America - The Official Thread

[PocketZeven]

I mean voluntary charity works better than government. Keep in mind that I consider the pointing of the gun at someone and stealing their property to be part of how well (or poorly) government "charity" works.



Citation needed.



E-commerce is one of the lowest barriers to entry out there. Terrible example. No Amazon is held in check by competition, not anti-trust.

Voluntary Charity has never worked in the history of the world. That is what I stated. There are no examples of where it works better then goverment assistance.

You are exaggerating the actual workings of government and social assistance.

You are leaving out that modern society has moved towards this by choice. In the past (mostly monarchies) the poor were indeed dependant on "charity" there was no social safety net. People got fed up and this is how modern democracies and social assistance programs were created. I know its oversimplifying, but im trying to deviate too much from topic. In the end people can vote for the so called "stealing". The government is nothing like a monarchie or corporation that operates without the will of the people.

edit: if your property really gets "stolen" by force. You would not have the freedom to vote if your property gets "stolen" at all, how much gets stolen, who steals it and to which charity the "stolen" property is given to.

Although the chance is slim, you are free to run on an policy of removing taxes and social assistance in favor of voluntary donations and potentially win if you receive enough votes.

You could watch Idiocracy?
or just read about Standard Oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

 

[Danoff]

Voluntary Charity has never worked in the history of the world. That is what I stated. There are no examples of where it works better then goverment assistance.

I don't think it's been tried. But it's always better than government "assistance" (theft) because it doesn't actually forcibly harm people. Always, everywhere.

You are leaving out that modern society has moved towards this by choice.

Yes, stealing from the minority and being "charitable" with the theft is very popular.

In the past (mostly monarchies) the poor were indeed dependant on "charity" there was no social safety net. People got fed up and this is how modern democracies and social assistance programs were created. I know its oversimplifying, but im trying to deviate too much from topic. People vote for the so called "stealing". The government is nothing like a monarchie or corporation that operates without the will of the people.

Corporations can only exist within a government. They require the preservation of rights to exist, otherwise they become governments. Monarchies are pretty poor examples to use to refute capitalism.

Although the chance is slim, you are free to run on an policy of removing taxes and social assistance in favor of voluntary donations and potentially win if you receive enough votes.

Yes, stealing from the minority and being "charitable" with the theft is very popular.

You could watch Idiocracy?

Seen it, it's great.

or just read about Standard Oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

Or you could: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

 

[mustafur]

The old taxation is theft argument, but the way you get your income isn't possible without taxation.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't think it's been tried. But it's always better than government "assistance" (theft) because it doesn't actually forcibly harm people. Always, everywhere.



Yes, stealing from the minority and being "charitable" with the theft is very popular.



Corporations can only exist within a government. They require the preservation of rights to exist, otherwise they become governments. Monarchies are pretty poor examples to use to refute capitalism.



Yes, stealing from the minority and being "charitable" with the theft is very popular.




Seen it, it's great.



Or you could: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

It has in history. There was no social assistance before the age of democracies and republics. Modern Society is better because of it. Social democracies in Europe are on average way "happier" then countries that provide less social assistance. In theory it is forcable, but in practice it is voluntary (in the sense that the vast majority of people do not need force with a gun to pay for it). I can not imagine not paying taxes and if it bothered me that much, I would move to another country. I really understand your point, but its the most pessimistic view on the subject, allthough you arent wrong.

"Theft" is technically forcably taking your property. But if you see it as theft, why not start your own political campaign to stop it?

I understand how you have gotten by on your own with little to no assistance. But at least the country your live in has created the economic circumstances for you to thrive in. Doesnt that deserve some contribution?

 

[Danoff]

The old taxation is theft argument, but the way you get your income isn't possible without taxation.

Oh? Try me. How exactly?

It has in history. There was no social assistance before the age of democracies and republics. Modern Society is better because of it.

Because of.... human rights? Democracy?

In theory it is forcable, but in practice it is voluntary (in the sense that the vast majority of people do not need force with a gun to pay for it).

That's not forcible to you? Hah!

allthough you arent wrong.

