Bitcoin Forum

Truer Words Were Never Spoken! :D

So how many coats the guy has and did he use slave labour?

Slave labor? Slavery is wrong.

But that aside, what difference does the number of coats the man owns make? If he has a lot of coats, does that make it OK, somehow, to steal one from him?

If I'm rich enough to own more than one coat, I should be entitled to my coats.  I could have a hundred coats and it wouldn't matter; they're my coats, and I'll burn them if I wanted to.  Forcing me to be generous is not the way to go.  Force at all is not the way to go, and welfare, as is the case in all of politics, is just a band-aid on the actual issue at hand, being, a disproportionate amount of rich people and a disproportionate amount of poor.  Welfare only solidifies these two social classes, it doesn't get rid of them, and yet, do the rich give more coats than the average two-coat Joe?  It hurts two-coat Joe a lot more to give up a coat than it does me, the guy with a hundred flaming coats, 'cos fuck it, I don't need all these coats, and I already gave my "fair share" away, just like everyone else.

In other words, with welfare, we're trying to keep the two-coaters and the no-coaters poor by forcing the two-coaters to make proportionally huge donations to the no-coaters.  Now the one-coaters can more easily fall into being no-coaters and then we can say, "Hey bub, you look cold--would you like a free coat?"  And by then they'd forgotten why they had no coats to begin with.

the problem in capitalism is that when you have big amounts of money its way easier to earn for a living than having none or little. and much more options.

the problem in capitalism is that if you have more money it is easier to make more money, while if you have to start from scratch you're doomed.

also, if you have more money it is easier to circumvent the law.

Why is that a problem?

Well, that's a "problem" with the nature of reality. The more resources you have, the more options you have to increase those resources. Of course, that coin has an opposite side that hardly anyone ever actually looks at: The more resources you have, the easier it is to help your fellowman voluntarily. Think about it. Isn't it more likely that a man with 100 coats is going to hand over one without the gun in his face, than the man with only two?

That doesn't make stealing the coat from the man with 100 any better than stealing from the man with 2, and worse, it makes it counterproductive. It makes the man with 100 want to resist giving to the man with no coat, because it's being done by force.

The poor will depend on the system. No way around it when you're born in a mud hole and told you won't be shit EVER. Not saying this is always the case but I'm surely seen it with my own eyes.. Most people that start at the bottom stay there because:

1. their born into poverty
2. lack education
3. skill-less and unmotivated

The third being a direct effect of the previous.

Abolish law?

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a man a fish every day, he'll depend on your good graces to survive.

Not to mention that now that you force me to give away my coat to a poor guy, I may feel it justified to not care about other poor guys out there anymore. So if big nanny handles everything well, cool. If she messes things up, don't bother with me.

Too much of a simplification. It doesn't discuss how the coat came into existence.

Someone used a machine they owned, and thread and cloth that they owned, to make a coat. The man then bought the coat from that person (apparently as part of a suit, since it matches his pants).

Doesn't change the morality of any of the actions depicted.

Who should be in a place to judge if I accumulate my wealth morally? The majority? They used to believe being a Jewish is immoral.

Yeah, deciding laws by majority decision is stupid. It's better to have a simple principle, that everyone can agree on, like, say, "No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud on another person or their property," and let people choose what other additional rules, if any, they want to live under, and who they would like to enforce those rules.

That would make more sense if the first guy had 2 coats. Taxes take 10%-ish, not everything you have. And not even all of it goes to welfare.

It makes sense as-is.  The man has a coat, possibly more coats at home, and he's being "relieved" of his coat for a man who doesn't have one.  It's politics in its purest form: rob Peter to pay Paul.

We'll give the kids a coat (Education system)
Violent people or people who have been tricked get a coat (Military)
Politicians get coats (Public Service Salary)
Even Bankers get a coat (Bailouts)

But you're worried about the POOR guy getting a coat!?!?!??!?!?

Did you know most Wal Mart employees qualify for welfare? How bout you stop bitching at poor people, and tell Wal Mart to get THEIR employees off welfare. And they aren't the only ones.

Boy, you are just on a roll. If missing the point were an Olympic event, you would be a gold medalist, and probably world record holder.

We're not worried about the poor guy getting the coat. As you see in the first frame, the poor guy got a coat voluntarily. Do you not see the connection between the second and third frames?

Taxation is not even law, it's retroactive. The law only say things like:" We decide that to get people to work more than 8 hours per day is detrimental to their health so from now on you can't do that anymore or you will get fined"  I am OK with such things. But taxation will say instead:"We made the decision that for the last 20 years you have been treating your workers in a totally wrong way, so x% of your wealth will be immediately confiscated to compensate them, and sorry for not having told your earlier!" And I am not even talking about the"if you are rich you must have exploited your workers" taxes

That's exactly one way it can happen. But things are much more complicated in society.
E.g. imagine another scenario where the guy with the coat made blankets impractical. Now assume the guy who's freezing only had a blanket and no coat.

That said, I sympathize with what the picture tries to point out: taking away property from someone, in order to give it to somebody else, is an act of force - and that is at odds with our understanding of liberty.

