Bitcoin Forum

I'm curious if you pay taxes because you are forced to or because you believe in the benefits it provides.  Also, I think this would be the first huge decision people would have to make if bitcoins became popular enough.  It would decide the fate of the government as we know it.

Or if you could live off of cash

Option 3 for me.

Taxes are a fraud just like government !

no, I would not.
I consider Bitcoins to provide Capital gains and those is not taxed where I live.
Still need to finalise that though :)

And if cash had the benefits of bitcoins, I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now.  Cash is risky & worth paying taxes to avoid.  Bitcoins aren't riskless, but IMO are less risky than cash.  I could see large businesses switching over to using bitcoins in the future to save on financial fees.  Then it's only a matter of time until they start understating their income.

Not where I live.  If you happen to live in a place that can't run its public services efficiently, you have my sympathy.

May I ask where that is you live? 

UK just like me. I live in London.

Potholes everywhere, MP expenses scandal, huge useless incompetent army, crappy NHS healthcare ... it sucks.

I would definitely not want to give my money to thieves, but it's not always as simple as an option.

Even with bitcoin only revenues, if you simply don't declare any income above the exemption threshold, that might look suspicious.
How would you buy anything significant, for example a house, if practically all your savings are undeclared? Perhaps via debt that would be possible but then you'd need to declare some income compatible with the debt you're paying.
Also, if you're just an employee and your employer declares everything he pays you, then being it in bitcoin, cash or whatever it doesn't matter, the taxman will get you.

Anyways, I answered with "depends on the risks".

Depends on which taxes you are refering to. Taxes that support the infrastructure that I use to live the modern life I choose, then yes. All that federal crap can eat it...

I voted "yes" - but that assumes a reasonably functioning goverment that mostly represents the interest of the people, provides social care to those who need it, and keeps for-profit businesses out of air, water, and basic healthcare business. Don't laugh.

I also chose option three. If it can run efficiently, it can run as a for-profit, and doesn't need to force people to pay.

You definitely bring up a lot of good points.  There are already a ton of people that understate their income (think people in the service industry).  But I doubt the IRS cares much about them anyways because they don't really make that much to begin with.  It would definitely be more difficult for the middle class because they are the ones making larger purchases that could come up on the IRS radar.  It'll probably be very gradual - kinda like bittorrent.  A couple people get caught & fined in the beginning, but eventually there are so many people doing it, it is pointless to go after individuals.  Also that lack of revenue is going to start affecting the IRS budget, forcing them to downsize, making it even more difficult to catch people.  Once it gets to a certain level, larger transactions like houses will be a drop in the bucket compared to large corporations understating billions.  But I can only hope & dream.


If I could allocate my tax dollars, bitcoin won't seem near as revolutionizing.


I'd consider paying taxes too if it worked that way.  But it doesn't.  And continuing to support it by paying your taxes is only going to keep the status quo.

Crappy NHS healthcare in a city with some of the best private hospitals in the world?  Go private and be happy!  Its far cheaper to go private in the UK that it is in the US.

Most people are reluctant to pay twice for healthcare. When you're already paying for the NHS through tax, it's no so easy to pay for it privately too.

Although stories like this make me consider private healthcare:

"A desperate hospital patient who died of  thirst after he was denied vital medication rang police and begged them to bring  him a drink, an inquest heard today ... he became so delirious he was forced to  call 999 to ask for help ... Officers raced to St George’s Hospital in Tooting, south London, but were turned away by staff who insisted Mr Gorny was  fine, Westminster Coroner’s Court heard."
http://updatednews.ca/2012/07/02/hospital-patient-22-died-of-thirst/ (http://updatednews.ca/2012/07/02/hospital-patient-22-died-of-thirst/)

Even with the tax paid, its cheaper to go private in the UK than the US.  You can get a very good scheme for less than £100 per month.

The big issue is quality - for most operations the NHS is actually better.  When my first child was due, my wife had complications and the doctor advised us to use the Royal Berks hospital rather than BUPA Dunedin because they handle 150 births a week and are better for difficult births.  On the other hand, in BUPA Dunedin, you could get a private room so it wasn't a complete waste of money.

F*** NO!

I barely do now!

I would pay capitol gains on appreciation, but only if I can claim losses.  I would not pay "income" tax on bitcoin however.

This.

The NHS is one of the examples where public provision of a service through forced taxation is a necessary evil. 

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil"..unless you're evil.

Sadly, is this world, you often have to pick the lesser of two evils.

If forcing people to pay tax prevents a greater evil then so be it.

No, you don't. In this world or any other. What you said is called a "cop-out"

Furthermore, people like you pose a problem for me that transcends me being able to tolerate you. You are attempting to oppress me through the state. I don't want the healthcare that you seem determined to rob people to fund, and I don't like you pointing a gun at my head telling me I have to "pay or else".

The alternative is to pay for your own goddam healthcare. If its too expensive, its your own fucking fault for allowing the government to subsidize healthcare at all in the first place. Government subsidies raise the price, free market competition lowers it - how hard is that to understand?!?

Well that guy is so desperate for money he wouldn't return $100 worth of btc to someone who overpaid him by accident, so I don't think his broke ass will be affording private medical care any time soon.

I do pay for my own healthcare - through taxes.

Free market competition in health care only works for those that can afford it.

In your ideal society, what happens to the people that can't afford to pay for their healthcare?

Depends on the country. In a country full of selfish, ignorant, narcissistic morons - no.

1. No, you don't. You pay PART of your healthcare - the rest you are demanding taxpayers pay. You either want taxpayer money or you don't - if you don't, you don't need socialized medicine to help pay for it. If you do, then you're not paying it all yourself, are you?

2. Free market competition brings prices DOWN. The high healthcare costs you claim people can't pay are a DIRECT RESULT of people like you demanding that others are robbed to pay for crooks to run the system. What incentive does the government have to reduce prices? Answer: None

3. In a FREE society, people will cater to the poor because that is where the largest revenues are. Ask the ghost of Sam Walton. Its your government programs that screw the poor the most.

Funny thing is, its not true.  Before making such assertions, look up a few facts and figures.  UK health care, both public and private, is very cheap. 

Insurance also pays out for the unlucky from those who pay in. Your insurance premium is not just for your healthcare costs.

Thank you.  :)

All I ask is that people like yourself do your best to not fund people like those I'm arguing against. Cut them off and don't fear their armed henchmen.

The government is generally quite expert at recovering taxes they have decided you owe, and at changing the rules to ensure you can't sidestep the system simply by using something such as bitcoin (bitcoin is either a currency or "payment in kind" when it comes to receiving it as compensation for selling to others - although it's more difficult for the law to be enforced here, it's still the law that you have to pay taxes).

Easiest way to get caught is by living a good lifestyle that obviously costs money to maintain while reporting an incredibly low income.

Whether or not you agree with the principles behind taxation, it's irrational to willingly expose yourself to the liability (including possible jail time) from not paying them.

On top of that, if you do happen to make use of any government-provided facilities then it seems only right to pay for them, even if the only way to pay currently is by giving a % of your total income.


These days it's even worse as now not only does the government look out for loopholes but we have a whole bunch of people who are actively lobbying the government to take more tax (think: UK uncut, occupy wallstreet etc - side note: why do some of these people talk about "overthrowing the state" when going to their protests when the protests are about giving the state more power and more funding?)

1. Some people pay in more than they receive back through public services.

2/3. Even in a system with lower cost health care due to the free market, there will still be people who cannot afford to pay. They may be living month to month, or they may even be destitute and have no money whatsoever. What happens to them?

Exactly, I call those people the result of single mother parenting. To them, money is something that just is handed out from a magical authority, not something that requires actual labor to produce.

