I didn't really expect you to wake up this easily.
>> Here's an easier way to see if something is voluntary; can you stop doing it at all?
What I said still stands. If you want to claim taxation is voluntary, stop paying taxes and see how voluntary it actually is. But as mentioned before, you already know full well it's not.
>> However, there was a hell of a lot of death there; in a society like that, if you screw someone, they may kill you.
You may have noticed the vast majority of people not being savage animals? Why would this be any different without a government?
>> Why would capitalism be the default system with no state regulation?
The word "Capitalism" has been tainted by Marxism/government propaganda, but what it actually entails is property rights combined with people making voluntary exchanges, agreements and investments. That's it. It's important to realize that capitalism is not some kind of "system" that would be imposed on people - it's what we do in any case.
Saving and investment is the basis of all human wealth, because without savings, there can be no productivity improvements. Higher productivity means it's just that much easier to save more, and the virtuous cycle continues.
>> Wouldn't it be easier for the people with larger resources to take advantage of their new lack of regulation to actually enslave people, or force them to be serfs?
Well, how would they enslave people? Money alone is not a problem, even if someone has shitloads of it. People can be enslaved only through coercion, through the initiation of force. You need to threaten someone with violence if he doesn't obey you. Sure, you may be able to hire an army of mercenaries to help you force people to do something, but then people can just organize against you and kill you, if necessary.
Even if you've got ten trillion dollars in your bank account, you still don't want to die, right? Your actions have consequences, and one of them might be your own personal death, so you'll want to avoid making that choice.
>> It works pretty well for the people at the top.
Huh? Enslaving other people works well for the people at the top? As in, the sociopaths in government who went there for that specific purpose? Well yeah, that's about right.
>> We use fiat currencies, so many people would begin producing their own.
People wouldn't use fiat currencies anymore, they'd use a currency that can't be manipulated by anyone, and that would be great for everyone. Have you got any idea how much of the dollar's purchasing power has evaporated during your lifetime? That shit wouldn't happen in a free market. Who does inflation hurt the most? -The poor, of course.
>> Lot's more people would lie about their product's efficiency, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.
There would be independent, third party quality assurance services, and so on. And they'd all be responsible to their customers, unlike government agencies. The government is not responsible to anyone for what they do, and that's a massive factor in how fucked up everything is.
>> Some people would seize all the valuable land and resources
Or not? That's just a scaremongering assumption, like just about everything else you're saying. But even if that were true, would it be better to have a group of sociopaths (=government) seize anything and everything at will?
>> In a slave scenario, I not only take 100% of the product of a slave's labor, but I also choose what they labor upon, if they can marry or have relationships, what they read or watch, where they can go and what they can do. I can also beat them without anyone saying anything.
>> If you feel that this is what your government does to you, then get the hell out.
Tell that to someone in North-Korea. Doesn't seem all that convincing in that context, huh? Well, it's just another government, just another tax farm.
Here's the main difference between North-Korea and a democratic country of your choice: in North-Korea, the enslavement system is held together by fear, but in a democracy it's held together through propaganda.
See, the only thing the sociopaths in charge care about, is maintaining their own power and their ability to loot the general populace. In other words, the only thing they care about is maintaining their tax farm. Any time there's a threat to this model, they do everything they can to neutralize it. If a specific regime completely loses its credibility and "legitimacy" in the eyes of their tax cattle, then they have a choice: 1) step down, or 2) set up torture camps etc and rule by sheer terror.
But we've been through your pseudo-argument already. Being able to switch slave-masters does not mean you're free.
See, we clearly have different conceptions of what is and is not voluntary. Let's say you voluntarily decide to kick a glass window. It breaks, as a consequence of that action, and you are hurt. Does that mean not kicking in windows is involuntary, simply because it sets of a series of reactions?
Now, if you decide that it isn't worth it to you to do something because the consequences of an action are worse than the rewards you would gain, it doesn't mean that taking or not taking this action is involuntary, it means you're probably rational.
>>You may have noticed the vast majority of people not being savage animals? Why would this be any different without a government?
I'm not sure what you're saying here; are you disputing that there was more violence, saying that's not bad, or saying that this won't happen?
>>The word "Capitalism" has been tainted by Marxism/government propaganda, but what it actually entails is property rights combined with people making voluntary exchanges, agreements and investments. That's it.
It's actually not. Capitalism is associated with a religious calling, as in the 19th century it was common for Calvinists/some Baptists to equate hard work with being more likely to go to heaven, and more money as the proof of God's grace and favor. That's where the shift to capitalism really started, particularly as an influence on people's day-to-day lives.
>> Well, how would they enslave people? Money alone is not a problem, even if someone has shitloads of it. People can be enslaved only through coercion, through the initiation of force. You need to threaten someone with violence if he doesn't obey you. Sure, you may be able to hire an army of mercenaries to help you force people to do something, but then people can just organize against you and kill you, if necessary.
Even if you've got ten trillion dollars in your bank account, you still don't want to die, right? Your actions have consequences, and one of them might be your own personal death, so you'll want to avoid making that choice.
