Toribash
Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
I don't know how to respond to that.

I'll distil it for you.

What do you propose as a workable alternative to the current tax system? You said it's immoral and shit. Are you all for privatization, if so, which things should government still pay for and run? Are you a big Ayn Rand fan?

If you're into anarchy, how do you maintain your personal security when the stabilizing hegemon that stopped everything from devolving to a state of competitive, lawless multipolarity no longer exists? Grant me the likely possibility that you're not a fit alpha male, so if that's the case, how would you stop the bigger dogs from eating you in that totally free-market, every man for himself, dawg-eat-dawg world?
Last edited by Ele; Jan 23, 2017 at 02:43 PM.
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
I'll distil it for you.

What do you propose as a workable alternative to the current tax system? You said it's immoral and shit. Are you all for privatization, if so, which things should government still pay for and run? Are you a big Ayn Rand fan?

If you're into anarchy, how do you maintain your personal security when the stabilizing hegemon that stopped everything from devolving to a state of competitive, lawless multipolarity no longer exists? Grant me the likely possibility that you're not a fit alpha male, so if that's the case, how would you stop the bigger dogs from eating you in that totally free-market, every man for himself, dawg-eat-dawg world?

Why not give people the option on what their tax dollars go towards ). Wouldn't this work because if something is seen to be under funded, people would naturally choose to put more money into that. I don't want to give my money to refugees or drug addicts, so I should have the option not to.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
You sound like a socialist. Are you a socialist?

You claim that our government is stealing from us. Those who we have trusted to lead our country and guide us are stealing our hard-earned money and putting it into causes we don't support.

If those people would take your money and use it for whatever they need/want to do, then why the hell do you think everything'd work out if everyone controlling private services had that opportunity? How can you be so skeptical to the government yet so trustful toward your peers?

Pay me more, or your house is going to burn to the ground.


Originally Posted by shinitai View Post
You claim that our government is stealing from us. Those who we have trusted to lead our country and guide us are stealing our hard-earned money and putting it into causes we don't support.

If those people would take your money and use it for whatever they need/want to do, then why the hell do you think everything'd work out if everyone controlling private services had that opportunity? How can you be so skeptical to the government yet so trustful toward your peers?

Pay me more, or your house is going to burn to the ground.

Private police would exist and stop the strawman in that little ending line.
(I could also say; pay me more, or you go to prison. Which is literally the law)

Ancap has a lot to do with consumer sovereignty. If it's needed it will be created, if it's unwanted it will go away. Please research what you're debating against.

No, I'm not ancap nor socialist.
Last edited by kendrikLMR; Jan 23, 2017 at 10:31 PM.
Originally Posted by kendrikLMR View Post
Why not give people the option on what their tax dollars go towards ). Wouldn't this work because if something is seen to be under funded, people would naturally choose to put more money into that. I don't want to give my money to refugees or drug addicts, so I should have the option not to.

Because what the public wants isn't always aligned with what the public needs.

Public opinion is often ill-informed. You don't want nuclear or military policy to be funded on the whims of a populace that has no experience managing hazardous materials or international diplomacy.

In addition, choosing what your taxes fund is impractical, and not as effective as you'd hope. As the most obvious example, nobody wants to pay taxes, and funding is required to support tax collection. People will naturally feel less inclined to fund tax collection because they don't like paying taxes. Well that will result in less taxes being collected, because there's less money funding the tax collection. Which will result in less money being collected overall to fund other, more popular, programs. So the entire system collapses because a necessary, unpopular, program is not funded.


Originally Posted by kendrikLMR View Post
Private police would exist and stop the strawman in that little ending line.
(I could also say; pay me more, or you go to prison. Which is literally the law)

Ancap has a lot to do with consumer sovereignty. If it's needed it will be created, if it's unwanted it will go away. Please research what you're debating against.

Private police will only step in unless you give them an incentive to. If the perpetrator gives a better incentive to not go after them, private police will not proceed with normal police proceedings. Law enforcement decided by capitalism essentially means that the rich and empowered can get away with crimes over those with less money and power.

And the law is anything but "pay me more or you go to prison". If anything was a strawman, that was a strawman. Laws are different from place to place, but the only situation the law would ever become "pay me more or go to prison" is when debtor's prisons are a thing. And debtor's prisons are outlawed in most developed nations.
Last edited by Oracle; Jan 23, 2017 at 10:45 PM. Reason: extra response
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
I'll distil it for you.

What do you propose as a workable alternative to the current tax system? You said it's immoral and shit. Are you all for privatization, if so, which things should government still pay for and run? Are you a big Ayn Rand fan?

Before I answer, I'd like to clarify that I don't prescribe my beliefs to Ayn Rand or any other ideology. I pride myself on being open-minded and finding solutions to deeply immoral problems and situations.

