No Taxation...Donation!

[myrkul]

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

[Traktion]

...snip...

Inefficient? Paying $75 a year in subs is hardly complicated.

The car on my drive is paid for too, but that doesn't mean get to threaten me if I don't chauffeur you around in it.

Its inefficient on 2 levels:  

1. The value of the house has been lost - for all you know the owner had senile dementia or was illiterate or had some other perfectly valid reason for sucking at paperwork.  So wealth has been destroyed for no good reason.
2. its cheaper to collect things like the costs of police, roads, fire service, schools and health through the tax system than to have separate bureacracies for each.  So even if everyone pays the $75, its still inefficient.

1. If they had paid their $75, they wouldn't have lost their house. If they needed advice, they should have requested it - even the state could help them to pay their voluntary $75, rather than just demanding it.

2. Stealing stuff may be easier for the thief, but it removes the choice of the victim. It may be more efficient for me to come and take your car, rather than earning  + buying one from a dealer too. I assume you are against such actions?

BTW, there are many inefficient state departments which would never survive in a voluntary model. I don't know where you get the idea from that the state is efficient, tbh.

[Birdy]

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

1. If they had paid their $75, they wouldn't have lost their house. If they needed advice, they should have requested it - even the state could help them to pay their voluntary $75, rather than just demanding it.

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

2. Stealing stuff may be easier for the thief, but it removes the choice of the victim. It may be more efficient for me to come and take your car, rather than earning  + buying one from a dealer too. I assume you are against such actions?

Stealing stuff doesn't create or destroy wealth (ok sometimes it does destroy wealth, because you have to break in), it only changes the one who has it.

There is an important difference between creation/loss of work and the distribution of it.

[myrkul]

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

No, you're not. No obligation can be created that forces action, without voluntary acceptance of that obligation. I'm obligated not to turn on the switch that kills you, but not obligated to turn on the one that would save you.

To illustrate this, what is the first thing you would say to someone who had flipped the switch to save you?

[Traktion]

The firemen didn't destroy anything - the fire did. The firemen didn't start the fire either.

The firemen are not slaves of foolish home owners. If home owners want them to labour on their behalf, using their equipment, then they should pay the firemen to do it.

Moreover, they should take steps to avoid their house burning down. Fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire buckets/blankets, not smoking in doors etc - all would reduce their premium. Not asking for people to pay for insurance creates a free rider problem - why should they invest in ways to prevent fires, when they can just call someone to put it out for 'free'?

Requesting insurance and/or subscriptions to service providers is hardly disorganised. It is voluntary and allows people to pay for what they need.

This is exactly one of the points I have a problem with.

Yes the fireman didn't destroy anything.
Do you know the term "non-assistance of a person in danger"?
There is a reason for it to exist.

If you watch the house burn over a $75, you have lost the worth of the house for your society.
You can claim they were stupid all that you want, the work this house with built with is destroyed and lost.

You have to view voluntarism for its core - the rejection of using aggression to gain advantage. How things are arranged after force is removed is a matter of negotiation. While you (or I) can ponder endlessly about how things could work, it doesn't change the principle behind the philosophy and better ways will probably thought of by others anyway.

Despite my problems with it, I would like to see one state working like this to see if it can work out/what problems it has.

If the person had paid for people to put the fire out, the house wouldn't have been lost. The cost of the loss falls on the home owner too, who now no longer has a home, because they didn't pay a small fee.

You can't just demand people to do stuff for you - that's slavery. How about the loss of time to the fire fighters? How about their loss of life if they are killed while fighting the fire?

[Birdy]

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

No, you're not. No obligation can be created that forces action, without voluntary acceptance of that obligation. I'm obligated not to turn on the switch that kills you, but not obliged to turn on the one that would save you.

To illustrate this, what is the first thing you would say to someone who had flipped the switch to save you?

In my country this is wrong. It's in the law. I don't know if it's the same for you.
(I would thank the nontheless of course)

[Birdy]

If the person had paid for people to put the fire out, the house wouldn't have been lost. The cost of the loss falls on the home owner too, who now no longer has a home, because they didn't pay a small fee.

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

You can't just demand people to do stuff for you - that's slavery. How about the loss of time to the fire fighters? How about their loss of life if they are killed while fighting the fire?

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

[myrkul]

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

No, you're not. No obligation can be created that forces action, without voluntary acceptance of that obligation. I'm obligated not to turn on the switch that kills you, but not obliged to turn on the one that would save you.

To illustrate this, what is the first thing you would say to someone who had flipped the switch to save you?

In my country this is wrong. It's in the law. I don't know if it's the same for you.

So, where you live, men with guns force people to accept obligations they don't have to. Your point?

Kindly answer the question I have posed: What is the first thing you would say to someone who flipped the switch to save you?

You can't just demand people to do stuff for you - that's slavery. How about the loss of time to the fire fighters? How about their loss of life if they are killed while fighting the fire?

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

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

[Hawker]

...snip...