I'll take it. 👍

"Theft" is technically forcably taking your property. But if you see it as theft, why not start your own political campaign to stop it?

I'm not cut out to be a politician.

I understand how you have gotten by on your own with little to no assistance. But at least the country your live in has created the economic circumstances for you to thrive in. Doesnt that deserve some contribution?

Most of what my government does is bad. So no.

Do you remember how we got here? It was people complaining about lobbying. I explained that lobbying goes away if government shrinks, and that hasn't been refuted. Pages and been dedicated to attempting to describe lobbying as a necessary evil (apparently). I'm not sure why that helps you feel any better about it.

 

[mustafur]

Oh? Try me. How exactly?

Your Ability to get to work, your works ability to function, your education, your ability to get to your education, your land(you didn't just plant a flag on it), your ability to have services connected to your land, your ability for your parents to get an education to get a job to service your education needs to get your income in the first place.

There is alot more but I'll start at that.

 

[Danoff]

Your Ability to get to work

I work from home, but I suppose you mean public roads. You think that roads are not possible without being paid for by taxes?

, your works ability to function

Not sure what you're getting at here.

your education

Education is definitely not required to be publicly funded.

your ability to get to your education

See above.

your land(you didn't just plant a flag on it)

I don't have to have land to have income. But if I'm squinting I'd wager you're arguing that property rights are required for my income (kinda true) and that property rights require taxation. Is that it?

your ability to have services connected to your land

How is taxation required for that? You mean sewage, water, internet, power, trash... all of those can be provided without taxation.

your ability for your parents to get an education to get a job to service your education needs to get your income in the first place.

See above.

 

[mustafur]

I work from home, but I suppose you mean public roads. You think that roads are not possible without being paid for by taxes?

Possible sure, but I would argue it would be definitely worse to have every single road private without question, especially if there is no regulation on how that condition of road should be met and the fact that some roads your forced to take to use your car(such as your street).

But that also ignores the reality that what is possible is different to what is now and your taxes pay for that at current.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

You have to do your work with other people right, other people that like you also require some of the services provided by taxation in current reality?

Education is definitely not required to be publicly funded.

Sure it isn't but in today's reality that is the case in every school in your country regardless if it's private or not.

Making sure there is a half decent curriculum is also going to need some taxation, the option to choose another school is not possible for alot of people without effecting their income or their ability to live where they are.

I don't have to have land to have income. But if I'm squinting I'd wager you're arguing that property rights are required for my income (kinda true) and that property rights require taxation. Is that it?

I could argue that, but I was angling it that taxation was used in the implementation of your land lot(unless you live in some rural farm that predates the state in that region).

How is taxation required for that? You mean sewage, water, internet, power, trash... all of those can be provided without taxation

It's not but I would argue when it comes to water and sewage it does need to be checked on and if it fails, the alternative options are extremely difficult.

 

[Danoff]

Possible sure, but I would argue it would be definitely worse to have every single road private without question, especially if there is no regulation on how that condition of road should be met and the fact that some roads your forced to take to use your car(such as your street).

Tolls roads in my experience are usually maintained far better than public roads.

But that also ignores the reality that what is possible is different to what is now and your taxes pay for that at current.

The old taxation is theft argument, but the way you get your income isn't possible without taxation.

You have to do your work with other people right, other people that like you also require some of the services provided by taxation in current reality?

Require?

Sure it isn't but in today's reality that is the case in every school in your country regardless if it's private or not.

Making sure there is a half decent curriculum is also going to need some taxation, the option to choose another school is not possible for alot of people without effecting their income or their ability to live where they are.

I don't see why education requires any tax dollars. Enforcement of education (such as detecting abused undereducated children) is a better angle here.

I could argue that, but I was angling it that taxation was used in the implementation of your land lot(unless you live in some rural farm that predates the state in that region).

I don't see how my income depends on that.

It's not but I would argue when it comes to water and sewage it does need to be checked on and if it fails, the alternative options are extremely difficult.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. But people lived without city water and sewage long before they lived with it.

 

[mustafur]

Tolls roads in my experience are usually maintained far better than public roads.








Require?



