No. FORCED FUNDING does not work. It always leads to never ending wars, tyranny, & hyperinflation which is where we are now.
Your fear of free riders ignores that 50+% of the country is currently employed by govt either directly or via subsidies & govt contracts, which makes them ALL free riders. They get paid with money stolen from others, so whatever "taxes" come out of their tax funded income is just symbolic, they are all parasites.
People not contributing to infrastructure while supporting themselves in productive ways is a far smaller problem than 50+% of people living as active monetary leeches.
The govt actively works to keep people poor & dependent because it benefits them to have a lower class they can withdraw ebt & other payments from in order to make them riot & scare the middle class into compliance. See the riots of 2020 as evidence.
The cities where the poor are worst off are the cities controlled by the most pro govt leftwing politicians.
Hmm, my thoughts are that Societies don’t work for the reasons you both highlight. One path leads to debt, inflation, corruption and violence to maintain it. The other leads to underfunded programs that are not payed for with free riders And violence as individuals take advantage of the gap and lack of resources to provide enforcers so strong men willing to perform violence take over. You are both trying to have your cake and eat it too, you are trying to find a way to have the society we currently have when the scale of the society is the root of the problem. The problems that exist in our society are caused by the idea of what a “society” is. Once you get beyond Dunbars number, ethical human societies don’t scale. Because humans cease to see each other as fellow humans with common interests of protection and profit working together for a common cause of survival. Humans then find and militate on differences between themselves. Because a natural law of humans are that we are supposed to be in small groups. Free riders exist because of the scale of society. State violence and corruption exists because of the scale of society. Crime exists because of the scale of society. No one will be willing to give up what they see as the perks of a society (labor specialization, combined resources) so for as long as human nature reflects these non scaling properties, the very attempt of a large number of humans, will generate all the problems inherent in the society you are trying to solve.
Justo to clarify something: I am 100% some taxes. I think the power that control taxes take advantage of it. They are immortal. It's not taxes fault. Its greed
Taxation IS greed.
It is literally the desire to extract money by force, justified by the arrogant belief that your chosen cause is "too important" to leave others free to choose. There is nothing more arrogant & greedy than believing you know better & can force others to serve your ends. It is people who think exactly like YOU who are the problem. Your argument demonstrates that you're the greedy control freak who wants to treat others like children.
You might believe it's security that is too important, others believe it's climate change or healthcare. You are all operating under the same belief that your values trump the property rights & freedom of everyone else.
this has been a very odd exchange
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Ah yes, if only it was the good&noble people that would threaten us with violence to steal the products of our labor, then it would be fine.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
How, after I typed a whole reply on free riders, do you repeat the same BS like my reply doesn't exist? Can you not read?
And the root of the word "society" is "social." The divide between social & anti-social interation is voluntary consent vs threats, coercion & violence. There is no such thing as taxation without threats, coercion & violence. Taxation is the perfect measure of our failure to create a society. The exact measure of how much we are dominated by criminals.
I read what you said on free riders. Here why I wasn’t convinced by it.
“People not contributing to infrastructure while supporting themselves in productive ways is a far smaller problem than 50+% of people living as active monetary leeches.” I think your +50% are leeches claim is a bit dubious (you include everyone that receives a subsidy or is employed directly by the state, but there is no reason to believe a purely voluntary system of funding the government would result in that hypothetical government from having the same or similar subsidies, employment, and contractor relationships as they do now. It would only be in your choice to fund those or not) but that’s not my main beef . You aren’t claiming there is no free rider problem, only that you think it’s less of a problem than the “leeches”. I make the claim the magnitude of the free rider problem is large enough that a society of people far exceeding Dunbars number will fail to protect itself from “strong men” from using sufficient violence in their oppresive systems to subdue a purely voluntary system. That’s it. I agree with you that taxation is theft. I agree with you that it is therefore an immoral system. But it doesn’t follow necessarily that a moral system will be able to protect itself. Free riders do exist, and they always will, it’s human nature to take the free when you can get away with it. That’s why the market is filled with products you have to pay for, inorder to take possession of them. If that wasn’t an aspect of human nature then you would be able to go to any grocery store and walk out with stuff and “pay whatever you wanted” What would you expect to happen? Well I would expect that those stores would go out of business. And if a store can’t stay in business on a purely voluntary “pay what ever you would like” system then I don’t think a government would be able to either. The counter claim I would expect would be a private entity that you can pay for protection like a private military. But then you’ve basically just described the *feudal system*. And I would expect outcomes would be similar. And we are back to “strong men” using violence to subdue a purely voluntary system. I’m not happy about the result. Regardless I believe when a society far outstrips dunbars number it fails to be both moral and sustainable. (In the sense that it protects itself to continue)
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
