A prime mover on the end of each hand - it’s called a thumb.
Stick it out and see where it takes you…
1 Like
Yes…this is THE ONLY legitimate complaint about taxation, however I do not believe any civilised society can function without a tax system or community pot to provide for infra-structure and welfare etc. What we can do is look into solutions to address the legitimate concern/necessary effect that some people will not be happy about where funds go. I myself suggested looking towards breaking this down into a list of choices as to where your tax goes (as far as possible) and de-centralise the decision making to the group of individuals, rather than their "representatives. This can be expanded to other Govt functions.
This talk about coercion is a matter of degrees and can’t be removed completely with any system…even yours. How “coerced” do you think the little 10 year old who scuttles under the cotton looms, risking life and limb for a crust of bread and a bed for the night feels? It’s a voluntary interaction isn’t it, between the greedy, rich mill owner and the child…this is the world you will make possible, just replace mill owners with Corporations. 
3 Likes
So your solution is if you want political freedom you should sell everything and hitchhike across the country? Thus risking your life and also keeping in mind that not everyone has this option available to them. Also what do you do at the border when they ask about things like employment or your intentions on entering the country? Or do you suggest that people just skip the border? Not that I support closed borders but the reality is such restrictions exist. Also your proposal relies too heavily on relying on other people. What if there aren’t any people willing to give you a ride and you’re left stranded on the side of the road? What if no one is willing to let you sleep on their coach? How are you going to transport your food storage? What if you get robbed? What if your “friends” decide to back out on whatever deal you make with them? You can’t base an entire political philosophy on “You are politically free because you can sell everything you own and go out and hitchhike.”
OK, which society should I be watching?
I mean on a very basic logical level, decisions that affect the group as a whole cannot be made by individuals…conversely decisions that do not impact others and are private or only concern an individual should not be made by the group. The most fundamental individual rights are codified in Human Rights Conventions.
EDIT:
Whatever you do, if you want to stay in that country,don’t tell them your plans for their country ffs…OK?
1 Like
The last bit is VERY important. Forgetting this bit has led to tears and sometimes worse.
1 Like
@Al_Kafir
Strawman. I was talking about funding parks, libraries etc with the SAFEcoin model.
Not child labor or anything of the like.
Where possible we ought to build a cryptofunding model to allow building services without the need of coercion. If we can build the next internet with such a model, there is mighty good chance we can fund a lot of other things that way too…
3 Likes
Is the NHS safe with SAFE?
Cos if you crazies mess with my NHS, there will be bother. Big bother.
Not intentional, I must have misunderstood. I also suggested a while ago that we start de-centralising Govt at a local council level. I agree there is definitely a place for safecoin within other Council services too, so not disagreeing here.
1 Like
Seriously, if you are scared about this trivias, you should consider to drop the anarchy idea. I really wonder what you expect from the world. If you want to live in your personal paradise, you have exactly two choices: either you go there or you stay and do politics. There are many people who really cannot leave the place they are living - I don´t know which country you live in, but it doesn´t sound as if your state locked you in, like the GDR did. You are victimizing yourself when your border starts at moving to the next city or “what if noone helps me”.
I guess you have to arrange or threaten them - or do you expect that in your anarchist utopia there are no borders and people have their private security forces for…uhm…fun?
2 Likes
Decisions that affect the group as a whole are ALWAYS made by individuals. When you vote you are making an individual decision. When an elected official or a king or any other kind of ruler makes a decison about the group they are making an individual decision. Any consensus reached is made up of INDIVIDUALS reaching an agreement. And anything that is true of the individual is also true of the group. If the individual allows it’s freedom of speech to be compromised so too will the group’s freedom of speech be compromised. If the individual’s economics are compromised so to will the group’s economic freedoms go down the drain and vice versa. We’ve seen this in practice with the agreements of various “free trade” deals over the years. NAFTA, ACTA, the TPP. As above so below. Governments sign away economic freedoms to corporations and the people get screwed.
The fact that we are all involved in this project to create a decentralized internet 2.0 is an example of an individual decision that affects the group, the entire planet in fact, as a whole. We are all individuals making decisions to affect the group as a whole. So really the statement “decisons that affect the group as a whole cannot be made by individuals” is false because it’s proven by this very project and many others that they can and often are.
