AllMenAreIslands

That is a good point too, but I think most people would be unable or unwilling to comprehend the concept and acknowledge it as being true for them. It's a description of how information, codes of conduct, and values are transmitted from one generation to the next. And the way you put it, it sounds like everyone who thinks that way is behaving like a brainless sheep, so again, few people would recognize themselves as one of the sheeple, or if they did, would be willing to admit it. In other words, it's too deep for most people. But that is what we're up against. The way into people's minds is tricky - people don't want to change for one thing, and they've accepted all kinds of contradictory ideas for another, yet don't want to look too closely at those contradictions for fear of seeing everything fall apart (never mind that the reverse would occur: they would finally be able to make sense of it all.) After all isn't saying that our environment is the grass, the trees, the sky and the sun just a nicer way of saying, "homeless"?

Indeed this is how a lot of casual environmentalists also view it. But it hasn't been proven at all, or even established as possible. It's merely been asserted, and millions of people have fallen for it for some reason. The data show that natural activity, such as that of volcanoes for example, produces more emissions annually than man's activity. The data also show that both colder and higher temperatures existed on Earth long before man's industrial activity was underway. Why hasn't someone proffered the idea that man's activity contributes to a tendency to reduce the extremities of temperature? What makes people buy into environmentalism? On the surface it appears to be out of concern for their kids & grandkids, usually. I think that that concern has short-circuited people's ability to evaluate what they're being told and to take into account a lot of disparate facts. Probably it's been a cumulative effect of shoddy teaching methods at the grade school & higher levels, leaving people without a clear understanding of basic science. Definitely it is also a lack of understanding of the relationship between man's activities and the standard of living those activities achieve. How, for example, has anyone come to the conclusion that something needs to be done about increased carbon dioxide? Why is that even considered a problem? There's nothing to be done, I mean, other than plant more trees and crops? An increase in CO2 could be considered a pre-requisite to cultivating more of the Earth's land, could it not? Perhaps instead of getting distraught over the increase, and trying to figure out ways to reduce it, we should instead be looking to use that CO2 and find ways to get potable water to places that don't have it or don't have enough. Economically viable methods, that is.

I think the next step is the philosophy of Individualism, which is the one that will pick up where Objectivism left off, and as well enable mankind to finally establish the first true civilization (one that does not permit the government to initiate the use of force in any way, and properly limits government's actions.)

Now I've got even more reasons to put on the lights. The fact is, it isn't only oneself who knows, if one lives near any other people. I do find it very interesting that the usage of power went up last time. That could be because shutting it off and turning it on again uses more power. Perhaps it's not so much that lots of people turned on extra lights, but just the fact of so many people turning back on their lights at the same time caused more energy to be consumed than when everyone behaves normally. What negative impact does our energy usage have on the environment, Wrath? Why is it a negative impact, rather than simply an impact? Instead of assuming the impact is a negative one, how about considering what use the impact, if any, has to offer? Perhaps the added amount of CO2 is actually a necessary precursor to being able to grow even more food, for example in areas that are drought-stricken. Those places need water and CO2 as much if not more than places with more precipitation. Besides, in our developed societies we live in climate-controlled environments, inside our homes and our workplaces. That's what we have already built. We aren't part of the food chain the way we used to be either, and thank our ancestors for that. We create food chains that we enjoy eating, and our bodies are generally NOT returned directly to the soil, but are rather dealt with in all manner of ways at death. So all this blah-blah about what's "good for the environment" is simply going along with the idea that the environment in its natural state is something worth preserving. Which, if you think it is, is certainly your prerogative to act upon, by buying a piece of property and proceeding to do nothing with it. Call it Earth Acre, or something. Or performance art. Point is, while the Earth's resources are finite, and there's no doubt about it on a sheer mathematical scale, the amount of resources available to mankind is not restricted to those available on Earth. Even if it were, at this point in our history we've actually managed to develop and utilize such a minute percentage of the total available just on Earth that it's not worth considering the "finiteness" of the totality. We have barely scratched the first few feet, and the Earth is miles thick. It is likely that nuclear is simply another stepping stone for power generation, which in due course will be replaced by something even cleaner, more plentiful and requiring even less acreage to produce. I'm thinking of geo-thermal, of course. But what I do know is that using windmills and solar panels at this stage of their development represents a step backwards for industry. Perhaps these are viable methods for hermits, who are willing to keep their power requirements extremely low. Using energy as desired ought not to still be something we have to think about. Creation of endless supplies of energy is within our grasp already in the form of nuclear power. The hysteria over cost/cleanliness of oil or coal is out of proportion to the actual pollution values. Compared with earlier technologies like animal power the waste product of which is excretia, everywhere, that is, oil and coal are very much cleaner. The concern about the waste matter from nuclear power has been purposely blown out of proportion in order to throw a spanner in the nuclear power industry's progress. This concern is also heedless of the truth about life - one entity's waste is another's food. There is a valuable use for the waste matter from nuclear power - just let the scientists who are keen to unlock that mystery get on with their work, and let whoever wants to invest in the possibility do so. Alot of companies make a lot of money selling us everyday products like cleaners and booze and computers and such, and they throw away billions trying to line extend their successful products, which acts to undermine and kill their golden cows. They simply need to learn of some other great industries they could invest in, where there's a better chance to underwrite great new discoveries. The environmentalists ARE mankind-hating. Anyone who could proffer the idea of shutting OFF all the lights, even for an hour, to somehow "save the planet" or even more stupidly, to "fight climate change," can't honestly understand the enormity of what they are doing. They are supporting punching civilzation's lights out. Is there any way to prove that turning off the lights is worse for the environment? Only if you value having the ability to have the lights on in the first place. Unfortunately, the intent of Earth Hour doesn't appear to be to make people appreciate electricity, but rather to get them used to doing without it. And that IS a step way backwards.

