Bitcoin Forum

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.

Unlike my liberty minded colleagues, statists cannot envision a functional world without their brilliant and insightful guidance and Bitcoin represents huge threat to their central planning philosophy.
The current POTUS rails against "promoting selfishness as a virtue" and over the past 4 years has made good on his initial campaign promise to "spread the wealth around". There is no doubt that there is great income inequality across the globe but I would argue that this has more to do with government policies and their central bank enablers than anything else.

I believe that roads, schools, healthcare and everything else can be provided more efficiently by the free market. I suspect that many Bitcoiners and Satoshi himself hold similar beliefs.

I would like to see our community develop tools whereby individuals could voluntarily fund projects that have been traditionally thought of as being under the purview of the state. I would hope that this could prove once and for all that individual freedom is sacrosanct and that Bitcoin could be seen as a force for the common good and embraced as opposed to a threat.

They are very valid points. I agree.
Bitcoin should help the people everywhere.

While I would like that to happen, I'm very doubtful.
But Bitcoiners are more likely to like your concept, I'm sure.

(See also this discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=187616)
I got so much hate for an idea that is pretty much in the middle ground of enforced taxes by states and free will to spend.
(Majority decides what tax would be a good number for a state to sustain)

I don't get it - why do some Bitcoin enthusiasts think that Bitcoin magically removes the need for a state?

Taxes are needed.

1. I don't go to school, and my kids are not old enough, and will go to private when they are.
Why should I have to pay for schools? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
2. I hardly use the roads, and when I go long distance, I pay a toll to use the road.
Why should I be paying for roads all over the state of Florida? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
3. I don't go to hospitals, why should I pay for others to go? Don't get yourself injured.
I hardly leave my house, why should I pay because some idiot ran into a tree on his motorcycle?

As you can see, I'm selfish, just like most of the population. If I don't use it, why pay for it?
Though, knowing society will fall without everyone else to using my money, I will pay up.

Those are valid questions, though i don't see why society would fall because you're sitting home alone, unmolested.

If no one was paying money into things they don't use, society will fall.

You are right but brace yourself for frantic whines of people who insist that the time to charge for a fire service is when the fire has already started.

Why?

You mean nobody would pay for any kind of insurance, unless they're forced to?

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Have a read of this.  Even your ideal libertarian society will have things like conscription and eminent domain.  Pretty sure that fire services will be compulsory much the same way.

It doesn't. It simply returns one's power to decide how to spend one's money. States are known to thrive on exactly the opposite.

It will be interesting what "states" will look like in a bitcoin world. States looking like they are today will certainly have a hard time not going bankrupt when everyone decides for themselves how to spend their money, instead of figureheads wasting it on bombs.

States will treat Bitcoin the way they treat gold or any other commodity.

Gold-based states and paper-based states look very different. Especially if you change the one parameter tech level = post industrial revolution. It will be interesting indeed, but I'm confident it will be different.

When you make everyone better you make your situation better at the same time.

True.  Gold-based states are as rare as unicorns and paper-based states are all over the place.  But my point that Bitcoin will be taxed like gold or any other commodity remains.

The difficulty is proving how much Bitcoins you have.
How will a state handle this without enforcing ridicously high control on the internet?

It's on my list, though I thought Friedman was an ancap, so no conscription and such. But I'll see what his issues are and we can get back to it.
It's interesting that you think you know what my ideal society would look like, and you're sure that there would be a compulsory fire service.
Maybe the future will be a little different from what you can imagine.

He is indeed an ancap.  Its a good book - it makes what being in a libertarian society would be like very clear and logical.

So you have an educated workforce that can keep up with technology.  If you're an employer with nothing to sift through but a bunch of dummies, you won't be able to compete.  If you're an uneducated employee, you won't be employed for long.  And in all cases, it's nice to be able to have an intelligent conversation with one's neighbors.


Because roads are the glue that bind our culture together.  Because without decent roads you'd have no cost-effective access to the goods of the world.  Because without roads you'd die of your first heart attack in an ambulance with a broken axle.  Because without tolls you can actually get somewhere - with toll roads everywhere, a holiday road trip would proceed at an average speed of about 25mph.  Because roads are a part of the strategic defense of a country.