“conversely decisions that do not impact others and are private or only concern an individual should not be made by the group.” This also I would disagree with as it is none of “the groups’s” business what or whom I interact with. It’s none of the state’s affair whom or if I marry for instance. It’s none of the state’s affair if I have a relationship or the nature thereof. It’s none of the state’s affair whom I conduct business with. In fact the only people involved in a relationship are the people I’m in the relationship with and not “the group” as a whole. Does it matter that some guy half way across the world whom I’ve never heard of nor have I ever met or am I ever going to do any kind of business with might be some kind of antisocial criminal? Not in the slightest because it’s none of my affair and doesn’t concern me. Would it concern me if there was some criminal running around my own city? Meh maybe vaugely but not really as I’m not interacting with them and they’re still not my affair. Do I care if I get scammed and robbed? Hmm yes I think I’d be pissed but then THAT would be a direct interaction and someone directly relating WITH me. Do I care if someone just randomly got hurt/robbed? Well maybe on a compassonate level but you can’t go around putting out every brush fire so again what does that person have to do with me? So out of a bid of compassion for my fellow man if asked to help I’d help. But if told that I owe them help and must help or else I’d tell the person to go pound sand. There’s a difference between being asked for help and doing so because you want to and are feeling compassionate and that of feeling obligated to help because it’s your duty to do so. Granted if you see everyone as part of one race, or part of your city or tribe or whatever you will relate to them on that level, which is what I was getting at with “how does this person RELATE to me, how is this person connected to me” but that connection has to come first. People will naturally rebel against any power that they are not attatched to nor will they empathize with a person or group they relate to. Which means the relationship has to come first. You cannot just legislate that.
2 Likes
You comparing government tyrany with impracticality. It is as equally impossible to fly if one cannot afford a plane ticket as if one attempted to fly his arms and fly like a bird. First you propose a plan which is entirely dependent on the charity of others and then when I question what happens if others are not charitible you call such concerns trivial. Such concerns are NOT trivial when one’s survival depends on the charity of others. If your entire plan and survival depends on someone giving you a lift and allowing you to couch surf then it is desperately foolhardy NOT to have a backup plan in case things do not go according to plan and utterly impractical to make the attempt without such a plan. Not to mention not everyone could make such a trip in the first place which is something you are overlooking.
“You comparing government tyrany with impracticality. It is as equally impossible to fly if one cannot afford a plane ticket as if one attempted to fly his arms and fly like a bird.”
You are comparing your unwillingness to work your way out of your country with the force of gravity…nice. You know, getting the few bucks that are necessary to leave your country if you prefer to pay instead of using the help of others is no wizardry. You are desperately trying to prove that you are unable to move and that’s kinda amusing because the problems you are listing are not only made up, they are also not bound to the political system. Aa a human being you are ALWAYS dependent on charity and goodwill of others in no matter which political system. You can complain about it all day long, but it won’t change with, same as gravity.
1 Like
I said I was poor I at no point ever said I was unwilling to work you stereotyping bigot. I am willing to work, I am not however SUICIDAL. The problems I am listing are not at all made up. How would you like to be stranded out on the road with no traffic, no supplies and no way to get from point a to b? And no as a human being we are NOT always dependent on the charity and good will of others, at least not to the life threatening degree of risk to which you are suggesting. And yes all of this DOES have to do with the political system because if one’s political freedom has to do with one’s ability to move from point a to point b and the only way to do so is to put one’s life at risk then one is not politically free. So yes one’s ability to move is very much a political issue.
You know what, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is a safe and effective way to travel between cities and even across the country. But if there is you’re going to need to do a far better job of describing it than just “Pack some supplies, stick out your thumb and couch surf.”
“Maybe there is a safe and effective way to travel between cities and even across the country. But if there is you’re going to need to do a far better job of describing it than just “Pack some supplies, stick out your thumb and couch surf.””
Actually, no, it is as simple as this. If you are not able or willing to pay others to help you get out of your community, this is the moneyless alternative. Believe it or not, it works for millions.
[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:53, topic:4731”]
And yes all of this DOES have to do with the political system because if one’s political freedom has to do with one’s ability to move from point a to point b and the only way to do so is to put one’s life at risk then one is not politically free. [/quote]
Don’t want to spoil you, but as long as there are other individuals in this world, you will be faced with borders that restraint your freedom to move. It’s not an issue of wrong governance. If that alone makes you feel unfree, you will never be. And you know, from what you write I cannot see much of interest to be free, if the road to the next county is already to much of a challenge.
2 Likes
Thank You for completely making my argument for me against the whole charity based “Free-Marketeer”, Mises plan for society that you so vocally recommend and expound in video. You just totally destroyed your own position and clearly demonstrate the self contradictory nature of your arguments.