As far as paying taxes goes, its easy to not pay them - don't make any taxable income. Don't leave ANY evidence of your wealth for them to see. Pay your rent late so you look like a brokedick to those around you. Don't leave them anything to take.

Now if you go to clubs at night in your brand new mercedes..you're gonna draw attention.


1. Yes, most people do. Those are the people being robbed of the rewards of their productivity.

2/3. In a free market system, where anyone can provide healthcare to anyone, the market will aggressively trade with the poor. Again, look at Wal-Mart. They might not get as good of service, just like a poor person can't afford as nice of anything as a rich person, but they'll get poor people healthcare. Shopping at Wal-Mart isn't as nice as other stores, but poor people are content to shop there, and Wal-Mart is happy to cater to them.

Sometimes, and only temporarily. Depending on the nature of the product, it quite often only borrows from the future. Since you're such a strong advocate of the free market, then you should be educated on the free market. If you wish to make statements about the free market, then be specific about the particular dynamics of the free market you are discussing, otherwise you'll simply come off as a brainwashed fool.

You see, I don't have a problem with defenders of the free market - just individuals who vehemently defend it without understanding it. And that's a big problem with most on this forum - they just spout what they read in their heavily biased books on economic theory.

Consider a market in X. The quantity of X left in the world is small, and its price, accordingly, is high. X is consumed, because, allegedly, it helps cure Y.

Now, according to your theory, competition will bring the price of X down. So, enter competition. In fact, let's establish that new competition is inevitable, because the price of X is currently so high. New entrepreneurs enter the market, and begin their harvesting of X. More of X hits the market, and the price comes down, as supply has risen. Basic economics, right?

Except the supply of X has not risen. In its consumption, the ultimate worldwide potential supply of X has actually dropped. The future price of X must now rise significantly to account for that. And so the price rises significantly, and as a result, the harvesting of X becomes more desirable, as more effort, technology and participants enter the market until X no longer exists.

The problems:

Free market advocates fail to distinguish between markets as the one I described, and markets in which a mostly theoretically infinite production exists, as in services. That's the first problem. The second problem is that ultimately, all markets depend on the first type of market. Those two problems can be summarized as genuine ignorance of market dynamics.

The third problem is the market's inability to properly attach a value to X. As it turns out, X, in its consumption, was not being used efficiently or appropriately at all, given the general ignorance of what X could be used for. But, since the participants in the market for X were in general, ignoramuses, X no longer exists. This is ignorance as well.

@FirstAscent

Your scenario doesn't prove anything.

So are you saying that goods are provided better at the point of a gun?

Point out the inaccurate statements. Start a new thread if you wish. Or engage me via PM.

Let's start with "Sometimes, and only temporarily."

No, competition always drives down price. That's basic logic. Monopoly prices are higher to maximize revenue if there is no one to offer an alternative.

Incorrect. You need to understand the dynamics of X. Increased competition does not really increase supply. It only moves it from its source to the consumer. And once consumed, the actual supply is decreased further and permanently depleted. At best, you will see a temporary price decrease which will be more than offset by the future rise in prices due to the permanent total supply depletion available at the source. Again, your understanding of the full process is deficient.

In a completely free market with no regulation, what is to stop several large corporations with economies of scale colluding on price?

Any smaller companies couldn't compete fairly and therefore the price wouldn't be driven down.

That too. Cryptoanarchist doesn't fully understand free market dynamics at both ends of the spectrum.

What you leave out is that no matter what system you have, health has to be paid for and it can't be paid for when you are sick as you likely can't work. 

So, using the tax system to pay for your own health care makes sense.  Everyone pays taxes; everyone gets sick; when you get sick, you get back the money you have paid in.

And its pretty certain you will get sick...modern societies have such long lifespans that almost everyone needs hospital care at some point.

I never said that increased competition increases supply, it doesn't have to. It can lower demand for the competitors product, which decreases their price. You are making the econ 101 mistake of applying the supply/demand curve to the entire market for a product, even though competitors may have different methods of production. Like most statists, you think there is some magical formula to find the best price, and throw out the day-to-day decisions of individuals that constantly change the numbers.

Can you give any real life examples of your absurd scenario? How would healthcare be "permanently depleted" by competition?

So do you think it is ok for you to point a gun at my head and tell me I HAVE to pay for your healthcare, OR ELSE?? Is that the kind of thug you are? If so, our conversation is over.

No - you have to pay for your health care.  You may be healthy now but you almost certainly will get sick and you do have to pay for your care.

That's a perfectly valid position.  The problem is that people never stick to it.  When healthy they skip insurance and talk about freedom of choice. Then they show at emergency clinics desperate not to have their baby die and society has to pick up the cost.

We're not in econ 101. We're in the real world. I am making no mistake here. You are making the mistake in thinking that your example is how the free market works by applying your example to the entire free market. You need to pull your head out of your econ 101 book on economic theory and expose yourself to more modern economic theories.

I could not be more clear when I said your understanding of the free market is deficient precisely because you think one part of the free market and its dynamics apply to the entire free market.


Nothing could be further from the truth. It's you who thinks the free market finds the magic price.


Absolutely. And it's not absurd, but rather the scenarios are ubiquitous and are the fundamental building blocks of humanity. The examples include all natural capital which undergoes a non-reversible transformation between initial extraction and consumption at a rate greater than it is renewed.


I specifically mentioned that I would be game to have this conversation in another thread or via PM. This conversation is a direct result of your comments about the free market.

Taxes support countless facial and as-applied civil rights violations by pro-criminal tyrannies that result in countless murders, rapes, maimings, and lesser crimes perpetrated with practical impunity against disarmed and defenseless innocents.

You're the one missing some things. The free market is not omnipotent, and the participants have their own self interests. Price is determined by the knowledge or lack of knowledge on the part of the consumer and the seller. These participants will act in the way I described, and the scenario will play out in the fashion I described. The ultimate cost is determined in the future, after it is too late for the free market to rectify.


But as I said, the price determined by the free market is not actually what it should be due to the ignorance of the players.

Seriously, you need to start investigating the deeper and broader consequences in addition to the affect on price.

Yup, don't wanna to go to prison. Get all the appropriate people, a well known reputable tax man and a lawyer. But that's thinking in the clouds. Unless you have 100Ghash/s machines to pay for all of it.

This view has a number of problems. First, the universal declaration that people never stick to it. The Amish don't believe in stealing to get what you need. And they've setup a community to help each other so they don't need to rely on national healthcare. And yes, there are non-Amish who also take the position that they shouldn't get what they haven't paid for... and actually stick to it.

Second though, is the curious thought... are these people, after suddenly renouncing their stance due to a personal crisis, showing up at hospitals with guns and forcing healthcare from others? No? Then how are they obtaining it? Because others are choosing to give it to them. How that gets resolved afterwards is the issue. The obvious solution would be debt, or some other payment plan, or simply not giving them the care they can't afford, or giving the healthcare away as charity (from what I understand, many doctors in the past used to do this, before our modern system.)

The impression I get is that you view debt/payments/no-care/charity as a bad, unacceptable array of responses to the problem of some people not taking responsibility for their health care... as so bad, that you consider a inefficient, corrupt, national-scale government wealth redistribution program to be a better option.

Seen in that light, can you understand why so many disagree with you?

You make it sound simple.  If a man leaves his wife and baby and cancels their insurance, you are 100% happy to let that baby die?

So your view is that the baby dies?

I take that to mean you're not willing to pay for them, but you are perfectly willing to force others to?

Surely you realize that's a false dichotomy.

wachtwoord says he wants people to take responsibility for their decisions.  So the question I ask is simple; if its wachtwoord's decision, is he happy to let the baby die?

Hawker, are you happy when someone dies because of poor government service?

So now you are saying I should take responsibility for myself? Isn't that my position?