Here's a message I just received at work. (I work at an Ontario Courthouse.) This year's campaign is even more sickening than last year's. "See the world in a whole new light"???? In darkness, in other words. Like it used to be before there was electricity. What have you seen or heard in connection with Earth Hour? Ever wonder why they don't do this at 12 noon on a weekday?

Here's the thing - there ARE automakers who have managed to turn a profit. Nevermind the ludicrous wages, the many regulations etc (all of which do play their part, but that's not my point here.) I've been re-reading the books about marketing, called "Positioning" by Al Ries and Jack Trout. GM gets a lot of bad mentions in these books, on account of their terrible marketing strategies wherein they try to appeal to everyone. Ford and Chrysler aren't better, either. The American automakers have been told by these Positioning guys for decades now about the problems with their marketing and continued to ignore the warnings and the advice. Selling the product you make at the price you need to charge takes focus, something that appears to be missing everywhere, actually. Just makes it even more galling that these companies are going to Washington with their hands out, begging to be saved from their own stupid decisions. Just fold up those tents already.

How does cutting a couple of regulations, or failing to enforce them, equal "free market"? Answer: it doesn't, not when there remain in place 650,000 other regulations. It is not because a couple of regulations were cut or loosened that the whole thing collapsed anyway.

Government-brand corruption is far worse than any kind of free-market problems. Government is supposed to be our means of self-defense against fraud and coercion. When, as now, the government is permitted BY LAW to behave in a criminal manner (i.e., using taxation to collect money for government services), then the whole system is tainted from the start. Not trusting the profit motive, the desire to create a viable long-term business is a product of corrupt philosophy trying to achieve that very result, and permit more dictatorship & totalitarianism. The free-market has no means to force you to buy a given product. It can only act to persuade you to buy its products. The government has the power to compel you to do or not do. The thing about government interventionism in general is that it is not only immoral, but inefficient. You could take as an example the FDA, or various trades & practices standards for home construction or even taxation itself. With FDA, you have gov't setting down umpteen criteria for what constitutes "safe" food or safe practices for handling food. And yet with all their tons of regulations, there are still businesses that are putting tainted food on the market, or using unsafe food handling procedures. Why isn't the system working? Whose greed is really at fault? I say it's the government's greed via the taxation system, which is making it more & more difficult for businesses to operate safely and making them look for any way to cut corners. The system that intended to ensure healthy food is causing the opposite result. You can't force the result by law. You have to leave it to people to do the best they can do and advertise themselves honestly. If there aren't enough customers willing to accept whatever sub-standard product the person is offering, then that person has to improve their product or find another line of work. I know that stipulating how something ought to be done, or setting minimum requirements to be enforced by law seem like a good idea to a lot of people, but what it actually achieves is the opposite result. Rather than keeping everyone up to a certain standard, there develops instead a market for corruption. When government sanctions the initiation of force on its own behalf, it sets up a criminal society, one that seems to more and more accept the criminal way of behaving. The honestly successful are treated shabbily or sued for such idiotic things as insider trading or charged with an offense under the Anti-Trust legislation. *** To look once more at your example, another result of legislated standards is the lethargy it produces in consumers. They think that a government-decreed standard means satisfaction guaranteed. Most people might not admit it, but the benefit they are looking for is the chance to evade the responsibility to think and judge for themselves. My response would be, "Yes, actually, I do want to legalize narcotics too." There are plenty of deadly products on the market already which are only deadly if used improperly. Should they be banned? As for alcohol and narcotics, one man's poison is another's savior. Narcotics will be of immense value to someone dealing with a terrible illness for example. Relying on people to "follow the money" means that by & large, people will find they make money by offering good quality products.

