No Taxation...Donation!

[virtualmaster]

Taxes are needed.

1. I don't go to school, and my kids are not old enough, and will go to private when they are.
Why should I have to pay for schools? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
2. I hardly use the roads, and when I go long distance, I pay a toll to use the road.
Why should I be paying for roads all over the state of Florida? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
3. I don't go to hospitals, why should I pay for others to go? Don't get yourself injured.
I hardly leave my house, why should I pay because some idiot ran into a tree on his motorcycle?

As you can see, I'm selfish, just like most of the population. If I don't use it, why pay for it?
Though, knowing society will fall without everyone else to using my money, I will pay up.

Those are valid questions, though i don't see why society would fall because you're sitting home alone, unmolested.

If no one was paying money into things they don't use, society will fall.

No worry it will never come so far.
It will be just a balance.
The state should have money only for what it is needed.

[farlack]

Taxes are needed.

1. I don't go to school, and my kids are not old enough, and will go to private when they are.
Why should I have to pay for schools? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
2. I hardly use the roads, and when I go long distance, I pay a toll to use the road.
Why should I be paying for roads all over the state of Florida? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
3. I don't go to hospitals, why should I pay for others to go? Don't get yourself injured.
I hardly leave my house, why should I pay because some idiot ran into a tree on his motorcycle?

As you can see, I'm selfish, just like most of the population. If I don't use it, why pay for it?
Though, knowing society will fall without everyone else to using my money, I will pay up.

Those are valid questions, though i don't see why society would fall because you're sitting home alone, unmolested.

If no one was paying money into things they don't use, society will fall.

You are right but brace yourself for frantic whines of people who insist that the time to charge for a fire service is when the fire has already started.

Where I live, my taxes pay for this.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

Imagine all over the country, the people who lost their house, or almost lost their house due to fire. How much of the population would actually pay 'donations' to the fire department?

[Hawker]

Taxes are needed.

1. I don't go to school, and my kids are not old enough, and will go to private when they are.
Why should I have to pay for schools? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
2. I hardly use the roads, and when I go long distance, I pay a toll to use the road.
Why should I be paying for roads all over the state of Florida? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
3. I don't go to hospitals, why should I pay for others to go? Don't get yourself injured.
I hardly leave my house, why should I pay because some idiot ran into a tree on his motorcycle?

As you can see, I'm selfish, just like most of the population. If I don't use it, why pay for it?
Though, knowing society will fall without everyone else to using my money, I will pay up.

Those are valid questions, though i don't see why society would fall because you're sitting home alone, unmolested.

If no one was paying money into things they don't use, society will fall.

You are right but brace yourself for frantic whines of people who insist that the time to charge for a fire service is when the fire has already started.

Where I live, my taxes pay for this.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

Imagine all over the country, the people who lost their house, or almost lost their house due to fire. How much of the population would actually pay 'donations' to the fire department?

It doesn't really matter.  Payment at the point of need is grotesquely inefficient.  A system where everything is financed that way would be too expensive to run.

[BTC Books]

It doesn't really matter.  Payment at the point of need is grotesquely inefficient.  A system where everything is financed that way would be too expensive to run.

That too.

[Traktion]

Just allow subscription to state services to be voluntary. The rest will sort itself out as/when people are ready.

You don't need to list endless "what about the X, what about the Y" etc. Solutions will be found to such problems. You just need to ask yourself whether it is acceptable to use force to make people do stuff or not.

It's interesting that these debates are becoming more frequent. A few years ago, voluntarists/anarchists were very few in numbers. Now they are all over the place. That's what I call progress.

[Birdy]

Just allow subscription to state services to be voluntary. The rest will sort itself out as/when people are ready.

You don't need to list endless "what about the X, what about the Y" etc. Solutions will be found to such problems. You just need to ask yourself whether it is acceptable to use force to make people do stuff or not.

It's interesting that these debates are becoming more frequent. A few years ago, voluntarists/anarchists were very few in numbers. Now they are all over the place. That's what I call progress.

