Don't Like Taxes?

[Zip]

Living in Brazil, I remember not long ago when the PCC started a terror campaign. The PCC is basicaly a syndicate of criminal organizations and it basicaly started burning schools and buses, attacking police stations and all sorts of stuff like that. Most prisons revolted and the prisoners took innocent people hostage. Roads that would usualy be full of cars were empty, shops closed early, people left work early. It gave me a small level of understanding of the kind of terror the romans must have felt when they lost at Teutoburg and thought the germans would march over Rome. Their fears did not materialize for them on that occasion, but they were not unjustified.

Bad people cooperate. And people who are even worse than those bad people also cooperate. And those who are even worse than THEM also cooperate. If your life depends on the protection granted by one group of these bad people against another, if you cannot protect yourself otherwise, how can you say it is wrong for them to tax you? The process of sustaining life does not involve only the acquisition of food and shelter. You don't have to eat the same thing, or farm the same way, but unless you have a better way, or at least one where you are not likely to starve, it's not virtuous to abandon the way you have. The burden of proof, the risks and the rewards, are on you to prove that another way is possible. If you can do it, you will likely be the richest man on earth for a long time.

All of this happened in a tax based nation and to tax paying people. So the question is how many of those people would be criminals (bad people by your/todays definition) in a society that wasn't over-regulated and constrained by superfulous rules?

I'll agree that it hasn't been tried to do things in the objectivist wayl since the dawn of civilization when families gathered together to form tribes for security and prosperity but that doesn't mean it can't /shouldn't be tried.

[andre_sanchez]

All of this happened in a tax based nation and to tax paying people. So the question is how many of those people would be criminals (bad people by your/todays definition) in a society that wasn't over-regulated and constrained by superfulous rules?

I'll agree that it hasn't been tried to do things in the objectivist wayl since the dawn of civilization when families gathered together to form tribes for security and prosperity but that doesn't mean it can't /shouldn't be tried.

"Superfluous rules" do not make criminals, criminals make "superfluous rules".

Take some of the eastern european countries. They have/had a huge number of "superfluous rules", but apart from that, with unbelievable poverty, they were not particularly dangerous places. The problem in places like Brazil is that criminals are not actually punished, that is, they are only restrained, they are not eliminated. It is a tactic a lot of states use in warfare, and while it might not be the wisest, at least they do restrain them. Almost none of the murders commited are solved, and practicaly none of those commited by professional criminals. These criminals are in fact, warlords of sorts. The fact they cannot take over completely is a good thing. It's the difference between New York on 9/11, and New York under Islamic occupation, or completely wiped out.

[DragonMaci]

The problem being against taxes is that, so far, nothing else has worked. "Voluntary" contributions along the lines of "private defense agencies" or anything of the sort are clearly not able to stamp out organized crime in the form of organized "government" (like say, the government of Iran).

Objectivists don't advocate for private defence forces. They advocate for governments doing the defence forces, courts, and police, but leaving all else to the private sector.

Only other tax-gathering corporations are able to fight and defeat tax-gathering corporations, on a long term basis.

Firstly, only corporations cannot collect tax. Only a government department can. Secondly, when only the above government services exist, a small level of donations could fund it. In fact I figured out a voulntary funding amount that would lead to the NZ defende forces and police getting nearly twice the budget they do now (the government here in NZ underspends on them).

As I see it, the best alternative would be a focus on a land-tax, as the value of land is directly related to its protection, along with the freedom granted to those using it, and aggressive imperalism by said corporation.

Actually, land tax is one of the most ineffecient taxes in terms of revenue gained (leaving aside the morality of taxes for now since that is beside the point), so it fails to serve the purpose it is meant for.

These are all important questions that are usually ignored by the simplistic "taxes are evil, I hate government" mentality.

How so?

Depending on how you understand that, it is anarchism. I'll try and explain that bellow.

No, it isn't anarchism. Anarchism is the total absence of a government, which is not what Objectivists want.

There is a house I want to buy and I need a mortgage. I go to your bank, but you tell me you do not work with the "government" stamp, and instead use a private company. I say, "Ok, I agree.". We sign the papers, you loan me the money, and I default. According to our contract, you have the right to evict me and confiscate the house. However, the contract is not stamped! So you call your private company who comes in and throws me out by force. I call the cops. Unless they recognize the legitimacy of the contract, they have to treat the private company as a criminal organization, and the bank as a co-conspirator.

Your situation is completely farsical, but more importantly, what makes you think the police would have to treat the bank and company as such?

Edited April 3, 2008 by DragonMaci

[DragonMaci]

That means, in reality, it is not a "voluntary tax", it is a monopoly fee (a tax) on the mortgage industry.

Actually, it is fully voluntary. You have every right and ability to refuse to pay. You would have to bear the consequences though.

If the cops do recognize the legitimacy of the contract, then the "government" is just a private agency competing in the mortgage contract enforcement market, and it would be suicide (financialy) for it to spend resources in areas that fall out of that narrow field.

What are you basing this on? It is rather incorrect and baseless as far as I can see. The government protecting people from the iniation of force and fraud would not be suicidal.