First of all, the government has to receive money from the contract insurance business. Why do it otherwise? That's the point - to make sure there is money for the use of the court system - to pay the fees of opening a cause of action, filing one's Statement of Claim, booking a Motion to be heard by a Master or Judge, or a Settlement Conference. Now, the settlement conferences are at present also handled by private adjudicators (usually former Judges). The contract enforcement business - the police - is a different part of the system, and relies on judgments rendered by judges. People who help to settle disputes, likewise, are people who could make a living from helping deliver those kinds of services. The business of buying insurance to cover the costs of enforcing or defending contracts is one with a very wide application to the vast majority of inhabitants. Think of how many contracts we all enter into in our lives. To be determined are what portion of the premium is the government's outright share, to spend now, and what portion has to go into the pile that accumulates to pay out on claims, what amount is needed to cover the costs of writing the policy and what to do with what is left over is something that is worth thinking about. How to split it up - 30% - 30% - 30% and 10% might be a good distribution to run some sums through. Like what if there is $10 billion collected. Per week, or month. That is the business-model method of properly funding what ought to be the most-used part of government services. The court system - the judicial system - is the key element of self-defense in a civilized world. It is the means of settling disputes. The true key element is not people filling positions, but the having of objective law by which to judge actions, contracts and deeds. It is having the means by which to establish lawful rights of way and ownership of property. Government is the legal use of force. It being properly defined as the use of retaliatory force might help. Having the right to wield force lawfully means being or being found to be the lawful owner of goods, the lawful provider of services, etc., However, don't forget that government is in competition with business. Think of the man with 5 sacks, like in Reisman's book Capitalism. The amount of grain you have to eat to defend your home and goods is grain you aren't eating while hunting for something else to eat or doing some other task you'd like to complete. At its heart, spending on defense takes away from all other spending you could do. It's a necessity, but you don't want to spend more than you have to achieving it. Just as you don't want to spend more than you have to on anything. Creating a government that delivers what it's supposed to - i.e., defense of rights and rightful ownership - means, basically, having to start over. Any society that wants to set things up so government is only defending, never attacking, means eliminating all the laws that permit government to initiate the use of force. As for prices, the costs will fluctuate, and people will find that buying a certain amount of money will buy more or less arbitration/litigation depending on many factors.

As to the first paragraph of your response, you are building in the initiation of force into your proposition. If someone has not insured their contract, then they have no guarantee their case will be heard. But I do not see the need to make it prohibited. A person may be penniless but have a worthwhile case. It is the option for the law firm to take the case on, on a contingency fee arrangement. People who have insurance automatically get money to go to court, regardless of the merits of their case. Depending on which kind of policy they bought will result in a certain amount of money being made available. This is where the different kinds of policies to have considered at the time of buying the insurance would have to decide. What kind of litigant would they be - someone eager to settle, or someone who visualizes himself in court, conducting cross-examination? LOL. But it's true. As for whether or not anyone would be willing to hear the case - that could be something that will gradually become more and more the province of individuals, and something that constitutes a service one requests of others, to provide objective views and judgments. The place for government to really earn money in that kind of scenario is through registration of particulars fees. Registering on title to oneself, something akin to registering title to real property. Paying to register oneself as a payer of protection money to the government. The original concept for which tax was set up was to provide protection for the group, and everyone had to chip in. Maybe that's the concept we need to work with - the idea of using what is already in the prospects' minds - that government is supposed to protect you from harm perpetrated by others.

