Bitcoin Forum

I don't feel like feeding myself nor fetching water. Heck, I even wear a diaper that needs to be changed. I am going to die of dehydration and in an adult diaper full of shit glued to my ass unless somebody pays for my survival. You don't feel like helping me nor can you afford to care for me. Oh but luckily you're so compassionate that you'll force other people to care for me. You take your team of buddies with guns to extort funds from your neighbors so I can get my ass wiped, watered and fed.

Is this moral? If not, what should of been done that doesn't require force?

I think it's immoral on account of the rhetoric and provocative language you used, which is going to convince everybody to agree with you.

TMI Atlas. T-M-I.

We will provide the bare minimum to feed you and we will provide education.  It won't be long before you get bored or meet a woman and then your complaint will be that you can't get enough work. 

Hopefully, when that happens there will be a job for you...otherwise we will have to call you a parasite.

Please for the love of god ban this useless ALPHA poster, I've ignored him, but the forum still shows the several useless threads a day started by ignored users that have nothing to do with bitcoin.

Did you ignore me yet?  ???

If you have to ask, you're not ready to know yet.

If you do that you have some sort of mental disorder. Is it moral to leave those with a mental disorder that keeps them from sustaining themselves to die?

And my father used to say that he was unlucky with his breed...  ::)
Wonder what he would say if Atlas was his son...

Is it moral to enslave people to care for those who are dying of a mental disorder?

If people truly care about them, shouldn't it be only those who choose to care for them that do so?

Is it moral to put the full burden of care on a select few?
We can do this all day.

Yes, it is. The burden should only be put on those who desire it. Nobody is entitled to the labor of another. That is slavery.

Speak for yourself.

It is? You think it's morally right of you to leave someone to die and rely on somebody else to take care of them?

Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it's moral to use violence to prevent it. It's immoral to cheat on your partner but is it something we should be using violence to stop? No! Similarly, it's immoral to let people suffer when we have the ability to stop it. However, it's also immoral for me to use violence to force you to give aid when you don't want to. That's the key issue that is missed by the statists. You folks rant about how immoral it is to allow people to suffer when we can help them. Most of us anarchists agree that it is immoral. That's why I give to charity when I can. Where we disagree is what is a valid response to refusal to render aid. We say peace. You say violence.

There's a lot of grey areas. You have to decide which is most moral to do. Moral to use violence to prevent cheating? Most westerners would say no, but certain eastern cultures don't agree. Moral to use violence to prevent suffering? Most people would say yes. Depending on the level of suffering and violence involved. Most people outside of this forum anyway. You know, the sane people.  ;D

While I applaud your rhetoric I think we advocate different kind of violence. I advocate taking some of your money to aid the less fortunate (which is violence if you like). You advocate letting people those people die (which can be seen as a passive form of violence).

Wake up .... there is no such thing as moral ... immoral . It's just You and me and many others just like us.
One is in dept only to his offspring. And not the other way round.
BUT we should help each other if we want to be helped.
The more humans ... more genetic material ... more possible combinations ... more changes of genius ... faster progress .

Now we just have to find a way to power ourselves and spread the knowledge so that the geniuses that might appear have access to it .
Morality is stupid ... it disqualifies something because is said or done by some immoral person.

A whore is immoral but that doesn't mean that what she says is incorrect . Not even what she does ain't damaging anyone so why do we treat them as lower end women?
A thief is immoral but that doesn't mean he can't have a say about politics . We should look at what he proposes and not at his history. Sure don't trust him with wealth without supervision :D
A drunkard is immoral but that doesn't mean anything . Just that he is drunk . If what he says is correct then does it matter if he is drunk or not?

There is no morality but the will of the bigger gun. Common knowledge, my friend. I prefer to distribute the force evenly among every individual. You wish to centralize it to your whims. Let's see who wins.

