Hey folks.

So, I live in the deep south. There are many extremist conservatives down here, and one of their favorite things to say is, "The Gummit is wastin' mah money!"

Bullshit.

Not to say that the government doesn't waste money, but that's theirmoney to waste. Guess what, you live in this country, you pay taxes; that money ISN'T your money, it's the governments.

Boom.

Sorry, I really had to get that out there, I mean, Christ.

Well, it just so happens that the government belongs to US, assuming that you are referring to the United States. So their money is our money. The government is a necessary evil that we allow to exist because it makes sense to pool resources together to solve problems that face the people of a nation. If the government is not living up to it's purpose of providing a benefit to the people, then it is perfectly within the rights of the people to complain about this, to petition the government for redress, to change the people who make up the government, or even change the shape and authority of the government altogether.

At 4/21/14 03:50 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Well, it just so happens that the government belongs to US, assuming that you are referring to the United States. So their money is our money. The government is a necessary evil that we allow to exist because it makes sense to pool resources together to solve problems that face the people of a nation. If the government is not living up to it's purpose of providing a benefit to the people, then it is perfectly within the rights of the people to complain about this, to petition the government for redress, to change the people who make up the government, or even change the shape and authority of the government altogether.

Well, firstly, I respect your stance entirely.

That being said, from where I'm standing, the government doesn't work like that. No matter who you choose to run the Government, does anything really change? I mean, sure, some numbers here and there, but I've seen no noticeable change within my town or life within the past decade (pertaining to government).

At 4/21/14 04:08 PM, Alexander wrote:

At 4/21/14 03:50 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Well, it just so happens that the government belongs to US, assuming that you are referring to the United States. So their money is our money. The government is a necessary evil that we allow to exist because it makes sense to pool resources together to solve problems that face the people of a nation. If the government is not living up to it's purpose of providing a benefit to the people, then it is perfectly within the rights of the people to complain about this, to petition the government for redress, to change the people who make up the government, or even change the shape and authority of the government altogether.

Well, firstly, I respect your stance entirely.

That being said, from where I'm standing, the government doesn't work like that. No matter who you choose to run the Government, does anything really change? I mean, sure, some numbers here and there, but I've seen no noticeable change within my town or life within the past decade (pertaining to government).

That's because the American government is limited to 2 parties. None of the other parties ever get in. In Scotland a new party got in and the position of our entire country is now in question. Until the American people start to vote for other parties in significant numbers - your country will seem pretty similar.

Nonetheless, I agree with you on the taxes. When we elect, we simply choose who gets to decide what to do with them. It's their money by law and if the people had a say in what happened to it then Thatcher's funeral would have been privatised - or at least not that expensive.

At 4/21/14 02:42 PM, Alexander wrote: Hey folks.

So, I live in the deep south. There are many extremist conservatives down here, and one of their favorite things to say is, "The Gummit is wastin' mah money!"

Bullshit.

Not to say that the government doesn't waste money, but that's theirmoney to waste. Guess what, you live in this country, you pay taxes; that money ISN'T your money, it's the governments.

Boom.

My biggest problem with the government (the federal government, that is) is that they have huge volumes of money, yet they spend it like there's nothing wrong. They spend millions digging pointless holes in the ground or sending Michelle Obama on vacations to Colorado. Most of the time (excluding the Michelle Obama thing) this is so politicians can say "Hey, constituents! I just created 10,000 jobs (digging a giant, pointless hole in the ground) vote for me!". You are completely right, the people we elect are the ones who get to decide how that money is spent, and me bitching about holes in the ground won't solve shit, but this is just my stance on the issue.

Sorry, I really had to get that out there, I mean, Christ.

At 4/21/14 05:16 PM, UsernameUser wrote:

At 4/21/14 02:42 PM, Alexander wrote: Hey folks.

So, I live in the deep south. There are many extremist conservatives down here, and one of their favorite things to say is, "The Gummit is wastin' mah money!"

