Why do you all want to take away money from the government? Who will then build

[gabriella]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

[1714825835]

1714825835

[dominicwin]

Last I heard Obama wasn't president of the world. He is president of the socialized states of America duh.

[Blueberry408]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

Damn. Gabby, the people would; but what does your statement have to do with reality?

And since when is there an American difference between People and Government?  It's like you missed the point of civics and debate completely.

[Blueberry408]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

Damn. Gabby, the people would; but what does your statement have to do with reality?

And since when is there an American difference between People and Government?  It's like you missed the point of civics and debate completely.

Also, what's Obamacare?  Congress nationalized ROMNEYCARE.  Bitcoin is almost a national currency somewhere in the world... now deal.

[Come-from-Beyond]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

Here is a solution - http://qubic.boards.net/thread/6/solution-biggest-disadvantage-bitcoin

[Elwar]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

People who want something will have it built.

[fr0sties]

gorv will stop this

[kamant]

Why is it always "omg the roadzzzzz!!!"?

[Blueberry408]

Why is it always "omg the roadzzzzz!!!"?

Maybe potholes on the federal highways will actually get paved with bitcoin.  Who knows.
If one pothole can be filled, it's worth it.

[kamant]

Why is it always "omg the roadzzzzz!!!"?

Maybe potholes on the federal highways will actually get paved with bitcoin.  Who knows.
If one pothole can be filled, it's worth it.

Yeah, the save the roads bunch has never lived in Alaska or driven thru Arkansas!

[Ekaros]

Why is it always "omg the roadzzzzz!!!"?

Maybe potholes on the federal highways will actually get paved with bitcoin.  Who knows.
If one pothole can be filled, it's worth it.

Yeah, the save the roads bunch has never lived in Alaska or driven thru Arkansas!

I just can imagine what state the roads in here Finland would be in couple years...

I don't think we really would be better of without government... Though I'm not saying it doesn't have problems...

[kamant]

Why is it always "omg the roadzzzzz!!!"?

Maybe potholes on the federal highways will actually get paved with bitcoin.  Who knows.
If one pothole can be filled, it's worth it.

Yeah, the save the roads bunch has never lived in Alaska or driven thru Arkansas!

I just can imagine what state the roads in here Finland would be in couple years...

I don't think we really would be better of without government... Though I'm not saying it doesn't have problems...

Ideas so good, they're mandatory!

[DannyM]

[Kiki112]

the goverment is supposed to enforce the will of its people, but this is rarely the case, that's why we tend to avoid taxes instead of paying some punkass congress member a new mercedes
don't get me wrong, I pay my taxes but this is just my opinion..
it would be for the best if we had no politicians and decide about everything via public voting polls

[cdtc]

If they want people can easily organize themselves  to build anything.

[theonewhowaskazu]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

If you want something, you'll have it built.

The concept of government managing money for the people is founded upon the concept that others will be paying more money than you.

If you really want something to be built - i.e, a road - you could easily pay someone to have it built. You could also contribute to a pool of money that will have it built, which is exactly what the government does.

However, you don't do that. You instead vote to impose a law on others that force THEM to do the same thing as well. The entire concept is founded upon your belief that you will be able to take resources from others, to get what YOU want, instead of getting what YOU want yourself.

are you a communist or what?

Most stupid comment of all time. Do you know what communism means? YOU are the one advocating socialism/communism. Seriously its like people these days don't even bother to understand anything and instead just spout random crap.

[dank]

If everyone was doing as they pleased, we would all be working on creating something that we enjoy doing.

[beetcoin]

If everyone was doing as they pleased, we would all be working on creating something that we enjoy doing.

except for the bad guys, who would collude with other bad guys to exploit society.

[dank]

Like how the government exploits the human race and earth for resources?

[hawkeye]

If everyone was doing as they pleased, we would all be working on creating something that we enjoy doing.

except for the bad guys, who would collude with other bad guys to exploit society.

Solution.  Put the bad guys in charge and let them exploit society. 

Oh and pretend they are good.  Give them titles like honourable and such.  That will make them good.

[Nik1ab]

Like how the government exploits the human race and earth for resources?

+1

[Mike Christ]

I could've sworn it was the merchants who built the first roads.

Imagine this: the state went away and nobody worked the roads.  They fell into disrepair; nobody drove on the roads anymore and it really started to hurt businesses; nobody would visit the shops and you couldn't get anything delivered.

Who has the greatest monetary incentive to get the roads in shape?  If Business A gets their roads built faster than competing Business B, they'll have mad profits; there's a rush to get the roads in shape to get a leg up over the competition.  Business C decides to skimp out on the quality and gets their road-builders A to speed the process up.  Road-builders A knows that they will lose business to Road-builders B if they don't keep their standards, but are eager to make a quick buck.  It is later found out that the road to Business C is already crumbling; Business C loses more business than if they'd just made a quality road and pay the price of it, while Businesses A and B flourish with their quality roads, and refuse to do business with Road-builders A due to their previous incompetence; Road-builders A eventually lose business to B, C, and D, and the labor is scooped up into C, as they're in the metro area and have a ton more roads to build; eager for more work, many laborers of Road-builders A accept the offer.  Business flourishes in infrastructure, as every brick & mortar business needs it; the people have their roads and the businesses have their commerce and all is well.

The market works fine, no state required.  Who builds the roads?--the people who gain from the roads being built, that being, all of us.

[Ecurb123]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

it will be the same people who build the roads today, we'll just be able to do it without the violence of the state.

[Inedible]

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

[Elwar]

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

How would YOU structure a private road system?

Do you possess the ability to think outside of the box?