You really need to learn the difference between advocating and tolerating. I tolerate people using heroin. I don't advocate it. There's a big difference. If you don't acknowledge that difference, you're not actually addressing my point of view but just some straw man. I don't advocate letting people die. I'm not encouraging it. I'm not recommending it. I'm simply saying that it's immoral to use violence outside of self-defense. You advocate taking money from people and if they refuse, kidnapping them and imprisoning them, and if they resist, killing them. I am against that. That's the line. Argue that.

The violent statist philosophy doesn't even work optimally from a utilitarian aspect. When a man's property right is compromised to the lowest bidder there's going to be less wealth, more poverty and more suffering; there will be less incentive to produce.

You really need to learn the difference between advocating and tolerating. I tolerate people using heroin. I don't advocate it. There's a big difference. If you don't acknowledge that difference, you're not actually addressing my point of view but just some straw man. I don't advocate letting people die. I'm not encouraging it. I'm not recommending it. I'm simply saying that it's immoral to use violence outside of self-defense. You advocate taking money from people and if they refuse, kidnapping them and imprisoning them, and if they resist, killing them. I am against that. That's the line. Argue that.
[/quote]

Ok, let's play with words.
I don't advocate taking money from people. I tolerate it to be able to defend those in need. I tolerate that people who are aggressive in preventing us from doing this a can be arrested, imprisoned, and killed if they attack those who we have appointed to guard our society.

See, you're the aggressor here. I'm trying to defend the health and well-being of the people most in need and you're trying to prevent it. That's got to be aggression.

It's getting really twisted around here. Seriously, you tolerate people taking money from others? Ok, I can actually follow that logic. You are also not obligated to assist anyone who is being violently attacked or robbed unless you have a prior contract to protect them. This is true. All law should employ negative rights, contracts typically incorporate positive rights. So your logic does in fact stand, and does not violate the premise of non-initiation of aggression.

However, if you participate in the process of permitting (thru legislation) the plunder of your neighbor by making it acceptable (taxation), would that not, in some way, implicate you in a conspiracy to commit that crime? If your vote directly results in laws that violate the personal liberties and properties of another, would that not make you complicit in that act?

Your last paragraph is bassackwards. Bitcoin2cash is not aggressing anybody if he never laid a hand on anybody. His unwillingness to assist another in his "time of need" may not be considerate, but his lack of action cannot be construed as aggression. Aggression requires a transfer of energy or mass from one object to another, usually thru the act of forces applied to said object initiated by the individual.

No forces, no aggression. No contract, no obligation. May the peace be with you.

The problem with your logic is that you assume those who are taxed have some inherent right to keep the money society gave them and that the society is under some kind of moral obligation to ignore better uses for the money.

Society does not give people money. Society does not think, feel nor do. Individuals do. Individuals exchange by their own choice alone. If they choose not to act, wealth is not made and trades cannot occur.

Individuals can only grasp and transfer property and thus they can only own property. The only person who knows the best use for money is the one that holds it. Society cannot make such a unilateral judgement for it cannot think. Again, only individuals can think.

Society exists - its not a few random individuals acting randomly.  For example, young men voluntarily go off to war and die for soceities when their objective self-interest would be to stay at home and live.  Saying you don't like the power of society is fine but don't try to argue on the basis that its not there.

Money is a measure of your power in society.  Take away the society and you have taken away the money.  So its perfectly reasonable for society to make sure that money is distributed on whatever basis it wants.  In China, its reserved for a tiny elite.  In Sweden, its spread about a bit.  In the US, its spread from the young to the old.  You may disagree about any of these policies but you are being illogical if you disagree with the right to make the decision.

Society is only the culmination of individual decisions. Yes, it is all based on self-interested. Young men went off the war because they chose to. They valued the causes they supported and they chose the decision they thought was best. It was as selfish as any other choice.

Money is power but its not exclusively power. Wealth can be created through other means such as innovation which can be exchanged for money. You can be powerful through the scarcity of your skillset and still have little money.

Again, it's not a zero-sum game and you can't redistribute somebody's value without slavery.

Sorry but if you have a society that people are willing to go off and die for, its unrealistic to think they won't raise taxes for it.  Especially when the tax is on money that comes from the society in the first place. 