I don't see why education requires any tax dollars. Enforcement of education (such as detecting abused undereducated children) is a better angle here.



I don't see how my income depends on that.



I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. But people lived without city water and sewage long before they lived with it.

Sure you can go Hypothetical city, but the point is your income in this world is reliant on taxation in so to say taxation is theft is misleading.

To think every single road being private would work though, that is very farfetched, considering toll roads at current are only select roads limited to highways, tunnels and bridges not normal suburban streets.

 

[Danoff]

Sure you can go Hypothetical city, but the point is your income in this world is reliant on taxation in so to say taxation is theft is misleading.

The existence of public services does not mean we are reliant on those services.

To think every single road being private would work though, that is very farfetched, considering toll roads at current are only select roads limited to highways, tunnels and bridges not normal suburban streets.

Roads don't require taxation anyway. Even if they're government-made. But I don't see why it's far fetched to have nothing but private roads.

 

[mustafur]

The existence of public services does not mean we are reliant on those services.

It is if you want an Income, even if you where to live your life strictly as a libertarian your biggest hurdle would be that your income in some form will come via Taxation.

Roads don't require taxation anyway. Even if they're government-made.

Sure lets put a Toll on every single Street, I'm sure that will be fine with no government body making sure that there is no Price gouging when your forced into a street(Some drivers can do this to you sometimes) that has a High Toll(keep in mind in many places they only have electric pay passes that pay as soon as you enter a tolled road so there is no toll booth to avoid).

But I don't see why it's far fetched to have nothing but private roads.

Do you like the idea of a Natural Monopoly, because that is what your going to create, unless you want the above scenario.

Anyway the point I will make is the fact that Taxation isn't theft, as a Service is provided. It's forced yes but it's not theft especially when your income in this world is linked to the taxation existing anyway.

 

[Danoff]

It is if you want an Income, even if you where to live your life strictly as a libertarian your biggest hurdle would be that your income in some form will come via Taxation.

You have yet to give me a single example of how. "Income" is a property of free trade, and you need to explain how free trade requires taxation.

Sure lets put a Toll on every single Street, I'm sure that will be fine with no government body making sure that there is no Price gouging when your forced into a street(Some drivers can do this to you sometimes) that has a High Toll(keep in mind in many places they only have electric pay passes that pay as soon as you enter a tolled road so there is no toll booth to avoid).

There are lots of ways to voluntarily pay for the use of a street.

Anyway the point I will make is the fact that Taxation isn't theft, as a Service is provided.

If I steal your money but wash your dishes, it's still theft.

It's forced yes but it's not theft especially when your income in this world is linked to the taxation existing anyway.

 

[Exorcet]

In this (difficult) scenario, we're talking about making medical decisions as the guardian of a child - one who is not yet able to make decisions for themselves. There are standards below which cause significant harm to the development of the child.

I think parents have to be able to choose whether or not to vaccinate. And certainly public and private locations have the option of whether or not to accept people in an unvaccinated condition. But I also think we might prosecute parents who lose (or essentially stunt or deform) a child to an entirely preventable illness, when they were told how preventable it was, for child abuse.

Children do complicate things, and it's not clear to me what the best way to enact protection is in this case. Children harmed by their parents should be able to seek reparations, but there is no fixing a ruined life after the fact, sadly.

On the other hand, if we have no say in the matter, it provides another method for the government to abuse citizens as it has done in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

Sure you can go Hypothetical city, but the point is your income in this world is reliant on taxation...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point seems to be that things are the way they are. While true, that doesn't mean that alternatives can't exist. All you're really doing is pointing out that some aspects of society will have to behave differently under a libertarian-like system.

 

[Dotini]

Bombshell ABC tape leaked.

Epstein, the most prolific pedophile in US history?
"100% he was killed", "Ghislane Maxwell needs security guards all around her", "Who at ABC spiked the story, and why?"


https://www.projectveritas.com/2019...-bombshell-story-implicating-jeffrey-epstein/

 

[ryzno]

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/7761...mpaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social

 

[PocketZeven]

You have yet to give me a single example of how. "Income" is a property of free trade, and you need to explain how free trade requires taxation.