If there were enough charity in the world there would be no need for welfare.

You bitch at me for being about "ideas", but at least my ideas are solutions and not just me bitching like yours is. Sure, taxes and welfare suck. If you hate it so much, why don't you start a charity instead of crying??

So, since it is not your property, perhaps you should first politely ask what do the owners think it's best to do with them, and work something out with them, before accusing them in the oppa government style?

And by the way YOU are the king of missing the point.
I said that Wal Mart should get it's employees off welfare. That doesn't just apply to the welfare picture, but by YOUR logic (and that cartoon) applies to all of it.

If Wal Mart would PAY its employees, there would be less people needing coats. Then everyone could see who really needed coats.

Or, we should make it where those people aren't needy anymore and avoid the whole situation.

You will be one of those people. Sooner or later, if things keep going the way they are.

Do you have any idea how much Americans give to charity? There is no need for welfare. Before welfare, mutual aid groups and private charities did a fine job of taking care of the less fortunate.

Welfare as we know it is a direct result of the great depression, which in turn is a direct result of the federal reserve and inflation. Government created a problem that it had to step in and "fix."

There are CEOs and Family members (The Waltons) making Billions of dollars a year. If each of them gave up 1 Billion, they could pay everyone of their employees in the entire country more. If they each gave up 2 billion, they could probably get 20% of the Welfare recipients OFF welfare.

Imagine if EVERY company did that.

Sure, job creators are great. But they owe you money for work, you don't owe them money for creating a job for you.

Yes, they do owe them money for work. That's called "pay," and if I recall from my days working at Wal-mart, we did get paid.

Most of Americas charity goes to Sarah Mcgloclin, Dogs, Cats, Africa, Cancer, Jerrey's Kids & Aids... Not poor people.

Again,
If you don't like where the government money goes right now, then start your own charity and make it where those people are no longer needy. That way your charity can supply welfare before the government ever has to.

Please try reading. I said the job creator owes money, the worker owes NO money to the job creator.

Most job creators feel entitled to money, just for "helping" others by paying them.

Isn't this Walmart thing a myth?  That most of them are actually getting along just fine.

And what does qualify for welfare mean exactly?  If we are going by what government says then it seems to be a pretty broad category and a lot of people who most of us would consider don't need welfare seem to fall into it.

You need a place to fish to begin with.

"Getting along just fine" is completely possible, that doesn't mean they don't qualify or use welfare though.

It's strange that those children getting beaten up will often do even worse in the school.

When the poor get money from the government it's called welfare.  When the rich get money from the government its called a bailout.  

Two wrongs don't make one right.

I never said I don't like where the money goes (though I certainly do object to paying for the murder of brown people on the other side of the planet). I take issue with the way they get it.

Please try reading. I was agreeing with you that the workers are owed money for work. Again, that is called "pay." And, again, I clearly recall getting a paycheck when I worked at Walmart. They even cashed it for me.

I only see one wrong. 

The government taking money by force?

And how much did you get paid if you worked part time? Say, a 90 year old woman who says hello at the door for 4-8 hours 3 days a week? Or a student working weekends?
And what benefits did you get?
And how many part time employees worked there?

You mean taxes?  

Right.  The phrase is used to denote whether someone is in the poor house or not, but when you examine it closely it actually doesn't have the meaning it seems to.

"Oh, it's really terrible!  Those Walmart employees can't afford their second plasma TV and caviar is just not an option for them.  What is the world coming to?"

LOL, they can't afford the FIRST plasma TV, smart ass.
Unless they go to rent a center.

BTW, "Qualifying for welfare" means you make less than $1,400 a month.

Well, I'm not a 90 year-old woman, and I didn't say hello at the door part time. I worked in the freezer, pulling apart pallets and stocking the shelves. I don't recall the hourly rate, but it was significantly better than minimum wage, and I was able to support myself just fine. I don't recall all my bennies, either, but I do know I had a 401(k) through them. I think I had health insurance, too.
EDIT: I remember I got an employee discount, too. Nothing special, 5% or so... and that was applied before tax, too. It was pretty nice.
Yes, that is the definition of taxation.

Wow, I just did a calculation and if you work 40 hours a week for 4 weeks @ $8/hr you only get $1,200

So if you work for minimum wage in America you make SHIT even working 40 hours a week. And can probably apply for welfare.
So imagine what people are making that work 10-30 hours.

Two wrongs is exactly what it is. If I do one thing wrong, like paying my workers too little, what law should do is asking me to correct my wrong by raising my pay(not that I agree but let's leave it at it for a moment). What a tax bill does is to create another wrong instead: claiming that without violating the contemporary laws, what I have been doing for many years have all became unacceptable retroactively, so a percentage of my wealth should be confiscated to compensate the workers, no matter how much additional damage it will wrought me.

Close, but an incomplete definition.

A tax is a pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority." It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.  Money provided by taxation has been used by states and their functional equivalents throughout history to carry out many functions. Some of these include expenditures on war, the enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), public works, social engineering, subsidies, and the operation of government itself.

You only include the burden in your definition, not the benefit.  

And that's before taxes. And the other state and federal withholdings.