I agree that money is not the sole measure of your power in society.  But money itself only exists as a measure of power.  And no-one has an intrinsic right to power/money.  If the society that printed the money feels it would be better employed elsewhere, it has every right to take it and redeploy it.

Society, which is a group of individuals acting in concert, can, with enough force, take anything they like, including the lives of others. This is a fact, merely because it is possible to do. Humanity only has such limits as the physical laws in the universe impose upon them. Again, a fact. Having the "right" to take something is another matter altogether. You, and society can justify anything that it wants (usually employing violence or threats thereto). The full range behavior encompasing charity to murder is possible.

I would like to think that straying to far from charity in the direction of murder is a bad idea. You really should keep your hands to yourself (rhetorically speaking). Just because a majority of persons think it's in their best interests to take from others what never belonged to them, seems like bad form. At the very least, it isn't logically consistent. Violating logic and reason will always take you in the wrong direction, and potentially confuse and scare the hell out of everybody. What do you say we not incite fear, uncertainty and doubt?

If someone gives you property and money subject to conditions, then its not a great imposition to insist you honour the conditions or give the property or money back.  Saying "keep your hands to yourself" and then trying to ignore the terms under which you were given the property/money is at best dishonest but more commonly its delusional.  

BTW, look at this: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/11/yes-the-us-government-ought-to-own-the-banks-now.html

Do you really think its wrong to tax the owners of those banks when clearly they would have ceased trading and be worthless without TARP funding?  Really? 

I never said anything about anybody giving anyone money or property, much less any conditions relating thereto. There is no honor among thieves first of all. And besides, if the property you brought to me was stolen, I would likely return it if I could find the real owner. Additionally, the conditions of use of stolen property have no validity, because the property wasn't yours to begin with (excepting to return it with good faith, or at a minimum wait for the owner to attempt repossess it).

It's wrong to tax regardless. The banks are committing theft by the involuntary use of their forced fiat financial system. Look to the source of the problem, as the symptoms can be misleading sometimes. Yes, really.

How about you stop shitting on "useless" people until you stop being so "useless" yourself and actually produce something, tia

+1

If Atlas earned 10 bucks for every hour he talked about hard work without actually doing any, he'd be the richest guy on the forum.

The real owner is the person whose name is on the property deed.  Its not an option to announce that "Tim bought that house but its on land stolen in the 1700s so he is not the real owner."

People get property rights from the state as part of citizenship.  The property reverts to the state if you die without heirs.  To complain that they state has no right to impose conditions on its providing you with a property system is to complain about the very concept of property.  No state = no property beyond what you can defend with a gun.

If you don't advocate it, only tolerate it, then you'll have no objections when I don't do it. Just like I have no objections when people don't do heroin.


Well, it's been said that the best defense is a good offense. Of course, it's still offense.

Pay $70,000+ in taxes in one year and then you can have an opinion on taxation too.

I don't mind if you don't take money from people, no. Just don't try to prevent people from giving aid by refusing to do your share. Then your aggression has to be stopped.

Taxation is exactly equivalent to slavery, only that you aren't forced to work, you get to choose what you do for work, and you can work as much or as little as you want. Other than that it's the same.

... and you only have to give away a small portion of your money, and you get benefits in return. But other than that ...

Yes, I don't think any of us would mind robbers as long as they took only our DVDs and silverware. We might as well not consider those robberies at all.

Oh, the robbers happened to leave a check for what they took. I guess that makes it all okay.  ::)

Also, yes, let's say I don't make any money. Why should I have a say in what other people make? Why should I get a vote on how much should be taken out of somebody's paycheck and put into my welfare check?  ::)

Useless people do get a say in this it seems. They can enslave an entire populace of working people if they please. Oh wait, they already do.