Because you will, fool.  You think you're going to live forever, without any health problems at all?  You want doctors working on you who have little experience because nobody can afford their services?  You want that idiot who ran into the tree fixed up, so he isn't a burden on all of us for the next forty years - or do you want him to get repaired and - having learnt a good lesson - walk out of the hospital and resume whatever his contributions to our society might be (keeping in mind that he must be contributing something, if he could afford the motorcycle in the first place)?


These 'points' you raise are about what makes a society, and what holds it together.  And they are a part of what is called the Commons.  Without the willingness to pay for something we will never use, at some level, we will never get what we need to survive.  Never.  Because: "As you can see, I'm selfish, just like most of the population."

The Commons is exactly the same as an insurance policy.  You pay in - and you pay much less than any given service will cost you individually if you should happen to use it without 'coverage' - and you know that you can always get it out if necessity demands.

I've got no problems at all with taxation.  My problems are with those who do it, how they do it, and what they use the money for.

"Let me get this straight:

You want to defund Social Security.
And take people's security in the future away.
You want to defund Medicare
And take away their security now.
You want to defund Planned Parenthood
So we can have more unwanted children and more sexually transmitted diseases
You want to defund education
So that only those who can afford a private education will be educated
You want to defund HUD
And put poor people on the street
And you want everyone to be able to buy assault rifles?
What the hell could possibly go wrong?" ~Anon

No worry it will never come so far.
It will be just a balance.
The state should have money only for what it is needed.

Where I live, my taxes pay for this.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

Imagine all over the country, the people who lost their house, or almost lost their house due to fire. How much of the population would actually pay 'donations' to the fire department?

It doesn't really matter.  Payment at the point of need is grotesquely inefficient.  A system where everything is financed that way would be too expensive to run.

That too.

Just allow subscription to state services to be voluntary. The rest will sort itself out as/when people are ready.

You don't need to list endless "what about the X, what about the Y" etc. Solutions will be found to such problems. You just need to ask yourself whether it is acceptable to use force to make people do stuff or not.

It's interesting that these debates are becoming more frequent. A few years ago, voluntarists/anarchists were very few in numbers. Now they are all over the place. That's what I call progress.

A voluntary subscription could work maybe.
But I'm not quite sure how you could sort it out.
Should you control everyone using the road built by the money of voluntary subscribers?

At least that's a way better claim than those pure anarchistic ones.

Going cold turkey would not be good. People need to educate themselves, to understand the nature of the state and their relationship with it.

Too many think of the state as 'us' and suggest that 'we' need to do X, Y and Z. This isn't true. The state isn't society - it is the antithesis of society. Those who believe in a strong society, see that the state is not needed at all.

BTW, 'what about the roads?!' is a bit of an in joke in voluntarist/anarchist circles! :) There are many ways to solve the problem, as with everything.

Perhaps you could replace state tax disks (UK) with a private subscription model. Said subscription could give access to a region free of charge, with other areas requiring one off fees.

For local estates, perhaps a cooperative would be a good model, with people buying in to a portion of the road when they buy their house. This would be pretty similar to maintenance fees in apartment blocks, for example.

Still, the roads question has had entire books written about it, so don't take my suggestions as the only ones - people are ingenious and they find solutions to problems all of the time. I don't worry about that at all, tbh.

Roads are good to use as example I guess, because you can imagine problems there.
What if somebody owns a pass that is the only good way to get to somewhere (maybe because there are mountains in the way or whatever)
He could charge ridicilously high fees to let people use his way.

I could imagine a lot of scenarious abusing similar things, because if people can do it, they will do it (at least some of them).

Two points:

1) Roads could be based on subscription models, where every subscriber has a share (and say) in the organisation. You could have annual auctions, where the costs are split over the subscriber base, for example. Getting from where we are now, the state could gift the roads to such cooperative style organisations to begin with. Later on, people may decide to only support roads which adopt this sort of model (and boycott others etc).

2) Monopolising a location is arguably an act of aggression. There is no evidence that you can 'own' a location, as you can't create that spot in time and space - you can only occupy it. If you refuse to share the location, then you are monopolising it. Therefore, you can argue that people can demand damages, if someone is seeking rent (from a location monopoly) including road owners. That isn't to say they don't own the asphalt, lights etc, but that doesn't imply ownership of a location.