Not only can you make a clear distinction between lotteries and other forms of gambling, but a clear distinction may be made among various lotteries designed to benefit different causes. I said earlier that I would rather have the government hold a monopoly on lotteries, if the choice were that versus the current system of taxation. However, I do not believe that it would be necessary for the government to hold such a monopoly. I think Contract Insurance will be capable of generating enough money to cover all (or almost all) of the costs of a proper government. However, in case of a shortfall, or rather a projected shortfall, a lottery for the purpose of generating such additional funds would be the proper way to go. Donations are successful these days for things like cancer research, because there is the possibility of using such donations to reduce the amount of tax a person is FORCED to pay. What happens when the concept of tax is removed from the equation? There may still be some people who will be willing to make straightforward donations for the sheer joy of it, but I think in most cases, we'll do better by offering something that is of more tangible value and doesn't leave people feeling like they are pulling the load of paying for government all by themselves.

On the contrary, it is not about taking over OTHER kinds of insurance, David. It is paying for insurance on contracts. If you enter into a contract with Allstate to insure your car or home, then you would choose to buy contract insurance to protect that contract. The purpose of Contract Insurance at its most basic is to provide the money in case of two things: 1. there is a breach of contract and you wish to initiate a lawsuit; and 2. the other party to the contract sues you for breach of contract. The most basic policy would provide basic funds, and the amount you would need to insure for would drop, as tax is weaned out of the system and real numbers finally begin to emerge, which numbers represent true cost of suing, or being sued, as the case may be. By making it voluntary, and instead stressing the BENEFIT, the VALUE of having Contract Insurance, more people will opt in. What we don't yet know, but I can visualize, are the many many kinds of contracts people will begin to enter as they have more funds at their disposal. This is why I say taxation is an inefficient method of collecting government revenue. It uses the fear method, rather than the honey/carrot method. At the very least, protecting oneself against being sued is probably going to be the major drawcard at first. And not having the insurance would not mean a person is absolutely precluded from paying the costs of going to court - rather it means they would have to fund such costs straight from their own resources. The point is - contract insurance needs to be positioned as the cheapest way to have the greatest level of protection. Persuasion is called for here, not the Initiation of Force.

In that case, if the choice were between having the government out of all other business with a monopoly on lotteries, versus the current situation with govt involved in everything, I'd take the government controlling the lottery business. Not all gambling, mind you, just the lotteries. Horseracing, dog racing, casinos etc - they would be privately owned. But what of contract insurance? That seems like a proper way to earn revenue for gov't, giving value for value and not taking over the entire insurance industry.

What stops corruption is consistent application of the law prohibiting the initiation of force. When the law prohibits the initiation of force and applies that law consistently, politicians cannot be dictators. They cannot expropriate land or impose taxes -- for any purpose.

I think people somehow have figured they'll have their entire mortgage paid off by the government. $8000 might be a year or two's worth of monthly payments, but it's hardly a substitute for people having jobs that enable them to make the payments themselves. Some of the people just need A job, but others are just in homes they can't afford and never could afford. $8000 is only going to put off the inevitable for them.

How on earth does the idea of lotteries imply the use of force? Please show the path you took to arrive at this conclusion. Obviously if you reject lotteries as a valid method of raising VOLUNTARY funding (since nobody is forced or would be forced to buy a lottery ticket), then you would not see one means by which bonds could be repaid. Lotteries strike me as a flawless method of funding government. People voluntarily choose to spend $5, $10 or more PER WEEK these days for a chance to win anything from $3 million to $45 million and more. User fees for things like passports is another way to raise cash. What about paying a fee to take high school examinations? That would defray the costs of having the tests administered & graded. Some fees, some lottery money, contract insurance - already we have a good beginning.

So, $8333 for each of 9 million people = about $75,000,000,000. What is that $8333 per household actually going to accomplish? Why hasn't anyone done the math?