[Blueberry408]

Politicians were pencilled in by the founding fathers to protect ourselves from ourselves.  If we could vote to nuke the buhjeezus out of North Korea once and for all... well it would certainly be a different world all around.

the goverment is supposed to enforce the will of its people, but this is rarely the case, that's why we tend to avoid taxes instead of paying some punkass congress member a new mercedes
don't get me wrong, I pay my taxes but this is just my opinion..
it would be for the best if we had no politicians and decide about everything via public voting polls

[Blueberry408]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

it will be the same people who build the roads today, we'll just be able to do it without the violence of the state.

Caltrans retaining control of filling potholes on 101 == time to switch to air bag suspension.
That'll set me back like two bitcoins.

[mladen00]

Goverments, in every country in this world should take away 50-60 %from the richest peoples, like they do with ours salary and let ''ordinary working people'' alone.

that isnt communism its idealism 

[Lethn]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

BAHAHHAHAHAA!!! Communists would be saying the exact same thing about us, you do realise that people aren't against the idea of having healthcare, streetlights and roads, it's just the idea that you need to steal from people in order to do it is ridiculous. When you guys stop threatening to put me in jail for not paying taxes I'll be happy to fund hospitals for you and I mean that, but as of now it's financial war.

By the way, have a proper research about what communists actually believe instead of doing the American thing of calling anyone who disagrees with you a communist and a liberal.

[Elwar]

Goverments, in every country in this world should take away 50-60 %from the richest peoples, like they do with ours salary and let ''ordinary working people'' alone.

that isnt communism its idealism 

How should they take those people's money?

[Mike Christ]

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

It's not like the roads are made out of gold; suburban roads are often rarely driven on (some do turn into major roads but most of them aren't), and don't need constant maintenance like the road you take to get to work with all the other people in a traffic jam and whatnot.  Fewer houses or not, poor or rich, it's a non-issue.

Road standards don't change depending on who built it; if everyone knows "I drive on the right", they're going to do it regardless of how you feel.  If you attempt to enforce your strange rule by force, you're probably not going to survive long.  Get mad if you want to

All of these things are already handled by individuals; the illusion is that taxation is necessary or these cease to exist.  We know this is false because if we want these things, and we've wanted for far more sillier things than infrastructure and health, then we will pay for businesses to provide it.  We must begin with the assumption that people aren't incredibly stupid and inept, for if they are, we really don't want them in any position of power anyway.

[Wilikon]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

This is another failed trolling attempt by gabriella and her/his Gabriella's bitcoin death chart (dying because of bitcoin thread). This person does not own and does not believe in bitcoin. That is fine.

Who will save us from Obamacare you meant to say?

Gabriella added to my ignore list.

[mladen00]

Goverments, in every country in this world should take away 50-60 %from the richest peoples, like they do with ours salary and let ''ordinary working people'' alone.

that isnt communism its idealism 

How should they take those people's money?

with taxes

one year income  36000$ --------> taxes 5%
one year income  72000$ --------> taxes 10%
one year income  150000$ -------> taxes 25%
one year income  250000$-- -----> taxes 30%
one year income  1000000$ ------> taxes 45%
one year income  +1000000$ -----> taxes 55%

its fair

[Elwar]

Goverments, in every country in this world should take away 50-60 %from the richest peoples, like they do with ours salary and let ''ordinary working people'' alone.

that isnt communism its idealism 

How should they take those people's money?

with taxes

one year income  36000$ --------> taxes 5%
one year income  72000$ --------> taxes 10%
one year income  150000$ -------> taxes 25%
one year income  250000$-- -----> taxes 30%
one year income  1000000$ ------> taxes 45%
one year income  +1000000$ -----> taxes 55%

its fair

You speak of taxes like they are magic.

How do you get that money from people?

[markjamrobin]

Goverments, in every country in this world should take away 50-60 %from the richest peoples, like they do with ours salary and let ''ordinary working people'' alone.

that isnt communism its idealism 

How should they take those people's money?

with taxes

one year income  36000$ --------> taxes 5%
one year income  72000$ --------> taxes 10%
one year income  150000$ -------> taxes 25%
one year income  250000$-- -----> taxes 30%
one year income  1000000$ ------> taxes 45%
one year income  +1000000$ -----> taxes 55%

its fair

You speak of taxes like they are magic.

How do you get that money from people?

So people that work harder lose a greater percent of their income? That is the exact opposite of fair. If we cut all non-essential government spending, and taxed a flat rate, than a government would be much more sustainable.

[cdtc]

Goverments, in every country in this world should take away 50-60 %from the richest peoples, like they do with ours salary and let ''ordinary working people'' alone.

that isnt communism its idealism 

How should they take those people's money?

with taxes

one year income  36000$ --------> taxes 5%
one year income  72000$ --------> taxes 10%
one year income  150000$ -------> taxes 25%
one year income  250000$-- -----> taxes 30%
one year income  1000000$ ------> taxes 45%
one year income  +1000000$ -----> taxes 55%

its fair

That is  not fair, taxes should be the same for everyone.

[Hawker]

Goverments, in every country in this world should take away 50-60 %from the richest peoples, like they do with ours salary and let ''ordinary working people'' alone.

that isnt communism its idealism 

How should they take those people's money?

with taxes

one year income  36000$ --------> taxes 5%
one year income  72000$ --------> taxes 10%
one year income  150000$ -------> taxes 25%
one year income  250000$-- -----> taxes 30%
one year income  1000000$ ------> taxes 45%
one year income  +1000000$ -----> taxes 55%

its fair

That is  not fair, taxes should be the same for everyone.

That would be fair either.  Taxes pay for roads, schools, courts and the like.  The cash benefits of these are concentrated on the owners of capital so it makes sense that they pay more as without the roads, schools, courts and the like, they would be hunting around in the forest wearing loincloths.