Now, 1 is pretty straightforward - it is essentially pushing power down down/out from the centre. It also means that costs are localised to those who need to use those roads, based on their requirements.

2 is a more nuanced argument, but in a voluntarist society, courts will constantly be trying to define where the non-aggression principle is being ignored. I suspect monopolisation of locations would become an important issue and community land licenses may become popular (I wrote about this here, if you're interested: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=185849&st=0).

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.

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.

*facepalm*

Spoken like a true American..

Don't you also love a group of guys walking around and talking about how flammable your property looks... ;D

What sort of mortgage company would secure a loan against a house with no fire insurance? It is the asset they seek to reclaim if you default - they want it kept in good condition.

Even if a mortgage company was flexible, the mortgage rate would increase to cover their risk.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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?

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?

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)

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

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

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?

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

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.

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. 

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?

I would thank him. What's your 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.

"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"

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.


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?

I thought that had more to do with the agency in question wanting to keep it's monopoly.

Probably not. But I'm not obligated to do anything.

That is my point. If someone does something they're obligated to, there's no need to thank him. You don't owe him anything. I'd bet you anything that the first thing you would say is "Thanks, I owe you one," or words to that effect. If he was obligated to save you, you wouldn't owe him.

Try again, this time without the intellectual dishonesty.

The question is not whether the fire department should have been obliged to put the fire out as they were at the location anyway.

The question is whether taxation would be a better way of funding that fire department. 

In my opinion the answer is yes because its cheaper to tax and spend on essential services than it is to create expensive parallel bureaucracies.

Technically you are right. But why exactly do we need to change that?
It does no good whatsoever.
People will be grateful to the ones that rescued them, this is true even with the rules that obligate you to do so.
Also it's good if people rescue someone else (this second statement is a personal opinion, with overpopulation you may very well state otherwise).

You assume that there would be parallel bureaucracies. How hard is it to keep track of a subscriber list?

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

I suppose you support taxation for the same reason?

I guess it's at least one of the basic beliefs that lead me to it.

Try again, this time without the intellectual dishonesty.




intellectual dishonesty ... that's rich coming from you, holy shit.

"You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation" ... really ... good luck with your friends and family ...

Word of warning to all; myrkul is what happens when you try to apply economic theory to other fields where it obviously does not belong. Fields like ethics for example. Grow the hell up man, really.

And this is one of the basic beliefs that lead me to the opposite conclusion:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/Penn.jpg

Thank you, Penn Jillette.

Someone may have a valid reason for not paying a tax, but that doesn't stop the state throwing them in jail.

If someone can't figure out how to pay £75 a year for insurance, they have bigger problems... such as buying food. Let's stop with this silly excuse.

Taxation is not an efficient way to pay for monopolistic services. There is no competition for said departments, which gives little pressure for them to improve their service.

Even if they were more efficient, it doesn't justify using force to make everyone pay for them, whether they use/want them or not.

Guess we can stop here, because I don't think one of us is going to convince the other.
I think he is kinda wrong, as long as the force used is not doing worse things than the good things it accomplishs, it's ok.
I see nothing wrong with forcing people to care at least a bit about others.
But you also should do some help yourself.

This is not entirely true, you could go to another state, if you don't like yours.
It's difficult though due to different languages and some regulations.

You ignore the loss incurred by the fire fighters. Their time, risk and labour is not free and they could have been doing something else.

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

What we are discussing is paying $75 per year for fire protection, which those who lost their home refused to do. Therefore, the fire fighters have not been paid in this case.

The alternative of the fire fighters being paid via taxation is just treating everyone else as slaves; forcing people to labour, in order to extract wealth from them, is slavery.

You want to lock people in cages for being 'an ass'?

There are some real shits on this planet, many of whom I would like nothing to do with. This doesn't mean I get to lock them in cages, just because I don't like them.

Indeed. As Penn says, there is great joy in helping others. I object not to the helping, but to you pointing a gun in my face and telling me I have to help.

Can you define 'good things' objectively? Will everyone share the same opinion? If this was the case, you wouldn't need taxation at all - people would be willing to make the sacrifices without force.

As soon as you use force, to implement some subjective 'good', you are on a slippery slope to tyranny.

