George ought to help.... (should we use violence on him if he chooses not to?)

[Hawker]

...snip...

I guess what I am saying is that interpersonal interactions are most fundamental. Person-society, society-person, society-society interactions are an abstraction of person-person.

...snip...

There is no person-person equivalent of taxing a granny who lives in the mountains to pay for the coast guard.  Person-person generally is voluntary and transaction based.

Here is where I think you are going off track. Generally, you could say person-person interaction is voluntary, sure. There are also times when one person forces the other to do something. Like if the coast guard sent a guy with a gun to the granny in the mountain and told her to pay up or else.

States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

I agree, this is why the activities of the state are not modeled very well by voluntary transactions between two people.

So we are in agreement.  And that's why the video about George fails.  It tries to apply the logic of 2 people in a transaction to taxation and of course it doesn't work.

[bb113]

I'm not sure why you call that a failure when I see it as the point. I will watch the video again later on. Can you explain what you think is the source of a state's legitimacy?

[Hawker]

I'm not sure why you call that a failure when I see it as the point. I will watch the video again later on. Can you explain what you think is the source of a state's legitimacy?

Tough call.  Myself and a friend used argue about it.  He said the state is like a football game where we all know the rules because otherwise you won't have a common enterprise.  I said that states evolved from bandit fiefdoms where people paid one warlord for protection rather than pay every fool with a spear who comes along.  

No doubt there are better theories.  

[bb113]

States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

I agree, this is why the activities of the state are not modeled very well by voluntary transactions between two people.

So we are in agreement.  And that's why the video about George fails.  It tries to apply the logic of 2 people in a transaction to taxation and of course it doesn't work.

If George gives money to Oliver due to your personal threat of violence would you consider it a voluntary transaction? If so, please define "voluntary" and "transaction" further because I do not understand. If not, what would you consider such a transaction?

[bb113]

States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

On rereading this I don't agree with the second point. If not transaction based, what is the basis? I suppose this depends on the definition of transaction.

[Iyeman]

I think george shouldn't pay anything.

[bb113]

I think george shouldn't pay anything.

What if he wants to?

[bb113]

It asks if violence is moral.  The seems to be the tougher question.

It asks if aggression is moral.  This seems to be the tougher question.

ftfy

[Hawker]

States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

On rereading this I don't agree with the second point. If not transaction based, what is the basis? I suppose this depends on the definition of transaction.

Good question.  Paying taxes and obeying laws are not transaction based activities but they are at the core of every society.

Perhaps the basis is duty?  Historically people felt a sense of duty to their tribe and would pay taxes and go and die in battle for the tribe.  It still works that way across the developing world.

Modern states seem to have stepped into the old tribe slot.  People feel a duty to support their country with taxes and they take pride in their sons going off and being killed in conflicts that have no benefit to them or their families.

Personally I think there is a "well there is no alternative" to why modern states work.  If you want to live in a society with schools, roads, army and all the benefits of modern medicine, there are no alternatives to living in a state that charges taxes to support itself. 

[interlagos]

States and societies are not voluntary and not transaction based.

On rereading this I don't agree with the second point. If not transaction based, what is the basis? I suppose this depends on the definition of transaction.

Good question.  Paying taxes and obeying laws are not transaction based activities but they are at the core of every society.

Perhaps the basis is duty?  Historically people felt a sense of duty to their tribe and would pay taxes and go and die in battle for the tribe.  It still works that way across the developing world.

Modern states seem to have stepped into the old tribe slot.  People feel a duty to support their country with taxes and they take pride in their sons going off and being killed in conflicts that have no benefit to them or their families.

Personally I think there is a "well there is no alternative" to why modern states work.  If you want to live in a society with schools, roads, army and all the benefits of modern medicine, there are no alternatives to living in a state that charges taxes to support itself. 

If we apply this to bitcoin community, basically everybody is equal in relation to the network, network becomes the objective and just "state" so to speak. So if enough people on the network agree that they need a school they can set up a fund to donate to it and then elect a few people to build the school and hire teachers. If another group decides that they need a new road they would do the same. Note that only people who really need the school or the road would donate, not everybody. Some people would set up a fund to hire some armed guys for their protection and so on.

So basically if the services that the state provides are so useful and so needed to the society, then the state should be able to earn money from the network the same way other people do, by providing services and doing some work. The difference from what it is now is that it's going to be voluntary and more transparent.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If we apply this to bitcoin community, basically everybody is equal in relation to the network, network becomes the objective and just "state" so to speak. So if enough people on the network agree that they need a school they can set up a fund to donate to it and then elect a few people to build the school and hire teachers. If another group decides that they need a new road they would do the same. Note that only people who really need the school or the road would donate, not everybody. Some people would set up a fund to hire some armed guys for their protection and so on.