There are lots of ways to voluntarily pay for the use of a street.




If I steal your money but wash your dishes, it's still theft.

Government needs funding. No government is anarchy. How would you suggest government should acquire funding? Through charity?

edit:

Do you remember how we got here? It was people complaining about lobbying. I explained that lobbying goes away if government shrinks, and that hasn't been refuted. Pages and been dedicated to attempting to describe lobbying as a necessary evil (apparently). I'm not sure why that helps you feel any better about it.

You are suggesting that lobbying is a result of government being too big. Lobbying would actually be worse when government would be small. Except it wouldnt be called lobbying, but just paying of execs at corporations to make sure you receive that lucrative contract (which already happens), with no requirement of any transparancy.

 

[Danoff]

Government needs funding. No government is anarchy. How would you suggest government should acquire funding? Through charity?

Fees, endowment, currency management. It doesn't take much funding to keep a government afloat when the government doesn't try to run the entire world. Just FYI, we have one example of a department right now that is funded entirely by fees - the US Patent Office, which runs a revenue positive budget and actually kicks money in to the general fund every year.

You are suggesting that lobbying is a result of government being too big. Lobbying would actually be worse when government would be small. Except it wouldnt be called lobbying, but just paying of execs at corporations to make sure you receive that lucrative contract (which already happens), with no requirement of any transparancy.

It's far from the same thing. Because lobbying is the attempt to gain force over citizens. Let me give you an example (which happens to not be entirely made up).

- Some toys come to the US from China with lead in them. Kids get sick. Parents cry havoc.
- Matel steps up and says "we propose this new law regulating the toy industry to test to make sure that toys do not have lead".
- Glee ensues.
- Matel's new legislation (which they essentially wrote and handed to congress) gets passed.
- Small toy manufacturers go out of business because they cannot afford the expensive lead testing procedures required by Matel.
- In this case, the law that was crafted by Matel was intentionally designed to require testing tools which only Matel could afford.

That's lobbying (in a more benign way that much lobbying). It's Matel attempting to force other companies out of business. Not through competition, but through legal requirements, ultimately through use of government guns. The only way Matel can get that kind of power (in a civilization where rights are protected by government) is through government lobbying. The absence of the new legislation does not mean that Matel can do the same thing behind the scenes, they are unable to do it.

Here's what happens in my preferred scenario
- Some toys come to the US from China with lead in them. Kids get sick, Parents cry havoc.
- Matel steps up and says "we propose this new law regulating the toy industry to test to make sure that toys do not have lead".
- The US government says "it is already illegal to poison children, we do not need a new law".
- Chinese companies are sued and driven out of the US.
- Toy manufacturers and retail distributors realize the real consequences for harming customers
- Small toy manufacturers are not driven out of business.

See the difference? Lobbying is squashed and the outcome is better.

 

[PocketZeven]

Fees, endowment, currency management. It doesn't take much funding to keep a government afloat when the government doesn't try to run the entire world. Just FYI, we have one example of a department right now that is funded entirely by fees - the US Patent Office, which runs a revenue positive budget and actually kicks money in to the general fund every year.


edit:
It's far from the same thing. Because lobbying is the attempt to gain force over citizens. Let me give you an example (which happens to not be entirely made up).

- Some toys come to the US from China with lead in them. Kids get sick. Parents cry havoc.
- Matel steps up and says "we propose this new law regulating the toy industry to test to make sure that toys do not have lead".
- Glee ensues.
- Matel's new legislation (which they essentially wrote and handed to congress) gets passed.
- Small toy manufacturers go out of business because they cannot afford the expensive lead testing procedures required by Matel.
- In this case, the law that was crafted by Matel was intentionally designed to require testing tools which only Matel could afford.

That's lobbying (in a more benign way that much lobbying). It's Matel attempting to force other companies out of business. Not through competition, but through legal requirements, ultimately through use of government guns. The only way Matel can get that kind of power (in a civilization where rights are protected by government) is through government lobbying. The absence of the new legislation does not mean that Matel can do the same thing behind the scenes, they are unable to do it.