I don't ignore it, I know they have to be paid for this, but we are discussing about the way to do so.
Btw: Their time was already spent in that example.


Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

Yes, because this payment model is awful there was a big loss.

I disagree. While there are many bad things in states that can end up in a kind of slavery-state it's not the taxation itself.
If done right, it doesn't enslave anyone (my personal opinion).

Oh yes, I want to.
At least the real big ones like mass murderers as a protection from let them continuing being that.



It's difficult but I try it by defining "suffering" and "loss of work" as bad things.

Would you rape a prostitute?

I wouldn't rape anyone.

If you wouldn't force a prostitute to provide her service without pay, why would you force anyone else?

The prostitute isn't watching something burn up in flames.
There is no reason to force anything here and the bad defintely outweigths the good in this case.

-> this argument is invalid.

So, force is moral if the "good" outweighs the "bad"? Could you objectively define those concepts for me?

Your points boils down to this: "People will help me, or I will make them help me."

If you don't see the problem with this, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy).

OK, that's "bad," we'll provisionally accept "suffering" in the place of "bad." What about "good"?

The other points boil down to this:
"I am free to be whatever jackass I want to be"
If you don't see the problem with this, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy).

Generalization, it's not helpful at all.

Okey, we have "bad", so we can move on by defining good as the opposite as bad. So "not suffering".

I know it's really vague, but well you want me to define how humanity's morality should be, that's a tough job.

OK, so, force is moral if the suffering inflicted is outweighed by the suffering prevented?

Does that sound acceptable?

That's a slippery slope.  Once you've justified the use of force to do good once, where do you draw the line?

Wouldn't it be better and more efficient to take money from everyone so you could have one centralised agency to give food to everyone to make sure they all have both the adequate amount and the necessary nutrition that everyone needs?  As one example.

It's really not, it's actually quite easy.  Unless you have to justify government actions, then it becomes impossible...

It's difficult to know how much "suffering prevented is", especially if it lies in the future, so it's a bit problematic.
But yes.


Indeed it is a slippery rope and a lot of politics fail while doing this.
And you could discuss it, because right now there are people starving all over the planet. But the discussion whether or not this is a good idea would fill another hundred pages.
There just is no easy way out.

I guess you will throw a generalized sentence in my way like "Nobody should be forced" and be like "That is it".
I'm afraid it's not.

Not really.  It's been tried many times in communist countries.  People starved.  The free market does it best, because the central planners just don't have enough information and never will.

Rofl, free market alone does shit.

Indeed it is, very difficult. So already we've run up against a snag: how to predict how much suffering your infliction of suffering will prevent. But let's set that snag aside for the moment, for I've a very important question: Who does the weighing? The man whose suffering is being prevented? The man upon whom suffering is being inflicted to prevent the other's suffering? Or the man with the gun?

If possible a man who has some expertise in the field.
(so yes, more like scientists)
There are more people involved in a state than just the one with the gun.

When there is no choice to decline the services of the state, it is theft. If every bit of work you do - which you need to do to survive - results in stuff being taken from you, it is slavery. Sugar coat it all you like, but this is the reality of the situation.

The whole point of insurance and/or subscription models is that you pay a small fee in the expectation that you are unlikely to need their services. Not subscribing and then expecting to just pay your subs on the day is laughable - you will be given the choice of the market rate for fire fighters at short notice or accepting the alternatives.

Regarding their time - it wasn't spent already. They didn't have to risk their lives putting out a fire - they could just sit in their truck.

OK, so of those three men, which is more likely to have the expertise? The man whose house is burning down, the firefighter, or the man pointing the gun at the firefighter to make him put out the fire?

We aren't talking about mass murderers here, Mr Strawman... we're talking about someone not going out of their way to help another. You want to lock people up, just for inaction (ie. the default state of an individual).

How about the suffering of injured/dead fire fighters and their families? How about the loss of time that they could have been spending with them, instead of doing unpaid labour?

None of them, there are more then those three men.
Those aren't the ones who decide, because you make laws before.




Feel free to build up a night-watch-state like you want somewhere.
But don't force your idea of freedom upon me, please.
I doubt it's gonna work, but it seems like there are a lot of Bitcoiners who do (because well the decantrilzed money is one of your things)
So there shoudl be quite a lot of people who are rich now or gonna be rich and could buy a small state together /at least if Bitcoin is successful.