But your question presumes that the only two options are: (1) wachtwoord pays via national healthcare, or (2) the poor baby dies. That is a false dichotomy.

(And as an aside, there are also issues with option (1) of the false dichotomy itself, the most notable being the presumption that it ensures that the baby won't die.)

Poor service is poor service.  I don't care if its a private company, the government or a charity.  

so you don't care if the baby dies, you just want to use the guns of the state to force other people to pay for it. Sure you're not British?

Hmm. Seems as if several of us are suddenly jumping on Hawker at once. For the record, that wasn't my intent (despite having strong views on Hawker's perspective being flawed,) and as I have someplace to be, I'll leave the thread for now.

You tell me.  If you live in the UK, you get healthcare free at the point of delivery but you pay for it though the tax system.  So if you are hit by a car, you never pay a penny until you have income again.

Do you feel that is oppressive?

Frequently what you get is access to a six month waiting list, free at the point of delivery. That's not the same as access to healthcare.

So if I don't want to pay the taxes and instead pay the doctors directly, you want me violently forced into a cage where I'll get raped? How nice of you.

Woah are we an emotional little thing tonight?  

Paying doctors directly would require doctors to charge a fee.  In the UK, doctors don't do that.  Its always a salary and bonus.  You can't expect people to set up a special system just for you.  

Out of curiosity, since what you propose is more expensive, why would you want to do that that?

Thing is, I don't believe you.  Its people like you who say they want freedom that actually do show up needing treatment and the community has to provide it.  You may say you want the community to not treat you when you are sick, but then when you get sick we are stuck with you.  You may now say that the community should let your baby die if you are broke; but when it comes to it, you will not be happy if we let your baby die.

So sadly, you are one of those who need to be compelled to pay their way.  Don't be embarrassed - lots of people are free-loaders and you have no reason be be ashamed that you want to be one too.

cryptoanarchist, you haven't answered this:

If only there were a 100% guarantee that lack of insurance equaled dead baby. Oops, I guess we're all just imagining we exist, because certainly evolution and the eventual persistence of the human race NEVER would have happened without insurance. LOL

But with the government stealing massive chunks of peoples' income and interfering heavily with the industry so that people need insurance, government assistance, and in some cases, to file bankruptcy, to be able to get critical, competent treatment, there's a 100% guarantee that baby would be better off with a mom paying for care with 100% of her income and liberty intact, a competent doctor providing care with 100% of his income and liberty intact, and private charity aid if necessary being granted, instead of tyranny and robbery by proxy.

The American health care system is screwed.  But that is nothing to do with taxes.  You guys give drug companies patent monopolies and then say there is a "free market" in the drugs.  What's "free market" about having cancer, the drug company not having a published price list and you have to pay whatever they ask?

Anyway, that's off topic.  We are talking about legitimate use of the tax system to pay for health, roads, whatever.  I was seeing if the guy really accepted the "opt out" and the answer was no.  

Yes - so its reasonable to insist you pay.  I think we are in agreement here aren't we?  Or are you saying that you want some kind of special deal where you don't have to pay?

You still don't get it, Hawker. You are the one asking for a "special system" that requires guns to be pointed  at the heads of productive people so that others can get free healthcare, while bureaucrats use the thug tactics involved to fill their own pockets which drives up the price even more.

My way requires no "special system". It only requires that people like you back the fuck off and let people buy and sell healthcare as they please.

What exactly do you think entitles you to push your ideals onto others by force?

Yeah I have. I even gave an example: Wal-Mart

The issue here is you must pay for your health care.  No-one, not even children or disabled, gets free health care in the UK.  Everyone has to pay towards the cost.  IF you live here, you too have to make a contribution.  

Sorry, I missed that post.

Even with a Wal-Mart of healthcare there would still be people that couldn't afford to pay for healthcare. These people would die.

So, what is worse:

Letting people die because they haven't accumulated enough wealth (either through lack of effort or through mental/physical deficiencies.

or

Forcing the population to pay a level of tax in order to provide universal healthcare to all.

I suggest you don't take Darwin's work as a system to live by, but merely as a description of the natural world.

Scott they won't choose.  Free-loaders say "let me die if I get sick or a car hits me" and then show up at emergency clinics desperate not to die when they are sick.  If the tax system provides the best value, you know they are not telling the truth when they say they want to opt out.

so where do you stop in your quest to save every human on the planet? If people can't pay for healthcare in a free market that will be their own choice. Or they're just not doing anything productive, and in that case they should die.

I mean its pretty simple: you work for money, then you use that money for healthcare. In a free market, someone will be able to provide it cheaply.

Some people might not have the money for Taco Bell, and starve, but does that mean we should start stealing tacos from productive people to feed them???

Then its the same old race to the bottom, where the capital goes not to those providing for themselves, but to the biggest beggars with the least shame.

You see Scott?  He says "they should die" but you know if it was his baby, he'd be banging on the hospital door for help.

Free-loader.

How about disabled or mentally ill people?

Does your callousness extend to them as well?

If I had a baby in a free market, I would trade my services for his/her healthcare...its really that simple. You keep repeating "You need to pay" - that's exactly what I would do, but to a doctor, not bureaucrats.

That I believe - of course you don't want to be a free-loader.  But its entirely possible that your services won't be valuable enough.  Then the taxpayer is left picking up the bill.  

He certainly would.

And he seems to ignore all the factors that may result in him not having enough money to pay for healthcare. Factors that he would have no influence over.

Exactly.  And then its the taxpayer gets shafted.

Darwin did not write On the Origin of Species as a political philosophy.

But not you.  If its you, you want to be able to ask the taxpayer for treatment.  Darwin would say that faced with someone like you, a protective measure is needed or the species will be preyed on.  For example, forcing you to pay your share.

Like just about everything the government does, by continually electing and reelecting tyrants with votes from corpses, incarcerated felons, people who can read off random names on voter sign-in sheets, and just enough statists to make the elections appear legit.

We understand.  You don't want to have to pay for health care.  But you do want health care.  What's not to understand?

He doesn't want to have to pay for your healthcare.

Who would want to pay for anything if they could just have the government steal the funds for it at gunpoint from their fellow man?

A sad post to end your debate with. Reflects badly on you.

We have differing opinions; that doesn't make either of us retarded or lazy.

Edit: But yeah, enough is enough for one night. Bed beckons.

I think its because you are oppressing him, not the other way around. You want to force people to pay for things they don't want/need for people they don't know. He has a right to be pissed at you. You want us locked in a rape cage for disagreeing with you. We just want you to leave us alone.

I never said I thought the punishment for not paying taxes should be prison. Stop putting words in my mouth.

"Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice."

So you're saying you're malicious in your misinterpretation of the apparent libertarian position, then?

Until you need health care and can't afford it.  Then banging on our door time.

BTW, the rape fantasy works better if you mention the race of the guys banging you.  If you are going to use a cliché, then at least get all the fun elements of the cliché.

At least you connect the terms rape-cage and prison correctly.

What do you suggest then?

I'm happy to say that.  If someone wants to be a free-loader, its definitely in my interest that the punishment encourages him to pay his share.

Your quote doesn't apply.

I have been trying to explain the real world effects of the libertarian position, as I see them.

You are free to disagree.  

I am calling it a night, so don't have time to go into alternative consequences for tax avoision!

But maybe I'll continue this tomorrow.

Good night all.

Just like I'm free not to pay taxes nor demand medical care, and not be imprisoned or in any way punished by others for it in your fantastical world of statism?

This one's for you, statists:
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/34852_1480517407532_756498_n.jpg

Are you %100 happy to pull out a gun, stick it in the face of the nearest guy and say: "give me money to save the baby or else I'll kill you"? or are you willing to explore non-violent solutions, such as charity.