To say nothing of the 5-10% of your money that gets sucked away every time you buy something (unless you live in New Hampshire)

But that's fine, because they can apply for welfare and get free food, even cigarettes in some states :)

Something we both can probably agree on however, is that certain types of taxes are immoral or wrong.  A sales tax being one of those.  

My point is that the job creators could solve all of this.

The benefit can be achieved without the force. And the proper definition of "taxation" does not include what the government then proceeds to do with the funds acquired through taxation, but only the means of acquiring the funds.

All taxes are immoral, and wrong.

They could, but it's not like forcing them to do so will make things any better.

You don't get it, do you? It's not free. It's paid for by that very money that was stolen from them!

I disagree on both counts.  And therefore, there isn't much left to debate.  You seem to have taken a position that is ideological/philosophical in nature.  I have taken one that is based in the realities of the world we live in.

No YOU don't get it. If we paid them just A LITTLE MORE, they 1. Wouldn't need it 2. Wouldn't qualify

You're really saying that:
a) roads and other infrastructure, the protection of private property, and the other various benefits that a government provides to it's citizens could not be voluntarily funded, and;
b) that robbery is moral if I have a jacket that says IRS?

Taxes may be wrong but they are constitutional. Sorry guys, taxes may be evil, but they are libertarian. Unless that libertarian is also a secessionist.

Or, maybe just stopped robbing them of 20-30% of their pay?

20-30% WTF. 1. That's not how much they take 2. Regular people shouldn't have to live on $1200 a month, taxed or not

Interestingly enough, welfare is not constitutional.

And considering the fact that the core tenet of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, to the extent that the libertarian holds to his principles, that libertarian is an anarchist.

You're right, it's usually much more. That was a conservative estimate.

LOL LOL
So you think 40%+ gets taken from checks. Where the fuck do you live?

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Again,
If you don't like the way things are, make a charity so people never even qualify for welfare.

Psst. It's not just from payroll. There's a lot of other, "hidden" taxes. Sales tax is just one of those.

No thanks, I prefer to strike the root of evil, rather than hack away at the branches.

And just because it says "promote the general welfare" in the preamble, that does not mean than it anywhere authorizes the government to give handouts.

Woah, deep, bro.

Lol, you're a sad troll.
It in no way adds up to 40% of your pay.

The government doesn't have to, but they have to promote other people doing it... And they do... With taxes. They just do it for you.

What we should worry about is government spending on bombs.

There is a famous old quote:

"It'll be a great day when schools have all the money they need, and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber"

You're the one in my thread, ragging on me. I don't think that qualifies you to call me a troll.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html
Total tax percentage potentially paid by the above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 59.7%

FYI, just the income taxes, total an average of 27.1%.

You troll the site, it's your bridge. You try to keep people from thinking by trapping them and keeping them from crossing "your bridge" (mainly the politics section).

59.7% in taxes?!?!?!?!?!?!? BULLSHIT (and who the hell is "the above average citizen"?)

Read the site. The "above average" citizen is one that qualifies for all of those various taxes. ie, one that pays income taxes, has a corporation, owns land, drives, and qualifies for the "other" 5%.

I still don't get how we're justifying robbery at gunpoint.

The usual refrain is "Think of the chiiiiildren!!!"

I've never met anyone that paid 50%+ in taxes. And my stepdad and dad both own companies and land.

Still haven't clicked the site and looked at the breakdown, have you?

According to this funny lookin thing (http://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/), the children are the last people on anyone's mind :D  Shame, they're the ones who have to worry about it.

I don't need to. We are talking about welfare recipients and how much they are taxed, not "the above average citizen".

I say they need more pay so they aren't on welfare

You say not to tax them so much, or give them welfare

Your link is irrelevant to either topic.

Since when do you care about topic relevance?

Lol, yeah because I'm the one that gets off topic in the Bitcoin town thread. LOL

Then I should point out that:
Federal income taxes average about 17%.
State and local income taxes average about 10%.
Sales tax averages about 9.7%
Social Security and Medicaid is 7.65% (technically 15.3%, since the employer pays half of that, and without that, they could afford to pay the employee an additional 7.65%.)
So the total the "below average" citizen, one that doesn't own any property, and doesn't drive, is paying is about 44%. If you include the other 7.65% that they're missing out on, that brings it up to about 52%.

Actually, I'm saying that if they weren't taxed so hard, they wouldn't need welfare, and what little help they did need could be taken care of by private charity. Minor difference, but it's important.

The problem is, if you rely on charity, the unevenness of the society will become extremely high, people are willing to lose a couple of percent in a transaction or exchange, so does their willing to contribute as charity

Banks will get 100 million for themselves before you get a chance to earn 1 million

I think certain kind of coercien is needed to get a good habit, just like brushing your teeth, you did not get used to it from the beginning

There is no problem in capitalism. There is a problem with governments interfering with capitalism. These governments just need to get lost!

You forgot;

"And beat a man with a fish if he tries to go and fish his own, because it's your (government) land that he's trying to fish from."

capitalism is a problem because if you run it forever in a test ground then you will end up with one person holding everything while the rest holds nothing. Because rich gets richer faster the richer he is. This is why people are trying to take somehow from the rich and give to poor so they have slight chance to catch up.