Here's what happens in my preferred scenario
- Some toys come to the US from China with lead in them. Kids get sick, Parents cry havoc.
- Matel steps up and says "we propose this new law regulating the toy industry to test to make sure that toys do not have lead".
- The US government says "it is already illegal to poison children, we do not need a new law".
- Chinese companies are sued and driven out of the US.
- Toy manufacturers and retail distributors realize the real consequences for harming customers
- Small toy manufacturers are not driven out of business.

See the difference? Lobbying is squashed and the outcome is better.

How would you translate that to the real world actually? A patent office has low costs, if you compare to the police and military. Could people just opt out of paying for that?

That is making a lot of assumptions. This scenario would be more likely in my opinion:
- Some toys come to the US from China with lead in them. Kids get sick, Parents cry havoc
- Mattel pays off the parents
- Gets away with it without any real consequence
- Mattel continues making toys in China, paying off any individual cases of poisoning (because its cheaper)
- Mattel buys small toy manufacurers to obtain a monopoly or oligopoly

Lobbying is not just to pass laws that will benefit them, but obtain contracts, prevent regulation etc. A smaller government could mean no oversight on financial markets, no antitrust laws, no labour laws etc. Corporations wont need to lobby at all, because they can do what they want as long as they dont violate the people's rights.

A great example is how big pharma would prosper even more without oversight.

 

[Danoff]

That is making a lot of assumptions. This scenario would be more likely in my opinion:
- Some toys come to the US from China with lead in them. Kids get sick, Parents cry havoc
- Mattel pays off the parents
- Gets away with it without any real consequence
- Mattel continues making toys in China, paying off any individual cases of poisoning (because its cheaper)
- Mattel buys small toy manufacurers to obtain a monopoly or oligopoly

Yea you're right, there are two ts in Mattel.

You misunderstand the scenario. Mattel didn't cause the problem here, Mattel just saw an opportunity to muscle competition out in the name of "safety". Mattel wouldn't pay off parents, because Mattel did nothing wrong.

Buying small companies is something that large companies do, but it spurs small companies (in a big way) and greatly incentivizes innovation. Large corporations do quite badly, as they suffer extensively from bloat internally and management problems. They kinda die from the inside out. Absorbing small companies keeps them afloat even though they accomplish little by comparison. But it's a brilliant system for innovation and small businesses spring up fast in an attempt to get purchased. The relationship actually works relatively well.

Edit:

You have a large corporation that has "resources" around the world. Manufacturing, tooling, regulation "know-how". And small businesses innovate but have no resources to compete with the large business on a great scale. It will take a long time before the small company develops those resources. The large company buys the small company, thereby merging the innovation and the resources, and the product gets made... everywhere.

But ultimately, one of the biggest hurdles for small companies in these cases is extensive regulation (not just in the US, but in all of the governments of the world). Part of the reason they get absorbed is precisely because of the kinds of laws the Mattel drafted. So once again, your "problem" is a symptom of regulation.

Edit:

An example of large business "know how" is just having like, material testing data sheets a mile long. They've accumulated a giant database of knowledge by spending gobs on testing of various materials. So they know which materials work and how well. This kind of thing would be a gold mine to a small company, because they don't have the money and equipment to develop it in-house.

So again, both parties bring something to the table, and the culmination is better than either alone.

Lobbying is not just to pass laws that will benefit them, but obtain contracts, prevent regulation etc. A smaller government could mean no oversight on financial markets, no antitrust laws, no labour laws etc. Corporations wont need to lobby at all, because they can do what they want as long as they dont violate the people's rights.

If they don't violate peoples' rights, what's the problem?

Edit:

Also just FYI, it's very difficult to pay off people in these kinds of cases. Jury awards for civil cases are often very generous, and there's also a criminal trial as well. Plaintiffs often get well paid (without being paid off) through the court system.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yea you're right, there are two ts in Mattel.

You misunderstand the scenario. Mattel didn't cause the problem here, Mattel just saw an opportunity to muscle competition out in the name of "safety". Mattel wouldn't pay off parents, because Mattel did nothing wrong.