Also, collectivised healthcare is a Tragedy of the Commons scenario; creating scarcity. Which is why, in the socialised system, you have to wait 4 weeks to see a doctor to save your baby. Are you going to deny the baby immediate care because you have squandered health care resources by eliminating the price system?

Also, socialised health is a moral hazard; people take less care of themselves because society has "got it covered" if anything goes wrong. This also drives up costs and waste.

Clear, concise, no bullshit. I'll add you to my list of people I'll do business with, asdf.  :)

Q: Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?
A: Nah, I'd probably give the money to the Mafia like cbeast does.

Thank you R-, We know you have a choice in who extorts you, and we're glad you went with Don Corleone.

Hey, in the mafia movies they usually only tax the local businesses around 10%, a lot less than the IRS.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph5.html

Less fiction please. 
1. There is no wait for emergency treatment in the UK.  Appointments are not needed - you drive up to an out of hours service and are usually seen within 30 minutes.  If you do want to use a GP service, its normally a same day appointment system but that is your choice.  If a doctor made me wait 2 days, I would take my business elsewhere.
2. People in the US die younger than in the UK.  The US pays 90% more for its health care as a percentage of GDP.  The socialised system is more efficient.
3. You seriously think that having people die younger at a greater cost is moral?  I regard it as extortion.

What amuses me is that you see a broken expensive system in the US and your response is "Freedom - hurray" while you see working systems in most other countries and your response is "OMFG oppression." 

What disgusts us is that you see broken expensive systems (in some similar, some different ways than the U.S.) in most other countries and your response is to call them "working systems".

+1

While I understand people have limited time during their day, I find it very interesting the posts (and portions of posts) those who support government healthcare choose to respond to, and which ones are snipped or ignored.

I dont have a problem paying taxes :)

That's a very fair point.  Perhaps there is some better idealised system out there that has never been tried.  All I will say is that until you have an example of a working system that is cheaper, socialised medicine fits the description of "working."  

I try very hard to limit myself to one logical point per post.  Its the way I do customer service as well which is what I do when not browsing the web or coding/debugging.

Can't remember whether I picked this up here, or on the tweeters, but, here you go: http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

That's like saying your personal, average entry-level PC which currently is infected with a boot sector virus that overwrites every important document you create is a working system, because the average entry-level Mac you could switch to (like I did around 2006) is more expensive.

Broken with nothing cheaper provided as example≠working. Gods help anyone who ever gets "customer service" from you. Deny, deny, deny.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Read the first page and its factually wrong.  The Beveridge Report was commissioned because people in the UK were not getting adequate health care.  Since the NHS was created, everyone has had health care that is free at the point of delivery and that is paid for through the tax system.

Well, I looked up the Beveridge Report, and I 1) did not find any references to it in the article, and 2) found scant information on Wikipedia, and none linking it to the information in the article. Some explanation would be appreciated.

There's something to be said for rejecting others' reality and substituting your own, but all the time, seriously?

In trying to communicate with statists, I fear we're treading dangerously close to meeting Einstein's definition of insanity.

...or being trolled. One way or the other, I'm about ready to stop slamming my head into this particular brick wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beveridge#Report_on_social_insurance

Essentially they found that a more efficient system would make the Brits more prosperous.

Again, no indication that the report found that Lodge practice was inefficient, or ineffective, just socialist rhetoric.

So some explanation of how it relates to the article I posted would really be appreciated.

No - its redundant as we risk repeating the NAP thread. 

Translation: I don't feel like giving a reason why your article is wrong, it just is.

Sounds like we are indeed repeating the NAP thread. Specifically, the part where you could not explain why sometimes, a behavior is reason to violate someone's property rights, and sometimes it is not.

Property rights are no different to the right to universal health care. 

Wrong. Property rights are the right not to be told what or what not to do with your body, your land or your money.

The "right" to universal healthcare is the right to have healthcare, at the expense of everyone else.

All that says is that you like one more than the other. 

No, one is negative, the other positive. negative rights can be had by all, without infringing upon another. positive rights do not always meet this criteria.

And we are back to natural law arguments.  Which are in a parallel thread.  Why not address them there?

Because inevitably, it gets down to this root level. No matter where we discuss it, you're going to say that some magic piece of paper gives you the ability to force your decisions on me, and me the ability to force my decisions on you, while I say that there is no such right, and we should both leave each other the fuck alone. I have an opinion that I have a negative right to be left the fuck alone, and you have an opinion that you have a positive right to not leave me the fuck alone. There's gonna be conflict there.

I wonder if the thread starter is a tax office investigator?

Exactly. So any political system needs a way to resolve these disputes or we will end up needing to kill one another.

Simple answer: leave each other the fuck alone.

Not possible.  If I want a road and you don't and it runs across your land, you can be causing me a problem.  I have to deal with that problem that you have imposed on me. 

On the contrary, you want to impose upon me. If you want a road, and I don't, build it around my land, or buy my land out. If I won't sell for less than it would cost to build around, well, then that's your choice, isn't it? build around, spend enough money to get me to sell.

Again that costs me money.   Sitting at home suffering the loss you are imposing on me is not an option.  If we can't agree on this, we need a peaceful way to resolve it.  Or else we have to kill one another.

Well, economic decision time. Which is more costly:

Building around my land,

Buying my land so that you can build straight, or

Kicking me off the land by force?

Think carefully, before you answer, the result may not be as clear cut as it seems.

Lets assume its not 2 people but 2 million people.  1.9 million want the road and 100k don't.  We need a way to resolve the dispute that scales to millions of people.

Leaving each other the fuck alone scales beautifully all the way up to infinity.

So the 100,000 don't stop the road being built.  Great - I love your idealism.

No, of course not. If the 1.9 million want a road, they can build it on their land. Surely they have enough.

There will always be 1 person who doesn't consent and the road has to go straight though their property.

What, roads can't curve in your world?

You know, I can play with examples too.  Change the road to a railway.  And please don't do that again.   

Rails can curve, too. Takes more space, but the cars are jointed for a reason.

Perhaps you can post about that on a railway forum?  Meanwhile, do you have anything to say on the 2 million people who have a few thousand houses blocking development of their area?

http://www.photobydjnorton.com/RailwayPictures/HalesowenBranchNrIlleyRdClr.jpg

Build around them. Leave them the fuck alone.

Again playing with the example instead of the issue.

You know, in a NAP world this would be simple.  The representatives of the 2 million would take the hold-outs to arbitration.  The arbitrator would evaluate the economic value of the development and if it was high enough, tell the hold-outs to yield up possession.  In "The Mechanic of Freedom", Friedman has this working even for death penalty disputes.

If you can't leave people the fuck alone...yeah

Correct.  If someone is doing something that costs me money, I have an interest in acting.  If not, then we don't have a problem. When I do have a problem, we need a system to resolve it peacefully so we don't have to kill one another.

I think you know you're just trolling at this point, but I'm game. If I go to a doctor and pay him for my own healthcare, how does that cost you money? You need to answer this first, or the rest of your post is just more bullshit.

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

EDIT - wtf did you do to the formatting :@

Isn't that what YOU want to do!?!?! Alright, its confirmed - you're a moron.

No I want you to pay for your care.  That means that if you don't have cover, I am entitled to ask who gets the bill if you get sick. 

Now you're just lying. That's NOT what you want. You want me to pay for my care AND other people's as well. If I don't, you want me to be thrown in prison.

So you're lying. You just said in your last statement "you want me to pay for my care" and that is exactly what I've been saying everyone should do. You actually have the audacity to use my argument against you, against ME!!!

It's ME who WANTS YOU to pay for your own fucking shit - including food and rent too. You're the one asking for handouts, buddy, not me.

If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

I'd pay taxes too if they covered exactly what I wanted them to.  But I doubt the current government could ever shrink that much.