There are tax-collecting corporations (States) who protect rights fairly well, and life on earth is almost entirely under the domain of one or another of these corporations. There are no "fee-based" corporations who do the same. There have never been "fee-based" corporations who do the same. I'm not sure why, though I have some theories.

That doesn't hold. Many things exist now that didn't until one bright person thought of it. Examples include modern concrete and lightbulbs, not to mention many other things invented by Thomas Eddison.

If your life depends on the protection granted by one group of these bad people against another, if you cannot protect yourself otherwise, how can you say it is wrong for them to tax you?

The iniation of force that is involved in tax. We'd be way better off in a system of protection where we weren't forced to pay. This is borne out by the fact that the most prosperous times were those with the least government iniation of force.

"Superfluous rules" do not make criminals, criminals make "superfluous rules".

No, superfluous rules are those that make criminals out of innocents.

The problem in places like Brazil is that criminals are not actually punished, that is, they are only restrained, they are not eliminated.

Being locked in a prison with all of your freedoms taken away is punishment, a tough one at that

[DragonMaci]

It's even worse than that: It says that people are naturally inclined to avoid acting for their own benefit if it might also benefit others. That we're all second-handers, measuring our own prosperity by how miserable we can make others.

I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be an accurate description of the author's mindset. He must be projecting his own premises on the rest of the people.

That seems about right to me. I was unable to see that before due to my mood. That is why I didn't want to discuss the issues other than the ones I raised.

Edited April 3, 2008 by DragonMaci

[andre_sanchez]

Objectivists don't advocate for private defence forces.

I know. Well some do actually, but that's not the point.

They advocate for governments doing the defence forces, courts, and police, but leaving all else to the private sector.

Yes.

Firstly, only corporations cannot collect tax. Only a government department can.

The state is a corporation. You are confused about what the word actually means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation

1. "an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. "

4. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

A corporation like Coca-Cola, is restricted by the state and by it's own purpose from engaging in certain things. It is not incapable of doing so.

Secondly, when only the above government services exist, a small level of donations could fund it.

A small level of theft could fund an opposing "government". Donations themselves could fund a group whose purpose is to enforce a completely different system of law, say Sharia.

In fact I figured out a voulntary funding amount that would lead to the NZ defende forces and police getting nearly twice the budget they do now (the government here in NZ underspends on them).

What is the amount? Why would anyone pay it? Because they would benefit from a free society isn't really an answer, as the fact is, if you could outfund the NZ government with voluntary donations you could have deposed it by now and instituted a laissez-faire system.

Actually, land tax is one of the most ineffecient taxes in terms of revenue gained (leaving aside the morality of taxes for now since that is beside the point), so it fails to serve the purpose it is meant for.

How so?

No, it isn't anarchism. Anarchism is the total absence of a government, which is not what Objectivists want.

Anarchism is the surrender of government to subjective forces. There is no such thing as the total absence of government, unless you consider tyrannies not to be governments.

Your situation is completely farsical, but more importantly, what makes you think the police would have to treat the bank and company as such?

How is it "completely farsical"? I answer that question in that very post. They have to treat the bank and company as such because otherwise, there is no reason for people to choose the contract certification of the state as opposed to the cheapest and most effective company providing it, which the state might not be.

[andre_sanchez]

Actually, it is fully voluntary. You have every right and ability to refuse to pay. You would have to bear the consequences though.

You have every right and ability to refuse to pay -every tax-, by that standard. If the state makes it illegal to enforce contracts that are not certified by it's stamp, regardless of any objective measure of the actual legitimacy of the contract, then it has created a monopoly. It is no better than a monopoly on electricity. Now sure, maybe monopolies, and not plain taxes, are the best way to fund states, but they are not "voluntary".

What are you basing this on? It is rather incorrect and baseless as far as I can see. The government protecting people from the iniation of force and fraud would not be suicidal.

They would be spending money on things that their competitors in the mortgage enforcement industry would not be. Therefore, they would need higher prices and/or less effective service in order to compete effectively (and permanently).

That doesn't hold. Many things exist now that didn't until one bright person thought of it. Examples include modern concrete and lightbulbs, not to mention many other things invented by Thomas Eddison.

Yes. What doesn't exist though, is a voluntary means of financing the state. When it does, you can make a principled opposition to taxes. Would you call candles "outdated" before inventing the lightbulb?

The iniation of force that is involved in tax. We'd be way better off in a system of protection where we weren't forced to pay. This is borne out by the fact that the most prosperous times were those with the least government iniation of force.

We would also be better off in a system of farming where we didn't have to plant. An argument from fantasy is not valid. The most prosperous times still had some government initiation of force, and sometimes, prosperity is not a valid measurement of the government's efficacy and efficiency, it could have been operating under higher than usual levels of danger. It is better to be poor and alive than rich but dead. Say you are a jew in Switzerland and Hitler is threatening to invade. Would it be better to have a really nice dinner, or have all your property taken from you to support the war effort as a means to stop him?

No, superfluous rules are those that make criminals out of innocents.

