I will admit something...

[Anonymous]

If forcing people to give a cut of their labor to a central authority and using it to provide 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all, I would happily condone it.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

I disagree with the forcing part. It should be opt in/opt out.

[jon_smark]

If forcing people to give a cut of their labor to a central authority and using it to provide 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all, I would happily condone it.

Well, I think that's the ultimate goal of a welfare state supported by those of us on the left.  Sure, there are some bumps on the road that leads us there -- because nothing involving human beings is ever perfect -- but personally I think the destination will eventually be reached.

On a somewhat off-topic side note, has anyone ever told you that the motto in your avatar ("What survives is good.") is indicative of a naturalistic fallacy?

A naturalistic fallacy results from assuming that because something is natural it must be moral (ie, assuming that "is" dictates "ought"). Its dual is the moralistic fallacy, where people assume that because something is moral, then it must be natural (ie, "ought" translates into "is").  Both these two kinds of fallacies are indicative of confusing "is" with "ought", though interestingly enough they are a good indicator of where a person lies in the political spectrum.  Whereas people on the right tend to fall towards naturalistic fallacies, people on the left are more prone to moralistic fallacies.  Either way, they are logical fallacies that a rational mind should avoid falling prey to.

[SgtSpike]

Sounds suspiciously like a government.

[kokjo]

I disagree with the forcing part. It should be opt in/opt out.

no. there should be the choice: pay or leave.
i don't like all them who says: i don't pay taxes, they are bad. only stupid people say that.
intelligent people accept the facts: either i follow the rules and get the benefits, or i keep totally to my self, not paying, and not getting any of the benefits.

[goatpig]

If forcing people to give a cut of their labor to a central authority and using it to provide 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all, I would happily condone it.

If it is enforced, it is corrupt, because the funds the central authority are effectively a privilege, meaning they have no responsibility to properly distribute it to begin with, since they acquired it through force. Corrupt people seek privileges so that tells you who will be trying to take control over that central entity. Moreover, force as the tool of an authority is nonsensical. Authority means to derive your power from a group that bestowed it upon you voluntarily. The use force to enjoy the benefit of that authority on the very group that bestowed it upon you renders it moot by definition.

If it is voluntary, it will fail. In the worst case, only those who have not enough to survive will participate, meaning you won't have enough resources for all the members to begin with. At best, it'll be as functional as a non governmental charity, which can help, but won't be able to fix the problem properly.

[benjamindees]

no. there should be the choice: pay or leave.

You must live in a highly populated area with lots of wonderful infrastructure that was built completely with government tax monies.

Where is this fantasy land?

[NghtRppr]

provided happiness and prosperity for all

The problem is, values are subjective. I am the only judge of those things as far as how they apply to me. By taking money from me involuntarily and giving it to, say, a hospital, I'm worse off because I would have rather spent the money elsewhere. If I wanted to give money to a hospital, I would have done it.

So, the only way for me to agree with you would be to also stipulate that value is objective and then in those cases where I'm wrong about what I value, your correcting me would be a good thing. Since values are subjective, I have to disagree.

[Anonymous]

If forcing people to give a cut of their labor to a central authority and using it to provide 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all, I would happily condone it.

Well, I think that's the ultimate goal of a welfare state supported by those of us on the left.  Sure, there are some bumps on the road that leads us there -- because nothing involving human beings is ever perfect -- but personally I think the destination will eventually be reached.

On a somewhat off-topic side note, has anyone ever told you that the motto in your avatar ("What survives is good.") is indicative of a naturalistic fallacy?

A naturalistic fallacy results from assuming that because something is natural it must be moral (ie, assuming that "is" dictates "ought"). Its dual is the moralistic fallacy, where people assume that because something is moral, then it must be natural (ie, "ought" translates into "is").  Both these two kinds of fallacies are indicative of confusing "is" with "ought", though interestingly enough they are a good indicator of where a person lies in the political spectrum.  Whereas people on the right tend to fall towards naturalistic fallacies, people on the left are more prone to moralistic fallacies.  Either way, they are logical fallacies that a rational mind should avoid falling prey to.

It's actually derived from Dmitri Pisarev, presumably socialist-inclined and admired by Lenin.

"Break, beat up everything, beat and destroy! Everything that's being broken is rubbish and has no right to life! What survives is good"

I don't go for moral games based on mere whims and desires. I go for what works and sustains itself through disaster, attacks and wear-and-tear. So far it has been shown that liberty may do this and has done so in limited scenarios.

[FreeMoney]

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

[cbeast]

There is no reason that governments would not use bitcoins as long as they required people to register a public ID for taxation purposes and use them appropriately.

[Anonymous]

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

If the slaves feel fulfilled and by all means happy, sure.

[FreeMoney]

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

If the slaves feel fulfilled and by all means happy, sure.

So it only works if it is voluntary?

[Anonymous]

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

If the slaves feel fulfilled and by all means happy, sure.

So it only works if it is voluntary?

If the majority of sentient organisms must experience the illusion/or actually the freedom of association and freedom as individuals in order to be happy, so be it.

[FreeMoney]

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

If the slaves feel fulfilled and by all means happy, sure.

So it only works if it is voluntary?

If the majority of sentient organisms must experience the illusion/or actually the freedom of association and freedom as individuals in order to be happy, so be it.

So you'll let me be free if you think I need to be free to be happy or if I think I need to be free?

[kokjo]

no. there should be the choice: pay or leave.

You must live in a highly populated area with lots of wonderful infrastructure that was built completely with government tax monies.

Where is this fantasy land?

denmark, amager.
but im paying nothing!
i get money(government tax monies) to study.

[epi 1:10,000]

If forcing people to give a cut of their labor to a central authority and using it to provide 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all, I would happily condone it.

Dam Benthamite!

[Anonymous]

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

If the slaves feel fulfilled and by all means happy, sure.

So it only works if it is voluntary?

If the majority of sentient organisms must experience the illusion/or actually the freedom of association and freedom as individuals in order to be happy, so be it.

So you'll let me be free if you think I need to be free to be happy or if I think I need to be free?

Well, my permission isn't relevant. Think of societal structures.

[K_Man_Alpha]

Back on topic ......my take is: if you don't like taxes... then put out your own fires, fight crime yourself, get off the paved roads and teach yourself and your kids what we learn in school.

"Taxes" have a bad rep thanks to Kings of old and political scandals, but really, it's the way in which we all pitch in and it makes things more efficient when used properly. I feel a little honored and satisfied when I pay taxes.

Though, again, it's the scandals that make us wonder why we are paying them ...we need to strive for more transparent government and resource distribution.

[NghtRppr]

Back on topic ......my take is: if you don't like taxes... then put out your own fires, fight crime yourself, get off the paved roads and teach yourself and your kids what we learn in school.

That ignores the voluntary division of labor. I don't have to make my own shoes but I do have to provide something to someone that does so they will voluntarily make me a pair. If I want cable TV or food, I will pay for it. I don't need the government to provide me those things. If I want fire protection, security, roads or my kids taught, I will pay for it. Again, the government isn't required for any of that.