To answer the question, instead of tax, people would rely on mutual aid. Mutual aid is helping each other to achieve individual and mutual beneficial goals. Coercive economic models would be replaced with voluntary models that aren't dependent on exploiting. Altruism ultimately comes with reward; it is in a person's own interest to help others (just look at the charities and organisations we have already). If you want a specific example of a model that would feature in a fiscally-anarchistic society, look up the viable systems model. It effectively allows the principles of mutual aid to be enlarged to a larger system that is autonomous and self-producing.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
If you're into anarchy, how do you maintain your personal security when the stabilizing hegemon that stopped everything from devolving to a state of competitive, lawless multipolarity no longer exists? Grant me the likely possibility that you're not a fit alpha male, so if that's the case, how would you stop the bigger dogs from eating you in that totally free-market, every man for himself, dawg-eat-dawg world?

You make it sound as if the free market is a representative of natural selection. On the contrary, state monopoly provision of welfare and social services gives the politicians and bureaucrats power. If taxation really was the ideology of giving money to the poor, then why doesn't the state do it directly? A system of cash payments to the poor would be more beneficial, surely? Milton Friedman believed in a negative income tax that would replace all income programs with a cash payment to every citizen; a system that gives people an incentive to work, rather than become dependent on the state. Again, I don't prescribe to it, but it is interesting. You can argue that Sweden doesn't have minimum wage, but it does alright with the unions vs employers concept.

Originally Posted by shinitai View Post
You claim that our government is stealing from us. Those who we have trusted to lead our country and guide us are stealing our hard-earned money and putting it into causes we don't support.

Correct.

Originally Posted by shinitai View Post
If those people would take your money and use it for whatever they need/want to do, then why the hell do you think everything'd work out if everyone controlling private services had that opportunity? How can you be so skeptical to the government yet so trustful toward your peers?

Pay me more, or your house is going to burn to the ground.

In an anarchistic society, it is wholly possible that we'd have the same functioning police force on the same scale, however, it's funded voluntarily. If they are reported to have done something such as stealing, or threatening, then they are putting their jobs at risk. They simply have no incentive to do something like that.

If they decide to rise against the people, like the state, then this is why you have the second amendment.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
Before I answer, I'd like to clarify that I don't prescribe my beliefs to Ayn Rand or any other ideology. I pride myself on being open-minded and finding solutions to deeply immoral problems and situations.

To answer the question, instead of tax, people would rely on mutual aid. Mutual aid is helping each other to achieve individual and mutual beneficial goals. Coercive economic models would be replaced with voluntary models that aren't dependent on exploiting. Altruism ultimately comes with reward; it is in a person's own interest to help others (just look at the charities and organisations we have already). If you want a specific example of a model that would feature in a fiscally-anarchistic society, look up the viable systems model. It effectively allows the principles of mutual aid to be enlarged to a larger system that is autonomous and self-producing.

That all sounds like really vague horseshit. Give me an example or two of how these theories of yours work in practice.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
You make it sound as if the free market is a representative of natural selection. On the contrary, yada yada yada

I'm asking about personal security. How does crime and punishment work? Mad Max style - bounty hunters and kangaroo courts? Does everyone have their own law? Is this the Wild West? What's going to stop some burly stalker from raping you whenever he wants?
Last edited by Ele; Jan 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
Before I answer, I'd like to clarify that I don't prescribe my beliefs to Ayn Rand or any other ideology. I pride myself on being open-minded and finding solutions to deeply immoral problems and situations.

To answer the question, instead of tax, people would rely on mutual aid. Mutual aid is helping each other to achieve individual and mutual beneficial goals. Coercive economic models would be replaced with voluntary models that aren't dependent on exploiting. Altruism ultimately comes with reward; it is in a person's own interest to help others (just look at the charities and organisations we have already). If you want a specific example of a model that would feature in a fiscally-anarchistic society, look up the viable systems model. It effectively allows the principles of mutual aid to be enlarged to a larger system that is autonomous and self-producing.

Viable Systems Model (VSM) is not about mutual aid. It is most commonly used as a business structure to maximise profit. In addition it is not anarchistic as System 3 (it has 5 internal systems) is audit, and refers to the application and sanction of rules.



You make it sound as if the free market is a representative of natural selection. On the contrary, state monopoly provision of welfare and social services gives the politicians and bureaucrats power. If taxation really was the ideology of giving money to the poor, then why doesn't the state do it directly? A system of cash payments to the poor would be more beneficial, surely? Milton Friedman believed in a negative income tax that would replace all income programs with a cash payment to every citizen; a system that gives people an incentive to work, rather than become dependent on the state. Again, I don't prescribe to it, but it is interesting. You can argue that Sweden doesn't have minimum wage, but it does alright with the unions vs employers concept.

The free market is a representative of natural selection, strong businesses/business models survive and thrive, weak ones go bamkrupt and, in essence, die. State provision of welfare does indeed give politicians power but is in no way relevant to whether the free market is representative of natural selection. If taxation is in place, cash payments to the poor, in place of taking less money in tax, has the same effect, as their net flow of cash remains the same but costs more money for the state to implement.

Sweden isnt relevant to what you or I is answering or arguing so Ill leave that out


In an anarchistic society, it is wholly possible that we'd have the same functioning police force on the same scale, however, it's funded voluntarily. If they are reported to have done something such as stealing, or threatening, then they are putting their jobs at risk. They simply have no incentive to do something like that.