Superfluous rules cannot make criminals out of innocents. They can criminalize innocence, so to speak, but the innocent are still innocent. They do not become criminals because of the presence or absense of "superfluous rules". I don't remember who said it, but I recall a phrase that is applicable here... "Circumnstances do not make the man, they merely reveal him".

Being locked in a prison with all of your freedoms taken away is punishment, a tough one at that

No, it is restraint. It happens to not be particularly pleasant (though they make up for it in various ways), but it is not in itself punishment. A large number of those who are locked in prison should be buried. The rest shouldn't be in prison at all. People use prisons as a sort of "let's see if we can break this person's will to commit crimes" experiment.

[DragonMaci]

The state is a corporation. You are confused about what the word actually means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation

1. "an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. "

4. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

A corporation like Coca-Cola, is restricted by the state and by it's own purpose from engaging in certain things. It is not incapable of doing so.

So then what would a company like Micorosoft Corporation be referred to under a laissez faire system? Such a system would include no government restriction except where the iniation of force and fraud are concerned, so what would they be called when there is the lack of restrictions that are apparently essential to the definition?

If you ask me whether or not they are restricted is non-essential to the drfinition of the word. As such the definition is a poor one since it includes. As ITOE says, definitions should only include essentials.

A small level of theft could fund an opposing "government". Donations themselves could fund a group whose purpose is to enforce a completely different system of law, say Sharia.

That is completely and utterly beside the point, which was to offer an alternative to taxes.

What is the amount? Why would anyone pay it?

The amount is roughly $20 a week from everyone on average to fund the defence forces. Why would they pay it? So they have a defence against invaders. Courts could be paid for voluntarily by contract holders. Why would they pay it? So they have an objective and impartial means to settle contract disputes. The police force could be funded from donations by the insurance companies. Why would they do it? because having a police force would lower there costs since there would be less violence, thefts, etc, so less payouts.

If you really want to know about it, wait until I have done my report on it and read it (it will be available free online to be downloaded, read, and redistrubuted.

Because they would benefit from a free society isn't really an answer, as the fact is, if you could outfund the NZ government with voluntary donations you could have deposed it by now and instituted a laissez-faire system.

Actually, that is exactly the answer. You see, it isn't a matter of whether or not tge NZ government could be outfunded. My proposal is one with lower overall government funding. The only increases are to the funding of the police and defence forces because they get too little funding. To paint it out for you: the NZ army is way out of date technologically and tiny, the navy is even smaller and has few ships, and the air force is even smaller still and has not even a single fighter plane. They have only helicopters and carrier planes. Finally the police force cannot afford much and is small. Despite the increases in defence forces and police to fix this situation my proposal is one of drastic decreases to government funding (ie less than 4% of GDP compared to the current 41%). This would be made possible by cutting the government out of many things they are involved with now (eg: education, health, accident insurance, investment, welfare, etc).

Besides, even if I could outfund it, which is silly since they can tax any amount they want while I cannot collect any amount I want, that doesn't mean i could of deposed of them. I'd have to have the means, not just the money. Besides, even if I could of disposed of them I wouldn't be able to institute a laissez-faire system; no one would vote for me after that.

How so?

It doesn't collect as much tax revenue, even in terms of dollars to percentage terms. Sales taxes like NZ's GST are the most efficient in terms on dollars to percentage, with income taxes second.

Anarchism is the surrender of government to subjective forces. There is no such thing as the total absence of government, unless you consider tyrannies not to be governments.

Neither of those are what the word means. It means disorder caused by the lack of government.

How is it "completely farsical"? I answer that question in that very post. They have to treat the bank and company as such because otherwise, there is no reason for people to choose the contract certification of the state as opposed to the cheapest and most effective company providing it, which the state might not be.

It is farcial because of, "They have to treat the bank and company as such because otherwise, there is no reason for people to choose the contract certification of the state as opposed to the cheapest and most effective company providing it, which the state might not be." And because it it wouldn't happen. But that is really an aside. The main point is that they wouldn 't have to do such.

Also, there is reason for people to pay: so they can have an objective and impartial means to resolve contract dispute.

[DragonMaci]

You have every right and ability to refuse to pay -every tax-, by that standard.

Not really. Firstly, they initiate force against you if you don't. Secondly, for most workers they have no choice but to pay taxes since their boss pays it for them while sorting their wages/salaries. Since workers make up most people most people therefore have no chouce but to pay. You do have full choice not to pay in a laissez faire system though.

If the state makes it illegal to enforce contracts that are not certified by it's stamp, regardless of any objective measure of the actual legitimacy of the contract, then it has created a monopoly. It is no better than a monopoly on electricity.

False. Competition is the last thing you want when it comes to courts. Competition between courts would lead to warring courts in the long run.

Now sure, maybe monopolies, and not plain taxes, are the best way to fund states, but they are not "voluntary".

Firstly, monopolies are not the way i am proposing to fund courts. I am proposing voluntary donations. Secondly, they are fully voluntary; you can choose not to pay, but like every oither decision you make you must bare the consequences of your decision.

They would be spending money on things that their competitors in the mortgage enforcement industry would not be. Therefore, they would need higher prices and/or less effective service in order to compete effectively (and permanently).