I would be excited to watch this experiment, maybe I'm wrong and it does work.

If you don't want to be forced upon you an idea, please stop supporting the state, who does force their ideas of freedom on you, and me, and other countries, if it can.  It's either or.  You can't be against force used against you, and in favor of force used against others.  That's called plenty of things, but, hypocrisy (probably not using it right) would be the simplest way to explain it.

Hah, I was trying to make a remark. Because I think some kind of force is okay, while you think every force is wrong.
But enforcing your idea upon me is already a force. -> so the hypocrisy would be at you.
but not really important, just some blathering, ignore this one.

But seriously:
Feel free to build up a night-watch-state like you want somewhere.
I doubt it's gonna work, but it seems like there are a lot of Bitcoiners who do (because well the decantrilzed money is one of your things)
So there should be quite a lot of people who are rich now or gonna be rich and could buy a small state together (at least if Bitcoin is successful).

Ummm, we have two clear cut cases here,

Free market food production produces a large variety and abundance of food.
Central Planning food leads to lack of food and lack of variety of food and ultimately leads to malnutrition and starvation.

The reasons why are quite obvious if you think about them.  Now try applying that reasoning to other market sectors.

The emphasis is on "alone".
Free market got some good sides, but it needs certain regulations.
Central planning alone is also crap ^^

No, there are not. There are only those three men in this interaction. The third "man" is the government, however, so is technically more than one man. So, let me rephrase that question: Who is more likely to have the expertise to judge how much suffering will be inflicted by being forced to be put out a fire vs how much suffering will be inflicted by letting that fire burn itself out, The man whose house is burning down, the firefighter, or the government?

I did say please, didn't it?  I'm asking you to see it my way; I'm not using force.  If I were using force, I'd be at your house, banging on your door, threatening you to open and accept my ideologies as God-given truth or I'd burn your house down with you inside of it.

I believe this is our disconnect; you're still shaky on what "the use of force" is and is not.  It's the difference between voluntarism (e.g., you coming to this site was voluntary, whatever you decided to have for lunch was voluntary, doing a little jig on your dining room table was probably voluntary), and coercion.  In other words, stateless (voluntary) and state (coercion; force; involuntary.)

P.s., I have no idea what night-watch-state is, but it doesn't sound like something I'd like.

Brief aside: The night-watchman state is the Minarchist's ideal state: Limits itself to monopoly on defense and justice.

That depends on how the government is structured, because I think important decisions should be handled by people with expertise (-> scientists or people who have worked s long time in that business)
So in this case that would be a part of the government for the overall laws and the firemen for the decisions that needs to be made on the spot (but he has to be able to argue why, like "this would be too dangerous")

Ahh gotcha, thanks ;D  Doesn't sound preferable, to be honest.  It would be like a monotheistic religion cutting back to only having a little bit of God.  At some point in time, that little bit of God will become a whole lot of God, and then it's back to square one.

Guess I have confused you with someone else, my bad.
The discussion is tiring me out atm. I think I will take a break.

And who decides the regulations?

If I want to buy something, and someone wants to sell me something, why does someone else have the right to get in between that transaction?

The reality is that regulations are a hindrance on the market.   One of the reasons why they are so favoured is because big business likes to use them to push their smaller competitors, who can't afford the cost of compliance (lawyers, etc), out of the market.

That's okay man, and I know how you feel.  These debates can wear you out he he :D

Like, in this case, the fireman. He would have the expertise to judge how much suffering would be inflicted upon him by putting out the fire. Perhaps that is why he set his fees the way he did, do you think? That the fees would compensate him for that suffering? And to force him to put out a fire against his will - and without paying the fees - would be to add suffering to that, wouldn't it? Would it not be just as fair to point the gun at the homeowner, and make him pay?

I don't want to force my idea on anyone - I want to be inert in regards to you and your situation. Please just do me the dignity of granting me the same.

Coming soon.

I look forward to this.
Our community  should demonstrate that it is capable of helping others in a completely voluntary way.
This goodwill will make it that much more difficult for those who feel threatened to demonize us.

We have the technology.