Taxation is exactly equivalent to slavery, only that you aren't forced to work, you get to choose what you do for work, and you can work as much or as little as you want. Other than that it's the same.

sales tax = ~8%
state income tax = ~8%
federal income tax = ~25%
social security & medicaid tax = ~8%
property tax, gas tax, estate tax, fees, licenses, inflation, inheritance tax, gift tax, etc = ~8%

I guess in your world, 57% is a "small portion". In my world, that's more than half.


That's brilliant. Punish the people that do.

If you consider taxation to be punishment for working, I would consider this to be the opposite of slavery.

Slavery is reward for working?

http://operatorchan.org/s/src/s21860_brain%20full%20of%20fuck%20sagan.jpg

If you forcibly have limited choice in what to do with yourself and your labor, it's slavery.

Slavery involves physical punishment for not working how the slave owner demands. It's a defining characteristic. But you know that and you're just being obtuse.

If you think that slavery is defined as merely having someone limit your choices, then you have a very different definition of the word than the rest of the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Q2R3V2nQGHY#t=116s

A man chooses; a slave obeys.

It's clear that you haven't studied much American history. If you had, you would have heard of Frederick Douglass. He was a slave that was allowed to earn wages by working at a shipyard. Each week, he was forced to give all of his wages to his master. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass compared his master to a pirate who had a "right" to his wages only because his master had the power to compel him to hand it over. That sounds like taxation to me. Oh wait, as you say, the difference is that we don't have to work at all. We could just live in homeless shelters or in cardboard boxes. That's a real meaningful and important difference!

"Don't like taxes? Jump in the ocean and drown, or be a bum."

Can we just rewind this thread to the very first post:


And just reply "Ok." and let him starve to death?

So Fredrick Douglass was forced under threat of violence to work a certain job for a certain length of time for no pay. How is this exactly the same as our current system of labor and income taxes?

*No threat of violence
*Not forced to work a job
*Not forced to work any longer than you want
*You get paid.

You're right. That's exactly the same as slavery.

Let's cover each of these individually:

*No threat of violence

If you do not pay taxes nor comply with working under taxation and slavery, your person will be raped. Yes, raped. It will be possessed by an external force to be put in jail or otherwise. If you do not comply with their whim, you will be threatened with force. Your life will be used to negotiate your compliance. Taxation does require a threat of violence.

*Not forced to work a job

A good portion of the populace is forced to work a job. If one does not work, one does not sustain. Of course, one can choose to "work" off the enslaved work of others. This is immoral. The fact is somebody has to work in order for people to sustain. The work is almost always under the condition of slavery.

One could derive that if an organism has the right to sustain itself, she must have the right to work and associate with other individuals in the upmost degree.

*Not forced to work any longer than you want

Not so. Somebody is forced to work as long as it takes to sustain the populace.

*You get paid.

By money earned through slavery.

So, yes, it is very much the same.

Taxes may take half of your earnings, but you'd spend that much providing the same services the government does (at least).

The government gives me protection of my things, as long as I obey their ToS. I get to use public roads. I got an education (well, part of it was Private, but still received some government money). If I didn't pay the government for those things, I'd have to get them elsewhere, and I don't think it would be any cheaper. Personally I'd like the choice -- It'd be nice to "shop around" the different mercenary companies to purchase my "Home Protection Policy" or to choose which Transportation company had the best way to get from Point A to Point B, but that's not in my budget right now. The government does provide an affordable all-in-one bundle though, so I'm happy to pay for it (even if I would like some more choice. Like the "Build Your Own" car insurance they have now).

And really, I'd probably go with US Military brand Home Protection anyway -- they have some VERY nice toys.

Prove it.

Well, let's see:

Numerous sources (likely the least biased is from PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/faqs/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/faqs/)). It states that PMC's, like Blackwater (who seem to be the ones everyone thinks of -- there are other Companies, of course). That states average pay per day of $400 - $600. Granted, that's for dangerous conditions (Iraq) and they have little competition. So lets reduce that by 75%, to account for being in a more "lax" environment, and likely competition as more PMCs spring up.