Buying small companies is something that large companies do, but it spurs small companies (in a big way) and greatly incentivizes innovation. Large corporations do quite badly, as they suffer extensively from bloat internally and management problems. They kinda die from the inside out. Absorbing small companies keeps them afloat even though they accomplish little by comparison. But it's a brilliant system for innovation and small businesses spring up fast in an attempt to get purchased. The relationship actually works relatively well.

Edit:

You have a large corporation that has "resources" around the world. Manufacturing, tooling, regulation "know-how". And small businesses innovate but have no resources to compete with the large business on a great scale. It will take a long time before the small company develops those resources. The large company buys the small company, thereby merging the innovation and the resources, and the product gets made... everywhere.

But ultimately, one of the biggest hurdles for small companies in these cases is extensive regulation (not just in the US, but in all of the governments of the world). Part of the reason they get absorbed is precisely because of the kinds of laws the Mattel drafted. So once again, your "problem" is a symptom of regulation.



If they don't violate peoples' rights, what's the problem?

Edit:

Also just FYI, it's very difficult to pay off people in these kinds of cases. Jury awards for civil cases are often very generous, and there's also a criminal trial as well. Plaintiffs often get well paid (without being paid off) through the court system.

I made a wrong assumption, but i will correct it:

- Some toys come to the US from China with lead in them. Kids get sick, Parents cry havoc
- There is no law that bans lead in toys. Because producing toys with lead technically does not violate anyones rights.
- Some toy manufacturer go out of business, because of a boycott and some pay people to keep it out of the public eye



Again Standard Oil. Monopolies have the vast resources to push out or put down any competitors.

How would the judicial arm be funded? By fees? If one goes to court they both pay for the judge's time? It is very prone to corruption if one party has deeper pockets. Since you oppose forcible taxes that funds the judicial arm and keeps them impartial.

A financial crisis spurred by greed is not technically violating anyone rights. Yet I have a problem with them. Especially if the tresponsible keep their own profits without consequences.

edit:
How would a Fee dunded government work? In your example a patent office has low overhead costs, if you compare to the police and military. Could people just opt out of paying for that?

 

[Danoff]

I made a wrong assumption, but i will correct it:

- Some toys come to the US from China with lead in them. Kids get sick, Parents cry havoc
- There is no law that bans lead in toys. Because producing toys with lead technically does not violate anyones rights.
- Some toy manufacturer go out of business, because of a boycott and some pay people to keep it out of the public eye

There are laws against harming children.

Again Standard Oil. Monopolies have the vast resources to push out or put down any competitors.

You should actually read up on standard oil. I gave you a good place to start.

How would the judicial arm be funded? By fees? If one goes to court they both pay for the judge's time? It is very prone to corruption if one party has deeper pockets. Since you oppose forcible taxes that funds the judicial arm and keeps them impartial.

Turns out we do that now.

A financial crisis spurred by greed is not technically violating anyone rights. Yet I have a problem with them. Especially if the tresponsible keep their own profits without consequences.

Fraud is also illegal.

How would a Fee dunded government work? In your example a patent office has low overhead costs, if you compare to the police and military. Could people just opt out of paying for that?

I listed several ways to pay for it besides fees. But fees can cover some of it.

 

[PocketZeven]

There are laws against harming children.



You should actually read up on standard oil. I gave you a good place to start.



Turns out we do that now.



Fraud is also illegal.



I listed several ways to pay for it besides fees. But fees can cover some of it.

It is hard to prove who is responsible. Look at the Flint water crisis. Having lead in toys technically isnt spoonfeeding children with lead.

I did read up. What are you referring to, what I didnt read?

No it does not. People do pay costs, but that is not how the courts are financed. Funding from charity will lead to conflicts of interest and bias.
How would you keep an impartial judicial arm and military abd law enforcement funded without taxincome and purely on fees and charity? Please explain further.

Fraud wasnt the main cause of the crisis. Many aspects that caused the crisis were perfectly legal. What Bernie madoff did was fraud.