There would be no competitors to the government courts in a laissez faire capitalism system.

Yes. What doesn't exist though, is a voluntary means of financing the state. When it does, you can make a principled opposition to taxes.

And I can make a principled opposition now based on the fact that no one has the right to iniate force against others and that taxes are exactly that, ie, the iniation of force, and as such they are evil and I can make a principled opposition now. They are evil now regardless of whether or not alternatives ever existed, so whether or not they have existed ebfore is irrelevant since I am making a principled opposition based on the evils of taxation.

Would you call candles "outdated" before inventing the lightbulb?

That is irrelevant. I am calling taxes evil not outdated.

We would also be better off in a system of farming where we didn't have to plant.

We can. It is called using livestock only. As an example, I plan to have a horse farm. That doesn't require I plant anything since the grass is alrready there thanks to nature. I need only buy a farm with grass and let grass grow. That is very possible.

An argument from fantasy is not valid.

I am not making such an argument. I am making an argument from human rights, which include the right to keep one's property and not have it stolen, and not to have force iniated against oneself. Taxes are both theft and the iniation of force. As such they are evil.

The most prosperous times still had some government initiation of force

I know that, but that is besides the point. The point is that the economy was better off in the times of less force.

and sometimes, prosperity is not a valid measurement of the government's efficacy and efficiency

I wasn't trying to do that. I was trying to state that taxes are evil and immoral.

[DragonMaci]

It is better to be poor and alive than rich but dead. Say you are a jew in Switzerland and Hitler is threatening to invade. Would it be better to have a really nice dinner, or have all your property taken from you to support the war effort as a means to stop him?

That is beside the point, but the answer is neither. I'd like the third option, ie, a laissez faire government defending me and all other citizens of my country. Both of your options are just as bad. Without property I won't live long, so either way I'm dead. And in both options I'd have no rights. Without rights there is no reason to live.

Superfluous rules cannot make criminals out of innocents.

It can make them legally criminals, which was my point.

No, it is restraint. It happens to not be particularly pleasant (though they make up for it in various ways), but it is not in itself punishment.

I am not disputting that prison is restraint. I agree with that. But you also lose most if not all of ypur rights. You don't have the right to go where you want anymore. You don't have the right to associate with who you want anymore. You don't have the right to do many things. They are denied from you. Having rights denied from you is a severe punishment. It is those rights denials that is the cause of the unpleasantness.

A large number of those who are locked in prison should be buried.

True, but that just means they are underpunished. Underpunishment is still punishment.

The rest shouldn't be in prison at all.

Actually, many people deserve prison and not death.

People use prisons as a sort of "let's see if we can break this person's will to commit crimes" experiment.

That means that the system is poorly implemented, not that it shouldn't be done at all.

[andre_sanchez]

So then what would a company like Micorosoft Corporation be referred to under a laissez faire system?

A corporation...

Such a system would include no government restriction except where the iniation of force and fraud are concerned,

That is a government restriction, and more importantly, it is the one I was reffering to.

so what would they be called when there is the lack of restrictions that are apparently essential to the definition?

You missed the point of what I said. Restrictions are -not- essential to the definition, which is why a state -is- a corporation.

That is completely and utterly beside the point, which was to offer an alternative to taxes.

How is it beside the point? This alternative has to be able to compete. If it cannot defend against these rivals, then it is not -really- an alternative, it is suicide.

The amount is roughly $20 a week from everyone on average to fund the defence forces. Why would they pay it? So they have a defence against invaders.

$20 a week is a lot to pay for something which you don't actually have to pay for in order to get it. No one individual donation of that size will have an impact on the quality of defense the person gets. For largers donations, the person is pretty much buying himself an army. Why should he share it with others?

Courts could be paid for voluntarily by contract holders.

I have already talked about the non-voluntary nature of a stamp tax. A proper government will not disregard contracts as illegitimate simply because they weren't registered with them.

Why would they pay it? So they have an objective and impartial means to settle contract disputes. The police force could be funded from donations by the insurance companies. Why would they do it? because having a police force would lower there costs since there would be less violence, thefts, etc, so less payouts.

Unless the insurance company has a monopoly on a given area, paying for police would be financial suicide. Other companies could offer the same insurance, for the same lowered risk, without having to spend any money donating to police.

Actually, that is exactly the answer. You see, it isn't a matter of whether or not tge NZ government could be outfunded. My proposal is one with lower overall government funding. The only increases are to the funding of the police and defence forces because they get too little funding.

Well of course, I'm talking about their capacity to wage war. While social spending has a certain influence, as it buys loyalty, if you could hire more soldiers, train them better, and buy more military equipment, you could conquer New Zealand and change the laws to pretty much whatever you want. Can you do it through voluntary donations? The people you want to donate to something like this clearly aren't interested. You have to remember that the state is in charge of warfare. That is what all its spending is about.