How can someone so stupid ending up with everyone's money...

because he buys everything up like factories, houses etc? and earns more and more money?

By being smart, but greedily stupid at same time...

What use is his money without an economy? Plz, they are not that dumb, and that's why the trade of investment has existed since time immemorial.

Erm what?

Given the rest of your posts I should not be surprised ...

Have you actually thought this through? Do the people in your test ground not need to eat, or need any other services?

this is why i said its test ground and not real life, in real life people are dying, wasting they wealth etc but the point stands. capitalism is not fair because it allows people to earn money for example by renting they flat and getting money for nothing while others have to hard work to get one for years. Or another example is capitalists who often use people as slaves and as a way to earn money for themselves and not to fair share their profit between people who worked on this too.

No, in real life the rich people employ the less-rich, and pay them to provide the things they need. This is called the "economy," and it ensures that people are rewarded only inasmuch as they help others. This is, in fact, how the rich man got rich, by providing goods or services to many people.

Do you think that they did not have to work hard for years to afford that flat, as well? Do you think that they do not need to maintain that flat in livable condition in order to maintain that income? Do you not see that by doing so, they are relieving the renter of that responsibility?

I assume you're speaking of wage labor, and not literal slavery? Did you ever think that maybe, the wages are that worker's fair share? If I give you a short video to watch, will you listen to the tale of Edgar the exploiter?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40

This sums it up even better:

A man walks in a tailor shop & asks for a pair of pants.
The tailor measures the man, lets him pick out the fabric & asks him to come back in a week.
In a week's time, the man returns to the shop, but the pants aren't ready.
"Sir, the inseam pulls a bit, allow me to correct it & come back in a week -- the pants will be ready."
Another week passes, the man returns to the shop, only to hear another excuse:
"Sir, the inseam's perfect, but i must restitch the lining for the pants to drape as they should.  Please, return in another week."
The man storms out & returns a week later.  The pants are ready, but the man's furious with the delays.
"It took God six days to make the whole world!  Why couldn't you make a frickin' pair of pants in that time, ffs?!
The tailor, shocked & indignant, replied:
"But Sir!  Look at my pants [beams at the pants], and ... [sneers] look at the world!"

Well, that's what he gets for getting pants from BFL. :D

I don't think BFL analogies are appropriate here.

After all, the man got a perfect pair of pants, though 2 weeks late.  If the taylor stalled the man for a year, and the man is still naked, the comparison would be apropo. :D

10 percent? Where do you live? Where I live, they take more than that before I even SEE the money, and that's not counting the 7% sales tax, various and sundry license fees, inflation, tarriffs, etc...

A better, realistic estimate IF YOU ARE POOR is 50%. Worse as you go up. Fines to punish statutory "crime", tax to punish success.

As for not all of it going to welfare, you're right. The vast majority, right now, goes to killing people. But social entitlements are growing exponentially, and even with the inflationary faucets open wide, they can't do both. I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.

Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry.

I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes.

You're thinking ticks, i think, though i've only seen that in some documentary.  Whatever.  The imagery is even moar suitable.

reminds me of a joke by Dave Barry. A definition of politics? Let's look at the root. We have poly, meaning many, and ticks, meaning small biting insects! (yes, I know a tick is an arachnid. It's not my quote.)

Parasites, at any rate.

If you follow the course of the "greatest generation," you see that they're a really powerful demographic. They got some serious changes made back in the 60's and 70's, though not as much as they hoped, in the 80's and 90's, they influenced car and house  design (to say nothing of all the other consumer industries), and now in the 00's and 10's whole industries are springing up to care for their failing health. Come the 20's and 30's, they'll likely be responsible for the fall of an empire.

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - George Carlin

I always liked "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," which i always thought was E.T. Barnum, but turns out it's H. L. Mencken.  And when i hear cars in the 80s & 90s, i reach for my revolver (which also wasn't said by the right guy -- it was a line in some play, apparently :'()

Mark Twain, actually for the first quote, and that's Phinneas Taylor (P.T.) Barnum.

Last one I'm not sure, but it sounds like "bad habit" by The Offspring ("When I show my piece, complaints cease, something is odd, feel like I'm god, you stupid, dumbshit, goddamn MOTHERFUCKER!")

That first one's attributed to just about everyone, and i'm not saying wikip is right, that's what the wikipedos claim :o
The second one i always herd attributed to Hermann Goering "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver," but wikipedos want to muck wit that one too.  Revolvers are pretty distinct looking, so they made it into all kinds of song lyrics (i think the old Luger looks more evol, but that's me).  The one that comes to mind is "That's when i reach for my revolver/That's when it all gets blown away..." -- not sure who that was, some 80s punk/pop crossover band.

edit:  Mission of Burma, which isn't even the top Google hit anymore (using the exact above quote content).  Moby & Catherine Wheel are above the original.  Fkn Moby >:(

so that murder becomes legal?
srsly?

Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law.

Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again.