It is quite annoying actually to listen to someone bemoan everything to do with the idea of Community and Tax etc, complain of being “coerced” and how you should be able to do whatever you want without a thought for the larger Community.- then have the temerity to complain about how unfair it is that you would be reliant on charity…lol
If you also actually listened to what others say, before replying to them, it would save some long paragraphs -eg
Everything after this…
Lol…Sounds like you’ve really worked hard on research into how to escape your unfair, coercive hell-hole…doesn’t sound like it can be that bad to be honest. And…in the society you want to create, nobody would be under any kind of obligation to “need to do better” in order to spoon feed and tell the rebellious Anarchist what to do…this is laughable… 
2 Likes
How are you comparing crowdfunding social support nets to hitchhiking hundreds of miles on foot with literally nothing but what you have on your person. It is fairly guarenteed a decent chunk of the populace will donate to a cause of helping the less fortunate because that’s a generally universal cause. It is not however guarenteed however that someone will be driving down a specific road at a specific time and be willing to stop and pick up a specific person. Crowdfunding for a general cause is always easier than crowfunding for a SPECIFIC individual cause because more people empathize with the general cause. Your arguement is that one cannot entrust one’s survival to charity? Please not I am not arguing that I should force anyone to take me across the county at gunpoint. I am saying I should not place myself in an unduely dangerous sitation. So I’m not quite making your case for you as I’m not arguing for involuntary and coercive methods. I’m simply not willing to extend too much risk. Your analogy between the two arguements doesn’t quite hold up.
Okay let’s get something straight. I have no problem with community. But tax has nothing to do with community. Tax = theft. Tax = COERCION. Tax != community. Tax is NOT voluntary. Tax is not community spirit, it is not empathy, it is not compassion or kindness or anything to do with unity. Tax is extortion and robbery. It is the antithesis of community. Moreover I have no problem at all with charity however when dealing with charity, or any volunteer service, one has to be prepared for the possibility they will pull out. And when it comes to one’s immediate survival one cannot afford that. Now i believe your argument is what if SOCIETY doesn’t donate to the social safety net of helping the unfortunate. Well let’s think about for a moment. What DOES happen when society doesn’t fund welfare? We get a rise in homeless people. What happens when society doesn’t fund health care? We get a rise in sickness and death or we get a spike in people educating themselves in health care, or some combination thereof. What happens if society doesn’t fund homeless shelters? Again more homeless on the streets. How do you get homeless off the streets? You build homes for them. You fund income assistence and self suffiency programs. You help people. If people are sick what do you do? Fund healers. In short if SOCIETY doesn’t fund social safety nets there will be obvious consequences that SOCIETY will not like and therefore will be forced to deal with. So I find it very unlikely that it won’t donate to social safety nets one way or another because the problems are real and aren’t going away.
1 Like
I watched the video in the middle, but to me it seems inevitable that those private security organizations will start behaving like maffia gangs. In addition, the arbitrator can easily be bribed. I like the ideals, but I’m still not convinced that it’d be better than current systems.
2 Likes
How are you differentiating between “crowdfunding social support nets” and “Charity”. Are you now going to suggest “for profit” “non-profits” …
This is just an assertion, it is unknown whether enough people would donate and I have given reasons already to believe why it most likely wouldn’t be enough.
Are you now saying that your statement:
only applies to YOU?..and I’m apparently wrong to compare your individual situation/need for charity with other individuals.situations/need for charity within the larger group of “less fortunate”…!lol. Are you alternatively saying you’re not one of the “less fortunate” and therefore not in need of any charity? It actually sounds like your argument is that you are “less fortunate”, than the “less fortunate”…lol
I don’t understand your point…it sounds like you are trying to evade the very fundamental contradiction of telling everyone of how non trivial a matter it is to be reliant on charity at the same time as championing a charity based societal model…sorry but you’ve definitely shown your arse in Woolworth’s window here.
Edit:
OK, I’ve been thinking, I really should be looking to think of constructive ways to help you out of your nightmare freedom of movement predicament….So, all sarcasm, flippancy and disingenuousness aside and on a serious note…
…I’ve come up with a couple of suggestions:
- Lobby the local Council to provide free bus transport to the edge of town for all the Anarcho-Capitalist Free-Marketeer bad boys. This could be paid for from local taxes (handy eh? ). It may also be worth lobbying for an individual carer/helper to help with any other questions or special needs the Anarcho Capitalist may have.
- As you say, do a local crowd fund to “Get Blindsite out of town” maybe, you never know…. the response could be huge
2 Likes
Thank you for that graphic illustration. If Woolworths hadn’t crashed a while back, you would have put me off Pick n’Mix for life.
2 Likes
Uhm what? There is ANY diifetence between one point and the other, taken aside the words.
Besides, dude, before talking about hitchhiking and couchsurfing I recommend you to educate yourself by actually doing it. I ALWAYS found a ride and a couch, impossible right? It is ironically your lack of flexibility and willingness to trust in the goodwill and charity of other people not the lack of freedom you obviously enjoy.