Miles White

Well I persume that if a buisness monopoly can't work and be funded voluntarily then how can a government one work?

I was listening to an interview with Ayn Rand and Mike Wallace and during the interview she said that monopolies can never exist in a purley free market, that all monopolies that existed in the past existed due to government help (subsidization). My question is if monolpoies can't exist in a purley free market, then how can a voluntarily funded monopoly of coercion or a government be funded?

I actually meant to vote for republic as opposed to monarchy but I must of accedentally hit monarchy. However I didn't mean to refer only to monarchy, but rather enlightened absolutism or a really intelligent renaissance individual as monarch and not just some guy as king.

Just thought that it would be an interesting topic to bring up.

Woodrow Wilson is the worst president EVER!!! It's all his fault for creating the 16 amendment and allowing our government to initiate a progressive income tax were as prior to his rein of terror, our government was only allowed to initiate a flat income tax should they even deecide to initiate a tax at all.

In order for somthing to be categorized as music it must have some form of a pulse and repetition. Worms just make noise. It's really a shame whats becoming of the music industry these days, nobody bothers making any good pieces of music anymore. Bands come and go as if they're sapose to be disposable and they all sound alike, they all sing about the same subject all play the same chords nobody even bothers to solo anymore or even the slightest bit of improvisation. I question wether even modern day bands write their own music. I find it strikingly similar to how our society is becoming more and more totalitarianistic were our government rewards stupidity and conformity while punishing individualism and innovation. I guess this is what becomes of art when you allow it to be socialized.

These are a couple of the greats I listen to. Pink Floyd Steely Dan Pat Metheny Neil Young Genesis Yes The Police Robin Trower Led Zeppelin Eric Burdon and the animals Jimi Hendrix Eric Clapton Cream Derek and the Dominos Blind faith Don Henely The Eagles Dire Straits Steve Wonder Herbie Hancock David Bowie Creedence Clearwater Revival Crosby Stills Nash and Young Traffic Steve Winwood Bob Dylan The Band Bonnie Raitt Billy Preston The Beatles The Rolling Stones The Beach Boys BB King Joni Mitchell Lee Ritenour Miles Davis The Moody Blues Stevie Ray Vaughan Talking Heads Tom Petty & the Heart Breakers The Who Muddy Waters Grateful dead Frank Zappa and the mothers of invention Fleetwood Mac Buddy Guy Chris Rea John Lee Hooker

I personaly think that James Madison is the most underated president. He actually reduced the size of the government to be small enough to fund only off of tariffs to take the burden of taxation off of the common peoples shoulders. Even though tariffs are still coercive, you got to admit there was no president in history that came closer to abolishing taxes than James Madison. What a marvelous man he was, tis a shame their arn't more presidents like him.

"Best", has a relative meaning in your question. In reality, there is no such thing as good or evil unless your comparing to the amount of coercion that is being enflicted upon one. So if your question is are we better off being coerced in a safe society than living in a dangerous objectivist oriented one, then I can't really answer that for you. That is for you to decide how much coercion your willing to put up with, however I would like to quote Benjamin Franklin for this: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".

Well, all I can say about living for ever is that I would not want to be around when the earth dies. Then what? It's better to live a short wonderful life than a long and moderate/boring one.

Never mind scratch the last idea, how about if government were to be funded off of user fees? People who call the police or get sued and use a court would have to pay a fee to the government for using their service. This would eliminate the free rider problem and would be allot more efficient then just private donations or government lottery.

Say, what if governments were funded off nothing but fines? They would be non-coercive and would eliminate the free rider problem in a system of just voluntary donations. James Madison once said that "If men were angels, government would not be necessary", so it makes sense to have the criminals fund government for us because if society had no more criminals then there would basically be no need for government anymore. However I personally don't expect to have any utopian revolution any time soon, I understand that society will always have it's fair share of evil people ergo government will always have a source of income.

I agree that the bill of rights isn't as important as some people may think. For example if Article 1 section 9 of the constitution can prohibit the use of ex post facto, why couldn't the constitution also just prohibit the use of cruel and unusual punishment? (8th Amendment). The main reason why a constitution could be better off with out a bill of rights is the fact that the constitution will remain uneditable. I hate the fact that any one of those bureaucrats can just get together and edit the constitutioin to say what ever they want it to say eg. 16 amendment. Seriously, could there possibly be a more usless amendment? That was definitly nothing more than a cheap shot from the democrats, personal fiscal party platforms need to STAY OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION period. We would be better off with a constitution that remaind permanently uneditable.

Ok I can see how a government can be privatly funded now, but I want to know what the difference is between a voluntarily funded government and anarcho-capitalism. They both support police and courts to be voluntarily funded, it's just that the minarchist version supports arbitration as a private monopoly and anarcho-capitalists support arbitration to be more small buisness oriented. However they are both fundementally the same philosophy. To me it seems that taxes and government are so closley woven together it's impossible to seperate the two, and anybody who supports voluntarily funded government is really an anarcho-capitalist wether they know it or not.

I don't mean to sound like a downer because I really do like objectivism, it is my favorite branch of libertarian philosophy (no affiliation to the party). However, be that as it may I am still puzzled by the free rider problem purposed by a system of funding such as private donations. If people received protection from the government wether you pay or not you might find yourself in a situation were to many people are leeching off the system and not donating anything to the government. If governments did require that people only receive protection if they donate, then that would bring about the problem of how to check wich person to protect. Or in other words think of a senerio, a guys being mugged by a robber, the cop comes up "excuse me do you donate to your local county council?" Victum "no?" Officer "Ok then sorry to disturb you mr. robber, you can continue". Not only that, but if sombody didn't want to donate to the government and new that he would not be protected by a government then he's really saying that he wants to be coerced and might as well just be taxed, and all the other people who do want to be protected by a government will just donate money to it any way. To me it seems like requireing people to donate for service from government is inevitably flaud and if it is optional to pay you still have the free rider problem.

I just realized something, if governments were funded entirley off of voluntary donations wouldn't that mean that government would be part of the private sector and not the public? And if thats the case then whats preventing the government from being ran aristocratically like any buisness or why should government defend the rights of people who don't support it? Like a resturant for example wouldn't just give away sandwhiches all willy nilly, they expect a quid pro quo exchange. Why shouldn't government also ask for this exchange?

Hi, I'm new to this forum and yet have always been very found of Ayn Rands writtings. I wanted to ask a question however about taxes. Is it possible to fund a government (police, courts, military) off nothing but voluntary donations? And if it is possible, what historical evidence has shown that this type of system works. I know that the construction of the Great Wall of China was funded entirely off of government lottery, we should see if government can be funded the same way.