[cdtc]

Goverments, in every country in this world should take away 50-60 %from the richest peoples, like they do with ours salary and let ''ordinary working people'' alone.

that isnt communism its idealism 

How should they take those people's money?

with taxes

one year income  36000$ --------> taxes 5%
one year income  72000$ --------> taxes 10%
one year income  150000$ -------> taxes 25%
one year income  250000$-- -----> taxes 30%
one year income  1000000$ ------> taxes 45%
one year income  +1000000$ -----> taxes 55%

its fair

That is  not fair, taxes should be the same for everyone.

That would be fair either.  Taxes pay for roads, schools, courts and the like.  The cash benefits of these are concentrated on the owners of capital so it makes sense that they pay more as without the roads, schools, courts and the like, they would be hunting around in the forest wearing loincloths.

But if the tax is the same for eveeryone and I am making for example +1000000$, I would still pay a lot more tax than someone who is making 36k.

[ajax3592]

are you a communist or what?

I'm not a communist myself. But they are far better than Congress, they support equal money distribution to rich and poor, they believe in power of united society not individual homes.

[markjamrobin]

are you a communist or what?

I'm not a communist myself. But they are far better than Congress, they support equal money distribution to rich and poor, they believe in power of united society not individual homes.

Why is that a good thing? They infringe on personal rights, and steal from people that work hard.

[dank]

Taxation is legalized theft.  No tax is fair.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Taxation is legalized theft.  No tax is fair.

Theft is also theft.  I thought you had stolen enough and were leaving for good?

[Hawker]

Taxation is legalized theft.  No tax is fair.

Theft is also theft.  I thought you had stolen enough and were leaving for good?

You know, that may be the best 1 liner ever! 

/salute

[wachtwoord]

Why do you all want to take away money from the government?

Governments are the most inefficient entities that have ever existed. We can choose a monkey at random and he'll perform better at every function a government "performs".

The (local) optimal way to perform these functions is by letting the free market decide. Note that this is also democratic because the market is everyone (weighted by contribution).

[Hawker]

Why do you all want to take away money from the government?

Governments are the most inefficient entities that have ever existed. We can choose a monkey at random and he'll perform better at every function a government "performs".

The (local) optimal way to perform these functions is by letting the free market decide. Note that this is also democratic because the market is everyone (weighted by contribution).

You do know that the "free market" only exists inside effieient states with concepts like property ownership and contract law well established?  And that modern capitalism only prospers when the state subsidies it with free research, educated workers and good infrastructure?

Even if states were woefully inefficient I would still advocate them as the concept of separation of powers is essential to freedom.  But as it happens, states can be very efficient.

[wachtwoord]

You do know that the "free market" only exists inside effieient states with concepts like property ownership and contract law well established?  

No, I know it never has existed anywhere (with maybe a few small short lived exceptions).

People that claim there's a free market in "the West" are full of shit or ignorant.

[Hawker]

You do know that the "free market" only exists inside effieient states with concepts like property ownership and contract law well established?  

No, I know it never has existed anywhere (with maybe a few small short lived exceptions).

People that claim there's a free market in "the West" are full of shit or ignorant.

A lot depends on definitions.  Just because you have one idea of what "free market" means, I don't call you names.  I may disagree with you - feel free to call me names but that doesn't help the logical weakness of your position one little bit.

[beetcoin]

Why do you all want to take away money from the government?

Governments are the most inefficient entities that have ever existed. We can choose a monkey at random and he'll perform better at every function a government "performs".

The (local) optimal way to perform these functions is by letting the free market decide. Note that this is also democratic because the market is everyone (weighted by contribution).

You do know that the "free market" only exists inside effieient states with concepts like property ownership and contract law well established?  And that modern capitalism only prospers when the state subsidies it with free research, educated workers and good infrastructure?

Even if states were woefully inefficient I would still advocate them as the concept of separation of powers is essential to freedom.  But as it happens, states can be very efficient.

you should know by now, saying something like that would draw the ire of anarchists.. because to them problem is always government as an entity, not the people within it.

[wachtwoord]

You do know that the "free market" only exists inside effieient states with concepts like property ownership and contract law well established?  

No, I know it never has existed anywhere (with maybe a few small short lived exceptions).

People that claim there's a free market in "the West" are full of shit or ignorant.

A lot depends on definitions.  Just because you have one idea of what "free market" means, I don't call you names.  I may disagree with you - feel free to call me names but that doesn't help the logical weakness of your position one little bit.

Come on, how can we possibly disagree on the word "free". Free means uncontrolled, unregulated and unrestricted. Our market isn't any of those.

[Hawker]

..snip...

you should know by now, saying something like that would draw the ire of anarchists.. because to them problem is always government as an entity, not the people within it.

What I keep hoping for is someone rational to tell me I am wrong and offer a decent alternative to a state based on separation of powers.

[Hawker]

You do know that the "free market" only exists inside effieient states with concepts like property ownership and contract law well established?  

No, I know it never has existed anywhere (with maybe a few small short lived exceptions).

People that claim there's a free market in "the West" are full of shit or ignorant.

A lot depends on definitions.  Just because you have one idea of what "free market" means, I don't call you names.  I may disagree with you - feel free to call me names but that doesn't help the logical weakness of your position one little bit.

Come on, how can we possibly disagree on the word "free". Free means uncontrolled, unregulated and unrestricted. Our market isn't any of those.

You and I should not disagree on the meaning of words.  If I go to Google and type "define: free market" and I get:
"free market
noun
noun: free market; plural noun: free markets; modifier noun: free-market

    1.
    an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses."

Your argument is probably that the law of property title and the law of contract are restrictions so there is no free market in any country.  I argue that those laws create new classes of property that can't exist in a barter based society and so they are a good thing.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Come on guys.  The world is never black and white.  Even in centrally planned economies there were some elements of free markets.

The concept is freeer. A perfectly controlled or free market has never existed.  However the freeer the market the more effective it is.

[Hawker]

...snip...

How about trade laws (for example concerning insider trading)?

How about the US government buying up quite some big companies to save them?

How about my government stealing a bank (SNS) from shareholders and junior bond holders?

And they commit these crimes with my tax money.

Trade laws relate to classes of property that are created by trade laws.  As such, I can't see the problem.

The people elect a government to run the system that its trade laws have created.  While you may agree or disagree with decisions on specific companies, since the whole damn thing is a creation of the trade law, that the problem?

I have no idea what a SNS is.  What it sounds like is some kind of entity that the trade law created and as such, it it liable to the ups and downs of trade law administration.

If a crime has been committed with your tax money, tell the police.

[Hawker]

Come on guys.  The world is never black and white.  Even in centrally planned economies there were some elements of free markets.

The concept is freeer. A perfectly controlled or free market has never existed.  However the free[er] the market the more effective it is.

Exactly. 

[Hawker]

Come on guys.  The world is never black and white.  Even in centrally planned economies there were some elements of free markets.

The concept is freeer. A perfectly controlled or free market has never existed.  However the free[er] the market the more effective it is.

Exactly. That's why it's so frustrating that nation states keep us at this pathetic level of freedom. I truly hope Bitcoin will be their undoing.

I have no idea what a SNS is.  What it sounds like is some kind of entity that the trade law created and as such, it it liable to the ups and downs of trade law administration.

If a crime has been committed with your tax money, tell the police.

1. SNS Bank

2. My country does not consider it a crime and they will not arrest Dijsselbloem if I ask them to. It's also not a crime against myself (he/they did not steal from me).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeroen_Dijsselbloem

"On 1 February 2013, he nationalized the financial institution SNS Reaal, preventing its bankruptcy.[8] "

Really, you need to take a step back and look at the big picture here.  If you play games in someone's garden, you can't cry if they kick you out when they are fed up of the sight of you.

Likewise, banks are legal creations.  Part of the terms of their creation is that if they upset the authorities in any way, they get closed down and their management gets prosecuted.  That's the deal.  If you invest in a bank, you know all of this before you invest.  In this case, which I know nothing about, the bank got closed down.  I dont' care what they did to upset the government - all that matters is that the government was upset and it exercised its right to close the bank.

No crime.  Not even a wrong doing.  

[Mike Christ]

If a crime has been committed with your tax money, tell the police.

Okay pal, enough with the jokes.

[dank]

Taxation is legalized theft.  No tax is fair.

Theft is also theft.  I thought you had stolen enough and were leaving for good?

If you got a loan from the bank, bought a house, lost you job, defaulted on the loan, you would consider this stealing?

To me, stealing is when someone takes something with no intentions to return it.  Unless you are me you are simply assuming that I stole something with no intentions of paying it back.  And to assume is to make an ass out of u and me.

If my intentions were truly to steal the deposit, why would I pay off 22 BTC of it and continue to pay it off as I am doing now?

Think about it.

..snip...

you should know by now, saying something like that would draw the ire of anarchists.. because to them problem is always government as an entity, not the people within it.

What I keep hoping for is someone rational to tell me I am wrong and offer a decent alternative to a state based on separation of powers.

Wala, anarchy.

[Hawker]

No crime.  Not even a wrong doing.  

Not to pick on you particularly, but to me, you represent what is wrong with this world.

I think Dijsselbloem deserves to be locked up. Hands off if it isn't yours. (Especially the bond holders, they lend money to the bank, they took no equity risk!).

But you are wrong.  It is "his."  That's the law for setting up a bank.  If you upset the government, you get closed down.  If you don't like that, never lend money to a bank.

I am struggling to make sense of your thing about bond-holders.  If the debtor has failed, its bond holders lose money.  That's the way bankruptcy works.  What exactly do you think should happen? Should the taxpayers be asked to rescue the bond holders of every failed business?  

[MrHempstock]

Airline style.

Everyone pays for everything they use, and nothing they don't. Plenty of money left over.

Every road is a toll road.
Every bridge is a toll bridge.
Security and protection cost $ (cops don't really protect anymore, they investigate) and those who need it will be able to afford it
The military is in serious need of democratization.

Just research how much of your dollar goes to tax in the end. Not just obvious direct taxes, but indirect taxes. (Costs passed down to you)

[Hawker]

No crime.  Not even a wrong doing.  

Not to pick on you particularly, but to me, you represent what is wrong with this world.

I think Dijsselbloem deserves to be locked up. Hands off if it isn't yours. (Especially the bond holders, they lend money to the bank, they took no equity risk!).

But you are wrong.  It is "his."  That's the law for setting up a bank.  If you upset the government, you get closed down.  If you don't like that, never lend money to a bank.

I am struggling to make sense of your thing about bond-holders.  If the debtor has failed, its bond holders lose money.  That's the way bankruptcy works.  What exactly do you think should happen? Should the taxpayers be asked to rescue the bond holders of every failed business?  

The bank was not bankrupt. It's Dijsselbloem's (unproven) claim they would soon be bankrupt. He's just FOS.

And then the rules for setting up a bank are wrong. And who made those rules again? Yup, the damn government.

I never said the bank was bankrupt.  I said that the laws for setting up a bank are simple.  If you upset the government, you get closed down.  That bank upset the government and it got closed down.

If you disagree with those rules, then for crying out loud what are you doing investing in bank bonds?

[MrHempstock]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson, To William S. Smith Paris, Nov. 13, 1787

[Hawker]

I never said the bank was bankrupt.  I said that the laws for setting up a bank are simple.  If you upset the government, you get closed down.  That bank upset the government and it got closed down.

If you disagree with those rules, then for crying out loud what are you doing investing in bank bonds?