Protection -- $100 per guard, per day (so their yearly salaries would be a hair over 36k). Note that includes me paying for their food and housing on my complex. 10 guards is a good number (depending on the size of the estate) but lets knock that down for a single family home, and say 2 guards (Day shift and night shift). 72k/year

I really can't find all that much information on road systems (cost of building them, anyway). However, I think the price for a yearly subscription would likely be around $1500 (only slightly higher than the average cell phone bill). This would probably be higher, since roads degrade far faster than cell towers, and require much more initial investment.

The average cost of private schooling was, in 2000 (according to the US dept. of Education) $3217/child. Counting out schooling that charged over $5000 for tuition (the "rich kid" schools) that figure drops to around $2500 -- which is, from my experience, the low end. Assuming 2 kids, you're at 5k a year. *Might* be lower with more competition.

So we're looking at right around 80k a year in expenses, NOT COUNTING paying for a conflict-settlement company (court replacement), research of your choice, charities of your choice, etc.

Even if you're in the upper middle class level (2 high paying degrees in the household, let's say Computer Science and Chemical engineering) you're looking at a combined income of probably 180 -- 200k/year. 80k is around 40% of that. Federal income tax bracket on that is 33%. I live in Tennessee, and don't pay a state income tax -- I do pay 10% sales though, so if I spend half of my money (70k, after tax) on stuff, there's another  7k to taxes. So that means I'm paying, in taxes, 66k from the income, 7k from sales, and we'll go ahead and tag another 7k for the extra gas taxes etc.

So we're about even, right? As long as I don't want a court system, and am fine with only 2 people protecting my stuff (There is the possibility, of course, of "going in on" it with your neighbors, or purchasing a house in a gated community).  For that same money, the US gives me the protection of the most powerful military in the world, a fantastic, interconnected road system, pretty good schools, clean water, and some other "bonuses" (research grants and the like).

And something else to remember: guards aren't going to want less just because you make less money. Same with the road subscription, schools...so if you only make 100k, that 80k a year becomes a lot more.

Dunno -- I lowballed where I could, if you have more prescient stats please post them -- I identify as Libertarian, usually, and would love to be proven wrong on this, but the US government does a very good job of providing "bang for you buck."

Then why not let me just spend my own money? I could at least make sure I only did business with companies I trust AND it would be voluntary. You're saying we should force people by gunpoint to pay for stuff that they would have paid for anyways? Brilliant! It seems like the cost of all those armed thugs is just a waste then.

I was just trying to point out that without taxes, you would still have to spend the equivalent amount of money to enjoy the same amount of convenience and security -- the money would not simply be extra disposable income. I, personally would rather pick and choose who I paid (much like I do when shipping goods) but outside of satisfying personal preference, I don't think there would be a large difference in most people's wealth.

Not to start an argument, and I would never knowingly have sex with one, but why is a whore immoral? We all use our bodies to work for us, be it our brains, our muscles or our beauty. In my case I am lucky to have all 3  ;D.

If someone chooses to have sex for money(this is how i understand the word whore) and not being forced into it because of drugs/pimps/whatever why not?

If you want to do it, thats cool, if you are forced into it thats another story, but in either case, I do not think its immoral.

It's religious morality: in other words, serious mental illness.

a great read by an old friend...

http://www.hixoxih.com/soapbox/AreYouASlave.htm


 

But amendment XVI (16) gives congress permission to levy an income tax...

Touché

Hey guys, if you can provide an argument as to why robbery is objectively immoral under any circumstances, I'll be impressed.
Otherwise, you must stop saying "blah blah moral blah blah rights."

Go read some Nietzsche and come back to us. Most of us have passed Philosophy 101. We know there is no objective morality. However, it is certain that property rights encourage the sustention of life. They give people incentive to produce in the first place.

Philosophy, blah.  The only analysis that matters is materialist analysis -- gotta agree with Marx on that.  I'm too busy to read useless philosophy :)

Now, I must point out that your support of the "sustention [sic] of life" is not consistent with your other posts, in which you say that if someone is about to die, nobody should be forced to feed them.  Is that really why you support your absolutist system of  property rights? 