Let's say Joe, Bill, and Sarah decide they want Road X to be repaired.  They go to a website (something similar to kickstarter) in which they post the job they want done, and set down a little bit of cash to entice prospective contractors.  More people who drive on Road X notice it needs repair and see the listing, and "back" the project to get the job done.  Meanwhile, more businesses have noticed people are chipping in to get Road X repaired, and are auctioning with each other to get the job (example: company X will do the job for $500, then company Y says they'll do it for $450, on and on until nobody wants to bid lower.)  Once enough "backers" pitch in the amount of money that the lowest bidding company agreed to do the job for, the project is funded and Road X gets repaired by the winning company, paid by the people who wanted the road to be fixed.

So it's like a two-way kickstarter; citizens add money to a pool, and businesses fight over who gets the work.  This can be applied to any non-emergency service government provides.

Emergency services is where it gets even more creative; here's one method to handle security. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0)

Expect an announcement in the next few weeks.


Something to whet the appetite.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf

Oh, that's.... That's just genius.

You realize that taxation involves forcing people to support the ideals of others, right?  You respecting my freedom (not taxing me, not imposing regulations upon me, etc.) is not me "forcing" an idea on you in any way, shape, or form.

Can I please get a divorce?

A lot of people are dying because there isn't enough organ donors. By killing you and distributing your organs, we could
save a lot of lives. The math is pretty simple in this case. Would you support this idea? Or are you an exemption to
your own rules?

You just need a few WMDs, holes and job is done...

Yuck, wouldn't want to have to kill innocent people to do it!

I give you that you have created an example that's difficult to answer, but
a) there are ways to solve this problem without killing someone (thus creating less suffering)
b) organ donations are very risky and it's far from safe you've rescued the other one
c) choosing the one "who should die" would be a hell of a task and I cant see anyone having the "expertise" to decide

Let's rephrase a scenario that's more sure, it's also a well-known one:
A plane with 100 people on board is hijacked by a terrorist, no way for the passengers to do something about it.
It's heading directly to a big nuclear plant or sky scraper, when it does there will be 1 million victims.
You have the option to shoot the plane or not to.
I would agree on shooting the plane, even when I'm on the plane (at least if I manage not to panic).
(I know a lot of people are gonna disagree with me on this one)

Well, Birdy?

That ones easy.  Don't go meddling in other people's countries.  Leave them alone and they will most likely leave you alone.

In fact, you can extend that to what we've been saying.  Leave us alone to do our thing and we'll leave you.  Interfere in our lives and expect us not to complain about it?

But without laws he is also able to exploit the situation.
He has the same monpoly on power that you hate, because he is the only one able to do something.


I didn't state the terrorist was from another country, did I?

I have some questions for you, too:

Currently it's more profitable to ruin the environment than to sustain it, how do you prevent this?
If everyone is able to do what he wants, the ones that ruin the environment will outdo their competition.

While I'm waiting for you to answer my question, I'll answer yours. The reason it is more profitable is because politicians are cheaper to buy than land. If you had to pay the landowners damages for polluting their land, it would be much more expensive.

Already answered (edited the last post).

How do you do that? It's nearly impossible to measure damage done to you by pollution.
Who controls it? Who tells you how much you have to pay?

If I destroy a forest, because I've bought that land and I produce something with it (->paper or whatever->profit), who is able to measure the damage done to the environment and will have me pay for it?
Do you count per animal art gone extinct or by cms the sea level has risen? Who was responsible for this in the first place?

Next question: Who forces you to pay the damages to landowners?

There is likely always someone who don't care about pollution, specially if you have access to international markets...

Private security businesses and arbitrators (which take the place of police and the justice system.)  This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0) can explain it quite well.

Edit:  Whups, goofed up on the URL ;D

Ok, how do you prevent those firms from working together?
Agglomeration of power is profitable for those who do it and thus creating a new monopoly.
You would end up with a state-like structure again (could be even a dictatorship-like one).

Why should he not gain as much benefit as he can from providing that service? As you point out, there are other people who could be helping to put out the fire. He has the fire truck though, and so he has the most efficient means. This is far from a "monopoly," just a better service that he should be better compensated for. And which he is not obligated to provide without that compensation.

You already have, by buying the forest. And the damages from other forms of pollution, such as dumping, or emissions, can best be judged by those actually affected by it, ie the landowners downstream or downwind from the polluter.