You still don't understand the point. Those rules are fucked up. Those rules limit everyone's freedom and therefore limit the prosperity in the entire world. You should be able to invest in everything you want but it's the government that fucks up.

Let met repeat this one final time: Each and every rule made up by a government needs to go. Governments cannot do anything right. Ever.

Again take a step back and think about what you are saying.

Banks are government creations.  No bank can exist without a government backing it.  If governments cannot do anything right, ever, then you have no business investing in a bank.  

[Hawker]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson, To William S. Smith Paris, Nov. 13, 1787

Seriously, you quote a raping slave owner on the subject of freedom?  A man who sold his own children and broke up their families?  That's your idea of logic?

[MrHempstock]

People celebrate Columbus Day every year, and he was a child sex slave trader and made natives wear their own hands around their necks for not meeting his gold quota, so yes. I'm quoting Jefferson because of the pivotal role he played in the setting up of my country and it's government. And also the fact that it fits the current conversation.
Who do you quote? Jesus? Please do.

[Hawker]

People celebrate Columbus Day every year, and he was a child sex slave trader and made natives wear their own hands around their necks for not meeting his gold quota, so yes. I'm quoting Jefferson because of the pivotal role he played in the setting up of my country and it's government. And also the fact that it fits the current conversation.
Who do you quote? Jesus? Please do.

If you want to quote Jefferson, say something that he said that is intelligent and relevent.  Wittering on about using blood to water trees is plain unscientific.

[dank]

Wittering on about using blood to water trees is plain unscientific.

Is that really what you got out of that quote?

[Hawker]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson, To William S. Smith Paris, Nov. 13, 1787

Seriously, you quote a raping slave owner on the subject of freedom?  A man who sold his own children and broke up their families?  That's your idea of logic?

Ad hominem.

Since the posting is only a quote with an argument to authority, ad hominem arguments are valid.

[MrHempstock]

People who aren't looking for something to argue about see that the point of quoting said quote is simply to point out that one of the people responsible for our country's government didn't give it more than 20 years before that same government (that he helped set up) would have to be put in check by its own people.

Or do you read racism, bigotry and masochism? Character studies and the merits of an individual are where ad hominem arguments don't look stupid.

[Hawker]

People who aren't looking for something to argue about see that the point of quoting said quote is simply to point out that one of the people responsible for our country's government didn't give it more than 20 years before that same government (that he helped set up) would have to be put in check by its own people.

Or do you read racism, bigotry and masochism? Character studies and the merits of an individual are where ad hominem arguments don't look stupid.

Did you read it yourself?  Unless you can show that Jefferson led a rebellion by 1807, then he didn't believe it himself.  So why are you quoting it to someone who doesnt live in your particular swamp and who regards Jefferson in much the same way he regards any other racist thug?

[MrHempstock]

Lol, so now one has to accomplish something to believe it.

I'll keep that in mind when attempting to direct information your way in the future.  

[Hawker]

Lol, so now one has to accomplish something to believe it.

I'll keep that in mind when attempting to direct information your way in the future. 

Yes.  If you want to quote someone who believed in liberty, there are 1000 better examples than Jefferson. 

Here's one from my country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Emmet

[MrHempstock]

Lol, so now one has to accomplish something to believe it.

I'll keep that in mind when attempting to direct information your way in the future. 

Yes. 

No.

It was unveiled sarcasm.
And if it were a contest for the best Champion of Liberty, then, yes. There are much better examples. Not many of which helped write my country's constitution, but we seem to be all over the place with this convo so it's really moot.

[Hawker]

Lol, so now one has to accomplish something to believe it.

I'll keep that in mind when attempting to direct information your way in the future. 

Yes. 

No.

It was unveiled sarcasm.
And if it were a contest for the best Champion of Liberty, then, yes. There are much better examples. Not many of which helped write my country's constitution, but we seem to be all over the place with this convo so it's really moot.

Have you read the subject of the thread?  Its not the US constitution - its how to fund roads without taxes.

On a personal note, Jefferson and Ghandi are among my pet hates as "good guys" of history who really were tossers even to those who were alive at the same time as them.  I'm sorry if my reaction to your quote was over the top.  Of course I know that Jefferson had great ideas and that its infantile to judge him by today's morals. 

[MrHempstock]

No worries, I'm the exact same way with Thomas Edison. That dirty rat.
And also JP Morgan (the man) and Ronald Regan.

I hope to see an overhaul of my gov during my lifetime. It saddens me deeply to know, based on empirical historical data, that a true overhaul only comes at the cost of bloodshed.


The topic was why do we want to take $ away from the gov, then, secondly, who would then build our roads. Well, here in the USA, it would be the same private contractors that build them now. Tolls would be a lot higher, but without 80% of every dollar I make going directly and indirectly to taxes, if I wasn't losing that the higher toll (for every public service I utilized) would be much easier to manage.


I see your point, and I agree that as a person TJ was in most human aspects a fine upstanding example of utter douchebaggery.

[Hawker]

No worries, I'm the exact same way with Thomas Edison. That dirty rat.
...snip...

Yes - he totally got alternating current from Westinghouse!!  Adding Edison to my shit list

[MrHempstock]

This will be my last OT post, but if you dig the Edison hate and haven't already read the Oatmeal's awesome take on Tesla, here is a link:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

Learned more about the man in 15 minutes from TheOatmeal than in 16 years of school.

[Hawker]

This will be my last OT post, but if you dig the Edison hate and haven't already read the Oatmeal's awesome take on Tesla, here is a link:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

Learned more about the man in 15 minutes from TheOatmeal than in 16 years of school.

/bow

[dank]

I hope to see an overhaul of my gov during my lifetime. It saddens me deeply to know, based on empirical historical data, that a true overhaul only comes at the cost of bloodshed.