Bullshit.

Not to say that the government doesn't waste money, but that's theirmoney to waste. Guess what, you live in this country, you pay taxes; that money ISN'T your money, it's the governments.

Boom.

My biggest problem with the government (the federal government, that is) is that they have huge volumes of money, yet they spend it like there's nothing wrong. They spend millions digging pointless holes in the ground or sending Michelle Obama on vacations to Colorado. Most of the time (excluding the Michelle Obama thing) this is so politicians can say "Hey, constituents! I just created 10,000 jobs (digging a giant, pointless hole in the ground) vote for me!". You are completely right, the people we elect are the ones who get to decide how that money is spent, and me bitching about holes in the ground won't solve shit, but this is just my stance on the issue.

Sorry, I really had to get that out there, I mean, Christ.

According to a 2010 report, $16.5 BILLION was lost to pork spending (i.e. pointless projects to up politician ratings) in that year. Source: 25 Scandalous Examples Of Government Pork That Will Drive You Crazy

This kind of thing happens every year- using tax dollars to support the public image of politicians. I think anyone can agree that this sort of action is a contributing factor to America's current state.

At 4/21/14 04:08 PM, Alexander wrote: from where I'm standing, the government doesn't work like that. No matter who you choose to run the Government, does anything really change? I mean, sure, some numbers here and there, but I've seen no noticeable change within my town or life within the past decade (pertaining to government).

Perhaps it is because the past decade has been dominated by conservative and corporatist policies that you get that impression (though if your profile is to be believed, being 19 might have something to do with it as well). However, to conclude from this that it's impossible to make any impact on your government smacks of defeatism. The only way to absolutely guarantee that your objections will never be addressed is to keep them to yourself. I can't stand people who voluntarily relegate themselves to irrelevance, which is exactly what you are admitting to with the attitude you've assumed in this thread.

At 4/21/14 04:45 PM, aListers wrote: That's because the American government is limited to 2 parties. None of the other parties ever get in. In Scotland a new party got in and the position of our entire country is now in question. Until the American people start to vote for other parties in significant numbers - your country will seem pretty similar.

Not really. I say the multiparty system is overrated, even when new parties arise and win it's because they're made up of members of the former dominant or co-dominant party. The Republicans were like this, the reason they rose up so quickly was because they were made up of Democrats and Whigs angry with their parties neutrality and avoidance on the issue of slavery. Likewise in my country of Bulgaria there was a party in the early 2000's which rose up which was led by the Tsar of Bulgaria, by 2010 that party had gone from the dominant party in the Parliment to being replaced by GERB, a right wing party. The new GERB was just made up of members of the Tsarist party. So in reality not much changes, it depends on the people.

In the US parties mean next to nothing, they're just a label. Party leaders do not have control over their members especially in the current climate where members are rewarded by their constituents for going against a party line instead of punished. That's why you see Democrats win in states like South Dakota which in a national election vote nearly 100% Republican.

Nonetheless, I agree with you on the taxes. When we elect, we simply choose who gets to decide what to do with them. It's their money by law and if the people had a say in what happened to it then Thatcher's funeral would have been privatised - or at least not that expensive.

I think moreover it's more the government taking back its property. Money is property of the government hence why it is illegal to destroy money. When you get money you merely have a license to use it; you don't own it. So the government should have full right to tax it from you.

People have always hated taxed and how the government spends it. This is nothing new.

All currency is is a note backed up by the promise of the federal government. So, in actuality, it never held any value other than that. No currency has any real intrinsic value. If it weren't for gold, our money would be worthless.(already is basically)

The government isn't taking your money, nor are corporations. No one is "stealing" from you directly. The tax system itself, the banking system and the insurance companies devised the scheme and the scheme is that the poor and middle class are taxed to death and the rich are taxed almost nothing. This leads to the death of the middle class and economic collapse.

It is the president who holds the power to raise the tax cap on the rich. Every time a president did this, the economy improved.(its how FDR saved us the first go around) Side-line and Trickle down economics don't work.