This would be totally valid if people didn't consistently make this choice, throughout history and today, and it's actually extremely rare for the people to rise up and successfully rebel against it. It's more likely that other powerful people want your power and attempt to take it from you, but the situation doesn't change much for normal people.
>>North Korea
Actually, the main difference is a combined lack of freedom and widespread starvation.
By the way, I don't think I have a slave-master. I pay taxes, this is true, but I get a lot out of that. Should there be tax reform? Sure. Does the existence of taxation make you automatically enslaved? I don't think so.
I'm not sure we're living in the same systems; in my experience, the government has trouble seizing anything at all, let alone whatever it wants for any reason. I think it's really funny that you talk about corporations being more responsible to their customers than the government because you mention that anyone taking power has a risk of being overthrown; do you think that doesn't apply to government?
Voluntary: done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice
-- Once again, you can easily find out whether paying taxes is voluntary by not doing so. But you know you'll be forcefully hauled to jail etc, and your property will be forcefully confiscated.
>> Let's say you voluntarily decide to kick a glass window. It breaks, as a consequence of that action, and you are hurt. Does that mean not kicking in windows is involuntary, simply because it sets of a series of reactions?
Quite the mental gymnastics going on there. Here's a much better question: "If you're severely punished for not paying taxes, does that mean paying taxes is not voluntary?"
Here's another: "If you're severely punished for attempting to keep your property, does that mean something immoral is going on?"
Yet another: "If you think there's nothing wrong with forcefully confiscating your property and punishing you for attempting to keep it, do you think you might have been brainwashed in some way?"
>> Now, if you decide that it isn't worth it to you to do something because the consequences of an action are worse than the rewards you would gain, it doesn't mean that taking or not taking this action is involuntary, it means you're probably rational.
You're (still!) talking about avoiding the negative consequences of not paying your taxes, which is certainly rational, but changes nothing about taxation being extortion. In the exact same way, paying off the mafia so that they won't hurt you is rational, but doesn't mean you're not being extorted, nor that extortion would be moral.
>>>You may have noticed the vast majority of people not being savage animals? Why would this be any different without a government?
>>I'm not sure what you're saying here; are you disputing that there was more violence, saying that's not bad, or saying that this won't happen?
I'm saying that the vast majority of people are peaceful and won't harm you even if there are no governments.
>> It's actually not. Capitalism is associated with a religious calling, as in the 19th century it was common for Calvinists/some Baptists to equate hard work with being more likely to go to heaven, and more money as the proof of God's grace and favor. That's where the shift to capitalism really started, particularly as an influence on people's day-to-day lives.
Regardless of whether that's accurate or not, that's not where pursuing your personal gain started. Capitalism is just people doing exactly that, through voluntary exchanges, agreements and investments. All the problems you associate with "capitalism" (in whatever Marxist way you happen to view it) are rooted in the State, a monopoly on violence that all the richest companies rush to bribe in order to gain competitive advantages and to erect barriers to entry.
Remember, McD doesn't force you to buy its burgers, and it has no army, no aircraft carriers, no police force, no secret "courts", and no nuclear missiles. Companies themselves have no power, but will of course buy it as long as it's available for purchase. If there's nothing to bribe, there is no bribery.
>> This would be totally valid if people didn't consistently make this choice, throughout history and today, and it's actually extremely rare for the people to rise up and successfully rebel against it.
Oh? Well, you're probably talking about "Crony-Capitalism" again, ie. the evils of the State + "Corporations" combined. Think "East-India Trading Company", Wall Street, etc.
Why do you think it's difficult to rebel against evil corporations that rape people with the help of the State's armies and police forces etc?
>> It's more likely that other powerful people want your power and attempt to take it from you
What power? The "power" to give assignments to my employees in exchange for paying them a salary?
Remember, money alone is not power. It's a means of exchange.
>> Actually, the main difference is a combined lack of freedom and widespread starvation.
Oh? Well what do you think causes and upholds both of those?
>> By the way, I don't think I have a slave-master. I pay taxes, this is true, but I get a lot out of that.
Imagine you go into a restaurant, and you've got $500 in your pocket. Right after you get in, someone comes to you and announces that he'll just take 50% of whatever is in your pocket now. Well that's a bit strange, but whatever, you give $250 to the guy - you're going to get food after all. Then you sit at a table, call for a waiter and order a nice steak, medium rare. You're told you can't have a steak, and that you'll be served a shit-sandwich instead. You protest, complaining about having just paid 50% of your wealth and that you should get your money's worth in return!
But the waiter remains adamant, and declares that you're just going to have to settle for a shit-sandwich, and that if you don't like it, you can go to another restaurant next door, where they'll take %30 of your wealth in exchange for another variety of a shit-sandwich. However, now that you've come in, you can never be outside of a restaurant anymore. So basically, all you've got left is a choice between different varieties of a shit-sandwich. If you want to switch to another restaurant, you'll first need to apply for permission to leave, which can be denied at will if the current restaurant happens to be displeased with you. In fact, if you make your restaurant angry enough, they'll just take you down to the basement and torture you to death.