To paint it out for you: the NZ army is way out of date technologically and tiny, the navy is even smaller and has few ships, and the air force is even smaller still and has not even a single fighter plane. They have only helicopters and carrier planes. Finally the police force cannot afford much and is small. Despite the increases in defence forces and police to fix this situation my proposal is one of drastic decreases to government funding (ie less than 4% of GDP compared to the current 41%). This would be made possible by cutting the government out of many things they are involved with now (eg: education, health, accident insurance, investment, welfare, etc).

I have no problem with that, though I think you might need to double or triple that number.

Besides, even if I could outfund it, which is silly since they can tax any amount they want while I cannot collect any amount I want,

That's my point!

that doesn't mean i could of deposed of them. I'd have to have the means, not just the money. Besides, even if I could of disposed of them I wouldn't be able to institute a laissez-faire system; no one would vote for me after that.

You enforce the law. You don't hold elections to see if people are interested in following the law.

It doesn't collect as much tax revenue, even in terms of dollars to percentage terms. Sales taxes like NZ's GST are the most efficient in terms on dollars to percentage, with income taxes second.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. My preference for a land tax is not so much because I think it would get the most money (though I think it might), but because its structure is sound. People pay the tax so their land is defended. Everyone has to pay it, directly or indirectly, there is no possibility of evasion. It is the most just tax, as you are paying to defend your land. The value of land is directly related to freedom and economic productivity, giving the state an incentive to maximize those. I think structuring a republic on the land tax, giving the vote on a per dollar paid basis (as opposed to per head) would likely be the soundest form of government in the long run.

It is farcial because of, "They have to treat the bank and company as such because otherwise, there is no reason for people to choose the contract certification of the state as opposed to the cheapest and most effective company providing it, which the state might not be." And because it it wouldn't happen. But that is really an aside. The main point is that they wouldn 't have to do such.

Also, there is reason for people to pay: so they can have an objective and impartial means to resolve contract dispute.

The government CANNOT avoid resolving contract disputes. If the bank says "We own that house, fair and square" and the borrower says "I own the house, fair and square", the government HAS to make a decision regarding who is in the right. It has to either side with the borrower and treat any attempt by the bank to take the house as a crime, or side with the bank and treat any attempt to resist the bank's efforts to take the house as a crime.

[andre_sanchez]

Not really. Firstly, they initiate force against you if you don't.

Exactly. That's the consequence you have to accept. I'll repeat the keyphrase I used, which is "by that standard".

Secondly, for most workers they have no choice but to pay taxes since their boss pays it for them while sorting their wages/salaries. Since workers make up most people most people therefore have no chouce but to pay. You do have full choice not to pay in a laissez faire system though.

They can different employers, who don't do that.

False. Competition is the last thing you want when it comes to courts. Competition between courts would lead to warring courts in the long run.

I'm not talking about courts competing for judgement. That's the point! I'm talking about contracts. If the state ignores contracts not certified by it, it is forbiding people to form voluntary agreements without its permission and the payment of a mandatory tax.

Firstly, monopolies are not the way i am proposing to fund courts. I am proposing voluntary donations. Secondly, they are fully voluntary; you can choose not to pay, but like every oither decision you make you must bare the consequences of your decision.

If you don't pay a real estate tax, you have to bare the consequence of your decision. That consequence happens to be that you lose that property.

And I can make a principled opposition now based on the fact that no one has the right to iniate force against others and that taxes are exactly that, ie, the iniation of force, and as such they are evil and I can make a principled opposition now. They are evil now regardless of whether or not alternatives ever existed, so whether or not they have existed ebfore is irrelevant since I am making a principled opposition based on the evils of taxation.

That is irrelevant. I am calling taxes evil not outdated.

How do you determine evil? Why is the initiation of force evil? Please trace back your steps for me.

We can. It is called using livestock only. As an example, I plan to have a horse farm. That doesn't require I plant anything since the grass is alrready there thanks to nature. I need only buy a farm with grass and let grass grow. That is very possible.

Oh gosh, you have convinced me! Please address the actual point I was making.

I am not making such an argument. I am making an argument from human rights, which include the right to keep one's property and not have it stolen, and not to have force iniated against oneself. Taxes are both theft and the iniation of force. As such they are evil.

Is it ever virtuous to lie?

I know that, but that is besides the point. The point is that the economy was better off in the times of less force.

Not exactly, but OK. So what?

[DragonMaci]

You missed the point of what I said. Restrictions are -not- essential to the definition, which is why a state -is- a corporation.

If restrictions are not essential to the definition they shouldn't be mentioned in it. Definitions should only mention the essentials of the concept they refer to.

How is it beside the point? This alternative has to be able to compete. If it cannot defend against these rivals, then it is not -really- an alternative, it is suicide.

Wrong, since I am not proposing a system of competing governments. I am proposing one government for the country in question. That means a national government and no state or provincial governments and no city or area governments, and most importantly no competing governments.

$20 a week is a lot to pay for something which you don't actually have to pay for in order to get it. No one individual donation of that size will have an impact on the quality of defense the person gets. For largers donations, the person is pretty much buying himself an army. Why should he share it with others?

1. NZ$20 isn't as much as US$20 due to the NZ dollar having less value. 2. I said "avera" not "exact". In other words some might pay more or less - or none - it is up to them. People would be able to choose whether or not to pay and then choose how much to pay. 3. Courts, police, and a defence force do have to be paid for if you want them. They don't - and can't - come for free. 4. The single person argument, it is a strawman. I never said or implied one payment made a difference. I said millions of such payments would. 5. He isn't buying an army. The closest to that that is true - and only as an analogy at best - is that he buys a small fraction of the army. 6. He doesn't have any say over whether or not others benefit form the army anymore than you have a say who else gets to benefit from the businesses you are a customer of no matter how much you spend with them.

I have already talked about the non-voluntary nature of a stamp tax.

And saying that obviously won't work since I said they are voluntary. Like I have said 2 or 3 times, they are voluntary, you just have to face the consequences of not paying. There is nothing forcing you to pay.

Unless the insurance company has a monopoly on a given area, paying for police would be financial suicide. Other companies could offer the same insurance, for the same lowered risk, without having to spend any money donating to police.

Wrong. Lowering the number of payouts they have to make is financialy beneficial not financial suicide. Less payouts equals lower costs which equals lower risks and more profit.

Well of course, I'm talking about their capacity to wage war. While social spending has a certain influence, as it buys loyalty, if you could hire more soldiers, train them better, and buy more military equipment, you could conquer New Zealand and change the laws to pretty much whatever you want. Can you do it through voluntary donations? The people you want to donate to something like this clearly aren't interested.

Cab you substantiate that? I bet you can't, The reason is that it cannot be done because it is false. In times of war they could increase the size, equipment, training, etc of the army by using the larger donations they would recieve in such a time. People aren't idiots; most would relaise it is in their best interests to forgoe things like stereos in order to be defended from invaders so mist would be happy to donate extra so they can be protected. People are usually willing to spend on their defence even if it means forgoing other things. But more importantly, I am proposing a level of spending on our defence forces that is in fact more than is now being spent through taxation and more importantly, creates a defence force capable of defending NZ, which our current defence force is unable to do.

You have to remember that the state is in charge of warfare. That is what all its spending is about.

Yes, I do remember that. That is what I am protesting against. I am saying it shouldn't be in charge of such and that it should be in charge only of protection from the iniation of force and fraud and punishing those that iniate either.

I have no problem with that, though I think you might need to double or triple that number.

Nope. 4% of NZ's GDP is plenty. It allows for billions more to be spent on our defence force than is being done now.

That's my point!

No, you are saying the government can't through donations. I am saying me, as in Kane David Bunce, can, not that the government can't. The two are very different.

You enforce the law. You don't hold elections to see if people are interested in following the law.

That is called dictatorship, not laissez faire. Laissez faire involves the spefic lack of the government getting in by forcing the last one out. They get duly elected.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. My preference for a land tax is not so much because I think it would get the most money (though I think it might), but because its structure is sound. People pay the tax so their land is defended. Everyone has to pay it, directly or indirectly, there is no possibility of evasion. It is the most just tax, as you are paying to defend your land. The value of land is directly related to freedom and economic productivity, giving the state an incentive to maximize those. I think structuring a republic on the land tax, giving the vote on a per dollar paid basis (as opposed to per head) would likely be the soundest form of government in the long run.

I am saying that because it is so inefficient governments won't adopt it. They prefer taxes that are more efficient.

As for paying it so there land is defended, well, the point fo proper government is to defend your rights not your land. Defending your land is a result of that point, not the point itself.

And as for it being the solidest form of government, I disagree. I believe that to be a properly founded and formed laissez faire government, but I suppose that is obvious by now.

The government CANNOT avoid resolving contract disputes. If the bank says "We own that house, fair and square" and the borrower says "I own the house, fair and square", the government HAS to make a decision regarding who is in the right. It has to either side with the borrower and treat any attempt by the bank to take the house as a crime, or side with the bank and treat any attempt to resist the bank's efforts to take the house as a crime.

Actually, it is quite capable of avoiding. it shouldn't, but that isn't the point (actually it should in the case of petty ones that don't deserve to be in court and ones that can be resolved out of court). Even whether or not they can isn't the point. I never said or implied such.

[andre_sanchez]

That is beside the point, but the answer is neither. I'd like the third option, ie, a laissez faire government defending me and all other citizens of my country.

The question is not "Would you preffer a billion dollars, or what you have in your bank account?". I recall Ayn Rand having said something along the lines of "100% taxation if it's for defense". Without defense, you have no property.

Both of your options are just as bad. Without property I won't live long, so either way I'm dead. And in both options I'd have no rights. Without rights there is no reason to live.

"A man needs ethics because he requires values to survive", he does not "need to survive because he requires life in order to have ethics". Life is the primary value, not "rights".

It can make them legally criminals, which was my point.

Yea, but a person who is "legally" a criminal, but doesn't aggress against me, does not really bother me.

I am not disputting that prison is restraint. I agree with that. But you also lose most if not all of ypur rights. You don't have the right to go where you want anymore. You don't have the right to associate with who you want anymore. You don't have the right to do many things. They are denied from you. Having rights denied from you is a severe punishment. It is those rights denials that is the cause of the unpleasantness.

OK.