Ok, I'm done with this forest and made a really good profit.
I'm, buying the next ones.
Now you could say, but they get scarcer in the long run, so they will be more expensive.
But at that point it's already lost and too late.

You could also say, then there will be people replanting forests.
But you cannot rebuild everything in nature yet and it also takes a lot of time to do so.

Have you really made a good profit? Wouldn't buying the next forest cut into that profit? Wouldn't it be wiser to maintain the forest you have, so that you can continue to make paper without buying more land?

And we haven't even discussed the consumer element. After all, in order to actually make that profit, you have to sell your paper. Would you, Birdy, buy from a paper producer who was just clearcutting entire forests and moving on?

Reading through this I realize that the clarity of maritime law is not familiar to large numbers of people.

Vessel A is in distress.  A sends out a distress signal.

Vessel B receives the distress signal.  B has a _moral_ not _legal_ obligation to acknowledge the signal and at least pass it along.

B is not obligated to provide any assistance at any time.  B's reputation will be effected by his peers for his action or inaction but there are no legal effects on that point.  Of course standing by and watching people die is likely to make it hard for you to show your face in public again.

If B chooses to render assistance, it can be voluntary, with no strings attached or B can request salvor rights on the property.  These rights confer some degree of interest in the saved property.  A can accept assistance with the salvor rights obligation or turn down that assistance.

To further muddy the waters....

Where I live, the government coast guard _is_ obligated to act in the event of loss of life or excessive property damage BUT they are prohibited from acting if there is a commercial salvor on-scene who is handling the problem.

There are of course, more intricate descriptions of how these relationships work but the general idea is provided.


Now, as a boat owner, it is in my interest to enter into a contract with a provider of vessel assistance if the cost of that contract is less on a time period basis than on a point of sale per incident basis.  Essentially an annual fee that is reasonable is a better deal than an event fee that could equal half the cost of the property.

BTW, the provider of vessel assistance in the region is granted periodically renewing exclusive contract for the region.  At renewal, the contract is up for bid to lowest bidder with proven response capability.  This keeps the cost low while avoiding disputes between two salvor vessels arriving on scene at the same time.

It is reasonable to envision similar public / private mixes for almost any service.  Essentially, the public part of the service is the bare minimum needed to protect society as a whole, while the private part is that which is needed by the individual member of society.  Individuals can chose what degree of service they require down to the point where their choice impacts their neighbors.

The ocean is one of the most unregulated markets on earth right now.
Oh yeah, I can clearly see how good it works out for the fishs.
People prefer short profit over a long time profit. Also the paper will sell, as long as paper is needed.
Don't believe me? Take a look how ivory is still sold, there isn't even a real need for it.

Also people like things that are rare, if you have the last forest of a tree which is said to be the best one to build furniture, they will throw money at you.

Who owns the fish?
Who owns the elephants?
And I take that response to mean that you would buy from a paper producer who was clearcutting?
So much for your principles.

So you are saying it's okay because nobody owns them?

Everybody has to take a shit and doing so without paper is a real hassle, so I guess I would, because I'm no holy men - I'm not able to stand for my principles everytime, even if I wish to.
And even if I did withstand it or find a company that could offer a sustainable option, there would be enough who wouldn't care about this, because this is just my principle, not that of everyone. People have different opinions.

No, I'm saying that it happens because nobody owns them. Where is the largest breeding population of scimitar horned oryx?

So, you're saying that:
Because not enough people support sustainable paper production to make it more profitable than non-sustainable production, we must pass laws (I assume democratically) to make non-sustainable paper production illegal?

I did a quick search "extinct in the wild", I cannot approve this at all.
So you want to distribute all species to people?
Ok, tell me who is gonna own midges/mosquitos and what they are gonna do with their population.


No I'm saying that even if 90% of people agree on this (remember this will only be the case once it's a problem), the 10% others are free to buy what they want and will destroy the rest.

No, I'm saying distribute all the land/sea to people. People could then protect the animals on their property. For instance, all scimitar oryx breeding populations are on private hunting reserves. As for midges and mosquitoes, whoever wants 'em is welcome to them.

So, you're saying that clearcutting and selling the resultant paper to 10% of the population would be more profitable than responsible use and selling to 90% of the population?