I realize bitcoin isn't 100% anonymous & you could catch people based on the physical items they own (houses, cars, boats), but seems like a lot of effort, especially if everyone starts doing it.  And once more & more people stop paying taxes, the government won't have the money to pay for better collectors, prisons, or police.


Multiple things.  A new competitor with a better price.  A fall out in the collusion (prisoner's dilemma).  If it's a scarce resource, an alternative.  If there's no alternative, a high enough price will make it worth it to research/create an alternative.


This!


So you chose "Depends"?


That's rare.


It's a trap!  I was surprised someone didn't say something early.  But I'm not & doubt anyone on this thread can live off bitcoins enough to make it worth the IRS's while ATM.  And full disclosure - I chose "Depends."


I'm doubt anyone here wants babies to die or anyone for that matter.  But when it comes to feeding my family - that comes first.  Having a free market system doesn't mean babies have to die.  I'm sure there will still be doctors that do pro bono work or charities to help pay for it.  I think most people in this thread against socialized healthcare just want choice.  They may choose to help a baby they know, but could care less about an alcoholic or crack addict.

=============================================

I'm actually quite surprised by the vote results.  I personally think the "Depends" people could be lumped in with the "No" people so it is still 2/3s that wouldn't pay taxes.  1/3 is still a lot of people that would continue paying their taxes even w/o risks.  I think one of the greatest benefits of bitcoin is the ability to pay only exactly what you want to pay because it is so difficult to steal (if you take the right security measures).  And the first thing on that list of things to stop paying for is probably taxes.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.

Wow you are so emotional.  The NHS requires that care be free at the point of delivery.  Everyone pays - just not at the time they are sick.

Can you point to an example of someone who you think is using the NHS for free?  I'm just wondering what type of person you have in mind?  

Let's not ask stupid questions, shall we? If everyone who uses NHS is paying 100% of their health bills, then such a program isn't even necessary, is it?

Of course it is.  Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.  

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you.  It has huge benefits.  People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered.  People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care.  So its not 100%.

You're so used to criticizing Americans like a typical propagandized European that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, if you want people to pay for their own healthcare, why not just have private insurance?

I've lived in America.  I've seen your system and it sucks.  You don't have a free market in health - you have a set of patent monopolists gouging the sick at the very time they are in fear of death.  And anyone who says its wrong gets called a "communist."

Private insurance is fine with one condition.  It has to be compulsory.  I've met a lot of Americans with no insurance and it stinks.  You wait until you are very sick and then drive to to an emergency ward for taxpayer treatment.  I know that people who do that probably don't set out to be free-loaders but its basically shafting the taxpayer. 

we have a government that subsidizes healthcare through systems called Medicaid (for the poor), and Medicare (for the old which most use). So no, we don't have free healthcare, but the problems are from it being socialized, not from free market competition.

Please, lets stick with facts.  The US system has very little free market competition at the point that matters - the cost of drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

You are giving patent monopolies.  The patent holders don't have published price lists.  The sick are scared of dying and thus they get gouged.   The core of your price problem is patent monopolies.

Anyway, back on topic, health care that uses the tax system to collect its costs is a perfectly valid option.  It avoids free-loaders and saves on marketing costs.  Compulsory private insurance might be as good but I personally don't see the difference between compulsory insurance and tax.

Who said anything about "compulsory insurance"? - that IS a tax.

Our American system is screwed up for the same reason that yours is - forcing people to pay for shit they don't want. Prescription drugs are just another example of government interference creating rising costs.

How about just plain old private health insurance? VOLUNTARY health insurance that if you don't buy its your own fucking fault?

Our system is fine.  Really look at the charts.  We have better health care than you and it costs about half as much.

Voluntary health insurance is a free-loaders scheme.  You guys insist that emergency rooms treat regardless of whether or not someone has insurance.  That means the taxpayer gets shafted.  

It all comes back to what I said - people have to pay for their care.  I have no sympathy with the idea of "voluntary" when it means that I as taxpayer end up paying the bill.

You don't have to pay for health care in the UK - a homeless person can walk into a hospital and will receive full health care - they don't ask for id or anything. Access to health care is not conditional on providing anything.

For a homeless person, he is taxed when he spends money.  Its 20% VAT on his goods except cigarettes and alcohol where he pays over 60%. 

You may think that 20% tax on all his spending is not much but he has been doing it since he first got pocket money and will carry on doing it until he dies.  Even if he never pays a penny income tax in his life, he pays for his health care through alcohol, cigarettes and VAT.

Can you edit this idiot statement:

"Voluntary health insurance is a free-loaders scheme.  You guys insist that emergency rooms treat regardless of whether or not someone has insurance.  That means the taxpayer gets shafted. "

If taxpayers get shafted for Emergency room visits, that's the fault of a government mandate that you would support, not the fault of the voluntary health insurance.

Well if you take that part away, then your case starts to make sense.  Have you any proposals on how to take it away when your compatriots seem to keep voting in politicians who promise never to remove it?

To be honest, I'm not even sure you're right here. Whenever I've gone to the Emergency room with no money, I get a bill. If I don't pay it, which I didn't in one case, it went on my credit and ruined it. It was never paid by the taxpayer as far as I know.

Where on this wonderful earth is it capital gains free?  And why don't all the hedgefunders move there?

plenty of places, and they have.

VAT isn't National Insurance - he pays for walking on the roads, and being hassled by the police - but he doesn't pay for health care (other than paying for educating children who will eventually become doctors). I have no problem with this btw. I think health care is a human right - like education.

No arbiter is going to force people off their land. At best, he'll specify the value of the land. "I don't want to sell" is a valid statement for any property. In other words, Build around them. Leave them the fuck alone.

Now, you specify that you want to find a solution that ends conflict. Do you really? Or do you want to find a solution that lets you get your way? Let's look at which of our proposed solutions really ends the conflict on the matter.

Your solution:
Group A wants to build a road/railway/whatever through Group B's land. They take a vote, and Group A ends up in the majority. But before construction can begin, Group B gets up a petition, and forces another vote. This time, Group B ends up in the majority. Group A does the same. and so forth. Conflict not resolved, just continued using proxies.

My solution:
Group A wants to build a road/railway/whatever through Group B's land. Group B says no. Group A decides to leave them the fuck alone, and builds around Group B. The road is built, nobody got forced out of their homes, and the conflict is resolved.

So if you can't pay what happens? My understanding is that they have to treat you.

There is a market in arbitrators.  Ones that are pro-growth will have an advantage.  Certainly they will tell people to sell.  The actual forcing off the land will be done by defence agencies.

No. No arbiter is going to order aggression. Not and keep getting customers. Are you going to address my examples?

Sorry that's not your decision.  If someone is costing someone else money, an arbitrator will take the case on.

Remember when you said this?:

Yeah.

Exactly.  And if you are stopping me having a road that increases the value of my property, you are interfering with my use of my property. 

No. I'm not stopping you from building a road. I'm stopping you from building a road on my property. Build any road you want. Go the fuck around.

I don't think they have to. Its just that doctors have this thing called human compassion, so that when someone comes in bleeding all over the place they feel like stitching em up. They still bill you though.

Funny how socialists like yourself think that without government, people will start acting like thugs, like all people are assholes. You have a low opinion of people, and want gov't to check them, but fail to realize it is those same people in government doing the checking.

When the truth is- people will be bad and good with or without gov't - gov't just gives the criminals a justified way to plunder.

Sorry - you are interfering with how I want things on my property.  I have to ask you to stop or to agree to arbitration.  If you refuse, I have to kill you.  I have no idea why you are putting me in this position but I can't accept that kind of aggression.

Why are you doing this?  There is a legal requirement that they treat you.  You already know that - please limit yourself to the real world.

No, he's not. Property is only what you have made use of and/or created. If you have a patch of land, and someone else does, building a road through his property in no way is making use of your own property, but of his. You're just talking jibberish - AGAIN.