Taxation and coercion reduce the incentive to produce... this is true.  They do not completely eliminate it though.  Why is your system of morality superior to mine, which values fairness more than an absolutist system of rights?

Nobody should be forced to feed anybody because they will most likely be fed through voluntary means otherwise. The fact people have such a strong desire to hurt and kill in the name of defending the poor shows they will not starve in a free society. In fact, a society that plunders others to support the underclasses is inefficient and only 'hurts' these 'poor' even more due to how stolen money is not used with little regard to --again-- efficiency and profit. A society that voluntarily gives from its own pocket will make sure to use the money efficiently and directly towards the "poor" at hand.

The poor would be much better off being helped by who truly want to and can help them as opposed to murders and thugs who bring down other people to meet their ends.

Fairness -- fairness is not a virtue. It is only envy of those who bring value and have earned value. Life is not a zero-sum game. Those who have gained rightfully have stolen nothing: they have only created wealth and I don't think their property rights should be compromised. Wealth creation helps everyone. I hold the morally rich as the most charitable and they should be rewarded with our complete respect at the least.

In conclusion, life is best sustained with a complete respect for property rights. Things will be made more efficient, the poor will be better fed if we allow man to keep what he has earned all the way throughout. Voluntarily giving is more efficient and more potent since man will have to give out of his own freewill and not slavery.

Also, Marx values individual sweat labor more -- not society, not people -- they value what they choose to value. He can't apply his preferences and what he values universally.

That's like saying that if a woman is raped or she falls in love and has consensual sex, there's no difference in how pregnant she'll get.

Wheal she is pregnant regardless of the way she got there. You can't be half pregnant.

The difference is what preceded the sexual act which preceded the pregnancy . Physical  Violence.

Those that come after Violence is irrelevant at least to me. It's not worst to be raped than being forced to sign something or to take a pill .

You really need to get out more.  There is the world of difference between forcing a child to take an aspirin and raping him. 

Can you elaborate? What you stated is completely true...there is no difference how pregnant she would be. Also not sure how that ties into what I was saying.

No it ain't you forced him to something he didn't wanted. Maybe your child gets some neat complication when he gets an vaccine . I would love to see your face when you will explain to him why you forced him to take it if you ever have the chance to do it.

Well, you made me laugh.  When you have something intelligent to say, let us know. 

I'm guessing you don't have children. Raise a pair and then we'll talk.

What the fuck? You're not even old enough for college.

Also quit saying



about every subject in nearly every post you make on this forum. Like a lot of things you type, I know you think it makes you sound smart, but really it just makes everyone embarrassed for you. We can all see that you're using the same few phrases over and over to try and mimic what you think a smart person should sound like. Every time you learn a new word, we get to see it in every single one of your posts. In a way, it's kind of cute, but in another, more realistic way, it's insufferable.

Most vaccines are useless and have negligible benefit to only a small portion of the population. The risk of complication is probably far greater for most children than benefit. My children won't be taking most vaccines out there. I will not be taking another vaccine for the rest of my life.

Heh. It's funny how you just don't understand what I say.  Also, I've read more works than that are prescribed in college: I talk to a woman who is just about to finish her Bachelor's degree. We seem to be on similar grounds when it comes to material.

Also, on a funny note, she's a Marxist yet my best friend.

The guy thinks that forcing a child to take its medicine is the same as raping a child.

Are you sure you want him to reproduce?  And if you are, are you sure children will be safe in his care?

It is rape when a good portion of the stuff is disease-causing with little benefit.

I see.  Are you wearing your tinfoil hat ? 

If you can't express yourself clearly or with words you understand that have definitions the rest of the world shares, that ain't my fault. Every one of your posts is a grammatical train wreck. When someone like Nabokov or McCarthy throws a million big words at you, it's not bad because they know what all of those words mean and know when and where to use them. You, on the other hand, come across like a kindergartener running around in his dad's oversized shoes and knocking shit everywhere.

Heh. Is that so? Well, I'll be happy to see examples if you're willing to go through the trouble.