Fees would become very expensive. There is the risk of parts of government going bankrupt.

edit:

A great solution would be to determin a budget and let every american pay a fee. But that would be "stealing" all over again.

 

[Danoff]

It is hard to prove who is responsible. Look at the Flint water crisis. Having lead in toys technically isnt spoonfeeding children with lead.

The toy manufacturer that sells toys coated with poison is responsible (this is not hard). If they made it clear that it was coated with poison, then the parents are instead responsible.

I did read up. What are you referring to, what I didnt read?

The link I gave you where I suggested you read up on it?

No it does not. People do pay costs, but that is not how the courts are financed.

You mean in total.

Funding from charity will lead to conflicts of interest and bias.

Funny that I didn't actually list charity.

"Fees, endowment, currency management."

How would you keep an impartial judicial arm and military abd law enforcement funded without taxincome and purely on fees and charity? Please explain further.

See above.

Fraud wasnt the main cause of the crisis.

That's somewhat debatable.

Many aspects that caused the crisis were perfectly legal.

If it was within human rights (regardless of legality), I'm fine with it.

 

[PocketZeven]

The toy manufacturer that sells toys coated with poison is responsible (this is not hard). If they made it clear that it was coated with poison, then the parents are instead responsible.



The link I gave you where I suggested you read up on it?



You mean in total.



Funny that I didn't actually list charity.

"Fees, endowment, currency management."



See above.



That's somewhat debatable.



If it was within human rights (regardless of legality), I'm fine with it.

Please explain the difference between endowment and chartiable donations? So allthough not for profit, basically the military, courts and law enforcement will need to balance their budget by feeing people based on the use off their services?

What do you mean with currency management?

I guess you are proposing a utopia. With no crime, there would be no need for funding for military, courts and law enfocrement etc. People selflessly help each other when they need it. I would love to live in such a society, but like I said, people are greedy and vain.

 

[Danoff]

Please explain the difference between endowment and chartiable donations? So allthough not for profit, basically the military, courts and law enforcement will need to balance their budget by feeing people based on the use off their services?

What do you mean with currency management?

I guess you are proposing a utopia. With no crime, there would be no need for funding for military, courts and law enfocrement etc. People selflessly help each other when they need it. I would love to live in such a society, but like I said, people are greedy and vain.

Uh... no. What I'm proposing is just limited government, such that our government doesn't have insane depths of red tape or enormous military manipulation throughout the world, and such that charity is personal and voluntary.

Currency management is, simply put, a service performed by the government today (somewhat badly). Inflation represents government revenue. And inflation is not always bad. A stable currency, which inflates very slowly, is preferable to deflating currency. A currency which is widely accepted, and backed by the government, and is stable is a service which provides its own fees in the form of inflation. Deflation is the natural state for a fixed currency in a system with growing economic output, and deflation is counter-productive.

There are problems with this, of course. But they're not as large as the problems associated with income tax.

An endowment is basically just a positive starting point. A pool of assets that the government has to work with at the outset. That pool of assets can generate revenue on its own. Consider, for example, national parks. That's an endowment of sorts, it's land that the government already possesses to start with and generates revenue.

Currently the US operates with a negative like... uh... gazillion trillion dollars of endowment (actually it's $14T). It's basically an endowment to the tune of a $500 Billion loss each year.


Edit:

Just as a footnote here (and this is super non-PC and I expect to draw fire but I'm gonna state it anyway), the US government owns hundreds of billions of dollars of oil in Alaska alone.

 

[PocketZeven]

That isnt how it works. You can not budget a budget on inflation/deflation of currency. In limited government, the government would have no influence in interests and inflation and deflation, only by manipulating the amount, which should not be the purview of limited government. In a free world with limited government, Money should be backed by something of value (gold) or by the peoples trust (crypto) and not by a government.

Who is going to pay for the endowment? So basically everything that is public will be need to produce higher revenue to balance the budget?

The main issue I have with your propostion though, is that you assume people are charitable, with absolutely no selfinterest. That does not work in practice and people will suffer and die in such a system. You oppose taxation and propose people will help one another selflessly within a nation, which I already said has never happened in the history of the world.

