Making The World's Poor Buy Rich Man's Toys

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
As for making the poor richer and producing net happiness every time a trade happens why not just give them the money for free!
Because the trade has to happen to create wealth. Just giving people money short circuits that.
Years ago there was an issue of National Review on which the cover proclaimed "Famine caused by too much food!" or some such. After reading the article, I had to agree.

U.S. Government Farm subsidies resulted in excess grain production in the United States, who benevolently shipped the excess grain to third world countries like Eithiopia where the people could get the grain for free. This resulted in Local farmers being unable to sell their crops, so they quit planting and growing them. (who's gonna pay for grain when you can get it for free?)

This resulted in the inhabitants being unable to survive without the free handouts, and unable to produce food themselves.

Idiot government strikes again.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Yeah that is actually true, Diogenes. I remember that too.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

Diogenes wrote: Who willfully chooses to pay taxes?
Well, they took away the choice aspect, but I would. Maybe not as much right now, though I'd like to think that I'd be generous when I have a better career. It would rate my charity list.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:Yeah that is actually true, Diogenes. I remember that too.

EVERYTHING I write is "Actually true." :)


At least to my understanding. I may be wrong once in a while, but i'm not making stuff up.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MirariNefas wrote:
Diogenes wrote: Who willfully chooses to pay taxes?
Well, they took away the choice aspect, but I would. Maybe not as much right now, though I'd like to think that I'd be generous when I have a better career. It would rate my charity list.
I've helped the poor all my life. Ive Fixed their cars, fixed their houses, bought them food, took them to doctors, i've even been stupid enough to give them money on occasion, but I chose to do this. The Government didn't make me.

I don't do it much anymore. They never help themselves, and I no longer have the patience to try to help people who won't even help me help them. (Like in assisting me fixing their house or car)

If it's not important enough for someone to work with me to help them, it's not important enough for me to do it by myself.

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

1- Who willfully chooses not to pay taxes? A couple of people do. I won't say most people would rather not pay taxes but, if they truly didn't want to, they'd do something about it and soon enough you'd have a law for not paying taxes making its way by the representative system. It certainly is a grey area, but I don't think it's a good example of what you're arguing because..

2- Taxes, in general, are a good system. Arguably the least worst. It's good enough that people will concede to it for lack of a better alternative to suggest. Then there's the specific implementation that can (and is) anywhere from OK to awful *. That's another story. No offense to he who is willing. A basic of jurisprudence.
Taxes aren't coercion. Not coercion at slavery's degree anyway..

3- You need taxes right now. With today's population. In today's real world of technology. It sucks, and it's certainly bondage, and it's arguably flat out coercive, but it's not slavery. You're free to dissent and get a grassroots movement to constructively and peacefully make a case against taxes. There would rightly be lots supporters and I'd be one of em more likely than not. But you need to have a feasible, reliable alternative. Or it's a non-starter.
Again, technological progress and thorough education are the best bets to change this state of bondage in labor that almost everyone is in. It's definitely (IMO) on mankind's very short list of priorities right now. I don't know about technological singularity, but there's apparently ample margin to increase technological progress. It must be harnessed.

4- Subconscious thing. If you admit it's reversible, it's certainly in subconscious' domain. Anyway, it's semantics. Why does it matter if only babies are effectively oblivious to it?
Suppressing our natural instincts is one of the necessities for civilization.
And one of the intermediate steps to this utopic (today at least) world you're arguing, is taxes.

Next point, no it's not fair. I was only arguing from a humanitarian standpoint. The exact compromise to make with internal, national interests, is a specific matter. Not just philosophical.

*
Tangential anecdote here.. It's not like I'm just arguing here either. I didn't like the socialistic way taxes and welfare and health care worked back in France. Why should I pay stuff using others' means? It was dishonest and hypocritical if I did it and then argued what I argued. So I didn't cash in social refunds, not even one. The craziest instance was when I had to go to the ER a couple of times, and get an operation. I had no coverage (always been in perfect health, rarely any colds or anything), but a relative went and did the paperwork.. After surgery was done. I only had to pay a couple hundred out of thousands (couple of nights care post op, the few ER visits, and operation).

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

I am not against taxes or government. I'm against taxes that are more than necessary to fund the appropriate functions of government, and I am against a government that keeps growing beyond it's appropriate functions.


We all have to be 10% slaves to pay for the necessary functions of government. (Defense, Law enforcement) But beyond the necessary function of government, they are not morally entitled to our money. WE ARE!

Baring WAR or Act of God disaster, they should not be permitted to take more than 10% from anyone.

Old TJ says it pretty well.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

They'll take whatever the electorate allows them to take (via legislature via voting support). Why draw the line at 10%? I think 0% taken is the true fairness threshold. From the Declaration:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
IOW, as the well used saying goes, a population gets the govt it deserves.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Betruger wrote:They'll take whatever the electorate allows them to take (via legislature via voting support). Why draw the line at 10%? I think 0% taken is the true fairness threshold. From the Declaration:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
IOW, as the well used saying goes, a population gets the govt it deserves.