This is not true.  All it takes is unity.  For everyone to give up money, together.  A simple choice, no blood.

[wachtwoord]

I hope to see an overhaul of my gov during my lifetime. It saddens me deeply to know, based on empirical historical data, that a true overhaul only comes at the cost of bloodshed.

Bitcoin might be a non-violent way because it will slowly erode the powerbase of governments avoiding a direct confrontation. One can only hope.

[Mike Christ]

This will be my last OT post, but if you dig the Edison hate and haven't already read the Oatmeal's awesome take on Tesla, here is a link:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

Learned more about the man in 15 minutes from TheOatmeal than in 16 years of school.

Thanks for sharing this; very informative.

[beetcoin]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

[TheButterZone]

tl/dr; People are assholes, and will either pay "the cost of admission" to government (not their victims) for being such, if they're "caught", or most likely never get "caught", and not suffer at all, because screaming at said assholes and making them feel bad is generally a misdemeanor (ie CA PC 419), worse than an infraction.

[dank]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

Government is the tank that may legally break into your home, rob you, and even kill you.

If there was no tank, your neighbors wouldn't fear to step in if someone is violating your natural rights.

[beetcoin]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

Government is the tank that may legally break into your home, rob you, and even kill you.

If there was no tank, your neighbors wouldn't fear to step in if someone is violating your natural rights.

huh? my point is that the tank is the vessel, and it's a variable.. you can replace a tank with any other weapon, like say a gun. but the constant in all this corruption we have in society is.. PEOPLE. the one pointing the gun, not the gun itself. that's where i differ fundamentally with anarchists.

[TheButterZone]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

[wachtwoord]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

This. Even using the excuse "I was just following orders" pisses me off so much. No YOU shot those people. YOU are a murderer! I don't care what your commander told you to do! (unless it's an mandatory draft in a war situation, then I might be able to make an excuse because refusing to fulfill and order then will get you killed for mutiny).

[Hawker]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

This. Even using the excuse "I was just following orders" pisses me off so much. No YOU shot those people. YOU are a murderer! I don't care what your commander told you to do! (unless it's an mandatory draft in a war situation, then I might be able to make an excuse because refusing to fulfill and order then will get you killed for mutiny).

Mandatory draft is not an defence against a charge of crimes against humanity. 

[wachtwoord]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

This. Even using the excuse "I was just following orders" pisses me off so much. No YOU shot those people. YOU are a murderer! I don't care what your commander told you to do! (unless it's an mandatory draft in a war situation, then I might be able to make an excuse because refusing to fulfill and order then will get you killed for mutiny).

Mandatory draft is not an defence against a charge of crimes against humanity. 

I said might because if someone (effectively) puts a gun to your head and commands you to shoot someone else or die yourself the situation isn't really clear-cut, nor your own fault. I'd probably comply but look for the first opportunity to kill the person who forced me into committing that crime.

In all other situations I agree. People are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable. That's not how the world works however (look at the Manning vids, no-one was convicted for the serious crimes we all witnessed).

[Kiki112]

well, people could organize meetings where they would gather money to build stuff
there would be a hell lot less of bribe and shizzle

[dank]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

This. Even using the excuse "I was just following orders" pisses me off so much. No YOU shot those people. YOU are a murderer! I don't care what your commander told you to do! (unless it's an mandatory draft in a war situation, then I might be able to make an excuse because refusing to fulfill and order then will get you killed for mutiny).

Mandatory draft is not an defence against a charge of crimes against humanity. 

I said might because if someone (effectively) puts a gun to your head and commands you to shoot someone else or die yourself the situation isn't really clear-cut, nor your own fault. I'd probably comply but look for the first opportunity to kill the person who forced me into committing that crime.

In all other situations I agree. People are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable. That's not how the world works however (look at the Manning vids, no-one was convicted for the serious crimes we all witnessed).

I'd just die imo, eternal peace sounds a lot nicer than killing someone.

beetcoin, nearly every case of violence is caused by greed and desire, if we were to remove money from the equation, along with infinite energy for everyone, there would be no reason to hurt someone, you'd just be outcasted by your peers or hurt back, and sad.

In the future we will not seek resources, but energy.  People will care about gaining happiness.

[Rassah]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

One variable that is missing here in incentives. Build the incentives so that the first to break the rules wins, and you'll have the same situation as with that lady with her car. Build the incentives so that the first person to break the rules loses (like with Bitcoin protocol, or with negative costs added to breaking rules in real life), and people will behave. The trick is to figure out how to construct those incentives in an anarchy society.

[Mike Christ]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

Everyone had their own car, and this one person made a decision that only effected herself (and of course, the people she could've put in danger.)  In the way government is setup now, only a handful of people have cars, which everyone else must drive in.  If your political leader (i.e. driver) decides to do something dangerous like skip their turn for a small gain, all the other passengers in other vehicles say, "Those fucking (your nation here) almost got us killed!  I hate these guys!"  You didn't have anything to do with it, but you're still to blame.

Anarchists don't have a problem with cars, they have a problem with who gets to drive, and for whom those people drive for.  The anarchist wants to equip everyone with a car just for themselves, and the people they take care of i.e. family and such who cannot yet drive.  They don't blame cars; they blame the people who use violence to prevent everyone else from having one.

[elektibi75]

Last I heard Obama wasn't president of the world. He is president of the socialized states of America duh.

You heard right 

[beetcoin]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

Everyone had their own car, and this one person made a decision that only effected herself (and of course, the people she could've put in danger.)  In the way government is setup now, only a handful of people have cars, which everyone else must drive in.  If your political leader (i.e. driver) decides to do something dangerous like skip their turn for a small gain, all the other passengers in other vehicles say, "Those fucking (your nation here) almost got us killed!  I hate these guys!"  You didn't have anything to do with it, but you're still to blame.