You don't even live here. You don't know. Show me the law that says they are required to treat you and I'll agree with you on that one, but I don't think they are required to treat me if I come in with a paper-cut.

Besides, that part isn't even pertinent to the convo. The point is that the taxpayer isn't billed for the patient not paying, the patient just gets billed.

Its a NAP world.  You are costing me money.  I demand you stop or that you agree arbitration.  If what you say is what the arbitrator says, you are right.

If not, then pack your bags or make your will.  

Wimp.  You go to hospitals for paper cuts and look for foreigners to provide statute law for it to be done free.  Be less pathetic.

Well, my apologies if you want a straight road, but the moment it reaches the edge of your property, it ceases to be your decision. If you would like a road, you'll have to build around me, or convince me to sell... without resorting to violence.

You are costing me and 2 million others money.  If the arbitrator agrees you are right, fine.  But if he is pro-growth, you pack your bags. 

You would have a hard time proving to a common law jury that someone was costing you money by not letting you use their land.

That's not much different than me suing people for not buying my product.

Sooo...you're admitting you didn't know what you were talking about?

I agree.  But I said that this was a NAP example.  Of course if there was a common law jury, there would be a land registry backed by the state.  And I'd then have to fuck off :p

To paraphrase Buddha, Your desire for a straight road is causing you your suffering. I am not costing you a penny. Your desire for a straight road is.

Remember when you said this?:

Yeah. My use of my property is to continue living on it.

I know exactly what I am taking about.  You are asking me to find a statute that obliges free treatment of papercuts.  And that's pathetic.  You get free treatment of emergencies - be grateful for that.  

Better still, stop free-loading and buy insurance.

"Of course if there was a common law jury, there would be a land registry backed by the state."

That's what is called an invalid assumption. 'A' does not necessarily mean 'B' in your example.

Following the NAP would mean you were the aggressor by trying to build on his land. The exception would be if he was doing nothing with the land and had no plans to.

So we disagree.  It has to go to arbitration.

So by redirecting the argument onto this un-important matter, are you dodging the fact you were wrong about taxpayers footing the bill for patients who can't pay?

And any sane arbiter would tell you to get fucked.

And since:

Its you were on about paper cuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act


If its an emergency you get it for free.  If you had a charge on your credit card, your "charitable" doctors are having a laugh.

You can tell yourself that.  But I am 100% sure that most arbitrators would be pro-growth and would regard your stubbornness as interfering with my property.

The nice thing is that I will accept the decision of the arbitrator.  You two are giving the impression that if you lose the decision, you would not accept it.

It didn't say you get service for free, it said they are required to treat you if you are IN NEED.

I wanted to let you hang yourself here, because I actually DO KNOW exactly how hospitals treat you with no insurance since I've been in that boat many times. So congratulations on sounding like an ignoramus.

FACT: I have an untreated inguinal hernia. I went into the hospital and they didn't treat it saying "its not an emergency until its strangulated, so we can't do anything."

FACT: I also have a torn rotator cuff. One time I went to the Emergency Room because I couldn't get it back into socket. They took me in after about an hour, popped it back in, then gave me a bill for about $3000.

Don't talk about how healthcare works in America, unless you want to sound like a total asshole.

Even if he tells you to get fucked?

Maybe government arbiters who are biased. Who's to say that being pro-growth means your road is more important. What if he's drilling oil on his property and that supports the economy more than your road?

You either accept the NAP or you don't.  You give the impression that in a NAP based society, you would demanding a constitution with protection of property rights.

Same situation. Kinda weird, but probably not statistically significant.

But yeah. The law only says they can't refuse treatment in an emergency. Not that they can't bill ya.

Call me confused.  If its an emergency and if you are broke, do they have to treat you for free or not?  

EDIT for clarity: if the answer is no, then I'm with cryptoanarchist and its outrageous to make insurance compulsory.  But I know a flaky fucker who says he gets free care.

They have to treat you. It does not have to be free. Also, you never answered this:

I am in court Tuesday and the whole litigation thing is just part of what you do in the business world.  If you win, you win.  If not, you move on.  In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  I'd be buying land around the the motorway exits like a mofo.

On the big question, if you are broke and entitled to free medical care, damn right I want insurance to be compulsory and collected through the tax system.  Free-loaders can cry all they want.

EDIT for clarity: if a man with a gun or a jail where you risk rape is what it takes you make you pay for your own medical care, then so be it.  I'm taxed enough already.

OMG...they have to treat you if it is an emergency, which usually means life threatening. They NEVER treat you for free. If you don't have insurance, AND its an emergency, than you are billed.

But if you are an illegal and leave the country or just a bloody deadbeat, I'm stuck with the bill you neglected to pay. 

I'mma take that as a "Yes, but I don't think that would happen." See, the problem is, the arbiter is not there to balance the economic interests of anyone. He is there to decide if building the road through the land would violate that landowner's rights.

Remember:

Hence, he would tell you to get fucked.

Fine.  I'm 100% happy that in a NAP world, the arbitrator will be market led and that the damage of the 2 million people will outweigh the damage to the one objector.  I will buy land around the proposed motorway exits.  The objector is interfering with my use of my land and will lose.  For people like me, there would be nothing to worry about.

Call this a win.  You've convinced me that your idea would work for me :)  Your recommendation of "The Machinery of Freedom" was a master-stroke.

Your logic baffles me.... But I guess I'll accept a win. I take it to mean you will now support the Non-Agression Principle, and a market-based society?

Yes I'm happy that for people with money, things will be fine.  For some reason, I've always been one of them so its going to be OK for me. 

On the other hand, you will be miserable.  The fact that eminent domain still exists under a new form will really spoil your dream.  My bet is that you will be agitating for a written constitution with guaranteed property rights.

This statement is in direct conflict with this one:


Which is correct?

Both.  Its an anarchy.  There are no fixed property rights or indeed any rights at all.  Its all market law as set out in "The Machinery of Freedom."  If you are on a patch of land and doing something that affects my land, you are interfering with my property without my consent. For example, if a road will raise the value of my land and you are stopping the road, you are interfering with my property without my consent.

If there are 2 million people like me and one of you, then you are interfering with 2 million people's property without their consent.  Its arbitration or die.  To be honest, you are lucky we are willing to go to arbitration.  Who do you think you are?

I am not stopping the road. Roads can curve. The minute the road hits my property, however, then you are doing something that affects my land. Build around.

Or, take me to arbitration, and get told, not only to get fucked, but to pay me for my time, and cover all the arbitration costs.

How many times are you going to make this incorrect ASSumption? No, you don't. The taxpayers have never paid for my shoulder replacement, the hospital just went unpaid. (The way they did it was fucked up and I refuse to pay them.)

You are deluding yourself if you think that the arbitration will allow 1 person to damage 2 million people.  But whatever..the important thing is that we are willing to allow you to go to arbitration instead of just killing you.  Be grateful and be ready to pay our fees.

I provided a source when you asked.  Now its your turn.  Please show me where it says that neither the hospital itself or the taxpayer has to pay if you fail to pay.  If its the hospital, then the fee is just added to everyone else's bill and that is free-loading.

EDIT for clarity: I am ready to agree with you that compulsory insurance is a disgrace.  I just want to know that decent people are not being shafted.

If I refuse to sell to you, am I damaging you?

I I refuse to speak with you, am I damaging you?

If I refuse to buy from you, am I damaging you?

No. I am not. You are not entitled to profit from my land without my permission. That's what this means:


Or by "my" in that sentence, were you only referring to yourself?

Finally! You made a point with "If its the hospital, then the fee is just added to everyone else's bill"

You're right about that. Me not paying them forces them to charge more. They did a shitty job of replacing my shoulder into socket and didn't do as I asked. Their shitty customer service results in their loss of competitiveness. Others can choose to go to a different hospital or pay extra.