A voluntary subscription could work maybe.
But I'm not quite sure how you could sort it out.
Should you control everyone using the road built by the money of voluntary subscribers?

At least that's a way better claim than those pure anarchistic ones.

[Traktion]

Just allow subscription to state services to be voluntary. The rest will sort itself out as/when people are ready.

You don't need to list endless "what about the X, what about the Y" etc. Solutions will be found to such problems. You just need to ask yourself whether it is acceptable to use force to make people do stuff or not.

It's interesting that these debates are becoming more frequent. A few years ago, voluntarists/anarchists were very few in numbers. Now they are all over the place. That's what I call progress.

A voluntary subscription could work maybe.
But I'm not quite sure how you could sort it out.
Should you control everyone using the road built by the money of voluntary subscribers?

At least that's a way better claim than those pure anarchistic ones.

Going cold turkey would not be good. People need to educate themselves, to understand the nature of the state and their relationship with it.

Too many think of the state as 'us' and suggest that 'we' need to do X, Y and Z. This isn't true. The state isn't society - it is the antithesis of society. Those who believe in a strong society, see that the state is not needed at all.

BTW, 'what about the roads?!' is a bit of an in joke in voluntarist/anarchist circles! There are many ways to solve the problem, as with everything.

Perhaps you could replace state tax disks (UK) with a private subscription model. Said subscription could give access to a region free of charge, with other areas requiring one off fees.

For local estates, perhaps a cooperative would be a good model, with people buying in to a portion of the road when they buy their house. This would be pretty similar to maintenance fees in apartment blocks, for example.

Still, the roads question has had entire books written about it, so don't take my suggestions as the only ones - people are ingenious and they find solutions to problems all of the time. I don't worry about that at all, tbh.

[Birdy]

Just allow subscription to state services to be voluntary. The rest will sort itself out as/when people are ready.

You don't need to list endless "what about the X, what about the Y" etc. Solutions will be found to such problems. You just need to ask yourself whether it is acceptable to use force to make people do stuff or not.

It's interesting that these debates are becoming more frequent. A few years ago, voluntarists/anarchists were very few in numbers. Now they are all over the place. That's what I call progress.

A voluntary subscription could work maybe.
But I'm not quite sure how you could sort it out.
Should you control everyone using the road built by the money of voluntary subscribers?

At least that's a way better claim than those pure anarchistic ones.

Going cold turkey would not be good. People need to educate themselves, to understand the nature of the state and their relationship with it.

Too many think of the state as 'us' and suggest that 'we' need to do X, Y and Z. This isn't true. The state isn't society - it is the antithesis of society. Those who believe in a strong society, see that the state is not needed at all.

BTW, 'what about the roads?!' is a bit of an in joke in voluntarist/anarchist circles! There are many ways to solve the problem, as with everything.

Perhaps you could replace state tax disks (UK) with a private subscription model. Said subscription could give access to a region free of charge, with other areas requiring one off fees.

For local estates, perhaps a cooperative would be a good model, with people buying in to a portion of the road when they buy their house. This would be pretty similar to maintenance fees in apartment blocks, for example.

Still, the roads question has had entire books written about it, so don't take my suggestions as the only ones - people are ingenious and they find solutions to problems all of the time. I don't worry about that at all, tbh.

Roads are good to use as example I guess, because you can imagine problems there.
What if somebody owns a pass that is the only good way to get to somewhere (maybe because there are mountains in the way or whatever)
He could charge ridicilously high fees to let people use his way.

I could imagine a lot of scenarious abusing similar things, because if people can do it, they will do it (at least some of them).

[Traktion]

Just allow subscription to state services to be voluntary. The rest will sort itself out as/when people are ready.

You don't need to list endless "what about the X, what about the Y" etc. Solutions will be found to such problems. You just need to ask yourself whether it is acceptable to use force to make people do stuff or not.

It's interesting that these debates are becoming more frequent. A few years ago, voluntarists/anarchists were very few in numbers. Now they are all over the place. That's what I call progress.

A voluntary subscription could work maybe.
But I'm not quite sure how you could sort it out.
Should you control everyone using the road built by the money of voluntary subscribers?

At least that's a way better claim than those pure anarchistic ones.

Going cold turkey would not be good. People need to educate themselves, to understand the nature of the state and their relationship with it.

Too many think of the state as 'us' and suggest that 'we' need to do X, Y and Z. This isn't true. The state isn't society - it is the antithesis of society. Those who believe in a strong society, see that the state is not needed at all.

BTW, 'what about the roads?!' is a bit of an in joke in voluntarist/anarchist circles! There are many ways to solve the problem, as with everything.

Perhaps you could replace state tax disks (UK) with a private subscription model. Said subscription could give access to a region free of charge, with other areas requiring one off fees.

For local estates, perhaps a cooperative would be a good model, with people buying in to a portion of the road when they buy their house. This would be pretty similar to maintenance fees in apartment blocks, for example.

Still, the roads question has had entire books written about it, so don't take my suggestions as the only ones - people are ingenious and they find solutions to problems all of the time. I don't worry about that at all, tbh.

Roads are good to use as example I guess, because you can imagine problems there.
What if somebody owns a pass that is the only good way to get to somewhere (maybe because there are mountains in the way or whatever)
He could charge ridicilously high fees to let people use his way.

I could imagine a lot of scenarious abusing similar things, because if people can do it, they will do it (at least some of them).

Two points:

1) Roads could be based on subscription models, where every subscriber has a share (and say) in the organisation. You could have annual auctions, where the costs are split over the subscriber base, for example. Getting from where we are now, the state could gift the roads to such cooperative style organisations to begin with. Later on, people may decide to only support roads which adopt this sort of model (and boycott others etc).

2) Monopolising a location is arguably an act of aggression. There is no evidence that you can 'own' a location, as you can't create that spot in time and space - you can only occupy it. If you refuse to share the location, then you are monopolising it. Therefore, you can argue that people can demand damages, if someone is seeking rent (from a location monopoly) including road owners. That isn't to say they don't own the asphalt, lights etc, but that doesn't imply ownership of a location.


Now, 1 is pretty straightforward - it is essentially pushing power down down/out from the centre. It also means that costs are localised to those who need to use those roads, based on their requirements.

2 is a more nuanced argument, but in a voluntarist society, courts will constantly be trying to define where the non-aggression principle is being ignored. I suspect monopolisation of locations would become an important issue and community land licenses may become popular (I wrote about this here, if you're interested: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=185849&st=0).

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.

[gollum]

Over the past several years of paying my "fair share" of taxes and studying Libertarianism, Voluntarism, and Austrian economics I have come to the conclusion that taxes are essentially collective theft and inefficient.

Did you know that many authorities are deliberately inefficient? They spend more money and resources than they need for a simple reason: otherwise their budget might decrease. So when time goes the public sector only gets bigger and more inefficient. The only way to fight this waste is to starve the government by paying less taxes so it has to shut down unnecessary functions.

[Lgetty17]

Taxes are needed.

1. I don't go to school, and my kids are not old enough, and will go to private when they are.
Why should I have to pay for schools? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
2. I hardly use the roads, and when I go long distance, I pay a toll to use the road.
Why should I be paying for roads all over the state of Florida? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
3. I don't go to hospitals, why should I pay for others to go? Don't get yourself injured.
I hardly leave my house, why should I pay because some idiot ran into a tree on his motorcycle?

As you can see, I'm selfish, just like most of the population. If I don't use it, why pay for it?
Though, knowing society will fall without everyone else to using my money, I will pay up.

*facepalm*

Spoken like a true American..

[Ekaros]

You are right but brace yourself for frantic whines of people who insist that the time to charge for a fire service is when the fire has already started.

Where I live, my taxes pay for this.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

Imagine all over the country, the people who lost their house, or almost lost their house due to fire. How much of the population would actually pay 'donations' to the fire department?

Don't you also love a group of guys walking around and talking about how flammable your property looks...

[Traktion]

Taxes are needed.

1. I don't go to school, and my kids are not old enough, and will go to private when they are.
Why should I have to pay for schools? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
2. I hardly use the roads, and when I go long distance, I pay a toll to use the road.
Why should I be paying for roads all over the state of Florida? If I had the choice I wouldn't.
3. I don't go to hospitals, why should I pay for others to go? Don't get yourself injured.
I hardly leave my house, why should I pay because some idiot ran into a tree on his motorcycle?

As you can see, I'm selfish, just like most of the population. If I don't use it, why pay for it?
Though, knowing society will fall without everyone else to using my money, I will pay up.

Those are valid questions, though i don't see why society would fall because you're sitting home alone, unmolested.

If no one was paying money into things they don't use, society will fall.

You are right but brace yourself for frantic whines of people who insist that the time to charge for a fire service is when the fire has already started.

Where I live, my taxes pay for this.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

Imagine all over the country, the people who lost their house, or almost lost their house due to fire. How much of the population would actually pay 'donations' to the fire department?

What sort of mortgage company would secure a loan against a house with no fire insurance? It is the asset they seek to reclaim if you default - they want it kept in good condition.

Even if a mortgage company was flexible, the mortgage rate would increase to cover their risk.

If they were mortgage free and didn't pay, well, that's pretty dumb isn't it? If someone ends ends up losing their house due to such stupidity, they only have themselves to blame.

Really, this sort of stuff isn't complicated.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If they were mortgage free and didn't pay, well, that's pretty dumb isn't it? If someone ends ends up losing their house due to such stupidity, they only have themselves to blame.

Really, this sort of stuff isn't complicated.

Blaming people for a mistake is fine.  Destroying their home over a $75 fee is not.  It may feel clever to say "Sucks to be you" but that is not a valid basis for organising a society.

[Traktion]

...snip...

If they were mortgage free and didn't pay, well, that's pretty dumb isn't it? If someone ends ends up losing their house due to such stupidity, they only have themselves to blame.

Really, this sort of stuff isn't complicated.

Blaming people for a mistake is fine.  Destroying their home over a $75 fee is not.  It may feel clever to say "Sucks to be you" but that is not a valid basis for organising a society.

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.

[xcsler]

Over the past several years of paying my "fair share" of taxes and studying Libertarianism, Voluntarism, and Austrian economics I have come to the conclusion that taxes are essentially collective theft and inefficient.

Did you know that many authorities are deliberately inefficient? They spend more money and resources than they need for a simple reason: otherwise their budget might decrease. So when time goes the public sector only gets bigger and more inefficient. The only way to fight this waste is to starve the government by paying less taxes so it has to shut down unnecessary functions.

Yes, I believe this to be true. This also occurs in the private sector just not to the same degree.
The issue is that when it occurs in the public sector we pay for the inefficiencies but when it occurs in the private sector we don't.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If they were mortgage free and didn't pay, well, that's pretty dumb isn't it? If someone ends ends up losing their house due to such stupidity, they only have themselves to blame.

Really, this sort of stuff isn't complicated.

Blaming people for a mistake is fine.  Destroying their home over a $75 fee is not.  It may feel clever to say "Sucks to be you" but that is not a valid basis for organising a society.

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.

Its also the most inefficient possible way of doing things.  The fire truck was paid for - it was at the fire - it watched the home burn down because someone wanted to make a point. 

[Traktion]

...snip...

If they were mortgage free and didn't pay, well, that's pretty dumb isn't it? If someone ends ends up losing their house due to such stupidity, they only have themselves to blame.

Really, this sort of stuff isn't complicated.

Blaming people for a mistake is fine.  Destroying their home over a $75 fee is not.  It may feel clever to say "Sucks to be you" but that is not a valid basis for organising a society.

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.

Its also the most inefficient possible way of doing things.  The fire truck was paid for - it was at the fire - it watched the home burn down because someone wanted to make a point. 

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.

[Birdy]

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.

[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.