To be clear, which definition of human rights do you use? The one of the united Nations?

 

[Danoff]

The main issue I have with your propostion though, is that you assume people are charitable, with absolutely no selfinterest.

You're gonna need to explain that. Because no I don't.

That isnt how it works. You can not budget a budget on inflation/deflation of currency.

The US government currently does.

In limited government, the government would have no influence in interests and inflation and deflation, only by manipulating the amount, which should not be the purview of limited government. In a free world with limited government, Money should be backed by something of value (gold) or by the peoples trust (crypto) and not by a government.

Are you trying to tell me what my perspective should be so that you can argue against it?

Who is going to pay for the endowment?

The US government already owns a lot.

So basically everything that is public will be need to produce higher revenue to balance the budget?

As is currently done.

That does not work in practice and people will suffer and die in such a system.

And they don't now? Charity should be voluntary.

You oppose taxation and propose people will help one another selflessly within a nation, which I already said has never happened in the history of the world.

The US currently annually provides $400 Billion in private charity (2017 numbers).

To be clear, which definition of human rights do you use? The one of the united Nations?

The United Nations bill of rights is a wishlist, and has nothing to do with rights.

 

[Joey D]

Just as a footnote here (and this is super non-PC and I expect to draw fire but I'm gonna state it anyway), the US government owns hundreds of billions of dollars of oil in Alaska alone.

They also own almost all of the western US too, including majorities in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and even California. They could easily sell off the land and get a huge chunk of money. There's plenty of natural resources in those lands that would make them incredibly valuable.

Really the only federal lands that should be owned by the government outside some military bases are things like National Parks and Recreation Areas. And the only reason for that is that you need to pay to use those areas and with proper management could easily support themselves.

===

Regarding taxes though, they are a form of theft. When something is taken from you unwillingly that you own, it's theft. I have no desire to give money to social security or medicare, yet every two weeks money is taken from me that I worked for. Then Uncle Sam comes in and gets his cut, then turns it over to Uncle Sam's Mormon cousin who lops off a chunk for the state. If that wasn't enough, the city government also takes its share despite me not living in the city or having an opportunity to vote on who runs it.

When it comes to taxes, the only thing that makes any sense to me is sales tax. That way the people using X thing get charged the tax and those who don't want to pay the tax can choose not to buy X item. Ideally, I'd rather not pay it, but sale tax makes more sense than income tax.

 

[PocketZeven]

You're gonna need to explain that. Because no I don't.



The US government currently does.



Are you trying to tell me what my perspective should be so that you can argue against it?



The US government already owns a lot.



As is currently done.



And they don't now? Charity should be voluntary.



The US currently annually provides $400 Billion in private charity (2017 numbers).



The United Nations bill of rights is a wishlist, and has nothing to do with rights.

You assume social assistence should be funded by voluntary donations. And suggest that should be enough.

But 400 billion in private charity? Where did the donations go though? For example Trump's charities were all in selfinterest when he was a private citizen. How many billions of those 400 billions were actually selfless? And would the absence of taxes really increase that number?

Would it be nearly enough to help people, since it costs t least 10x times as much currently? What about humanitary crisis, like tornados, tsunamies? These would also be funded from these private charities?

So human rights are in the eye of the beholder?


edit:

Regarding taxes though, they are a form of theft. When something is taken from you unwillingly that you own, it's theft. I have no desire to give money to social security or medicare, yet every two weeks money is taken from me that I worked for. Then Uncle Sam comes in and gets his cut, then turns it over to Uncle Sam's Mormon cousin who lops off a chunk for the state. If that wasn't enough, the city government also takes its share despite me not living in the city or having an opportunity to vote on who runs it.

When it comes to taxes, the only thing that makes any sense to me is sales tax. That way the people using X thing get charged the tax and those who don't want to pay the tax can choose not to buy X item. Ideally, I'd rather not pay it, but sale tax makes more sense than income tax.

That is still relative though. If someone steals your phone. Yes it is theft. But if everyone in your family votes (including you) and the majority choses to let your private phone get taken away and in return everybody receives acces to the phone. Is that still theft in its purist definition?