I'm glad I don't even own a car. I wonder if they'll also figure out a way to put gadgets on pedestrians, like those Justice Electronic bracelets for offenders on parole.

Part of the problem some of you are having with the idea of where the funds will come from, stems perhaps from an inability to visualize how much extra money people will generally have at their disposal in a taxless society. In our world at present, a great deal of the cost of each & every item we buy at the retail level is bloated with tax. Since most manufactured goods involve many different sources of raw & semi-processed materials, the tax drain is more staggering than most people seem willing to acknowledge. That the government, after having stolen so much money from the people for so long, is STILL in debt, even worse debt than before, should be the biggest indictment of all of the not for profit, thieving mentality. Cigarettes and booze are well known commodities that are heavily taxed, where the actual product if not so overly taxed, would likely cost about 25 cents, instead of 50 dollars. On a sliding scale from that are all the other products. In total, no matter how much you think the taxes are, they're more. Much much more. Therefore, at the outset, when just one or two taxes are abolished, people will at once begin to have more money at their disposal. As more and more taxes are removed, the real net value of paycheques will increase. The amount people actually have to spend to provide themselves with both necessities and luxury items will STILL provide most people with growing savings. And this will be so even with the fact that people will have to spend some time and money on making decisions that were previously left to the government to make for them. Actually, it may well be because of having to spend time on such decision-making that people will find their savings growing. There just won't be enough time in the day to spend all of one's earnings. Therefore, putting a request to a population generally possessed of savings accounts that have accrued easily, will be much more likely to find willing subscribers to a new lottery, or buyers of bonds designed to amortize the costs of a given project or undertaking over 10, 15, 20 or more years.

Can you give an example or two of the kind of services you mean here? In the case of providing court services, settling disputes - there are at present privately-owned & run arbitration / dispute resolution companies. The point about insurance is that the rates are arrived at based on a number of factors - actuarial tables for one, your own use of your insurance company for two. Whether we are talking about making a government insurance company profitable or working out how to apportion premiums taken in for contracts (or for the annual fee) which sums are not used to pay for court-related services, should be a lot easier in a political climate committed to rational principles. Must they be covered in total by such profits? I do not think so. In part, they could and should be, but there must come a point where the best method is a straightforward request for contributions of all kinds in respect of a particular event or situation. Given the very high level of free-riding going on at the moment, which free-riding extends in my view to the thousands of pointless government jobs that exist for the sole purpose of interfering in business, being concerned with whether or not someone manages to go through life without once buying a lottery ticket or an insurance policy is really overdoing and belaboring the point. Here's another thing to consider. No matter how much money there is, people can always think of what they'd do if only they had X amount more. One of the bonuses that I see with Contract Insurance is that when the number of civil, family, estates, etc cases increases, the money will be there to help pay for the extra staff needed to deal with the extra workload. We're just starting to think up ways to get the job done of paying for PROPER government services through voluntary methods. The sooner we actually get started convincing people that this is the right direction to go in, i.e., the right principle on which to base a system, the faster we will actually get to the point of being there.

This is Contract Insurance, not Tax. And the way I see it, buying Contract Insurance means buying some level of protection in the form of a certain amount of money to pay towards launching a lawsuit. Not buying the insurance would not translate into prohibition from litigating but rather the cost of doing so would have to be borne fully by the person bringing the suit. I could see many levels of insurance being developed. For example, large companies may be able to negotiate policies that would cover general litigation costs, with special extra insurance being purchased for elements of the transaction, etc. * * * I've now read the preceding pages, and I want to address one issue that jumped out in particular. It's the idea that government taking ANY part in the economy somehow constitutes interference. I disagree with that idea. Government lotteries would be for the purpose of funding basic government services, and would be in competition with lotteries run by medical research, space exploration, local police, federal armed forces, just to name a few. Once people begin to understand how important it is to HAVE contract insurance, I think the problem of not enough money will soon be eclipsed by the problem of how to invest the surplus. In addition, government hiring a private investment portfolio manager to oversee investment of its surplus is not necessarily interference. It is just one more investor in the market. It is ONLY when government abuses its power to make laws that it begins to interfere. It is only when it begins dictating to those makers of potato peelers and growers of wheat how & when to go about their business that it becomes a health hazard. I really think the key to winning over more people is to have them understand that government should offer value for value, and that it's not about catching a free ride, or preventing others from allegedly catching a free ride. It's really about one's own level of safety and peace of mind. What tax has done is rob most people of the means to provide their own safety nets, while at the same time doing a really shoddy job of providing that safety net in their stead (which btw and don't forget was the very purpose for which it SAID the vast sums were being expropriated.) Asking people to buy a lottery ticket, or to look out for their own interests with contract insurance means changing the way we view government. It should not be an adversary or a pitiful beggar, pleading for scraps. Government - good government conducted on sound principles - is vital to secure peace and enable individuals to achieve prosperity.