True, but that just means they are underpunished. Underpunishment is still punishment.

No. Underpunishment is a reward.

Actually, many people deserve prison and not death.

No human being on earth that does not deserve death, deserves prison as a form of punishment. The widespread use of prisons is a mistake of our present age. Crimes such as violent rape, murder, armed robbery, kidnapping and such, are all death penalty cases. Cases of theft and fraud could be handled perfectly well without prison, with a combination of fines, public humiliation and physical punishment.

That means that the system is poorly implemented, not that it shouldn't be done at all.

Prisons are OK as a means to restrain people during trial.

[DragonMaci]

Exactly. That's the consequence you have to accept. I'll repeat the keyphrase I used, which is "by that standard".

Wrong. A rights protection without evil is possible. The good and moral can defend rights. Such pragmatic views are wrong and don't fit into any Objectivist view, into a rational view.

They can different employers, who don't do that.

I don't know how it works in the NZ but you can't do that here - unless you get under the table work, which is illegal and as such risky.

I'm not talking about courts competing for judgement. That's the point! I'm talking about contracts. If the state ignores contracts not certified by it, it is forbiding people to form voluntary agreements without its permission and the payment of a mandatory tax.

1. i never proposed them ignoring contracts. 2. That has nothing to do with competition.

If you don't pay a real estate tax, you have to bare the consequence of your decision. That consequence happens to be that you lose that property.

If you have a choice it isn't tax. Taxes are something the government forces you to pay with a gun.

How do you determine evil? Why is the initiation of force evil? Please trace back your steps for me.

That which is evil is that which is inemical to survival. For man that is that which breaches his rights. The iniation of force is a breach of his rights and therefore it is evil.

Oh gosh, you have convinced me! Please address the actual point I was making.

I did. I addressed it by saying we can have such farming and I plan to.

Is it ever virtuous to lie?

Yes. In fact in some situations (eg a man points a gun at his head and asks where your children are) lying is the only virtous act. But lies are not a breach of rights, so that is beisde the point.

I've had to hit you up a lot on you saying things beside the point. Please make more of an effort. It is frustrating to debate with someone when they reply to a comment of mine with a comment that is beside the point.

Not exactly, but OK. So what?

Not exactly? How so?

So what is that less iniation of force equals better. That goes all the way down to zero iniation of force. No inaition of force is best.

[DragonMaci]

The question is not "Would you preffer a billion dollars, or what you have in your bank account?". I recall Ayn Rand having said something along the lines of "100% taxation if it's for defense". Without defense, you have no property.

I know it wasn't. I simply refused to accept your options. Instead I choose a third I myself added because 100% taxation means no property. Remember that you and you alone have the right to that which you earn. Not your neighbour, not some guy down the street, not some guy in another town, not some guy in another state/province/area, and not the government - unless you choose to give it to either and make an agreement or promise to that effect.

"A man needs ethics because he requires values to survive", he does not "need to survive because he requires life in order to have ethics". Life is the primary value, not "rights".

I never said or implied otherwise. I said without rights I cannot pursue my values and as such have no reason to live.

No. Underpunishment is a reward.

No, because you still have suffering. No suffering is a reward no matter how much more you should of got. Only the handing out of values, abatement, removal of punishment is a reward. Underpunishment is neither.

No human being on earth that does not deserve death, deserves prison as a form of punishment. The widespread use of prisons is a mistake of our present age. Crimes such as violent rape, murder, armed robbery, kidnapping and such, are all death penalty cases. Cases of theft and fraud could be handled perfectly well without prison, with a combination of fines, public humiliation and physical punishment.

I agree that prisons being widespread is a problem. But the problem isn't to remove them. It is to send less people to prisons by not having victimless crimes, thus making them less widespread because they are used less.

Prisons are OK as a means to restrain people during trial.

What would we punish rights breachers that did not do enough of a breach to deserve death? We shouldn't do them them things like lashings that we (rightly) wouldn't even do to animals and crimes for which fines are not appropriate or are unlikely to make a difference.

Edited April 3, 2008 by DragonMaci

[andre_sanchez]

Let's focus for now on a specific point, namely, the nature of "laissez-faire". You seem to think democracy is an integral part of the system, and that only democratic governments can be legitimate. Why?

[andre_sanchez]

I never said or implied otherwise. I said without rights I cannot pursue my values and as such have no reason to live.

There is never a point at which you have no reason to live, because life itself is the primary value.

What would we punish rights breachers that did not do enough of a breach to deserve death? We shouldn't do them them things like lashings that we (rightly) wouldn't even do to animals and crimes for which fines are not appropriate or are unlikely to make a difference.

Why not lashings? Are you under the impression that taking years off of someone's life is less cruel than temporarily inflicting a certain amount of pain?

[Zip]

The state is a corporation. You are confused about what the word actually means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation

1. "an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. "

4. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

A corporation like Coca-Cola, is restricted by the state and by it's own purpose from engaging in certain things. It is not incapable of doing so.

Garbage.

A state is a sovereign entity. Corporations are not

In addition a State:

Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries.

Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.

Has economic activity and an organized economy.

A state regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.