Not to mention the fact they overcharged me anyway: A shot of thorazine and two interns using straps to yank in back into socket is not worth $3000. The irony is that its government subsidizing healthcare that makes them charge that much in the first place.

I'm not sure why you are asking the same questions in different ways.  This is your idea - I got it from the book you recommended I take hours to read.  In "market law" if you are doing something that damaged me, we have to either have violence or go to arbitration.

If we have 2 million against 1, I assume you will choose arbitration.  Your protection agency is not suicidal.

The arbitrator is faced with 2 million people suffering a loss and 1 person that is standing in their way.  What way will he rule?  

I know already that the one person will lose.  So do you.  

this is a good thread cause it allows those sitting on the fence of this issue to see how a statist has to run the argument in circles.

You are certifiably insane. There can be no other explanation.

Riddle me this: If I refuse to buy your product, am I damaging you?

That is fair.  You and I both choose a hospital.  They screw up with 1% of cases and you are the 1%.  Of course I and the other 99% pick up the cost.  Same thing happens in garages with car service.

But if  Stoner Stan shows up.  He needs care.  They do it as they are legally obliged to do.  Stoner Stan can't pay as he injected all his savings into his penis.

Now you and I are paying for Stoner Stan's care.  Fuck off.  He has to be told to pay his way.

Statism is the disease, insanity the symptom.

This guy explains it well:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkPkJInUmU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkPkJInUmU)

You are deluding yourself.  Refusing to allow essential infrastructure is not the same as refusing to cheat in World of Warcraft.  

Please do us both a favour.  Google ad hominem  It will save you so much typing.

Yes or no. If I refuse to buy your product, am I damaging you?

That is the difference between a statist and an anarchist. You think people have to be forced to be charitable because you, yourself, are not.

Others are, and that is why even without a government mandate, a hospital will tend to those that are truly in a life or death emergency. I have no problem shouldering Stan's emergency at the hospital. Not if his life depended on it.

In a free market though, individual hospitals could all make their own calls, and even turn away people on the brink of death if they wanted. I don't think that would make them popular, but they would cater to assholes who had the same worries.

If you refuse to allow a road and I am depending on that road, then yes.  Whether or not you try to humour me by cheating on WoW is not really something that matters.  don't damage my property investments.

I think you should, since you keep referring to it wrong. Ad hominem is "you're an asshole", NOT "statism is the disease". See how one is attacking a person, and one isn't?

ONE WORD

Yes or No. If I refuse to buy your product, am I damaging you?

You still didn't answer the question. YES or NO.

So the hospital has a legal obligation to treat Stoner Stan.  And you and I have to pay for that.  You are happy to do so.  Hurray - you are a lovely person!  I'm not - fuck Stoner Stan's liberty the free-loading bastard buys insurance or he goes to jail.  If he can afford drugs, then I can't see why I must pay for his health care.

Wasting time on changing the subject is wasting time.  The important thing here is that the NAP works fine for eminent domain.  It also works fine for conscription.  I don't see what you are unhappy about.

This is directly on-subject. Answer me with one word. If I refuse to purchase your product, am I damaging you? YES or NO.

You're creating a strawman with "So the hospital has a legal obligation to treat Stoner Stan". We went over this - only in emergencies. The hospital wasn't legally required to treat me, either.

Lets be clear.

If Stan is told to die quietly in a gutter or if Stan's EMERGENCY treatment is not funded by the hospital or the state, that's fine.  Then you, cryptoanarchist, should not have an obligation to buy health insurance or to have it provided through the tax system.

I think you and I are 100% agreed on that.

But, if the cost of Stoner Stan's care is picked up by the hospital's decent patients or by the taxpayer, then he has to be obliged to pay for health insurance or a tax penalty.  Exactly why you think Stoner Stan should get EMERGENCY treatment free beats me but don't dare ask me to subsidise his drug taking.

This is so convoluted and full of logical fallacy I'm not going to bother. The irony is that you started with "Let's be clear"

Yo, H, Can I get an answer on this?

Good.  As long as I am not on the hook for free-loaders, I am happy.  If I do have to pay for them, then its a brutal infringement of my property rights.

Nope - cheating in computer games is off topic.  If you want to make a point, do so and please stay on topic. 

Fine. If I refuse to buy at Wal-Mart, am I damaging Wal-Mart? Again, answer yes or no.

There is the world of difference between an little old lady prevents a development that benefits 2 million people and a little old lady who shops at ASDA as opposed to M&S.

You are pretending to be stupid and asking stupid questions.  Why?  And why do you think I want to discuss her retail preferences?

No, Only scale. You cannot profit at my expense without my permission. Period. End of story.

It's a beautiful haiku, but I'm not sure I follow your meaning.

Wrong.  Any arbitrator will take into account all the economic impacts and will likely decide that the little old lady is being a greedy bitch.  

Anyway, lets stop.  You have convinced me that in a NAP based society, all the stuff we have now will still work even if we change vocabulary.  That includes conscription and eminent domain. I know you don't agree but that isn't really important for now as there is no NAP based society.

No, you said it yourself:

The use of any property includes increasing its value..  Interfere with that and you are a threat to me.

But I am not interfering with you building a road on your land, only on mine. If I want to keep my land at the same value, I can.

Why are you telling me this?  Its nonsense; the arbitrator will throw it out.  There is no way an arbitrator will allow 1 person to block 2 million people if the increase in the value of the properties of the 2 million exceeds the loss to the one person by even 1 cent.

And, if you are the one person, you will pay the arbitration fees.

This mob rule that you advocate winning arbitration, Hawker, is fundamentally inconsistent with NAP.

Hmm.  Sorry but you have not understood the NAP.  Look it up - you have no right to interfere with my property.  

Read this: http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

It makes all these things clear.

Exactly. You have no right to interfere with my property. Take and fuck off.

Well, that's a lovely theory, but remember:


And if I do not consent to your interference with my continued use of my property, you're stuffed, and the arbitrator will tell you so.

Agreed.  Luckily that doesn't matter.  The NAP assumes that there is no state, so there is no body imposing rights.  

Please, do use both a favour.  Read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and then post back.  Right now, I think your heart is in the right place but you don't understand anarchism.

Rights are not imposed, they are inherent. Your Ugly European act is completely and utterly worn out now. You must really love paving your road to hell in your echo chamber.

So we've come full circle. Because you're on the hook for free-loaders with your NHS.

You are the one interfering with the use of their property by 2 million people.  The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell you to pack your bags.

Why are you arguing about this? This is how you want disputes to be resolved.

No, I am not. I am interfering with their use of my property. The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell them to get fucked.

Free-loading on the NHS is hard.  Like really hard.  You can do it by living outside the UK and then flying home for medical treatment.  You can go to jail young, get sick, be violent and then stay in jail all your life.  You can be mentally ill and never leave institutionalised care.  The vast vast majority of people couldn't possibly avoid paying their dues.

Mob rule of 2 people, 2 million, or 2 trillion is not legitimate, therefore there can be no 'interference' with it that an arbitrator will acknowledge. Unless that arbitrator isn't actually one at all.

In the nicest way possible, you haven't understood "The Machinery of Freedom."  Read it again - the chapters on market law are of particular interest.  In anarchy, there are no property rights as there is no state.  Its all about the economic value of development.  Arbitrators will be market driven and will consider the value to the 2 million compared to the value to the 1 person and will tell the 1 person to pack their bags.

I don't know why I am having to explain the book you recommended.

I know why you say that.  You haven't read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Read it.  If you find a better libertarian manifesto, let me know.  But for now, your problem is that you have not studied your own beliefs.