A middle class without disposable income = no middle class. There's issues with raising min. wage, but really, there is no other alternative. Without a middle class and without money going into the economy, the economy will tank. Then you end up with a third world country.

So, you are correct, it's not the gov. it's the system and the fact they are trying to keep it going, despite the fact it does not work.

At 4/21/14 02:42 PM, Alexander wrote: Hey folks.

So, I live in the deep south. There are many extremist conservatives down here, and one of their favorite things to say is, "The Gummit is wastin' mah money!"

Bullshit.

Not to say that the government doesn't waste money, but that's theirmoney to waste. Guess what, you live in this country, you pay taxes; that money ISN'T your money, it's the governments.

Boom.

Sorry, I really had to get that out there, I mean, Christ.

Well that all depends on your perspective.
If you have Stockholm Syndrome then it's their money.
If you believe extortion is a necessary evil then it's your money and is only used legitimately when used against worse evils. And if recent history is anything to go by then it is not legitimate use at all.

People have generally understood throughout history to overthrow their rulers when they are not serving their interests. Most wars, until the 20th century were fought over trade routes and many of those wars were demanded by the people rather than the elites. But we have inherited a society where our rulers are 'overthrown' every few years rendering the process of violent uprising irrelevant. Wars are always depicted as ideological or moral conflicts because they serve the interests of the political class but not the taxpayer. It's a stalemate really, they want you to pay for and fight their wars to force other nations to use their currency which they print out of thin air and which you pay interest on. This impoverishes you further and makes it impossible to compete with big business which is heavily subsidized because, that's right, you pay for it.

So it may well be their money once they've taken it but don't fool yourself into thinking that it serves your interest. If these people were actually working in your best interests then they wouldn't have to extort your money in the first place.

At 4/30/14 12:50 AM, AnteHero wrote: If these people were actually working in your best interests then they wouldn't have to extort your money in the first place.

How can it be extortion if you consent to taxation? What about tacit consent for using all the benefits the taxation has provided? Until you're driving a non-subsidized car on toll-roads built by private industry to a privately funded school which you pay for, I don't think you can say you don't consent to their taxation. I sure hope the idealistic libertarian world doesn't have any market failures either because government won't be able to step in without taxing you.

At 4/30/14 08:53 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: You're right, you've always got the freedom to move somewhere else, where individual liberties may not be as prominent and interstate commerce isn't federally regulated.

Correct. You've chosen to engage into a contractual relationship within the sovereign territory of a government that charges a fee for such a contract to be made within its borders.

If you don't consent to taxation, or merely object to its improper utilitarian uses (his argument you decided to strawman), then collecting taxes under threat of force could be construed as extortion. Fairly simple.

Incorrect. Extortion is a criminal offense. Since a tax is a law, how can a tax (which -- if you're a pedant, or a troll *wink wink* -- does not contradict the constitution) be construed as extortion, of all things? You're not coerced to live here -- the federal government does not send thugs in black suits to intimidate you with the threat of force to be a United States citizen, nor is there anything even remotely comparable to that which can be construed as coercion.

I don't see what the issue is. As many libertarians like to say, if you don't like it you can always move somewhere else.

Especially not when 50% of the voters are communist scum. Oops I mean democratic shills. Oops I mean YES WE CAN

Oh, there we are. I was starting to take you seriously, haha.

The first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper name and the definition of extortion does not include whether you like the mafia who is extorting you. The point is not that we have an elegant phrase to describe something when it pains us to recognize the truth of the matter, but that the great earth makes no claims over who owns her land. Sovereignty is not some esoteric contract bestowed onto legal fictions by god himself but a matter of great contention, especially when you live in a world of people who only recognize the sovereignty of the state, backed by guns and run by people who neither created nor conquered the land they rule nor pay for the debts they accrue in your name.