Has the power of social engineering, such as education. (Currently)

Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.

Has a government which provides public services and police power.

[DragonMaci]

Let's focus for now on a specific point, namely, the nature of "laissez-faire". You seem to think democracy is an integral part of the system, and that only democratic governments can be legitimate. Why?

Actually, I do not think that democracy is an integral part of the system. I hate democracy. Democracy is the rule of the many (the people voting for laws anf government passing them) rather than our current system of the rule of the few (government voting for and passing laws. Many people think democracy is when people vote for a political party. it isn't. It is when many the people vote for laws - any laws - and then the government passes them. Such a system results in the iniation of force and thus is not a part of laissez faire. Laiisez faire involves people voting in the government. Why? Because dictatorship, the only alternative, involves the iniation of force while voting in the government does not.

There is never a point at which you have no reason to live, because life itself is the primary value.

Not when there is nothing to live for. No values to pursue means nothing to live for.

Why not lashings? Are you under the impression that taking years off of someone's life is less cruel than temporarily inflicting a certain amount of pain?

Because, torture isn't justified except in extreme cases, cases that are something like getting information from a terrorist or a mass murderer, and I don't approve of treating people worse than animals. But more importantly, it is an ineffective punishment in most cases.

Garbage...

Thanks for backing me up.

[andre_sanchez]

Garbage.

A state is a sovereign entity. Corporations are not

What do you think a sovereign entity is?

In addition a State:

Has (...)

I was going to reply point by point, but I think it's better if I simply make one thing clear. I am not saying all corporations are states. I am saying states are corporations. A dog is an animal, but not all animals are dogs.

[Maximus]

Actually, I do not think that democracy is an integral part of the system. I hate democracy. Democracy is the rule of the many (the people voting for laws anf government passing them) rather than our current system of the rule of the few (government voting for and passing laws. Many people think democracy is when people vote for a political party. it isn't. It is when many the people vote for laws - any laws - and then the government passes them. Such a system results in the iniation of force and thus is not a part of laissez faire. Laiisez faire involves people voting in the government. Why? Because dictatorship, the only alternative, involves the iniation of force while voting in the government does not.

Simply put: Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. A Republic is the rule of law, where the minority is protected against the arbitrary whim of the majority.

Even simpler:

Democracy=mob rule.

Republic = The rule of law.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Maximus

[andre_sanchez]

Actually, I do not think that democracy is an integral part of the system. I hate democracy. Democracy is the rule of the many (the people voting for laws anf government passing them) rather than our current system of the rule of the few (government voting for and passing laws. Many people think democracy is when people vote for a political party. it isn't. It is when many the people vote for laws - any laws - and then the government passes them. Such a system results in the iniation of force and thus is not a part of laissez faire.

Okay. You have somewhat successfuly made the distinction between a republic and a democracy. However, this statement is incorrect:

Laiisez faire involves people voting in the government. Why? Because dictatorship, the only alternative, involves the iniation of force while voting in the government does not.

Voting is an exercise of political power. It involves exactly the same kind of force as a dictatorship. If this force is used as an "initiation of force", or not, is a separate matter. When people "vote against laissez-faire", as you said they would do even if you managed to take control of the state, they are commiting an act of aggression. It is moral to institute a dictatorship to force them to stop.

Not when there is nothing to live for. No values to pursue means nothing to live for.

Life is the value to pursue.

Because, torture isn't justified except in extreme cases, cases that are something like getting information from a terrorist or a mass murderer,

Why?

and I don't approve of treating people worse than animals.

Animals are eaten for no crime at all. They are killed for no crime. Lashing people is not treating them worse than animals. Further, animals -are- lashed and they -are- subject to more brutal treatment than lashings. If you think they shouldn't, please explain why.

But more importantly, it is an ineffective punishment in most cases.

Prison is an ineffective punishment in most cases, except it's much more expensive (for YOU!) than lashings. Lashings are not meant to be the only form of punishment. Public humiliation (the making of the criminal's offense public), as well as debt (fines and restitution) are meant to be tied to them. A person commits a crime that does not warrant the death penalty, there is no reason to lock them up, NO REASON AT ALL(!), as they can "pay for their crime" in freedom. One of the reasons people don't realize this is because they are willing to let rapists and armed robbers, along with all sorts of other criminals, live. So they have to lock them up in order to not live in a permanent state of fear. You simply punch someone in the face, you are lashed, your behaviour is made public so other people can adjust their behaviour towards you as they see fit, you make restitution to your victim, there is no need to take your freedom away. You take money that was lying around? Same thing.

IT IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT TO LOCK PEOPLE UP FOR SUCH MINOR OFFENSES.

Edited April 3, 2008 by andre_sanchez

[DragonMaci]

Simply put: Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. A Republic is the rule of law, where the minority is protected against the arbitrary whim of the majority.

Even simpler:

Democracy=mob rule.

Republic = The rule of law.

Thank you for such a succicent abbreviation of what I said. It is much more to the point than what I said.

[softwareNerd]

IT IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT TO LOCK PEOPLE UP FOR SUCH MINOR OFFENSES.

No it isn't.