If they decide to rise against the people, like the state, then this is why you have the second amendment.

Owning a gun does not protect you against a trained militaristic force
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
In an anarchistic society, it is wholly possible that we'd have the same functioning police force on the same scale, however, it's funded voluntarily. If they are reported to have done something such as stealing, or threatening, then they are putting their jobs at risk. They simply have no incentive to do something like that.

If they decide to rise against the people, like the state, then this is why you have the second amendment.

fallu touched on the other statements already, so I'll take shots at these.

Let's say there is a police force that starts stealing or threatening you. You stop funding them. Ok, they continue stealing and follow through with their threats, because they were tasked with maintaining law and order, so they're likely better armed than you are. They still have "funding" and now you're dead.

You seem to be missing the very key flaw in your argument, and it's that without regulation nothing stops a person from just stealing everything they want, and nothing stops groups that have accumulated power from exerting that power to accumulate more power.

The reason why unchecked capitalism is never implemented is because unchecked capitalism results in monopolies. Monopolies have so much power that they can do whatever they want and, because of how much control they have over the market, get away with it because there is no viable alternative. When you have near 100% market share over a necessity, you don't need to follow the rules of supply and demand anymore since you control all the supply, and the demand is constant. Capitalism dies, and monarchies/oligarchies form in its stead.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
If they decide to rise against the people, like the state, then this is why you have the second amendment.

I'm going to point out why this statement is literally retarded in both it's intent, and it's content.

First, you can't argue for the viability of anarcho-capitalism, then cite a law established and implemented in a republic as something that will keep people in check under anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism, by it's very definition, has no laws except the laws of the market. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the market.

Second, if you're uprising against a tyrant state, justifying your uprising with the state's laws makes literally no sense. Obviously, no state is going to put an anti-treason clause into their law books because that makes literally no sense. If the state wanted to legitimize treason, they could just decriminalize treason. More importantly, if you're uprising against the state because you believe it to be a tyrant, why are you justifying it under their rules? You're following their rules because you disagree with their rule. Literally you're being a hypocrite at that point.

Third, it's a tyrant state. It's not going to listen to you citing a law as justification for your uprising. The law isn't some magical power that will instantly legitimize your position. Laws need to be enforced for them to mean anything. If the person/group/state who enforces them doesn't feel it necessary, or feels it counterproductive to their own desires, to enforce the law, then they just don't need to enforce the law. If you violently rise against the state, the state isn't going to just go "oh, you're fine because of the second amendment, carry on," they're going to crush your rebellion, try you for treason, and execute you.

Every interpretation of the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny makes literally no sense when you actually apply it to the context of a tyrannical state.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
fallu touched on the other statements already, so I'll take shots at these.

Let's say there is a police force that starts stealing or threatening you. You stop funding them. Ok, they continue stealing and follow through with their threats, because they were tasked with maintaining law and order, so they're likely better armed than you are. They still have "funding" and now you're dead.

You seem to be missing the very key flaw in your argument, and it's that without regulation nothing stops a person from just stealing everything they want, and nothing stops groups that have accumulated power from exerting that power to accumulate more power.

The reason why unchecked capitalism is never implemented is because unchecked capitalism results in monopolies. Monopolies have so much power that they can do whatever they want and, because of how much control they have over the market, get away with it because there is no viable alternative. When you have near 100% market share over a necessity, you don't need to follow the rules of supply and demand anymore since you control all the supply, and the demand is constant. Capitalism dies, and monarchies/oligarchies form in its stead.



I'm going to point out why this statement is literally retarded in both it's intent, and it's content.

First, you can't argue for the viability of anarcho-capitalism, then cite a law established and implemented in a republic as something that will keep people in check under anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism, by it's very definition, has no laws except the laws of the market. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the market.

Second, if you're uprising against a tyrant state, justifying your uprising with the state's laws makes literally no sense. Obviously, no state is going to put an anti-treason clause into their law books because that makes literally no sense. If the state wanted to legitimize treason, they could just decriminalize treason. More importantly, if you're uprising against the state because you believe it to be a tyrant, why are you justifying it under their rules? You're following their rules because you disagree with their rule. Literally you're being a hypocrite at that point.

Third, it's a tyrant state. It's not going to listen to you citing a law as justification for your uprising. The law isn't some magical power that will instantly legitimize your position. Laws need to be enforced for them to mean anything. If the person/group/state who enforces them doesn't feel it necessary, or feels it counterproductive to their own desires, to enforce the law, then they just don't need to enforce the law. If you violently rise against the state, the state isn't going to just go "oh, you're fine because of the second amendment, carry on," they're going to crush your rebellion, try you for treason, and execute you.

Every interpretation of the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny makes literally no sense when you actually apply it to the context of a tyrannical state.

The state is not the constitution.

Also, the people can rise against the state easily if united. Soldiers are people, they can choose not to fight for the state. People can simply not be crushed if they don't want to be crushed.