I'm guessing Lohoris would be the first to found a state if ever we were absent of one.  Since murder would then be legal (which would just make it killing, technically,) it would be assumed that all people, everywhere, would begin systematically killing every person they came across, until everyone was dead.  Somehow, I don't believe this is normal human behavior.

I mean, y'know, unless you're the head of a state with billions of dollars worth of a military to dispose of in some way.  Then it would just be a waste not to kill people.

I had forgotten that quote. I was very young last I read Machiavelli :)

But the sentiment behind it has been the driving force behind organized religion and government for, well, forever. The belief in the face of evidence that one little group of power hungry leeches angels devils men are somehow able to compel the ravening masses and make them not violent, against the very basis of their nature. Democracy takes the fallacy a step further in saying that you too can become one of these Ubermensch, if you get popular enough.

Yet the obvious failure is that men MAKE governments, and that men EXIST after somewhere between 1 million and 40,000 years of existence, most of which had no superstates. If men were by nature self and species destructive unless controlled by outside forces, then any EFFECTIVE government would have to NOT be men.

So you arm yourself to defend you from your neighbours.
Then bands of armed robbers appear, and you have to team up with your neighbours to make a common stand.
Then armies appear, and several neighbourhood have to build a common defence strategy...
and you have your old State again.

Your approach is EXTREMELY naive and doesn't work.

I really do not like the current implementation of states, or states altogether, but "splitting up" just isn't going to work.
What we really need now is a totally different approach.

My approach has only been hinted at. One doesn't put the whole of a philosophy in a few words. I said that competent general armament was the FIRST requisite of liberty. Not the only one.

Common cause, whether in defense or in industry, does not in itself even suggest a state. People can and will come together in common cause for many reasons. There is NO reason that such groupings have to be involuntary or permanent.

And splitting up is PRECISELY what is needed. Extreme decentralization. Centralization is the power to destroy from the top. Decentralization makes that impossible. Don't believe me? Look to the history of Afghanistan. Or America, for that matter, before it completely forgot it's roots. If one man or a small group controls the area, all you have to do to take the reigns is supplant them. This is more often done by subversion than violence, but either works. When every man is independent and armed, who do you go to to take the rei(g)ns?

This was normal human behaviour. Not sure if it still is consider that we maybe much more enlightened then our ancestors.

This would be cool but kind of utopistic, I fear.

Look at Yemen: more guns than people, but they are still oppressed. Why? Because having a gun doesn't turn you into an army, so disorganised people with guns will still lose agains trained soldiers and tanks.

Not saying that none of your ideas could be applied into a real society, only that as a whole it doesn't work.

He's talking about decentralisation not being disorganised, those are different things, what Libertarians and Anarchists tend to follow seems to be self-regulation rather than the more popular definition of chaos. You can still have leadership and communities in such a system but the point is that it's not one big organisation that runs everything.

Thanks.

I have a lot to say on this, but now is unfortunately not the time. Because I'm in the process of moving more than halfway across the country and already wasted too much time on this forum :) I'll try to get a lot more detailed in a couple of weeks.

But yes, that's why I said general COMPETENT armament. Any damn fool can lay their hands on a gun. And most damn fools aren't any better off than empty handed. There is a significant amount of training involved in being competently armed. The most important weapon a man can possess is the one that lies dormant between the ears of the vast majority.

Sigh.

If you have a well-organised neighbourhood, what happens when a well-organised army from a whole region comes knocking at your door?
You'll be destroyed.

If you do not grow big, you'll be beaten by someone else who will.

Hey, I don't like that, but I face reality.

Yet again when it comes to politics I encounter a bunch of people who present hypothetical bullshit scenarios and ultimatums, if you've read any history at all then you'd know when it comes to warfare anything can happen.

But individuals will still be able to think for themselves, right?
One of the reasons that Soviet army was successful in WW2 was the fact that for certain shock battalions, retreat was not an option:  In case of retreat, they would die at the hands of their own comrades.  One incentive to fight on.  How do you feel an army full of individuals would fare against that?

That organ between ones ears can also be the most devastating and random weapon, especially paired with firearms.

Sure.  The invading troops may throw down their arms & break into a clumsy waltz. You agree that it's smarter to plan for the more likely scenarios?

You ask the nearby well-organized neighborhoods to join in fighting off this army, and destroy the supply lines, rear bases, and transportation. In other words, you destroy their organization.

If you have a relative that fought in Vietnam, ask him how well that worked.

So we would be back to feudal times, basically?

But that would still be a state versus another state, backed by yet another state.

In both cases, you are confusing the method with the organization employing it.

In both cases, you are confusing the method with the organization employing it.
[/quote]
Could you clarify?

Certainly. You compared a system of small, voluntary defense groups with mutual defense contracts to feudalism. The only similarity between the two is the mutual defense agreements.

You compared a small voluntary militia using guerrilla tactics to the NVA using guerrilla tactics (OK, I made the comparison, but you couldn't see the difference between the two). The only similarity is the guerrilla tactics.

Thanks, I get your point.

Still, there are problems.
If the groups are voluntary, they will likely be composed mostly of violent people who like authority, i.e. the kind of people which once they realise that they can rule the country, they do it.

