do you like having roads?

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:05:37 PM

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

You will. You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax. You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads. Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 04:05:37 PM

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: myrkul on April 15, 2013, 03:52:39 PM

Rights are reciprocal agreements. You cannot expect to get that which you do not give.

i just did.

in anycase then, consider taxes then. I want all people to pay taxes, and i will pay too, and we(the people) will decide what to do with the pile of money.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: kokjo on April 15, 2013, 03:44:33 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 15, 2013, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 15, 2013, 03:38:28 PM

should we allow murder?

Well, that depends. Would you like to be murdered?

no i would not. BUT if i said i could not agree with his no murders principle, i would have less happiness.

im fairly certain no sane person would allow murder, but a hypothetical person could be pro-murder, and we could there for not make the general rule "no murders" without stepping on someones toes.

But by that same token, that person could not object if someone were to kill him.

So he is hoist upon his own petard.

Rights are reciprocal agreements. You cannot expect to get that which you do not give.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

There will always be the sociopath, and the psychopath. We can't assume all human beings are born with perfectly healthy minds. With that said, since most of us agree that murder is a no-no, the guy who doesn't agree can be handled however the majority decides. The problem is handing this ability to decide to a central point. A president/king might say, "Killing is wrong. It is illegal," but then he'll turn around and say, "We need to fight these guys for their land/weapons/food/oil," and suddenly, killing is no longer illegal under certain circumstances. You've given up your freedom to make this distinction. Now, free will does not exist in full within you, but your free will is being manipulated by someone else. That's what bugs me.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

should we allow murder?

Well, that depends. Would you like to be murdered?

no i would not. BUT if i said i could not agree with his no murders principle, i would have less happiness.

im fairly certain no sane person would allow murder, but a hypothetical person could be pro-murder, and we could there for not make the general rule "no murders" without stepping on someones toes.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: myrkul on April 15, 2013, 03:38:28 PM

should we allow murder?

If I said yes or no, do you think it would impact a murderer? And if murder was allowed, would you murder people? I don't think these are concepts we have to lay out on day one. Since nobody wants to murder anyone with law, I don't think anyone wants to murder without law. It's a matter of empathy; I'm not going to murder you because I don't want your family to murder me. I think we can both agree to that, as neither of us want to be murdered.

But all that aside, it wouldn't technically be murder if it was legal. Tongue

That's a concept that only coincides with government.

Well, that depends. Would you like to be murdered?

I envy your short, concise answers Grin

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM