Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?

[Hawker]

Lets assume its not 2 people but 2 million people.  1.9 million want the road and 100k don't.  We need a way to resolve the dispute that scales to millions of people.

Leaving each other the fuck alone scales beautifully all the way up to infinity.

So the 100,000 don't stop the road being built.  Great - I love your idealism.

No, of course not. If the 1.9 million want a road, they can build it on their land. Surely they have enough.

There will always be 1 person who doesn't consent and the road has to go straight though their property.

[1713511904]

1713511904

[1713511904]

1713511904

[myrkul]

There will always be 1 person who doesn't consent and the road has to go straight though their property.

What, roads can't curve in your world?

[Hawker]

There will always be 1 person who doesn't consent and the road has to go straight though their property.

What, roads can't curve in your world?

You know, I can play with examples too.  Change the road to a railway.  And please don't do that again.   

[myrkul]

There will always be 1 person who doesn't consent and the road has to go straight though their property.

What, roads can't curve in your world?

You know, I can play with examples too.  Change the road to a railway.  And please don't do that again.   

Rails can curve, too. Takes more space, but the cars are jointed for a reason.

[Hawker]

There will always be 1 person who doesn't consent and the road has to go straight though their property.

What, roads can't curve in your world?

You know, I can play with examples too.  Change the road to a railway.  And please don't do that again.   

Rails can curve, too. Takes more space, but the cars are jointed for a reason.

Perhaps you can post about that on a railway forum?  Meanwhile, do you have anything to say on the 2 million people who have a few thousand houses blocking development of their area?

[myrkul]

Perhaps you can post about that on a railway forum?  Meanwhile, do you have anything to say on the 2 million people who have a few thousand houses blocking development of their area?

Build around them. Leave them the fuck alone.

[Hawker]

Perhaps you can post about that on a railway forum?  Meanwhile, do you have anything to say on the 2 million people who have a few thousand houses blocking development of their area?

...snip...

Build around them. Leave them the fuck alone.

Again playing with the example instead of the issue.

You know, in a NAP world this would be simple.  The representatives of the 2 million would take the hold-outs to arbitration.  The arbitrator would evaluate the economic value of the development and if it was high enough, tell the hold-outs to yield up possession.  In "The Mechanic of Freedom", Friedman has this working even for death penalty disputes.

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...

No, one is negative, the other positive. negative rights can be had by all, without infringing upon another. positive rights do not always meet this criteria.

And we are back to natural law arguments.  Which are in a parallel thread.  Why not address them there?

Because inevitably, it gets down to this root level. No matter where we discuss it, you're going to say that some magic piece of paper gives you the ability to force your decisions on me, and me the ability to force my decisions on you, while I say that there is no such right, and we should both leave each other the fuck alone. I have an opinion that I have a negative right to be left the fuck alone, and you have an opinion that you have a positive right to not leave me the fuck alone. There's gonna be conflict there.

Exactly. So any political system needs a way to resolve these disputes or we will end up needing to kill one another.

If you can't leave people the fuck alone...yeah

[Hawker]

...snip...

No, one is negative, the other positive. negative rights can be had by all, without infringing upon another. positive rights do not always meet this criteria.

And we are back to natural law arguments.  Which are in a parallel thread.  Why not address them there?

Because inevitably, it gets down to this root level. No matter where we discuss it, you're going to say that some magic piece of paper gives you the ability to force your decisions on me, and me the ability to force my decisions on you, while I say that there is no such right, and we should both leave each other the fuck alone. I have an opinion that I have a negative right to be left the fuck alone, and you have an opinion that you have a positive right to not leave me the fuck alone. There's gonna be conflict there.

Exactly. So any political system needs a way to resolve these disputes or we will end up needing to kill one another.

If you can't leave people the fuck alone...yeah

Correct.  If someone is doing something that costs me money, I have an interest in acting.  If not, then we don't have a problem. When I do have a problem, we need a system to resolve it peacefully so we don't have to kill one another.

[cryptoanarchist]

If you can't leave people the fuck alone...yeah

Correct.  If someone is doing something that costs me money, I have an interest in acting.  If not, then we don't have a problem. When I do have a problem, we need a system to resolve it peacefully so we don't have to kill one another.

I think you know you're just trolling at this point, but I'm game. If I go to a doctor and pay him for my own healthcare, how does that cost you money? You need to answer this first, or the rest of your post is just more bullshit.

[Hawker]

Correct.  If someone is doing something that costs me money, I have an interest in acting.  If not, then we don't have a problem. When I do have a problem, we need a system to resolve it peacefully so we don't have to kill one another.

I think you know you're just trolling at this point, but I'm game. If I go to a doctor and pay him for my own healthcare, how does that cost you money? You need to answer this first, or the rest of your post is just more bullshit.

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

EDIT - wtf did you do to the formatting :@

[cryptoanarchist]

If you can't leave people the fuck alone...yeah

Correct.  If someone is doing something that costs me money, I have an interest in acting.  If not, then we don't have a problem. When I do have a problem, we need a system to resolve it peacefully so we don't have to kill one another.

I think you know you're just trolling at this point, but I'm game. If I go to a doctor and pay him for my own healthcare, how does that cost you money? You need to answer this first, or the rest of your post is just more bullshit.

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

Isn't that what YOU want to do!?!?! Alright, its confirmed - you're a moron.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

Isn't that what YOU want to do!?!?! Alright, its confirmed - you're a moron.

No I want you to pay for your care.  That means that if you don't have cover, I am entitled to ask who gets the bill if you get sick. 

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

Isn't that what YOU want to do!?!?! Alright, its confirmed - you're a moron.

No I want you to pay for your care.  That means that if you don't have cover, I am entitled to ask who gets the bill if you get sick. 

Now you're just lying. That's NOT what you want. You want me to pay for my care AND other people's as well. If I don't, you want me to be thrown in prison.

So you're lying. You just said in your last statement "you want me to pay for my care" and that is exactly what I've been saying everyone should do. You actually have the audacity to use my argument against you, against ME!!!

It's ME who WANTS YOU to pay for your own fucking shit - including food and rent too. You're the one asking for handouts, buddy, not me.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If I have a guarantee that you won't turn around and start pinning the bill on me if you are unable to pay him, we are both OK.  

Isn't that what YOU want to do!?!?! Alright, its confirmed - you're a moron.

No I want you to pay for your care.  That means that if you don't have cover, I am entitled to ask who gets the bill if you get sick. 

Now you're just lying. That's NOT what you want. You want me to pay for my care AND other people's as well. If I don't, you want me to be thrown in prison.

So you're lying. You just said in your last statement "you want me to pay for my care" and that is exactly what I've been saying everyone should do. You actually have the audacity to use my argument against you, against ME!!!

It's ME who WANTS YOU to pay for your own fucking shit - including food and rent too. You're the one asking for handouts, buddy, not me.

If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

[nevafuse]

I too would pay taxes. I think taxation is necessary one way or another, I only question the amount needed to be taxed.

I'd pay taxes too if they covered exactly what I wanted them to.  But I doubt the current government could ever shrink that much.

The government is generally quite expert at recovering taxes they have decided you owe, and at changing the rules to ensure you can't sidestep the system simply by using something such as bitcoin (bitcoin is either a currency or "payment in kind" when it comes to receiving it as compensation for selling to others - although it's more difficult for the law to be enforced here, it's still the law that you have to pay taxes).

I realize bitcoin isn't 100% anonymous & you could catch people based on the physical items they own (houses, cars, boats), but seems like a lot of effort, especially if everyone starts doing it.  And once more & more people stop paying taxes, the government won't have the money to pay for better collectors, prisons, or police.

In a completely free market with no regulation, what is to stop several large corporations with economies of scale colluding on price?

Any smaller companies couldn't compete fairly and therefore the price wouldn't be driven down.