And the main difference between these groups and a feudal army is just the absence of a feudal lord... but since any army needs a very clear leadership, its general might quite easily step in and proclaim himself "lord".
After all, he already has at his command most of the people willing to fight.

Not necessarily. Not at all, in fact. The people who would gravitate towards a job that is primarily defending others are mostly the "good cops," those who join the police force specifically to help people, stop crime, etc. The "bad cops," those who enjoy having power over people, would gravitate towards more criminal careers. The reason for this is simple: These groups do not have a territorial monopoly. without the territorial monopoly, any person who finds himself the target of abuse from one protection agency can simply call up another one which is based nearby to come stop it.

No, he has a relatively small portion of the people willing to fight. Remember, no territorial monopoly, so those who are willing to fight to defend others have many (or at least 2 or 3) choices of employer. And once an agency goes "rogue" like that, their voluntary customers will dry up, and the other companies in the area will gain subscribers. There will be a large portion of his fighters, in fact, which will jump ship, as well. Even if they don't mind attacking the people they were paid to protect, attacking is pretty risky business, and the other companies are still in the business of defense. Then comes the problem of pay. Even the most ruthless SOB mercenary wants his pay, and wants it on the regular. Without any voluntary subscribers, the only way a "lord" could get money to pay his troops is by force. Which puts them in direct competition with the other companies in the area, who have not only gained the rogue agency's customers, but a good chunk of their troops, too.

A rogue protection agency/nascent state would not last long in a voluntary society.

What, if not "defending others," was the original reasoning behind plain old police force?  And how did things go so wrong?  What gave us the expression "bad cop," if not the self-same police force?  Your "protection agencies" are not susceptible to abuse of power?  


That's so absurd, on so many levels, it's hard for me to choose which aspect to giggle at first.  I'll do it serially:

• Of course these groups will have territorial monopolies, otherwise people will be relying on"protection group" from New Hampshire to police their California homestead.  You must agree, it's smarter to hire someone a bit more local for prompt response.
• You can argue that several "local protection agencies" would make themselves available.  That's patently absurd:  These agencies would be in direct competition with one another.  Unless they're rock-stupid, they'll enter into agreements, splitting up the territory like old-fashioned traveling salesmen.
• No *intelligent* person would "choose another nearby protection agency" any more than one would choose to pay protection money to a different gang, if the terms are better.  Possible in theory, dangerous in practice.
• Nothing stops these "protection agencies" from developing great working relationships with each other, which is nice & cuts down on wasted ammo.  Similarly, nothing prevents them from fully joining forces & becoming one great big army.  Then all the quibbling about territories & when & how much you pay will end:  You'll pay however much they ask, whenever they ask.

There's plenty more, but any one of those bullets is enough to put down your pipedream.


i'm not going to dissect this part point by point.  Let me end on a notion that may be new to you, and might give you a new perspective on things:

Unless evil aliens are involved, at least at one point in time, in the beginning, *all mankind was free*.  This state of freedom gave birth to everything, including all the "artificial" regulations we know today.  This is important.  Please try to remember this when making plans :D

Territorial monopoly.
No, they're not.
Your first one is plain stupid.
The second ignores the fact that no other industry splits up territory like that, because it would be rock-stupid to do so. Why voluntarily hand over customers to your competitor?
The third is just as stupid as the first.
The fourth ignores diseconomies of scale.

While this sounds brilliant at first (and is partly implemented here in Italy, having multiple police forces), actually @crumbcake's objections are quite valid and kind of destroy your point, unfortunately.

Hey, I'd be glad to be proved wrong...

Which ones, in particular, do you consider most valid?
As I said, the first and third ones are absurd (the third one especially: "These guys kick down my door and search my house at 3 AM, but at least they're cheap!"), and the second and fourth ignore laws of economics.

NO U!
NO U!1!
Ridiculous.  The fourth addresses economy of scale.  Countering arguments with "[that's] plain stupid" is just ... plain stupid.  I know defending ideas you haven't thought through bites, but why shit up the boards with pointless insults?  Why provoke when your stance is both absurd & undefendable?  Strategize! :D

Finally, i take pains to stress the most important point, and you, intentionally or through lousy reading comprehension, ignore it.  I'll quote it again for you:

There. 

Not sure how you got the above from:

• No *intelligent* person would "choose another nearby protection agency" any more than one would choose to pay protection money to a different gang, if the terms are better.  Possible in theory, dangerous in practice.

What were you reading, certainly not my post?

Your points have been rigorously destroyed elsewhere, even on this very board. Don't blame me for your inability to use Google and research a topic before expounding on it.
The only point you made which is anywhere close to valid is the fourth one, addressing economies of scale. However, as I point out, it ignores the inherent diseconomies of scale. It's summed up in Wikipedia's definition of a natural monopoly:


Even the economies of scale graph underlines this by showing the average per unit cost line going first down, and then up:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Economies_of_scale.PNG/330px-Economies_of_scale.PNG

Furthermore, there's little evidence that economies of scale apply to security. That would require it to be less expensive to defend more people, but that is clearly false. The more people you defend, the more your costs rise. Frankly, I would not be surprised if a detailed examination of the economics of security found that the "ideal" size of a defense agency is in the low double digits, or even lower.

