No Taxation...Donation!

[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.

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?

That depends on how the government is structured, because I think important decisions should be handled by people with expertise (-> scientists or people who have worked s long time in that business)
So in this case that would be a part of the government for the overall laws and the firemen for the decisions that needs to be made on the spot (but he has to be able to argue why, like "this would be too dangerous")

[1714927023]

1714927023

[Mike Christ]

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.

Ahh gotcha, thanks  Doesn't sound preferable, to be honest.  It would be like a monotheistic religion cutting back to only having a little bit of God.  At some point in time, that little bit of God will become a whole lot of God, and then it's back to square one.

[Birdy]

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.

Ahh gotcha, thanks  Doesn't sound preferable, to be honest.  It would be like a monotheistic religion cutting back to only having a little bit of God.  At some point in time, that little bit of God will become a whole lot of God, and then it's back to square one.

Guess I have confused you with someone else, my bad.
The discussion is tiring me out atm. I think I will take a break.

[hawkeye]

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

And who decides the regulations?

If I want to buy something, and someone wants to sell me something, why does someone else have the right to get in between that transaction?

The reality is that regulations are a hindrance on the market.   One of the reasons why they are so favoured is because big business likes to use them to push their smaller competitors, who can't afford the cost of compliance (lawyers, etc), out of the market.

[Mike Christ]

Guess I have confused you with someone else, my bad.
The discussion is tiring me out atm. I think I will take a break.

That's okay man, and I know how you feel.  These debates can wear you out he he

[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?

That depends on how the government is structured, because I think important decisions should be handled by people with expertise (-> scientists or people who have worked a long time in that business)

Like, in this case, the fireman. He would have the expertise to judge how much suffering would be inflicted upon him by putting out the fire. Perhaps that is why he set his fees the way he did, do you think? That the fees would compensate him for that suffering? And to force him to put out a fire against his will - and without paying the fees - would be to add suffering to that, wouldn't it? Would it not be just as fair to point the gun at the homeowner, and make him pay?

[Traktion]

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.

I don't want to force my idea on anyone - I want to be inert in regards to you and your situation. Please just do me the dignity of granting me the same.

[Elwar]

I would like to see our community develop tools whereby individuals could voluntarily fund projects that have been traditionally thought of as being under the purview of the state.

Coming soon.

[xcsler]

I would like to see our community develop tools whereby individuals could voluntarily fund projects that have been traditionally thought of as being under the purview of the state.

Coming soon.

I look forward to this.
Our community  should demonstrate that it is capable of helping others in a completely voluntary way.
This goodwill will make it that much more difficult for those who feel threatened to demonize us.

[Mike Christ]

I would like to see our community develop tools whereby individuals could voluntarily fund projects that have been traditionally thought of as being under the purview of the state.

Coming soon.

We have the technology.

Let's say Joe, Bill, and Sarah decide they want Road X to be repaired.  They go to a website (something similar to kickstarter) in which they post the job they want done, and set down a little bit of cash to entice prospective contractors.  More people who drive on Road X notice it needs repair and see the listing, and "back" the project to get the job done.  Meanwhile, more businesses have noticed people are chipping in to get Road X repaired, and are auctioning with each other to get the job (example: company X will do the job for $500, then company Y says they'll do it for $450, on and on until nobody wants to bid lower.)  Once enough "backers" pitch in the amount of money that the lowest bidding company agreed to do the job for, the project is funded and Road X gets repaired by the winning company, paid by the people who wanted the road to be fixed.

So it's like a two-way kickstarter; citizens add money to a pool, and businesses fight over who gets the work.  This can be applied to any non-emergency service government provides.

Emergency services is where it gets even more creative; here's one method to handle security.

[Elwar]

I would like to see our community develop tools whereby individuals could voluntarily fund projects that have been traditionally thought of as being under the purview of the state.

Coming soon.

I look forward to this.

Expect an announcement in the next few weeks.


Something to whet the appetite.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf

[myrkul]

Something to whet the appetite.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf

Oh, that's.... That's just genius.

[Walter Rothbard]

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

You realize that taxation involves forcing people to support the ideals of others, right?  You respecting my freedom (not taxing me, not imposing regulations upon me, etc.) is not me "forcing" an idea on you in any way, shape, or form.

[Walter Rothbard]

Because roads are the glue that bind our culture together.

Can I please get a divorce?

[tuliplover]

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.

A lot of people are dying because there isn't enough organ donors. By killing you and distributing your organs, we could
save a lot of lives. The math is pretty simple in this case. Would you support this idea? Or are you an exemption to
your own rules?

[Ekaros]

Because roads are the glue that bind our culture together.

Can I please get a divorce?

You just need a few WMDs, holes and job is done...

[Walter Rothbard]

Because roads are the glue that bind our culture together.

Can I please get a divorce?

You just need a few WMDs, holes and job is done...

Yuck, wouldn't want to have to kill innocent people to do it!

[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.

A lot of people are dying because there isn't enough organ donors. By killing you and distributing your organs, we could
save a lot of lives. The math is pretty simple in this case. Would you support this idea? Or are you an exemption to
your own rules?

I give you that you have created an example that's difficult to answer, but
a) there are ways to solve this problem without killing someone (thus creating less suffering)
b) organ donations are very risky and it's far from safe you've rescued the other one
c) choosing the one "who should die" would be a hell of a task and I cant see anyone having the "expertise" to decide

Let's rephrase a scenario that's more sure, it's also a well-known one:
A plane with 100 people on board is hijacked by a terrorist, no way for the passengers to do something about it.
It's heading directly to a big nuclear plant or sky scraper, when it does there will be 1 million victims.
You have the option to shoot the plane or not to.
I would agree on shooting the plane, even when I'm on the plane (at least if I manage not to panic).
(I know a lot of people are gonna disagree with me on this one)

[myrkul]

Well, Birdy?

Like, in this case, the fireman. He would have the expertise to judge how much suffering would be inflicted upon him by putting out the fire. Perhaps that is why he set his fees the way he did, do you think? That the fees would compensate him for that suffering? And to force him to put out a fire against his will - and without paying the fees - would be to add suffering to that, wouldn't it? Would it not be just as fair to point the gun at the homeowner, and make him pay?

[hawkeye]

I give you that you have created an example that's difficult to answer, but
a) there are ways to solve this problem without killing someone (thus creating less suffering)
b) organ donations are very risky and it's far from safe you've rescued the other one
c) choosing the one "who should die" would be a hell of a task and I cant see anyone having the "expertise" to decide

Let's rephrase a scenario that's more sure, it's also a well-known one:
A plane with 100 people on board is hijacked by a terrorist, no way for the passengers to do something about it.
It's heading directly to a big nuclear plant or sky scraper, when it does there will be 1 million victims.
You have the option to shoot the plane or not to.
I would agree on shooting the plane, even when I'm on the plane (at least if I manage not to panic).
(I know a lot of people are gonna disagree with me on this one)

That ones easy.  Don't go meddling in other people's countries.  Leave them alone and they will most likely leave you alone.

In fact, you can extend that to what we've been saying.  Leave us alone to do our thing and we'll leave you.  Interfere in our lives and expect us not to complain about it?