Inefficient? Paying $75 a year in subs is hardly complicated.

The car on my drive is paid for too, but that doesn't mean get to threaten me if I don't chauffeur you around in it.

Its inefficient on 2 levels:  

1. The value of the house has been lost - for all you know the owner had senile dementia or was illiterate or had some other perfectly valid reason for sucking at paperwork.  So wealth has been destroyed for no good reason.
2. its cheaper to collect things like the costs of police, roads, fire service, schools and health through the tax system than to have separate bureacracies for each.  So even if everyone pays the $75, its still inefficient.

1. If they had paid their $75, they wouldn't have lost their house. If they needed advice, they should have requested it - even the state could help them to pay their voluntary $75, rather than just demanding it.

2. Stealing stuff may be easier for the thief, but it removes the choice of the victim. It may be more efficient for me to come and take your car, rather than earning  + buying one from a dealer too. I assume you are against such actions?

BTW, there are many inefficient state departments which would never survive in a voluntary model. I don't know where you get the idea from that the state is efficient, tbh.

Again, there may have been a valid reason for the person not paying $75.  You want to make this a morality play - it's not.

Taxation is the most efficient way to pay for services like police, fire, defence and the like.  Unless you are a bureaucrat yourself, you would have no interest in creating parallel billing systems for such services.

[myrkul]

Taxation is the most efficient way to pay for services like police, fire, defence and the like.  Unless you are a bureaucrat yourself, you would have no interest in creating parallel billing systems for such services.

Really? Voluntary subscription plans, which do not require an entire agency to enforce, are less efficient?

[Hawker]

Taxation is the most efficient way to pay for services like police, fire, defence and the like.  Unless you are a bureaucrat yourself, you would have no interest in creating parallel billing systems for such services.

Really? Voluntary subscription plans, which do not require an entire agency to enforce, are less efficient?

Yes.  That's why they are only used for small communities. 

[Birdy]

So, where you live, men with guns force people to accept obligations they don't have to. Your point?

They have to. That's the point. If you watch someone die and could have helped without problems you can be taken to court for it.
And I have no problem with this, because basically you are an asshole if you do so.
Would you let some random stranger die, if there was no risk involved in rescuing him?

Kindly answer the question I have posed: What is the first thing you would say to someone who flipped the switch to save you?

I would thank him. What's your point?

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

I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your mind, but you are blinded by your imagination of this perfect society.
You have created the problem that they aren't paid in the first place.

[Equilux]

OK, this might be a shock to some of you.

You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation.

No, but you are obligated to save someone, if there is no risk involved (e.g. you just have to switch a trigger to turn a machine/electricity off).

No, you're not. No obligation can be created that forces action, without voluntary acceptance of that obligation. I'm obligated not to turn on the switch that kills you, but not obligated to turn on the one that would save you.

To illustrate this, what is the first thing you would say to someone who had flipped the switch to save you?

"Thank you ... for not neglecting a very obvious responsibility you have, unlike some that try to uphold some very childish beliefs about radical freedom"

or maybe

"Thank you ... for have the mental capacity to figure out that if action or inaction has such grave consequences you do have an obligation and it being "forced" has nothing to do with anything"

[Birdy]

Because this is a flood of posts, my important statements:

Stealing stuff doesn't create or destroy wealth (ok sometimes it does destroy wealth, because you have to break in), it only changes the one who has it.
There is an important difference between creation/loss of work and the distribution of it.

So, where you live, men with guns force people to accept obligations they don't have to. Your point?

They have to. That's the point. If you watch someone die and could have helped without problems you can be taken to court for it.
And I have no problem with this, because basically you are an asshole if you do so.
Would you let some random stranger die, if there was no risk involved in rescuing him?

[myrkul]

Yes.  That's why they are only used for small communities. 

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

So, where you live, men with guns force people to accept obligations they don't have to. Your point?

They have to. That's the point. If you watch someone die and could have helped without problems you can be taken to court for it.
And I have no problem with this, because basically you are an asshole if you do so.
Would you let some random stranger die, if there was no risk involved in rescuing him?

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

Kindly answer the question I have posed: What is the first thing you would say to someone who flipped the switch to save you?

I would thank him. What's your point?

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

"Thank you ... for not neglecting a very obvious responsibility you have, unlike some that try to uphold some very childish beliefs about radical freedom"

or maybe

"Thank you ... for have the mental capacity to figure out that if action or inaction has such grave consequences you do have an obligation and it being "forced" has nothing to do with anything"

Try again, this time without the intellectual dishonesty.

[Hawker]

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

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

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

[Birdy]

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

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

[myrkul]

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

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

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

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

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

Technically you are right. But why exactly do we need to change that?
It does no good whatsoever.
People will be grateful to the ones that rescued them, this is true even with those rules.
It's good if people rescue someone else (this is a personal opinion).

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

[Birdy]

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

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

[myrkul]

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

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

I suppose you support taxation for the same reason?