Democracy is not freedom

How would we ensure that we have the same definition of property?

I don't think that anarchy is sustainable because the modern society is too complex to live without rules. There would be no way to conduct economic transactions and everyone would have to revert to the barter system, which is not nearly as efficient as a currency-based system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I call it democrazy - the demography of crazy people within a local region.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have no say on whether or not you want to pay the tax, though. It's like me forcing you to hire me and then demanding payment.

And the government doesn't give us an alternative.

But if you don't you still pay tax so that other peoples' kids can go to public school

Then so be it; it is THEIR responsibility to look out for themselves.


VI the mistake you are making is thinking that it is somehow my problem if someone else is starving. It isn't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ahh, but all those others have decided to elect officials to represent them and to maintain the infrastructure as well as enforce the laws.

AND ....they've also elected those officials to keep people like you from making a big stink about what they've decided to do!

So, if you want anarchy, then go somewhere else to do it.

Baron Max

 

EXACTLY RIGHT, we do. We elect goverments who put in place universal health care because thats what we WANT, the same goes for roads, water ect.

its YOU who are the odd one out and your free to leave any time you want and go live on a deserted island somewhere. The rest of us are intelligent enough to realise that goverment is important even if we dont always agree with everything they do

 

wow again i find myself agreeing with you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Is someone putting something funky in the water surplie?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

or

demoncrazy .... crazy demons on the loose creating demonic empire of capitalistic proportions.

 

You miss the whole point! These officials still use TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!!!!!! Paying taxes is not voluntary or consensual.

The "we" you speak of can pay for the universal healthcare without the others that didn't vote for a specific government being forced to. If you think we should have universal healthcare YOU (that means as an individual) fund it.

So you justify the use of force to take someone else's property?

Mob rule. Just because 99% of the people want a statue of a kitten in the park, they CAN NOT TAKE MY MONEY FOR IT. they must pay for it.

That's the point. There is no "we", there are only individuals. Under capitalism you can have whatever you want.. don't you get that? Without coercion or force on others.

For someone who believes in freedom, you sure seem to be ignoring common sense.

There is no "odd one out". The government doesn't have a right to ANY of this land in the first place. It isn't theirs in order for them to kick me out or you or anyone.

 

99% of the people want the services which are provided in australia, if you dont then dont live here. Its as simple as that. As james said, if you dont want to pay the taxes you dont get the water, the phones (because the infustructure is goverment funded), the power, the roads ect. You can live a life without all of this, but you cant live HERE

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

THAT is the social contract, its not stolen at all

 

The government monopolizes most of its "services" though so I have no choice BUT to get them from the government. It's a contract where you have no other choice.


Are you for freedom, Asguard? It isn't freedom if you take other peoples' property for YOUR goals. It doesn't matter if 999% of society wants something, that 999% needs to fund it with their money.

That is all I am saying. The government pays for these "services" with stolen money in the first place; there is no social contract as we have no choice and the government monopolizes roads and infrastructure.

"The refutation: The argument is flawed in several ways. Firstly, it falsely assumes that a valid debt is created whenever someone receives either direct (or collateral) benefit(s) as a result of actions voluntarily performed by someone else--even when the person receiving the benefit(s) did not consent to the creation of a debt, and even when the person performing the action(s) was largely motivated to perform those actions in his own self interest and for his own benefit. Secondly, it falsely assumes that every taxpayer was a willing participant in a commercial transaction, where he agreed to pay a freely-negotiated price for some service or benefit. Thirdly, it falsely assumes that the amount of tax a taxpayer is assessed is reasonably proportionate to the market value of the services or benefits he received. Finally, the argument falsely assumes that a debt can convey an equity interest in the life, property, or profits of the debtor, without the debtor having consented to the granting of any such equity interest.

Taxation forces you to pay for what you haven't agreed to buy"

"The refutation: This argument is based on the false premise that "society" as a whole has a right to coerce consent to debts as a condition for being "allowed" to be a member of the overall society.


A society is just a group of people who interact. It has no more rights or powers than does any one of its members. Therefore, unless some individual member of a society has the right to coerce other members of the society to agree to conditions in exchange for membership in the society, then it cannot be that the society as a whole has any such right.


It's true that an individual has the right to refuse to interact with any other individual. However, each adult only has the right to make such decisions for himself, not for other adults. Therefore, even though 67% of the citizens of a particular community do not wish to interact with a particular person, the remaining 33% would still have the right to do so, if that is their wish."

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666806/posts


Asguard what if 90% of the public voted into office a government that banned gay marriage and abortion? You see!

It isn't their right to decide. It's up to the individual.

 

unfortuantly a large percentage DID vote in a goverment which banned gay marriage, i was one of them though i dont like it its simply a case of the lesser of 2 wevils

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(god i love that quote

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

never said govermental change was fast in social area's but its a HELL of a lot better than what your proposing. You dont own the land, you may own USE of that land but the country still owns it. They still provide the road up to your door ect. If you dont like it then LEAVE

 

Cry me a river.

 

Yes, but they do have to compensate you.
Typically with the estimated value of your house.

Exactly, a completely anarchistic 'society' is inevitably doomed. You might be able to get reasonably close though.

 

your Justin Timberlake? :bugeye:

 

So hypothetically Norse, if someone is badly injured and can't pay for treatment you would say: tough? How would you feel if that someone was you?

 

Democracy isn't perfect freedom, but it's a way to guarantee that the maximum number of citizens will have their wishes implemented. Name another form of government that is able to please more of it's citizens.

 

Or, you could say that an 'anarchistic society' is a contradiction.

Exactly.
Politics (as this is what we seem to be discussing... oddly, the philosophical notion of freedom has yet to arise..) is de facto an exercise in compromise. And given that, on a pragmatic basis, the democratic model is the most effective one.

 

They don't allow an alternative to their providing the roads. It's a monopoly, don't you understand? So you can't use the "services" argument. And private property allows everyone to be satisified.

Democracy is mob rule. It's where two wolves and a sheep vote on what (or who) to have for dinner

I agree that property would be a problem without a government to recognize it. Therefore, a minarchy would work.

i.e, government exists only to

-recognize property
-recognize contracts
-establish a universal "law" of sorts (that does not legislate morals or ban consensual activities like gambling, duelling, etc)

The enforcement of contracts and the law would be left to private businesses. And there would be no welfare or taxation; it'd be the closest thing to anarcho capitalism.

In capitalism EVERY citizen can have their wishes implemented on their own property. That's why it is absolute freedom.

 

Ugh........

No goddammit, you can refuse to pay tax, but you won't get those services any more. For example if you don't pay your road tax you don't get to drive on the roads. I believe myself and many others have made this point already.

No, everyone pays their bit so they can have their individual share of the service. See above.

It would be your problem if your sister was starving wouldn't it?

So surely you would have similar human compassion for everyone, because you understand what it's like to have someone you care about starve?

I believe I already refuted this argument, though you did word it differently. Look over this thread, I'm too hypoglycemic to bother typing that counter argument again at the moment.

 

That's not how real life works, unfortunately. Instead, they send you to prison AND take your stuff.