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

[dank]

Taxation is legalized theft.  No tax is fair.

[1714034362]

1714034362

[1714034362]

1714034362

[1714034362]

1714034362

[1714034362]

1714034362

[1714034362]

1714034362

[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?