Multiple things.  A new competitor with a better price.  A fall out in the collusion (prisoner's dilemma).  If it's a scarce resource, an alternative.  If there's no alternative, a high enough price will make it worth it to research/create an alternative.

FA by referring to a commodity X and showing that deplting that commidty will increase price (if demand is stable) even ina free mrket shows you are the one missing some things. Firstly aleterntives may exist for the utility that X posseses and second with he right level of technology no commodity can ever be depleted because it can always be replenished.

Long term a free market is the most efficient system and therefore prices will be lowest. Does that make it impossible for short term cartels to exist (and please lt me note that most monopolies are caused by the interferene of goverments)? No. But that is only short term such cartels can never be stable long term. Just look at the prsioners dilemma as an example. In the end one of the cartel members will attempt to overthow the other. Alternatively a newplayer might come into exitence and go into competition with he catel. Eventually this will happen.

This!

Yup, don't wanna to go to prison. Get all the appropriate people, a well known reputable tax man and a lawyer. But that's thinking in the clouds. Unless you have 100Ghash/s machines to pay for all of it.

So you chose "Depends"?

I dont have a problem paying taxes

That's rare.

I wonder if the thread starter is a tax office investigator?

It's a trap!  I was surprised someone didn't say something early.  But I'm not & doubt anyone on this thread can live off bitcoins enough to make it worth the IRS's while ATM.  And full disclosure - I chose "Depends."

So your view is that the baby dies?

I'm doubt anyone here wants babies to die or anyone for that matter.  But when it comes to feeding my family - that comes first.  Having a free market system doesn't mean babies have to die.  I'm sure there will still be doctors that do pro bono work or charities to help pay for it.  I think most people in this thread against socialized healthcare just want choice.  They may choose to help a baby they know, but could care less about an alcoholic or crack addict.

=============================================

I'm actually quite surprised by the vote results.  I personally think the "Depends" people could be lumped in with the "No" people so it is still 2/3s that wouldn't pay taxes.  1/3 is still a lot of people that would continue paying their taxes even w/o risks.  I think one of the greatest benefits of bitcoin is the ability to pay only exactly what you want to pay because it is so difficult to steal (if you take the right security measures).  And the first thing on that list of things to stop paying for is probably taxes.

[cryptoanarchist]

If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.

[Hawker]

If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.

Wow you are so emotional.  The NHS requires that care be free at the point of delivery.  Everyone pays - just not at the time they are sick.

Can you point to an example of someone who you think is using the NHS for free?  I'm just wondering what type of person you have in mind?  

[cryptoanarchist]

If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.

Wow you are so emotional.

Can you point to an example of someone who is using the NHS for free?  I'm just wondering what type of person you have in mind? 

Let's not ask stupid questions, shall we? If everyone who uses NHS is paying 100% of their health bills, then such a program isn't even necessary, is it?

[Hawker]

If you take the time to check my post record, even if you limit yourself to this thread, my objection is to people who refuse to pay for their health care.  If you find a quotation of me asking for someone else to pay, please paste it.

Lying again. You support NHS, which requires productive people to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE. So the people using their system are refusing to pay for their own care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say your only problem is people who refuse to pay, and then support a system that enables just that.

Wow you are so emotional.

Can you point to an example of someone who is using the NHS for free?  I'm just wondering what type of person you have in mind?  

Let's not ask stupid questions, shall we? If everyone who uses NHS is paying 100% of their health bills, then such a program isn't even necessary, is it?

Of course it is.  Everyone gets sick; everyone pays taxes; it makes sense to use the tax system to pay for health care.  

Your problem is that you are so used to the American system where you pay nothing until you are sick that a system where you pay all the time confuses you.  It has huge benefits.  People who would be tempted to free-load can't - the tax is taken and their health care is covered.  People who have hugely expensive treatments don't have to fund it all at once...they are paying all their lives and get the care as its needed.

EDIT: the severely disabled, life prisoners who go to jail at a young age and are sick a lot and mental patients who never leave institutional care would probably not pay back in as much as they get in care.  So its not 100%.