And actually I do live somewhere else, I live in Scotland, we have 3 governments here, hopefully one of them will be getting the boot soon, fingers crossed. Here in the old world there are many roads and schools and yes, even non subsidized cars which were built long before the government made you pay for these things. It turns out there is a wide spectrum of options to accomplish these things in between the Mad Max anarchy and Middle Earth idealism most people think would replace the current paradigm.

I have to disagree with the idea that you can just move somewhere else, because it's the same everywhere. The point is that we already pay for these things with our money and our lives and there is no natural law which necessitates that we also pay for a massive bureaucracy to do our thinking for us. My contention is not with governance in general, my contention is with the nation state as an institution. The nation state has me paying for wars fought hundreds of years ago and asks me to feel privileged that I didn't grow up speaking French, wars which would not have been funded without an extortionist infrastructure to perpetuate it's sociopathic blood thirst. Wars should be fought to destroy these things, not to maintain them.

The first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper name and the definition of extortion does not include whether you like the mafia who is extorting you.

Well, yeah, you're right, and I don't recall ever invoking the notion of liking the mafia. Since your argument is so heavily predicated on the definition of extortion, why don't we look at how it's defined?

ex·tor·tion [ik-stawr-shuhn]
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. anything extorted.

ex·tort [ik-stawrt]
1a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.
1b. to take illegally by reason of one's office.
2. to compel (something) of a person or thing.

If this is going to boil down to a semantic shell game then consider me out, but it's completely nonsensical to claim that the act of being taxed in general is akin to being extorted. Now, there are some instances where taxes are definitely used as an oppressive vehicle to subjugate a certain group or class of people (see: the Leibzoll) and/or to reap the benefits of laying claim to a declared colony/territory, but that brings us to the next part of your post:

The point is not that we have an elegant phrase to describe something when it pains us to recognize the truth of the matter, but that the great earth makes no claims over who owns her land. Sovereignty is not some esoteric contract bestowed onto legal fictions by god himself but a matter of great contention, especially when you live in a world of people who only recognize the sovereignty of the state, backed by guns and run by people who neither created nor conquered the land they rule nor pay for the debts they accrue in your name.

...

My contention is not with governance in general, my contention is with the nation state as an institution. The nation state has me paying for wars fought hundreds of years ago and asks me to feel privileged that I didn't grow up speaking French, wars which would not have been funded without an extortionist infrastructure to perpetuate it's sociopathic blood thirst. Wars should be fought to destroy these things, not to maintain them.

Your issue here is the legitimacy of state structures, which is an issue intimately tied to the question of sovereignty. Any sovereign state exists because it is legitimate -- it fulfills its primary responsibility, which is to guarantee to act within the best interests of its people. When the state acts in an illegitimate manner, by definition, the people reject what is deemed as an illegitimate use of authority; when a state is deemed illegitimate, by definition, the people reject the government: the sovereignty is revoked by the people. All wars essentially boil down to the question of sovereignty and thus legitimacy, which you rightfully add as a question of great contention. When the Crown refused to recognize an independent America, they fought a war over it. When the Crown refused to entertain the notion of an independent Scotland, they fought many wars over it. In other words, they refused to accept the legitimacy of these rebellious power structures because it defied their decree of authority. In turn, they fought these wars with funds that were collected by the people -- the people must be taxed because governments cannot function without it. When the government cannot function, it cannot fulfill its duty to serve the best interests of the people. One of these pivotal functions is the enforcement of authority in order to maintain and/or expand a claim of sovereignty -- state powers are not so quick to surrender their legitimacy, whether that threat be internal and/or external. You are correct when you say moving is not a simple solution: this is indeed a phenomena found in a great majority of the world with only a mere handful of exceptions. Thus, your notion of overthrowing perceived illegitimate power structures is a never ending cycle of violence and revolution, because you're asking to destroy a core function of any functional nation state.