So, because conquest happened, that makes it inevitable and preferable to peace?


Well, let's look at what you were responding to, shall we?


To which you said:

"No *intelligent* person would "choose another nearby protection agency" any more than one would choose to pay protection money to a different gang, if the terms are better.  Possible in theory, dangerous in practice.

It follows, then:

"These guys kick down my door and search my house at 3 AM, but at least they're cheap!"

My apologies for necroing this comment, but I just saw this ignorant shit post.

Top US Charities for 2012:

• 1. United Way - $3.9B - https://give.unitedway.org/page/contribute/support-us?source=Adwords2013&subsource=BrandCampaign
• 2. Salvation Army - $1.7B - http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf
• 3. Catholic Charities - $1.6B - https://support.catholiccharitiesusa.org/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=9113&track=BPI_gs_18753975054_catholic%20charities&gclid=CIOX6auDy7cCFVRk7AodBEsACQ

All of the above charities are for poor people.

Let me highlight the absurdity of what you're saying from several angles:

Monopolies are intrinsic to unregulated markets.  They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.  Economics of scale is not the only thing that makes monopolies profitable.  Monopolies snuff out the competition (by definition) -- that's the other thing making them profitable.

Taking a different perspective, addressing your "problems of bureaucracy," or "Diseconomies of scale":

Diseconomies of scale addresses the potential, though by no means inevitable or terminal, problems of scaling up.  As single-cell organisms evolve & become multi-cell, absorbing "fuel" & expelling waste directly through the cell walls becomes impractical.  Circulatory system, specialized cells & other "bureaucracy & infrastructure" have to be created.  This certainly seems sub-optimal at first glance.  Yet critters with more cells than you can shake a stick at not only exist, but rule this planet.  One noteworthy multicell creature can wipe out life on the entire planet, several times over, if it so chooses.  Diseconomy of scale never suggests that large=less efficient or less likely, simply that size has associated problems.  Most of the time, these problems are dwarfed by the economy of scale.  And once you consider other added advantages of becoming a monopoly...


Is that why most countries bigger than a breadbox have a single army, and not a bunch of guys with pickup trucks & shotguns arguing if and who to fight?  Trust me, they apply. ;)


I ride on the short bus, could you explain it to me nonetheless?


I'm still lost. This is, loosely, the structure of your argument:

-It would have to be X, but it's clearly not!
-The more you scale, the more not X!1!
-Frankly, i wouldn't be surprised if after close examination, it would have to be not X!

Therefore, not X.  Q.E.D. !!!

Tell me there's more.


Let's, together!


I'm sorry, wut? :D :D :D

edit:  And again, for the third time, you fail to answer the part i made extra-double-dog-sure you answered, i'll post it for the third time:

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?

Uses for Keynesian economics books:

1) Toilet paper
2) Feeding a fire
3) Cleaning cloth

;)

Have you read anything other than wikip?  Take this silly page you reach for so ardently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
Have you noticed anything odd about it?  Now, go back & look at the talk page :D :D

Edit:  forgot to answer the less bated of your two questions:  Are you saying that monopolies didn't exist before regulations against them, or that you welcome their existence, and a unified body of armed thugs is what you're expecting to happen? 

Remember when Microsoft had a natural monopoly on computer software?  It's a good thing the Feds put a stop to it; now we are able to enjoy Chrome, Firefox, Linux, Apple, etc.!

I quoted the "natural monopoly" page, and the "economies of scale" page. Not the diesconomies of scale page.

Point me to any monopoly not granted by government, and I'll cede the point.

For the fourth, fourth time i ask you to address the point you continue ignoring, now along with the majority of my points.  Oh, and i finally got what you were thinking re: the fourth point!!!  You think the word "terms" means "cost"!!!!!  No, think "terms of the contract!"   :D :D

Edit:  I'd gladly name monopolies not granted by the government, but i know you'll degenerate things to "oh, that wasn't a true monopoly, joe had a choo choo track in his back yard!" and "oh, a monopoly on matches isn't an important monopoly!1!"

Edit2:  I'm sorry i assumed you linked me to the Diseconomies of scale page -- i had no idea what that meant, so i must have just highlighted & wound up there myself.  To say the page's leeding is an understatement.  I don't usually hit the talk pages of random stuff i look up, but this thing was an eye-popper! :D

The general scapegoat for monopoly regulation is Standard Oil, which has been debunked.

I'll bite, how & where?

Edit:
"... world's first and largest multinational corporations ended in 1911, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that Standard was an illegal monopoly." -wikip

Who did the debunking, Archie?