I'm done work and off to the pub.  I wonder if it its worth making a thread to discuss http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf since it seems that most libertarian and anarchists don't actually understand what the book says.

I have. It's called the New Libertarian Manifesto, by Sam Konkin. As promised, here it is. (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epub) There is was a severe typographical error in the first section of most versions online, which while it does not alter the overall tone, does significantly change the meaning of the two paragraphs that it combines.

I have fixed that error, though other lesser ones may remain. If you have any questions, I have the full 25th anniversary edition, in real, dead-tree form to clear up any misunderstandings.

I'd also suggest you read the book I offered up earlier, Universally Preferable Behaviour.

No taxation without representation + transparency and complete accountability to the people (people of the human variety - not corporations)

The last two we, in the US, don't have.  

So, no.

Whoa, wait, was that actually on-topic? You confused me.

I already live off of bitcoins and I pay taxes. This thread is ignorant because it assumes that Bitcoin will eliminate localized currencies, which is highly illogical for numerous reasons, and in addition forgets that people are already choosing to pay taxes to the network and pretty much every product and service provider in Bitcoin.

Yes, because it only goes back to the people. (Maybe not 100% of it, but whatever).

You obviously don't have a grasp of economics and unintended consequences. Eminent domain is harmful to economic development because it reduces or eliminates owners' ability to plan and use their property as they want. If you can be held hostage to the whims of others then you cannot effectively plan. So any proper arbitrator will tell you in plain language that you cannot build a road across the land of someone who doesn't agree with your proposal. You are also totally ignoring the fact that there will be many other options besides building that portion of road over the resistor's land. Your attempt to limit the possibilities to only ones that create a conflict are infuriating.

Before I read Machinery of Freedom I was a minarchist. I didn't understand how things could possibly work in an anarchy. I still don't know how every last detail of every economic action by every single actor in the world would happen. What Machinery of Freedom got me to understand was that I don't have to have all the answers. The people making up the market will figure it all out by acting each in their own interest, and so no central planning is necessary. In fact, many things will turn out vastly different than any of us can even conceive. Maybe several technological advances will create options that no one now would expect. Maybe someone will figure out a better philosophy that answers many current social issues. But the point is, not only don't we know how it will all work out, but we don't need to know. We just need to trust that individuals making their own choices and acting in their own interest will provide all that is needed.

+1   

Maybe you should gather together a mob of 2 million and collectively tell an arbitrator I should be forced to read this "libertarian manifesto" that I don't subscribe to, so the arbitrator and I can laugh in your face.

As it happens, I offer arbitration and mediation services.... ;D

I wasn't assuming the elimination of localized currencies as much as anonymity & full control over your money.  And the taxes/fees I was referring to were the mandatory ones imposed by current governments onto its citizens for its services.

I do/would pay taxes, as long as we have direct access to our democracy.

Right now the problem is that our elections are bought, and the same people buying the elections are the ones advocating for even LESS control...

Its sort of sad.  You guys claim to be anarchists and you don't understand your own beliefs. 

In an anarchy, there are no fixed rights, its market law.  There won't be a single arbitrator - there will be many and pro-growth ones will have a competitive advantage.  The 2 million people will between them find at least one pro-growth arbitrator.  Once they get the case in front of him, its game over for the hold-out.

The question you should be asking is why someone who is not an anarchist has to explain this to you. 

The more logical answer, and the simpler one, is that you, not an anarchist, do not correctly understand our beliefs.

Your claim is rather like me trying to teach a Muslim about Shariah law.

Edit: My above supposition becomes much more likely, as you, as evinced by the below post, cannot differentiate the arguments of an anarchist from a non-anarchist.

http://www.askamathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/a_really_bad_day.jpg

You're DONE. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT times infinity out of you, including the outright lie "You guys claim to be anarchists", quoting ME, when I have never claimed to be an anarchist on BCT or in any forum, medium, or even thought that in my own head.

So enjoy your spot as #1 on my ignore list, LIAR.

Report the liar 'Hawker' here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=91927.294;msg=1018353).

Impressive. Is he actually the first person on there, or is it just a metaphorical "#1", in that his transgressions pushed him to the top of your shit list?

He's the first. And considering his post count, maybe we're all just being trolled by BCT's officially-sanctioned devil's advocate.

The more he posts, the more I get the impression that he is indeed trolling, he's already made a brief appearance on my ignore list, and is likely to get placed back there pretty soon, if this track he's on doesn't change course.

Of course, I would continue to pay taxes if I could live off of Bitcoin.  Keep in mind, Bitcoin was created to be a P2P decentralized electronic cash system.  One still needs to pay taxes even if he or she lives off of either paper or electronic cash.  Bitcoin is revolutionary, but hardly an excuse for not paying taxes.

Ha, the option I found the most logical is exactly the one with less votes so far.... (at least "No" + "depends" beats "Yes", what's good :))

A question to all those answering "No": if you leave in a place with income tax, and assuming your income is at least twice that of the exemption threshold, how do you actually intend not to pay it at all? Even if you have bitcoin-only revenues and your employer (if applicable) doesn't declare your earnings to the government you're subject to... how would you hide the discrepancies between your belongings and your declared income? How would you buy a house, for example?
Or you just don't care and intend to do it Irwin Schiff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff) style?

The questions above are not meant to provoke, I really wonder how to do those things. :D

Well, that's one of those "risks". I think a combination of not giving them a reason to look too closely, and operating out of their view would probably work best. Not to go into too much detail, "flying below the radar."

First of all, we can't "live off bitcoins".  We live off the land.  Period.  Give a moment's respect to food and water.
So presumably, the OP means to ask: "Would you pay taxes if you could live using bitcoins as your only currency for transactions"?  

The obvious answer is YES, lets list two of the taxes you will BY DEINITION be paying:

1)  transaction costs (you WILL pay a fee to miners if you are in fact using your biticoin currency)
2)  monetary inflation tax (new blocks get new currency.. this is another effective tax you are paying to miners)

Lets consider some other taxes you are LIKELY to pay:

1)  any kind of tax a more heavily armed person than yourself imposes on you
2)  voluntary taxes

There are countless forms of these taxes, obviously we all like #2 (at least enough to volunteer funds), and #1 some of us like and others dislike.

Local tax collectors will let you pay your debts with bitcoin soon.    

 
 

I'm not too worried. I already have BTC stashed in places the IRS will never find, and even if they did they couldn't decrypt them.

I also know there are a lot of other people thinking like me.

Tick Tick Tick....that's the sound of the government's life running out.

Or at least the modern-day concept of the fraudulent "nation-state."

Let's hope.

Oh, me too. But thing is... suppose BTC price multiplies by 100 or something (just for the sake of the example).
I honestly wouldn't know how to actually profit from it (make good use of my coins) while remaining "under the radar". (it wouldn't surprise me if some of the "early adopters" didn't cash out during the bubble peak for this very reason)
I might consider emigrating to a tax haven or something if such a thing happens. :D But long distance emigration is always a very tough decision to make.

Your reason is the reason why anyone who takes the currency seriously should just come out and say it...

Didn't get what you mean, FlipPro...

When the BTC price multiplies by 100 times what it is now, you'll really see the revolution begin.  :)

That was just an example. The situation would be similar if I could obtain my income in bitcoins, or cash for that matter. I'd really want not to pay taxes, but I'd also want not to get caught. Tough.

I'd propose the creation of a tax evasion wiki on Torland, so people could share tips and such. But it could backfire, as nothing would stop the thieves themselves to learn from such wiki how to catch more people, or write false tips ("baits") on it etc...

How hard it is to not file depends on where you work. If you work for a corp that made you fill out a W-4, forget about it - you've already contracted with the Fed by signing your name to a SSN.

If you contract yourself out for cash and bitcoins, you don't owe taxes anyway. And there is no way for the IRS to prove what you made.