I don't know that a refund would be appropriate. Rather, what WOULD be appropriate is producing a balance sheet. Hoard the surplus? Sure, why not? I think a proper government would want to have a savings account, putting money away so that there is enough to pay for defense against attack by foreign armies, which I think an Objectivist government would definitely need to plan and save for. Eventually someone is going to be pissed off when the first True Civilization is born and shows them all how it's done.

For starters, stop thinking in terms of "donating" to government. Think instead of ways that government can offer "value for value." Why do people play Lotteries? Because they hope to win a big prize. The value of spending a dollar or two or 5 is well worth it to a lot of people. Now, how about Contract Insurance? What one is buying in essence is "peace of mind." The value is in knowing that one would have the wherewithal to sue in the event of breach of contract, and/or to have the means to defend oneself were one sued by another party to the contract in question. In fact, I am convinced this method of funding would produce more funds than can be visualized at present, simply because left to their own devices, people would tend to want to create their own safety net, especially when its cost is so much cheaper than the current tax system. Think first of the large corporations, the ones that enter into mega-million dollar joint ventures, and the legion of documentation on which they would no doubt elect as a matter of course to buy contract insurance. Most of those agreements/joint ventures proceed without a hitch. Then think of the many arenas of an individual's life for which one could want to buy an insurance policy - marriage, for one. It's a contract, too. Buying marriage insurance could be a way to provide for funds in the event of a breakup while children are young.

There is no such thing. Taxation by definition is a method of funding that operates by means of the initiation of force. If you would like to discuss a rational and moral method of funding government services, then there is neither room nor reason to invoke the method of taxation. The COSTS of proper government services can and must be paid by voluntary methods. In fact, it is the only civilized option. Taxation may have been around a long time but that doesn't mean it's the right way to get the job done.

I realize I'm responding to a first-page reply, and I acknowledge I've yet to read the 6 pages of posts. But I will do so. I've given the GET RID OF TAX situation a great deal of thought, and just recently considered how best to raise funds voluntarily in order to achieve a particular purpose. First of all, bear in mind that the TWO best ways to voluntarily fund proper government services are Lotteries and Contract Insurance (LACI for short.) Lotteries are an easy way to raise money, especially if those playing the games know going in that half of the money they spend is going straight to fund proper government services. Contract Insurance would enable there to be plenty of funds to pay for the court system (and I think by extension the police force and jails, etc.) So, if there is a spate of litigation, there would be commensurate monies to pay for the use of courtroom and court-related services. The situation of having a need to ask for money for a specific project would in my view simply require asking for the money for that project. I would advocate special project lottery, for one, as well as something like a Bond Issue for another. Basically - what is the project? If it is something like "We are being threatened by Japan," for example, then people would have to be told the nature of the threat, and given some ballpark figure for how much money is needed to counter the attack, as well as some details on how the government plans to spend the budget. If the project is one that people perceive as a rational objectively sound project - one that is, in their individual judgments, is worthy of their money, time and other resources - then they will do what they can to contribute. How about "Climate Change?" That's a project and a half, and governments today in Canada and US, along with others around the world, are busy throwing mega-bucks at something they actually cannot change. It is like trying to prevent a solar eclipse (or cause one.) While some may be taken in by the outlandish claims, as long as the government cannot force you to contribute to a hare-brained scheme, there is protection individually against wholesale investment in ludicrous undoable projects. Bottom line: if the government cannot convince enough people to fund a project because they cannot proffer enough objective evidence, then the project must go unfunded. (Apologies if this has already been said. I'll go look back at the previous 6-7 pages now.)