Edit 2: Yep :D

No problem, I'm pretty good with internet searches and reading.

http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=theses

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/08/vindicating-capitalism-standard-oil-i/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html

http://irishliberty.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/the-myth-of-the-standard-oil-monopoly/

http://capitalism.org/antitrust/what-about-rockefellers-standard-oil/

http://mises.org/daily/5274

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_standard

This is a joke?  Somebody's thesis?  a blog post by (is it this guy? :D  Alex Epstein, energy expert and founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, is one of the world's most innovative champions of fossil fuels. Author of Fossil ...), this character, of our beloved austrian school of economics:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Thomas_DiLorenzo_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/220px-Thomas_DiLorenzo_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg
and you call that "debunked"?  Come on, did you think i wouldn't look?
If i make a post here saying WW2 never happen, would the validity of WW2's existence be debunked, or even be put in question? :D :D :D

Edit:  Thus far:  A school paper, An oil salesman, and an invisible hander.  I'll look at the rest nao :D
edit2:  Cato, libber's home turf.
 :D
edit 3:  Irish Liberty Forum, a deserted blog, looks like a cut & paste from one of the previous  links.  One comment.  

EDIT 4 ($) CAPITALISM, a blog paragraph with cut & paste quote from previous link! :D  Dude, do you even lift?

EDIT 5:  LOLZ!!!  http://mises.org/, need i say more?!

Edit 6, the last, best and final edit:  LOOOOLLLLOL!!!! http://www.aynrand.org  Well, if her fanbois say it's so, it's so!  Debunked it is!

Your logical fallacy is... (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic)

Thank you, thank you so much, i'm being sincere, nothing tong-in-cheek about this.  I'm grinning from ear to ear as i type this, i haven't felt this giddy in days!  This was awesome!

Are you kidding?

Linux and apple worked just fine alongside MS, I used Netscape(now firefox) instead of MS explorer. Now I use Chrome btw.

(Pssst: that was his point.)

Hmm, I have an excuse ready - english is my second language. :P

Sarcasm comes across poorly in dry text, anyway. You basically have to know the other person's views well enough to detect that he's saying something that doesn't fit.

To my extensive knowledge their has NEVER been a monopoly that was enforceable absent a state. Going clear back to Babylon.

If you look to more recent history, before they butt raped him, Andrew Carnegie supported the various tarriffs for the STATED SOLE PURPOSE of protecting monopolies.

JMK was not exactly noted for his accuracy, even by his admirers. Charm, wit, and bravado, certainly. But not accuracy. Menger, Von Mises et. al. have won this one by being accurate. Which doesn't make them popular, as their analysis doesn't condone nor call for monopolistic interventions on the part of regulators.

No problem!  When I first started learning about free markets years ago, a good friend tried to bring up the same argument about anti-trust laws to justify government intervention.  I wasn't very knowledgeable about the history of anti-trust laws at the time outside of what is taught in state schools.  I've found that they have one of the largest disconnects between actual historical facts and the state narrative.

Odd choice of words.  Had to read that sentence a couple of times to catch the meaning.  Are you trying to say that monopolies need protection (from the state or anything else) to exist?
That's not just counterintuitive, but in most cases absurd on its face.

First, let me try to define the terms & list a few exceptions like monopolies which (probably) wouldn't exist without support from the state.  
Printing $$$ falls under that, it's explicitly forbidden*.   Here the lines between the monopoly & the state are pretty blurred (“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws" -M.A. Rothschild, who was dead serious, afaik).  This blurring seems to be both intentional & necessary, though all this is an entirely different topic :D

The Beef:  Many industries tend towards natural monopolies.  
By definition, these result not from decree, but from purely economic factors:  Barrier to entry, economies of scale, etc.  These types of monopolies may incidentally garner assistance/protection from the state, though that's just gravy -- their success, once established, is guaranteed by anything short of draconian laws against them.  And i do mean draconian with all of the negative connotations -- like chemo for cancer, these laws must dispense with all niceties, or become more than pointless.  The cure will just weaken the patient & cancer will come back.

I'm sure you disagree, just not sure how & why, so i'll wait.


I'm not sure what you're driving at.


Again, i'm not sure why it's worthwhile for us to drag out our hobbyhorses.  I have no interest of pitting Keynes against anyone, and have neither the time nor the motivation for verifying his accuracy.  This is the interwebz.  I'm sure you can dredge up bargeloads of evidence to support your position, though my guess is it's veracity will be much like the Standard Oil links in this thread.  Since i knew none of the people you've mentioned personally, i can't discuss their charm, wit, bravado, tendencies towards inaccuracy or mass appeal with any authority.  At best, i can deal with concrete, objective and verifiable examples of their work.  Though I feel we could discuss basic notions like monopolies without appealing to those mental giants for validation :)


*Even with money, though, you'll see a few cracks developing, Bitcoin's an example.

Edit: typos

Unfortunately I don't have the time to address this properly right now. I'm leaving The People's Republic of Pennsylvania tomorrow morning and will be offline for at least a couple of weeks. I do have a serious rebuttal, but doing it off the top of my head is just ranting. I need to do some research for specific citations and examples.

I brought up Keynes because your position mirrors his (on those rare times when he had any sort of position) and we are talking directly about ideas and ideology that are directly relevant to his general theory (and also Menger and Von Mises, from a whole different angle.)

Anyway, I'm finding some rather interesting people to talk to here. I will return!

Me too. But this is the first time with a young family, and the wife has never been out of her bubble before. Plus the move is forced by poverty :P

But still, it's always an adventure, and I'm going to a place I'm very familiar with, and back to some very dear and loyal friends. Thanks for the well wishes.

Kevin Biomech.