So basically if the services that the state provides are so useful and so needed to the society, then the state should be able to earn money from the network the same way other people do, by providing services and doing some work. The difference from what it is now is that it's going to be voluntary and more transparent.

That is not how a state works.  Thats more like how a market works and even then would be messy.

[herzmeister]

One word: Social Contract

George essentially is in a contract with society to help out.

That he didn't have much choice in signing up or not, and that it is very difficult, if not impossible to cancel the contract by emigrating, are other questions.

[Hawker]

One word: Social Contract

George essentially is in a contract with society to help out.

That he didn't have much choice in signing up or not, and that it is very difficult, if not impossible to cancel the contract by emigrating, are other questions.

Social contract seems to be a convenient fiction.  There is not even copy of the contract in existence let alone any evidence that anyone anywhere ever agreed to it :S

I prefer to see society as being based on authority.  In modern societies, democracy is a way to stop the masses rebelling.  A sensible argument for progressive taxation is that if you grind the middle class and the poor down too far, they will rebel.  George may feel that he is entitled to keep his money but if the authorities don't support hi, then George will have to pay up.

[interlagos]

One word: Social Contract

George essentially is in a contract with society to help out.

That he didn't have much choice in signing up or not, and that it is very difficult, if not impossible to cancel the contract by emigrating, are other questions.

Social contract seems to be a convenient fiction.  There is not even copy of the contract in existence let alone any evidence that anyone anywhere ever agreed to it :S

I prefer to see society as being based on authority.  In modern societies, democracy is a way to stop the masses rebelling.  A sensible argument for progressive taxation is that if you grind the middle class and the poor down too far, they will rebel.  George may feel that he is entitled to keep his money but if the authorities don't support hi, then George will have to pay up.

I believe authority-based societies are a thing of the past (or soon will be). It creates this feeling of separation: there are "them" and "us". And as separation grows this division becomes more evident, "they" try to become a master race turning "us" into slaves. This is the end game in every authority-based society no matter how good it starts. Everyone should become their own authority. Why should some people born on the same planet tell other people what to do? F@#k "them"!

In bitcoin society everyone is equal in front of the network. All conflicts of interest should be resolved the same way as conflicts in the blockchain are resolved! Yes by voting with your computer power. End of story.

[ineededausername]

Please take a look at the following youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs


I think this is one of the most powerful videos on taxation that I have ever seen.
If you like this video,  please support the creator by making a Bitcoin donation on his website:

http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/
His Bitcoin address is 1LqYpj6MNppH8yiKBWXDH2mkSLiMYwQMx6

If you don't like this video,  I would be curious to hear why.

I like the message, but the monotone voice and corny animations ruined it for me.  xD

[FreeMoney]

Social contract, no record of it, and you (supposedly) agree when you are what 0 years old? Also, the main way to learn about it is from internet posters.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I believe authority-based societies are a thing of the past (or soon will be). It creates this feeling of separation: there are "them" and "us". And as separation grows this division becomes more evident, "they" try to become a master race turning "us" into slaves. This is the end game in every authority-based society no matter how good it starts. Everyone should become their own authority. Why should some people born on the same planet tell other people what to do? F@#k "them"!

In bitcoin society everyone is equal in front of the network. All conflicts of interest should be resolved the same way as conflicts in the blockchain are resolved! Yes by voting with your computer power. End of story.

The "them" and "us" thing does not affect the basis of society.  The Occupy crowd all accept that the state is legitimate as do the Tea Party.  "them" and "us" is a debate about redistribution.  What percentage of people does society have to carry in order to avoid disruption?

[Hawker]

I pointed out his error on Youtube and he blocked my comments.  Pathetic.

[interlagos]

...snip...

I believe authority-based societies are a thing of the past (or soon will be). It creates this feeling of separation: there are "them" and "us". And as separation grows this division becomes more evident, "they" try to become a master race turning "us" into slaves. This is the end game in every authority-based society no matter how good it starts. Everyone should become their own authority. Why should some people born on the same planet tell other people what to do? F@#k "them"!

In bitcoin society everyone is equal in front of the network. All conflicts of interest should be resolved the same way as conflicts in the blockchain are resolved! Yes by voting with your computer power. End of story.

The "them" and "us" thing does not affect the basis of society.  The Occupy crowd all accept that the state is legitimate as do the Tea Party.  "them" and "us" is a debate about redistribution.  What percentage of people does society have to carry in order to avoid disruption?

Things are going to change and change a lot. The current model of society is not an exception.
Here is an excellent video, why state and the old ways will become irrelevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=mjmuPqkVwWc

[Hawker]

Videos are a waste of time.  If the person has an idea worth taking seriously, they'd have it written down somewhere.