Your premise suggests that people have the mental capacity to determine when the state is acting illegitimately and the ability to revoke sovereignty from something which only exists on paper. And therein lies the flaw of democracy. If you are required to only recognize a crime like extortion when the government says it's a crime then you have surrendered your capacity to make that judgement yourself. To me, this is the same thing as surrendering your sovereignty.

It is undignifying that we should have to resort to violence to get the service we want when everyone else in society recognizes that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. This never ending cycle of violence and revolution ends when all free men recognize that a threat to liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere and that threat begins with taxation. If the government cannot function without taxation, then perhaps it shouldn't function at all. They are not special people with some mystical ability to build roads that no one else can figure out.

Here in Europe there is a long tradition of overthrowing your rulers, bragging about it and melting their skin to their throne so their successors know what you're capable of. Rarely are these revolutions ever to change the system of governance as a whole, but merely to replace these arseholes who can't do the job with some other arsehole who can do the job. Democracy of course allows us to symbolically overthrow our rulers and usher in new managers who will maintain the debts and ridiculous policies of previous administrations while giving us the illusion of choice and nullifying our blood thirst. If you destroy the core function of the nation state you end the cycle of violence and revolution along with it. What makes free governance distinct from the nation state? Whether you pay for it by consent or have it paid for by extortion.

At 5/1/14 04:36 PM, AnteHero wrote: Your premise suggests that people have the mental capacity to determine when the state is acting illegitimately and the ability to revoke sovereignty from something which only exists on paper.

Well, on account of us (people) having this discussion, yes. Not only that, you later on in your post mention Europe's sordid history dotted with political instability. Your insinuation here is pretty condescending, frankly. People absolutely have the mental capacity do such things, and they do it all the time. As for the latter part of this sentence, sovereignty does not exist on paper -- it exists merely by recognition. If nobody were to recognize the sovereignty of a nation state then it does not exist. Much like fiat currency, if everyone suddenly stopped believing a given fiat currency was worth anything then it simply ceases to have any worth.

And therein lies the flaw of democracy. If you are required to only recognize a crime like extortion when the government says it's a crime then you have surrendered your capacity to make that judgement yourself. To me, this is the same thing as surrendering your sovereignty.

Again, you seem unable to break away from your circular reinforcing logic. People are not binary, and are very much able to determine when a given government is acting illegitimately regardless of what that government is saying to the contrary, especially in today's age with modern information technology like the internet and smart phones. I don't fully agree with the concept of self-ownership and where that school of thought inevitably leads you. Here's why: I'm getting the impression that you're convinced taxation and other forms of socialization violate the principle of self ownership. That may very well be true; however, I do support these supposed violations of self-ownership because the world would never have industrialized without them. I also believe that there comes a point where popular sovereignty loses out to public welfare, which is another pivotal function of any nation state. And, again, this goes back to the topic of taxation, which funds these programs that continue to advance society. What function does a nation state offer to serve other than to act within the best interest of its people? How can it accomplish this task without some form of socialization?

It is undignifying that we should have to resort to violence to get the service we want when everyone else in society recognizes that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. This never ending cycle of violence and revolution ends when all free men recognize that a threat to liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere and that threat begins with taxation. If the government cannot function without taxation, then perhaps it shouldn't function at all. They are not special people with some mystical ability to build roads that no one else can figure out.

The thing is, though, is that most of society around the world disagrees with your premise that taxation is inherently a threat to the individual. And, since sovereignty rests entirely on premise of legitimacy, it's safe to say that the inherent concept of taxation is not viewed as illegitimate. The reason for this is that the rest of us have come to realize that a certain degree of taxation is absolutely necessary in order to have a functioning society, and that to a broader degree it benefits us all. For example, even Adam Smith wrote that the primary function of a state power is to protect its people from outside aggresssion (it requires to have a functioning military, which entails taxes) as well as picking up where the market lags (see the history of electricity in America with my post here. It's simply either impossible, less efficient, more costly, more time consuming or any combination of those to have private industry carry out massive infrastrucute projects, where often times there's no profit incentive to carry them out. This is why socialization via taxes is the most effective method of getting it done, because frankly there is no better alternative. There never has been nor will there ever be.