Anarchists don't have a problem with cars, they have a problem with who gets to drive, and for whom those people drive for.  The anarchist wants to equip everyone with a car just for themselves, and the people they take care of i.e. family and such who cannot yet drive.  They don't blame cars; they blame the people who use violence to prevent everyone else from having one.

no, it affected the other people who were waiting in line. she went ahead of them, so they honked.

and i disagree with you.. anarchists have a problem with the cars. they don't want government involvement, and in my example, government is metaphorically the vehicle that is used for the cheating.

[Mike Christ]

no, it affected the other people who were waiting in line. she went ahead of them, so they honked.

and i disagree with you.. anarchists have a problem with the cars. they don't want government involvement, and in my example, government is metaphorically the vehicle that is used for the cheating.

Which anarchists have you asked?  I don't agree with their view.

[beetcoin]

no, it affected the other people who were waiting in line. she went ahead of them, so they honked.

and i disagree with you.. anarchists have a problem with the cars. they don't want government involvement, and in my example, government is metaphorically the vehicle that is used for the cheating.

Which anarchists have you asked?  I don't agree with their view.

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

[Mike Christ]

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

Yes; anarchism leaves out too many factors to consider, so usually when anarchism is spoken of, it's in a bubble that seems disconnected with all of reality.  This is why I push for rationalism, opposed to anarchism; if a person is rational enough to successfully seek the truth, and if I've been successful in my own pursuits, we should always arrive to the same, or at least very similar, conclusions.  Once it's understood that anarchism can only remain among a rational society, many of the unknowns become irrelevant; you just can't pull the wool over the rational's eyes.

Anyhow I agree with a very simple philosophy: all societal interactions should be voluntary, i.e. voluntaryism.  This happens to include anarchism since the state is involuntary, and rationalism so people are highly resistant to ulterior influence; after all, why pay someone to do what you can easily do for yourself?

[beetcoin]

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

Yes; anarchism leaves out too many factors to consider, so usually when anarchism is spoken of, it's in a bubble that seems disconnected with all of reality.  This is why I push for rationalism, opposed to anarchism; if a person is rational enough to successfully seek the truth, and if I've been successful in my own pursuits, we should always arrive to the same, or at least very similar, conclusions.  Once it's understood that anarchism can only remain among a rational society, many of the unknowns become irrelevant; you just can't pull the wool over the rational's eyes.

Anyhow I agree with a very simple philosophy: all societal interactions should be voluntary, i.e. voluntaryism.  This happens to include anarchism since the state is involuntary, and rationalism so people are highly resistant to ulterior influence; after all, why pay someone to do what you can easily do for yourself?

i'm not for or against voluntaryism.. but someone told me about it a few weeks ago. if people stuck to their own groups, wouldn't that cause extremism? it's what we are seeing with the american political system.. 90% of republicans are whities. they feel like the non-whities are starting to outnumber them, so they turn more and more "white."

[Mike Christ]

i'm not for or against voluntaryism.. but someone told me about it a few weeks ago. if people stuck to their own groups, wouldn't that cause extremism? it's what we are seeing with the american political system.. 90% of republicans are whities. they feel like the non-whities are starting to outnumber them, so they turn more and more "white."

Doesn't matter to me, so long as they're not committing involuntary acts, i.e. theft, rape, murder, violence, etc.  Once they decide they want to become involuntarists (possibly due to "sticking to their own groups"), then they're no longer voluntaryists and I see them as villains.  I suppose you could say it's a form of extremism to stick to the group which upholds morality, but only in the context of the majority being immoral or hypocritical about their morality.

[Inedible]

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

How would YOU structure a private road system?

Do you possess the ability to think outside of the box?

I don't think it would work and thus I have no solution other than some form of tax.

I can think out of the box but that doesn't help in a society that won't accept any unusual solutions.

[Inedible]

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

It's not like the roads are made out of gold; suburban roads are often rarely driven on (some do turn into major roads but most of them aren't), and don't need constant maintenance like the road you take to get to work with all the other people in a traffic jam and whatnot.  Fewer houses or not, poor or rich, it's a non-issue.

Road standards don't change depending on who built it; if everyone knows "I drive on the right", they're going to do it regardless of how you feel.  If you attempt to enforce your strange rule by force, you're probably not going to survive long.  Get mad if you want to

All of these things are already handled by individuals; the illusion is that taxation is necessary or these cease to exist.  We know this is false because if we want these things, and we've wanted for far more sillier things than infrastructure and health, then we will pay for businesses to provide it.  We must begin with the assumption that people aren't incredibly stupid and inept, for if they are, we really don't want them in any position of power anyway.

I think you're falling into the trap of believing everyone would be as generous (or even as well off) as you. The problem with people, is they're lazy and greedy. If some people feel they can wiggle out of paying for a road, they'll do that, even if they use it the most.

You probably feel that everyone will be fair about it. They won't.

[Inedible]

Taxation is legalized theft.  No tax is fair.

Theft is also theft.  I thought you had stolen enough and were leaving for good?

I guess it's only unfair if the government does it.

[Inedible]

Why do you all want to take away money from the government?

Governments are the most inefficient entities that have ever existed. We can choose a monkey at random and he'll perform better at every function a government "performs".

The (local) optimal way to perform these functions is by letting the free market decide. Note that this is also democratic because the market is everyone (weighted by contribution).

Government isn't about efficiency. It's about doing things that people ordinarily won't.

People can barely organise to get a stairwell kept clean between 6 properties. Don't tell me that thousands of people would be fair about getting roads maintained.

[Inedible]

Wala, anarchy.

Do you mean voilà?

[Inedible]

Airline style.

Everyone pays for everything they use, and nothing they don't. Plenty of money left over.