Inconvenient and probable truths aren't necessarily religious conspiracy.

I have better things to do than give you a grammar lesson, and besides, there have already been several threads where people have done just that and you shrugged them off and kept on with your bullshit. You really don't listen to anyone, and you simply ignore any point that casts your belief system in a bad light, so what's the point? I don't even know why I'm writing this post.

Also, stop starting every damn post with "Heh".

Heh.

Yes, eradicating smallpox had little benefit -- in fact I think the only thing that could do a smaller amount of good for mankind would be eradicating HIV/AIDS and Malaria.

I am talking about the required designer meds they sell you on at the doctor's office.

Like the vaccine for HPV? But hey, why try to prevent cervical cancer? No real benefit there.

Fuck you and your filthy mom please show me where i wrote child before the reply to you? Don't put words in my mouth!

You are on record.  I take it you have come to your senses and now see that there is in fact a difference between forcing a child to take an aspirin and raping him? 

You guys need to recognize trolling and stop feeding it.

The gov't runs a deficit.

So if I take your money and piss it all away then that's proof that you would have done the same? I don't think so.

$25,019,360,000,000. That's the number, in dollars it would take to provide every person with the services I outlined. Lets divide that by four, since those numbers were for families of 4 (more or less). Actually, let's be nice and say there's at least 6 people per family.

4.17 Trillion. US budget for 2012 was 3.72 Trillion.

Seems to me like the US is providing those services for much cheaper than I could. PLEASE, PLEASE find better numbers than I did, rather than skirting around it.

It's very easy to provide services at a better rate considering all the waste, excess benefits and corruption that exist in government. Really, it's very silly that you propose such an argument.

With profit incentive, things can be made very cheaply since people will act in their self-interest and will still have to provide a equitable product in return (else they fail). Have you heard of bureaucracy? It's a derogatory term for a reason. They have no accountability and have no reason to keep costs low.; they'll get their tax money at gun point regardless if the service is meeting people's desires.

I bet my life that if you disbanded all these government services, cheaper and more efficient ones would take there place; assuming people actually wanted them.

I itemized prices with free market alternatives earlier. I even sliced some of them down to account for more competition without government monopolies. Those are the numbers I was referring to.

Please post it again so I can embrace the Rosetta Stone, the Kepler--if you will--that is good, efficient and post-scarcity governance. May the Zeitgeist's be pleased that you have found the perpetual-motion of societal systems.

You know, you should even write a paper on the ultimate, unsurpassed efficiency that is government. You should even pass a law called "The Speed of Government" and how it shall not be surpassed because there can be no better. May government be the precipice of production as you so claim.

Enlighten me; shake me to my core.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53001.msg637698#msg637698

That's the post, with, like I said, the itemized numbers to get to 80k/family of 4. I would really like to see your list of estimated costs, so we can compare, critique, and come up with the most likely scenario.

Listen, I want free society. I can't stand the current US government -- I think you're right, that there is TONS of room for improvement, most relating to replacing people in simple jobs with computers. Whenever I have to work with someone whose job could be replaced by a computer, I make a note. We've got a lot of optimization we could do.

Most of my dislike for large organizations comes from being in charge of various things -- volunteer groups, etc. It's enough trouble getting things done correctly when you're in charge of 400 people, let alone 400 million -- I can't even imagine how that works. What I HAVE learned though is that larger groups get better deals on things. Better hotel group rates. Preference for renting buildings. I think part of the reason the US government can do what it does for the price it does has to do with it's size -- we're able to secure what we want for a lower price, because we're just so big.

At the end of the day, I think people are smart, and if given the opportunity and responsibility will do the right thing. Here in America, we were fairly recently given the opportunity and responsibility to decide how we wished to be governed -- our current system is what we've come up with, and it's worked pretty well, as evidenced by the fact that we haven't had any major revolutions/coups etc (at least since 1865).

Our current system is a joke. Let me know when we stop arresting people for things like marijuana and then we can talk about how great the system is.