Now, if you see any problems with this arrangement, you'll see the same problems with States.
>> Should there be tax reform? Sure.
How about reforming taxes to zero? Or how much do you think a shit-sandwich is worth?
>> Does the existence of taxation make you automatically enslaved? I don't think so.
Of course you don't. You've been brainwashed into not thinking so. I get that it's difficult to let go of your brainwashing, it took a while even for me.
>> I'm not sure we're living in the same systems; in my experience, the government has trouble seizing anything at all
Oh there are plenty of examples. Silk Road is a recent one. Have you noticed how it's always those naughty terrorists and child abusers that need to be stopped by cracking down on something and monitoring us all, and so on? I bet you have.
>> I think it's really funny that you talk about corporations being more responsible to their customers than the government because you mention that anyone taking power has a risk of being overthrown; do you think that doesn't apply to government?
Companies are responsible to their customers as long as paying for their services is voluntary. If a customer doesn't like what he's getting, he'll just take his money somewhere else. You do this all the time in your everyday life.
Governments can be overthrown, sure, but all throughout history, they've never been dismantled. One group of sociopaths has been replaced with another, over and over and over again. You see, as long as there's a throne to sit on, someone will sit on it, and the same insanity will continue. The solution is to completely disregard the throne and someone's imagined authority over you.
Besides, overthrowing a government is preceded by years or decades of people suffering under tyrannical rule, and requires lots of people suffering and dying in vain. Switching from an iPhone to an S4 is a tad bit easier.
>> Here's an easier way to see if something is voluntary; can you stop doing it at all?
What I said still stands. If you want to claim taxation is voluntary, stop paying taxes and see how voluntary it actually is. But as mentioned before, you already know full well it's not.
>> However, there was a hell of a lot of death there; in a society like that, if you screw someone, they may kill you.
You may have noticed the vast majority of people not being savage animals? Why would this be any different without a government?
>> Why would capitalism be the default system with no state regulation?
The word "Capitalism" has been tainted by Marxism/government propaganda, but what it actually entails is property rights combined with people making voluntary exchanges, agreements and investments. That's it. It's important to realize that capitalism is not some kind of "system" that would be imposed on people - it's what we do in any case.
Saving and investment is the basis of all human wealth, because without savings, there can be no productivity improvements. Higher productivity means it's just that much easier to save more, and the virtuous cycle continues.
( http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia/videos for more information )
>> Wouldn't it be easier for the people with larger resources to take advantage of their new lack of regulation to actually enslave people, or force them to be serfs?
Well, how would they enslave people? Money alone is not a problem, even if someone has shitloads of it. People can be enslaved only through coercion, through the initiation of force. You need to threaten someone with violence if he doesn't obey you. Sure, you may be able to hire an army of mercenaries to help you force people to do something, but then people can just organize against you and kill you, if necessary.
Even if you've got ten trillion dollars in your bank account, you still don't want to die, right? Your actions have consequences, and one of them might be your own personal death, so you'll want to avoid making that choice.
>> It works pretty well for the people at the top.
Huh? Enslaving other people works well for the people at the top? As in, the sociopaths in government who went there for that specific purpose? Well yeah, that's about right.
>> We use fiat currencies, so many people would begin producing their own.
People wouldn't use fiat currencies anymore, they'd use a currency that can't be manipulated by anyone, and that would be great for everyone. Have you got any idea how much of the dollar's purchasing power has evaporated during your lifetime? That shit wouldn't happen in a free market. Who does inflation hurt the most? -The poor, of course.
>> Lot's more people would lie about their product's efficiency, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.
There would be independent, third party quality assurance services, and so on. And they'd all be responsible to their customers, unlike government agencies. The government is not responsible to anyone for what they do, and that's a massive factor in how fucked up everything is.
>> Some people would seize all the valuable land and resources
Or not? That's just a scaremongering assumption, like just about everything else you're saying. But even if that were true, would it be better to have a group of sociopaths (=government) seize anything and everything at will?
>> In a slave scenario, I not only take 100% of the product of a slave's labor, but I also choose what they labor upon, if they can marry or have relationships, what they read or watch, where they can go and what they can do. I can also beat them without anyone saying anything.
Right. Well, the most productive slave is one who thinks he's free: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Xbp...
>> If you feel that this is what your government does to you, then get the hell out.
Tell that to someone in North-Korea. Doesn't seem all that convincing in that context, huh? Well, it's just another government, just another tax farm.
Here's the main difference between North-Korea and a democratic country of your choice: in North-Korea, the enslavement system is held together by fear, but in a democracy it's held together through propaganda.
See, the only thing the sociopaths in charge care about, is maintaining their own power and their ability to loot the general populace. In other words, the only thing they care about is maintaining their tax farm. Any time there's a threat to this model, they do everything they can to neutralize it. If a specific regime completely loses its credibility and "legitimacy" in the eyes of their tax cattle, then they have a choice: 1) step down, or 2) set up torture camps etc and rule by sheer terror.
But we've been through your pseudo-argument already. Being able to switch slave-masters does not mean you're free.