It is my opinion that evil men have manipulated our laws and the spirit of our laws to enrich and empower themselves and their predilections.

We now have a situation where the opinions of worthless idiots and government tit suckers carries just as much weight as that of people who actually produce goods and services in this nation.

This situation has arisen because of stupid and evil men in positions of power discovering that they can game the system by using these armies of beneficiaries to throw the yoke of slavery ever tighter onto the producers. The public services Unions are KILLING California and New Jersey as we speak. They will kill us all if we don't stop them.


When the inevitable collapse occurs, the innocent will be hurt as well as the guilty.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Fredrick Douglas
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Diogenes wrote:
Betruger wrote:They'll take whatever the electorate allows them to take (via legislature via voting support). Why draw the line at 10%? I think 0% taken is the true fairness threshold. From the Declaration:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
IOW, as the well used saying goes, a population gets the govt it deserves.

It is my opinion that evil men have manipulated our laws and the spirit of our laws to enrich and empower themselves and their predilections.

We now have a situation where the opinions of worthless idiots and government tit suckers carries just as much weight as that of people who actually produce goods and services in this nation.

This situation has arisen because of stupid and evil men in positions of power discovering that they can game the system by using these armies of beneficiaries to throw the yoke of slavery ever tighter onto the producers. The public services Unions are KILLING California and New Jersey as we speak. They will kill us all if we don't stop them.


When the inevitable collapse occurs, the innocent will be hurt as well as the guilty.
Sounds like an agenda to me. There have always been govt tit suckers. Their vote's always have had as much weight as anyone else. I don't remember "idiots" and "morans" having some diminutive voting coefficient in any of the Founding papers and declarations. And there's always going to be idiots. And corruption. The situation has arisen not in this country but way further back. It's human nature. The only "solution" is Reason, and reason is secular and dispassionate.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I am against too high taxes as well, but I do believe that some taxes are necessary and that there are some things that should be handled by a government that is at least on paper required to be unbiased towards everyone regardless of their color, believes, etc.
This is a big difference to corporations and individuals which could of course also be hired to take care of things (e.g. private security instead of police, or militias and mercenaries instead of a government run military). Corporations dont have the responsibility to be unbiased, not even on paper. They would probably always be biased towards those that pay more. Now personally I dont want that, so I vote for this to be done by the government. Like everybody else, those employed by the government need to be paid. Thats what taxes are for. How much and what should be done by the government is a matter of balance. It is interesting though that between all the governments and countries arround the world, the differences are not THAT big. They are rather in the details than the extremes. In all of these countries this balancing has happened over time. Some started out with more government and now have less and some started out with less and now have more. I think that this shows that there is an optimum and slowly everyone is moving towards this situation. Of course there will always be some that are unhappy with a current situation. Heck I sure know that I am very unhappy whenever I have to pay my taxes ;)
But at the end of the day, I am glad that there is police patrouling the streets instead of some thugs paid by the local mafia boss.

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

I've been thinking about the issue of taxation aswell.

In order to have law you need an authority to enforce it.

This authority needs funding.

There can only be one law in each country, therefore within a country the normal rules of business competition cannot be applied.


Imagine a world without a single police, ofcourse in an anarcho-capitalist system there would be private security forces but the consquences of this would be if a poor fellow's son got murdered there'd be noone to hunt down the killers or even investigate the case, I'm sure that everyone here agrees how morally repulsive this would be.

What is more what if someone who paid insurance to be protected by one private security force committed a crime against someone who was protected by another private security force... would both security forces go to war with each other.


So taxation in a country is necessary. But how do we stop government from charging too much and providing too little?

Competition between countries! If you view each country as a private members club and being a tax resident as paying the fee required to become a member than by choosing not to (or to) emmigrate we are effectively choosing which county to pay taxes to and which country gives the best value of public service for a given ammount of tax.

I think the way forward is to create a world that takes a much more friendly view to startup countries, and has easier naturalisation policies regarding immigration/emmigration etc.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I'm sure that everyone here agrees how morally repulsive this would be.

It would result in a lot of people running arround killing other people due to personal vendettas.
I personally imagine this to result in mafia like situations, where you have corporations (or mafia families) compete with each other over the territorries that they can "protect".
Last edited by Skipjack on Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Betruger wrote:Sounds like an agenda to me. There have always been govt tit suckers. Their vote's always have had as much weight as anyone else. I don't remember "idiots" and "morans" having some diminutive voting coefficient in any of the Founding papers and declarations.

The reason you don't remember any such thing is probably because you simply haven't bothered to learn about it.

Betruger wrote: And there's always going to be idiots. And corruption. The situation has arisen not in this country but way further back. It's human nature. The only "solution" is Reason, and reason is secular and dispassionate.

Reason is only possible if people have sufficient knowledge about a subject to discuss it.

Post Reply