What makes free governance distinct from the nation state? Whether you pay for it by consent or have it paid for by extortion.

Here's what I don't understand about people who believe the same things you do like John Zerzan: if that's really how you feel, why haven't you gone off the grid yet? Why do you continue to use the internet, a technological tool ironically developed with tax dollars, which depends on electricity, of which the infrastrucure was also built with tax dollars? Why haven't you met up with like minded people and started up your own self-sustainable comune?

Yes I'm saying we should stop recognizing the sovereignty of the nation state and the legitimacy of taxation as a means to an end. When you have a monopolistic service which has sole jurisdiction over a given area, then you have no reason to analyze which service is better. Risk compels people to improve themselves and when you remove choice you appear to remove risk, and then you have no purpose to analyze the risks and rewards of one service over another. People would certainly buy their governance in the absence of the state, and the service of greatest value to them would be to defend themselves from extortionists. Second to this would be the value of welfare and roads and ecological harmony and so on. History has shown us that democracy does not possess the values which are cited to glorify it. Why do we believe that some things simply couldn't happen without it? I don't know about you but when I was at school [statist education camp] I was constantly told that nothing will work and everything will just fall apart unless you accept the recursive contradiction as the overlord of all your thoughts and make every excuse for authority so they can continue destroying the world and blame everything from the weather to human nature to interests rates and foreigners and never bother to think of solutions to your problems. Which is just so ridiculously unreasonable and contrary to your interests and contrary to human nature it's fucking painful.

If people are so able to determine the illegitimacy of the state then why do so many of them defend a system which is contrary to their own interests. You don't have to look very far to see that the war on drugs increases drug use; the war on terror increases terrorism; that deflation is actually a good thing and inflation cannot be 'cured' with more inflation regardless of what you call it; that banks are committing plain old fashioned crimes on a mass scale and the people who used to prosecute these crimes have been put on terror watch; these people patent food made by nature and prosecute farmers who have patented seeds blown on to their land by the wind; your prison industrial complex has more people in prison than the Soviet Gulags under Stalin because they love slave labor and need the state to 'legitimize' it. So what function does the state serve other than the interests of the people? Well to grant privileges to themselves and their buddies and impose arbitrary rules on their competition which they are exempt from.

I'm a yellow anarchist not a green anarchist so although I wholeheartedly support a persons choice to live as a hunter gatherer I see no reason to renounce every technology invented after the steam engine. Saying that I shouldn't benefit from anything built by taxation is like saying that I shouldn't get any of the medical advancements that were discovered by grave robbing. The work has already been done, by nefarious means yes, but there is no need to do it again. Should I not use the roads built by the Romans either?

Why don't I live in a self sustainable commune with like minded people? Good question, because I'd love to actually. Mainly because we've inherited a really shitty and impoverished society and most people are statist whores who love being pillaged by the state and defending the status quo. On that note, have you ever seen a documentary called The Garbage Warrior? It's about a guy who makes houses from recycled material, completely off grid, produces it's own food and power and recycles it's waste. He finds himself at odds with legislators and other public sector goons who repeat their statist mantras when they're faced with anything new or unusual. It's a pretty compelling story of what the future could look like if the will is there.

At 5/2/14 06:03 AM, AnteHero wrote: People would certainly buy their governance in the absence of the state, and the service of greatest value to them would be to defend themselves from extortionists.

This is where your argument wholly and completely fails. You have WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY too much faith in your fellow man. If the government weren't paying for many things, we flat out would not have them. The Average American is known to go into debt because they want an extra 5 inches on their TV. Why the hell do you think they'd save money to build a road they may only use a couple times?

The reason government have been so successful is they know what they're doing. Their sole job is to predict externalities, both good and bad, and address them. The government is expected to solve problems that the average person both doesn't care about and doesn't know about. