[quote]dhickey wrote:
Only those with the biggest stick.[/quote]
Which is the way it has been since the beginning of time. At least with anarchy there are no pretenses of equality and fairness guarded by military might. Man can exists by his capabilities and relationships alone.
I think immoral people have the most to lose in this situation because there will always be more moral people who are stronger and more intelligent than those that spend their time preying on the “weak”. They are the ones who will be run out and put down by a mob of angry people.
Given the right circumstances most people would make time. In the mean time we are prosperous enough to hire someone for it.
You are a dreamer.
Its the same way it is now except under the system I propose none would have the right to hold a gun to your head and force you to swear fealty to its cause.[/quote]
Two men make a deal and let another one pay for it.
Like when I undercut my competitors by lowering my costs by polluting the air.
Maybe the technology doesn’t exist yet but imagine if someone figures out a way to clean and or capture said pollution and then charges the rightful owners for it. Call it a pollution catcher – kind of like a dog catcher.
Are murder and theft also externalities?[/quote]
Pollution is a by product of life. You want to charge someone for living?
[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Its only laws would be that you not harm another person. If you violate those laws, then you would be arrested. How is that idea wrong?
Who exactly would arrest me if I violated your laws (which restrict me by the way)?
If there were no taxes, laws would only be those that could pay for enforcement. So now you have a class a system, those protected by “laws” and those not represented.[/quote]
Police are funded from fees the government charges for its services. Think of paying the government as buying insurance. You’re free to choose. This is really very similar to how police/firefighters/courts and so forth are funded now, except now its done with extorted tax money.
Laws that prevent you from harming others don’t restrict you, except in the sense of preventing you from harming another. That’s a restriction we want, even if you resent it.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…nobody has yet to answer how the new america could look like. How does this society function? Do you pay taxes at all? Is everything privatized? If you don’t pay taxes, do you expect to be left with more money in your pocket when you have to pay for everything else? Clear this up for me please?
The idea of taxes treats humans as cattle, or perhaps milking cows. I would say that if a government can only exist by forcing its citizens to pay for it, then that government is immoral.
There are many ideas for financing that is non-extortionary. An excellent example is offering a choice, when purchasing real estate, of whether the buyer wants government protection from fraud. Paying a small fee ensures that the government will pursue and prosecute any fraud. You have a CHOICE to not pay the fee. If you are defrauded, you’re out of luck. If you were buying property from your parents, you probably wouldn’t buy this insurance, for example. If you were buying from a stranger, you’d certainly opt for the insurance.
Government should be something you hire, NOT something you obey or else.
…who will build roads? Who will provide you with clean drinking water? Will there be a public school system? How about health care? Answer me this: will an average earner who does not pay taxes in your world have more money in his pocket after he has to pay for everything else?
[/quote]
All of those things are paid for today by either methods involving force or fraud (taxation or inflation). The current sytems would roughly stay in place but be funded honestly, by paying service fees to governmental bodies. The roads will still be there, as will schools and clean water, but their funding would be by free choice, done by free human beings who want those services.
The possibilities of funding are virtually endless. The pooled money is simply the free choice of those doing the paying. Government becomes a service you hire, not a master who steals your wealth and destroys your currency.
From a more practical standpoint, show me a place in the modern world with high levels of wealth and development throughout society which has truly minimal government and next to no taxation.
It would only be altruistic if you gained no feeling of satisfaction or pride from doing it.
If that is the case then altruism doesn’t exist and HH should STFU about it.[/quote]
I’m using Comte’s definition of unselfishness. Here’s a simple explanation: “The nineteenth-century French theorist Auguste Comte, who first coined the term altruism, claimed that the way to end social conflict is by training people to “live for others,” rather than themselves. In a popular sense, altruism means something like noble self-sacrifice. A more minimal understanding, one that many philosophers favor, is an acknowledgment that the interests of others make claims on us and limit what we may do.”
Kant’s idea is probably the motivation behind western thought and politics: “Kant’s initial argument appeals to his requirement that we may only act on principles that we can will as universal laws. Willing a world in which everyone has a policy of not helping others, while knowing that you will need help, would be inconsistent, so we must will to help those who are in need.”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m using Comte’s definition of unselfishness. Here’s a simple explanation: “The nineteenth-century French theorist Auguste Comte, who first coined the term altruism, claimed that the way to end social conflict is by training people to “live for others,” rather than themselves. In a popular sense, altruism means something like noble self-sacrifice. A more minimal understanding, one that many philosophers favor, is an acknowledgment that the interests of others make claims on us and limit what we may do.”
Kant’s idea is probably the motivation behind western thought and politics: “Kant’s initial argument appeals to his requirement that we may only act on principles that we can will as universal laws. Willing a world in which everyone has a policy of not helping others, while knowing that you will need help, would be inconsistent, so we must will to help those who are in need.”
[/quote]
This runs completly against human nature and instinct. We retain the same instincs that every other creature on this planet does. Self preservation and self interest. To live for ohters in completely unatural for any species on this planet including man. You are esetially telling man that he is evil by birth and nature and that he needs to be programed to ignor the most basic instinct every creature on this planet is ultimately driven by.
America has a beautiful flag…
Orion feels sexual tension with the rag
Lixy loves to hate it so much
he obsessively stalks it…and longs for its touch
all the while the flag fly’s free,
and doesn’t acknowledge the likes of thee…
Through constitutional departure we hold hope
With Mikeyali climbing the rope
Thunderbolt beacons… a light in the sky…
and Varqanir winks an eye for an eye
The Olympics play on, and the States are strong
reminding the world…why we belong
Wars rage on, and lives are cost
but the human heart has not been lost…
Triumph and failure go hand in hand
as we seek to lift a faltering land
I believe in my country through doubt and sorrow
and I will never sacrifice, the American tomorrow
Amercica has brought freedom to over 1 billion people on the planet in her existence. When Amercica goes in to a county it is to bring freedom not to take it over.
Look how many countries are free around the world simply because we still have a pulse.
Most of Europe would be speaking either German or Russian right now if it were not for the good ole USA.
Over 1 billion people who otherwise would not be free - enough said.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
For the first time, a government was created with the explicit purpose of defending the rights of Man. Previous governments were created by the Divine Right of Kings, or because of the Will of Heaven; or they were accidents of geography and language.
For the first time, a government was logically created, beginning with axioms: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
Our fault has been (1) mixing with foreign nations. They are wrong for us because of the reasons listed above. Their philosophy is one of repression and death. (2) our morality of altruism conflicts with the rights of Man. The wealth of one man can be forced from him as long as its for the ‘public good’, or some other altruistic abomination.
While its likely that we will fall, being surrounded, infiltrated, and infected by evil from abroad and in our hearts, this nation is/was the noblest and most moral country in the history of the world. In fact, it is/was THE only moral one.
The Headhunter[/quote]
I never thought about it like this. Aren’t all governments basically the same?
[quote]Standndeliver wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
For the first time, a government was created with the explicit purpose of defending the rights of Man. Previous governments were created by the Divine Right of Kings, or because of the Will of Heaven; or they were accidents of geography and language.
For the first time, a government was logically created, beginning with axioms: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
Our fault has been (1) mixing with foreign nations. They are wrong for us because of the reasons listed above. Their philosophy is one of repression and death. (2) our morality of altruism conflicts with the rights of Man. The wealth of one man can be forced from him as long as its for the ‘public good’, or some other altruistic abomination.
While its likely that we will fall, being surrounded, infiltrated, and infected by evil from abroad and in our hearts, this nation is/was the noblest and most moral country in the history of the world. In fact, it is/was THE only moral one.
The Headhunter
I never thought about it like this. Aren’t all governments basically the same?
[/quote]
No. Our Federal government was created with the explicit task of protecting the rights of Man. By specifically spelling out what a government can and cannot do, the goal was to have the benefits of government and none of the evils.
The trouble is when lawyers and other such shylocks use shades of meaning to insert crap into the Constitution which goes against the Founding Fathers intentions. For ex, the phrase ‘to promote the general welfare’ has been abused by every lawyer, murderer, and beast in human form to abuse the country.