Every road is a toll road.
Every bridge is a toll bridge.
Security and protection cost $ (cops don't really protect anymore, they investigate) and those who need it will be able to afford it
The military is in serious need of democratization.

Just research how much of your dollar goes to tax in the end. Not just obvious direct taxes, but indirect taxes. (Costs passed down to you)

Does this exclude the poor from travelling? If a poor person ends up being killed, do we just ignore it?

[Inedible]

No worries, I'm the exact same way with Thomas Edison. That dirty rat.
And also JP Morgan (the man) and Ronald Regan.

I hope to see an overhaul of my gov during my lifetime. It saddens me deeply to know, based on empirical historical data, that a true overhaul only comes at the cost of bloodshed.


The topic was why do we want to take $ away from the gov, then, secondly, who would then build our roads. Well, here in the USA, it would be the same private contractors that build them now. Tolls would be a lot higher, but without 80% of every dollar I make going directly and indirectly to taxes, if I wasn't losing that the higher toll (for every public service I utilized) would be much easier to manage.


I see your point, and I agree that as a person TJ was in most human aspects a fine upstanding example of utter douchebaggery.

I don't think anyone cares who builds the road, more who pays for it.

Tolls discourage usage too and that'll have a negative impact on the economy.

[hashman]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

Last time I checked the federal reserve doesn't build roads. 

[Rassah]

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

The main effect of anarchy is that is converts political problems into financial problems. To keep the problems we have not going, you need political power to fund it through taxation, and enforce it through rule of law. For these same problems to continue under anarchy, you still need to fund them, though your only option is to do something to make people willingly part with their money (offer competitive products and services), and your only option to enforce it is through force, which you would have to pay for and maintain yourself. Forcing people to give you money is difficult, and paying for force is expensive. Often much more expensive than th simply trade with people. Historically, trade has always been more profitable and effective than war.

[Ecurb123]

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

Yes; anarchism leaves out too many factors to consider, so usually when anarchism is spoken of, it's in a bubble that seems disconnected with all of reality.  This is why I push for rationalism, opposed to anarchism; if a person is rational enough to successfully seek the truth, and if I've been successful in my own pursuits, we should always arrive to the same, or at least very similar, conclusions.  Once it's understood that anarchism can only remain among a rational society, many of the unknowns become irrelevant; you just can't pull the wool over the rational's eyes.

Anyhow I agree with a very simple philosophy: all societal interactions should be voluntary, i.e. voluntaryism.  This happens to include anarchism since the state is involuntary, and rationalism so people are highly resistant to ulterior influence; after all, why pay someone to do what you can easily do for yourself?

i'm not for or against voluntaryism.. but someone told me about it a few weeks ago. if people stuck to their own groups, wouldn't that cause extremism? it's what we are seeing with the american political system.. 90% of republicans are whities. they feel like the non-whities are starting to outnumber them, so they turn more and more "white."

also to point out, in my experience the voluntarists I've met are really the most open people to diversity I've ever seen.   

[Ecurb123]

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

How would YOU structure a private road system?

Do you possess the ability to think outside of the box?

I don't think it would work and thus I have no solution other than some form of tax.

I can think out of the box but that doesn't help in a society that won't accept any unusual solutions.

There was once a time when people said that we could not be economically viable without slavery, somehow we managed. Just because you or I don't know the solution, isn't a good reason to attack people.   

[Mike Christ]

I think you're falling into the trap of believing everyone would be as generous (or even as well off) as you. The problem with people, is they're lazy and greedy. If some people feel they can wiggle out of paying for a road, they'll do that, even if they use it the most.

You probably feel that everyone will be fair about it. They won't.

They're lazy and greedy if they can get away with it; if your road falls into disrepair and you don't want to pay for it to be fixed, and everyone felt that way, then the roads would look like shit and that's okay since the people driving on them don't care enough to pay for it.

I don't believe everyone is lazy or greedy; if there's anything I know about people, it's that they're very, very exhausted from work, and have very little money to work with, but perhaps I see this more often since my family has many Hispanics.  Remember that without these fees for government overhead, you become far richer; the amount of greedy people plummet, since they have no more cause for greed; they already have the things they want and need.

[hawkeye]

I think in regards to roads, people fall into the trap of thinking there is one way of paying for them, one way of doing them since government has been doing them for so long.

Surely, if all roads are private then all roads will be toll roads?  Right?

Not really.  Thinking about the shopping centre car park for example.  Do they charge people to park their cars there?  No.  Why not?  Because the amount of money spent in the upkeep of the car park is more than compensated for by the profits that the centre makes.  This will be true of many businesses.  They will be eager to maintain the roads in their vicinity as a way for customers to get to them.

Then you have residential roads which could be easily maintained by a small annual fee by all the people who live on the road.

For larger roads ,the potential for advertising money is enormous.  Think of all that traffic throughput that will be seeing those advertisements.  The price of the upkeep of the road will be significantly less than what you could obtain from companies wanting to get their names and products in front of consumers.

These are just things I can think of off the top of my head.  I'm sure there are many more free market ideas out there. 

[BitsPoker]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

I thought the government was the people. 

[Mike Christ]

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

I thought the government was the people. 

It is; she's referring to the difference between representatives and the lack thereof.

[Elwar]

Why do you all want to take away money from the government?

heh

ya guys, why do you want to take away all of government's money?

bunch of thieves stealing from the poor defenseless government

[Inedible]

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

How would YOU structure a private road system?

Do you possess the ability to think outside of the box?

I don't think it would work and thus I have no solution other than some form of tax.

I can think out of the box but that doesn't help in a society that won't accept any unusual solutions.

There was once a time when people said that we could not be economically viable without slavery, somehow we managed. Just because you or I don't know the solution, isn't a good reason to attack people.   

What do you mean 'attacking people'?