No Taxation...Donation!

[Birdy]

OK, that's "bad," we'll provisionally accept "suffering" in the place of "bad." What about "good"?

Okey, we have "bad", so we can move on by defining good as the opposite as bad. So "not suffering".

I know it's really vague, but well you want me to define how humanity's morality should be, that's a tough job.

[myrkul]

OK, that's "bad," we'll provisionally accept "suffering" in the place of "bad." What about "good"?

Okey, we have "bad", so we can move on by defining good as the opposite as bad. So "not suffering".

OK, so, force is moral if the suffering inflicted is outweighed by the suffering prevented?

Does that sound acceptable?

[hawkeye]

Guess we can stop here, because I don't think one of us is going to convince the other.
I think he is kinda wrong, as long as the force used is not doing worse things than the good things it accomplishs, it's ok.
I see nothing wrong with forcing people to care at least a bit about others.

That's a slippery slope.  Once you've justified the use of force to do good once, where do you draw the line?

Wouldn't it be better and more efficient to take money from everyone so you could have one centralised agency to give food to everyone to make sure they all have both the adequate amount and the necessary nutrition that everyone needs?  As one example.

[hawkeye]

I know it's really vague, but well you want me to define how humanity's morality should be, that's a tough job.

It's really not, it's actually quite easy.  Unless you have to justify government actions, then it becomes impossible...

[Birdy]

OK, so, force is moral if the suffering inflicted is outweighed by the suffering prevented?

Does that sound acceptable?

It's difficult to know how much "suffering prevented is", especially if it lies in the future, so it's a bit problematic.
But yes.

That's a slippery slope.  Once you've justified the use of force to do good once, where do you draw the line?

Wouldn't it be better and more efficient to take money from everyone so you could have one centralised agency to give food to everyone to make sure they all have both the adequate amount and the necessary nutrition that everyone needs?  As one example

Indeed it is a slippery rope and a lot of politics fail while doing this.
And you could discuss it, because right now there are people starving all over the planet. But the discussion whether or not this is a good idea would fill another hundred pages.
There just is no easy way out.

It's really not, it's actually quite easy.  Unless you have to justify government actions, then it becomes impossible...

I guess you will throw a generalized sentence in my way like "Nobody should be forced" and be like "That is it".
I'm afraid it's not.

[hawkeye]

Indeed it is a slippery rope and a lot of politics fail while doing this.
And you could discuss it, because right now there are people starving all over the planet. But the discussion whether or not this is a good idea would fill another hundred pages.
There just is no easy way out.

Not really.  It's been tried many times in communist countries.  People starved.  The free market does it best, because the central planners just don't have enough information and never will.

[Birdy]

Indeed it is a slippery rope and a lot of politics fail while doing this.
And you could discuss it, because right now there are people starving all over the planet. But the discussion whether or not this is a good idea would fill another hundred pages.
There just is no easy way out.

Not really.  It's been tried many times in communist countries.  People starved.  The free market does it best, because the central planners just don't have enough information and never will.

Rofl, free market alone does shit.

[myrkul]

OK, so, force is moral if the suffering inflicted is outweighed by the suffering prevented?

Does that sound acceptable?

It's difficult to know how much "suffering prevented is", especially if it lies in the future, so it's a bit problematic.
But yes.

Indeed it is, very difficult. So already we've run up against a snag: how to predict how much suffering your infliction of suffering will prevent. But let's set that snag aside for the moment, for I've a very important question: Who does the weighing? The man whose suffering is being prevented? The man upon whom suffering is being inflicted to prevent the other's suffering? Or the man with the gun?

[Birdy]

OK, so, force is moral if the suffering inflicted is outweighed by the suffering prevented?

Does that sound acceptable?

It's difficult to know how much "suffering prevented is", especially if it lies in the future, so it's a bit problematic.
But yes.

Indeed it is, very difficult. So already we've run up against a snag: how to predict how much suffering your infliction of suffering will prevent. But let's set that snag aside for the moment, for I've a very important question: Who does the weighing? The man whose suffering is being prevented? The man upon whom suffering is being inflicted to prevent the other's suffering? Or the man with the gun?

If possible a man who has some expertise in the field.
(so yes, more like scientists)
There are more people involved in a state than just the one with the gun.

[Traktion]

You ignore the loss incurred by the fire fighters. Their time, risk and labour is not free and they could have been doing something else.

I don't ignore it, I know they have to be paid for this, but we are discussing about the way to do so.
Btw: Their time was already spent in that example.

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

What we are discussing is paying $75 per year for fire protection, which those who lost their home refused to do. Therefore, the fire fighters have not been paid in this case.

Yes, because this payment model is awful there was a big loss.

The alternative of the fire fighters being paid via taxation is just treating everyone else as slaves; forcing people to labour, in order to extract wealth from them, is slavery.

I disagree. While there are many bad things in states that can end up in a kind of slavery-state it's not the taxation itself.
If done right, it doesn't enslave anyone (my personal opinion).

When there is no choice to decline the services of the state, it is theft. If every bit of work you do - which you need to do to survive - results in stuff being taken from you, it is slavery. Sugar coat it all you like, but this is the reality of the situation.

The whole point of insurance and/or subscription models is that you pay a small fee in the expectation that you are unlikely to need their services. Not subscribing and then expecting to just pay your subs on the day is laughable - you will be given the choice of the market rate for fire fighters at short notice or accepting the alternatives.

Regarding their time - it wasn't spent already. They didn't have to risk their lives putting out a fire - they could just sit in their truck.

[myrkul]

OK, so, force is moral if the suffering inflicted is outweighed by the suffering prevented?

Does that sound acceptable?

It's difficult to know how much "suffering prevented is", especially if it lies in the future, so it's a bit problematic.
But yes.

Indeed it is, very difficult. So already we've run up against a snag: how to predict how much suffering your infliction of suffering will prevent. But let's set that snag aside for the moment, for I've a very important question: Who does the weighing? The man whose suffering is being prevented? The man upon whom suffering is being inflicted to prevent the other's suffering? Or the man with the gun?

If possible a man who has some expertise in the field.
(so yes, more like scientists)

OK, so of those three men, which is more likely to have the expertise? The man whose house is burning down, the firefighter, or the man pointing the gun at the firefighter to make him put out the fire?

[Traktion]

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.

You want to lock people in cages for being 'an ass'?

There are some real shits on this planet, many of whom I would like nothing to do with. This doesn't mean I get to lock them in cages, just because I don't like them.

Oh yes, I want to.
At least the real big ones like mass murderers as a protection from let them continuing being that.

Can you define 'good things' objectively? Will everyone share the same opinion? If this was the case, you wouldn't need taxation at all - people would be willing to make the sacrifices without force.

As soon as you use force, to implement some subjective 'good', you are on a slippery slope to tyranny.

It's difficult but I try it by defining "suffering" and "loss of work" as bad things.

We aren't talking about mass murderers here, Mr Strawman... we're talking about someone not going out of their way to help another. You want to lock people up, just for inaction (ie. the default state of an individual).

How about the suffering of injured/dead fire fighters and their families? How about the loss of time that they could have been spending with them, instead of doing unpaid labour?

[Birdy]

OK, so of those three men, which is more likely to have the expertise? The man whose house is burning down, the firefighter, or the man pointing the gun at the firefighter to make him put out the fire?

None of them, there are more then those three men.
Those aren't the ones who decide, because you make laws before.

When there is no choice to decline the services of the state, it is theft. If every bit of work you do - which you need to do to survive - results in stuff being taken from you, it is slavery. Sugar coat it all you like, but this is the reality of the situation.

The whole point of insurance and/or subscription models is that you pay a small fee in the expectation that you are unlikely to need their services. Not subscribing and then expecting to just pay your subs on the day is laughable - you will be given the choice of the market rate for fire fighters at short notice or accepting the alternatives.

Regarding their time - it wasn't spent already. They didn't have to risk their lives putting out a fire - they could just sit in their truck.

Feel free to build up a night-watch-state like you want somewhere.
But don't force your idea of freedom upon me, please.
I doubt it's gonna work, but it seems like there are a lot of Bitcoiners who do (because well the decantrilzed money is one of your things)
So there shoudl be quite a lot of people who are rich now or gonna be rich and could buy a small state together /at least if Bitcoin is successful.

I would be excited to watch this experiment, maybe I'm wrong and it does work.

[Mike Christ]

Feel free to build up a night-watch-state like you want somewhere.
But don't force your idea of freedom upon me, please.

If you don't want to be forced upon you an idea, please stop supporting the state, who does force their ideas of freedom on you, and me, and other countries, if it can.  It's either or.  You can't be against force used against you, and in favor of force used against others.  That's called plenty of things, but, hypocrisy (probably not using it right) would be the simplest way to explain it.

[Birdy]

Feel free to build up a night-watch-state like you want somewhere.
But don't force your idea of freedom upon me, please.

If you don't want to be forced upon you an idea, please stop supporting the state, who does force their ideas of freedom on you, and me, and other countries, if it can.  It's either or.  You can't be against force used against you, and in favor of force used against others.  That's called plenty of things, but, hypocrisy (probably not using it right) would be the simplest way to explain it.

Hah, I was trying to make a remark. Because I think some kind of force is okay, while you think every force is wrong.
But enforcing your idea upon me is already a force. -> so the hypocrisy would be at you.
but not really important, just some blathering, ignore this one.

But seriously:
Feel free to build up a night-watch-state like you want somewhere.
I doubt it's gonna work, but it seems like there are a lot of Bitcoiners who do (because well the decantrilzed money is one of your things)
So there should be quite a lot of people who are rich now or gonna be rich and could buy a small state together (at least if Bitcoin is successful).

[hawkeye]

Indeed it is a slippery rope and a lot of politics fail while doing this.
And you could discuss it, because right now there are people starving all over the planet. But the discussion whether or not this is a good idea would fill another hundred pages.
There just is no easy way out.

Not really.  It's been tried many times in communist countries.  People starved.  The free market does it best, because the central planners just don't have enough information and never will.

Rofl, free market alone does shit.

Ummm, we have two clear cut cases here,

Free market food production produces a large variety and abundance of food.
Central Planning food leads to lack of food and lack of variety of food and ultimately leads to malnutrition and starvation.

The reasons why are quite obvious if you think about them.  Now try applying that reasoning to other market sectors.

[Birdy]

Indeed it is a slippery rope and a lot of politics fail while doing this.
And you could discuss it, because right now there are people starving all over the planet. But the discussion whether or not this is a good idea would fill another hundred pages.
There just is no easy way out.

Not really.  It's been tried many times in communist countries.  People starved.  The free market does it best, because the central planners just don't have enough information and never will.

Rofl, free market alone does shit.

Ummm, we have two clear cut cases here,

Free market food production produces a large variety and abundance of food.
Central Planning food leads to lack of food and lack of variety of food and ultimately leads to malnutrition and starvation.

The reasons why are quite obvious if you think about them.  Now try applying that reasoning to other market sectors.

The emphasis is on "alone".
Free market got some good sides, but it needs certain regulations.
Central planning alone is also crap ^^

[myrkul]

OK, so of those three men, which is more likely to have the expertise? The man whose house is burning down, the firefighter, or the man pointing the gun at the firefighter to make him put out the fire?

None of them, there are more then those three men.

No, there are not. There are only those three men in this interaction. The third "man" is the government, however, so is technically more than one man. So, let me rephrase that question: Who is more likely to have the expertise to judge how much suffering will be inflicted by being forced to be put out a fire vs how much suffering will be inflicted by letting that fire burn itself out, The man whose house is burning down, the firefighter, or the government?

[Mike Christ]

Hah, I was trying to make a remark. Because I think some kind of force is okay, while you think every force is wrong.
But enforcing your idea upon me is already a force. -> so the hypocrisy would be at you.
but not really important, just some blathering, ignore this one.

But seriously:
Feel free to build up a night-watch-state like you want somewhere.
I doubt it's gonna work, but it seems like there are a lot of Bitcoiners who do (because well the decantrilzed money is one of your things)
So there should be quite a lot of people who are rich now or gonna be rich and could buy a small state together (at least if Bitcoin is successful).

I did say please, didn't it?  I'm asking you to see it my way; I'm not using force.  If I were using force, I'd be at your house, banging on your door, threatening you to open and accept my ideologies as God-given truth or I'd burn your house down with you inside of it.

I believe this is our disconnect; you're still shaky on what "the use of force" is and is not.  It's the difference between voluntarism (e.g., you coming to this site was voluntary, whatever you decided to have for lunch was voluntary, doing a little jig on your dining room table was probably voluntary), and coercion.  In other words, stateless (voluntary) and state (coercion; force; involuntary.)

P.s., I have no idea what night-watch-state is, but it doesn't sound like something I'd like.

[myrkul]

P.s., I have no idea what night-watch-state is, but it doesn't sound like something I'd like.

Brief aside: The night-watchman state is the Minarchist's ideal state: Limits itself to monopoly on defense and justice.