So from one force to an other, but this time private one... I'm not really sure it's preferable situation, as the size of companies isn't limited. The system presented in video seems scary...

Why?

I see dystopian future of mega corporations, corporate war, lack of regulation and slavery.

I don't trust in free market, eventually some player will grow to be too large and it's too late for collective incentive to go against it... Really just think how many people go for the cheapest option, not regarding other cost involved. Corporations or large entities aren't moral, they are out for their own good and can be rather short sighted...

Would you rather have competing services for security, who you use and pay for on a voluntary basis, or a single, all-powerful monopoly on the security service industry, which you must pay for involuntarily?  Personally, I wouldn't like it if McDonalds was the only burger joint in the nation, of which I had to pay them every time they set up a new store, or risk jail time; they could then charge 20$ a burger and take their time filling out orders at the drive thru--I mean, where else are you gonna go for fast food?

I think, when it boils down to it, people are always willing to pay for security, so there may as well be competition to provide the best service possible.  As in the case of the monostatism, they can essentially do what they want without fear that another government will out perform them.  They can provide a terrible service and charge out the butt to use it; since they own the military, they can also force you to pay for their service, whether you want it or not.  It's a pretty ugly system that we have now, if you ask me, full of bullying and corruption.

No, I'm saying distribute all the land/sea to people. People could then protect the animals on their property. For instance, all scimitar oryx breeding populations are on private hunting reserves. As for midges and mosquitoes, whoever wants 'em is welcome to them.[/quote]

Nobody wants them and that's the problem. There are a lot of plants and animals that nobody has any use for, but are important for our eco-system.
I don't see distributing land solve the problem.

Take a look at ivory. It is.
I know you think market will solve this by demand, but it won't.
Maybe forests will still be okey, because you can reproduce them (although I also doubt that and it's still not like the original ones).

Take my word. If you are ever able to found a state like you have in mind, you will have to solve this problem.
(alongside with the problem of natural agglomeration of power , that's another big issue)

[Offtopic: I'm out of the discussion now, got a lot of other stuff to do right now. It was an exhausting, but also interesting discussion.]

A stateless society does not solve all the world's problems.  It simply solves the problem of the state.  From there, we can stop running around in circles and actually solve problems, instead of throwing band-aids on them.

I see it like this:
Now there is one large force which I have very minor say in.
In other scenario I believe it ends up with one large force with me having no say in.

States do have some rules, non-states don't have to have any. They could just say that you did something wrong and you have to pay. And if you don't pay the make you a slave. And if they are sufficiently large and profitable no one can stop them. And we are back to feudalism...

This is all you really needed to say.

You really think that one company will be able to dominate the market?

Yes, one or few large ones. Which isn't really that different scenario.

That is on now comparable to nation scale. And I don't see too much movement population between areas controlled by them.

Why, then, are there so many different brands of Automobiles?

Is there so many really? Stats from 2011 for Europe:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/12782/market-share-of-selected-car-maunfacturers-in-europe/

10 companies control 86.4% of market in sales per unit. And there is some government intervention involved.

There isn't really too many groups in automobile market.

Or brands of icecream--and phone companies.  Also, computer manufacturers :P  Pizza delivery services...  Video game publishers...  Bicycle makers...


Which system are you rooting for, btw?  If not capitalism.

I see. And in the US? How many car companies are available over here in the US? (And what about the other 13.6% of the market?)

EDIT:
And true, if you go deeper into things in many fields there is worryingly small amount of big players...


I believe the best spot is in the middle. State providing most security services, some of basic infrastructure, education, social security and health care. Private industry is free to compete in these areas, but their operations are limited by sensible regulation. That is protection of nature and people and limiting the merges as such there isn't too big players.

Too far in either direction just end disaster for majority.

One statistic I found was 68.7 for top 5 companies... So likely very similar.

I don't see the 13.6 lasting too long if companies had every possible means available, that include things like sabotage...

Indeed. But you'll note that both of those numbers are greater than 1, and the percentages are less than 100%

Can Ford prevent you from buying a Honda?

If that were true, you could homestead a piece of it and make it your property.

If you try to do that, you'll discover there are a lot of legal regulations preventing you from doing so.

Working on it. It is called seasteading and the only legal regulations are if you are within 200 miles of any nation. Outside of that, it is open and free.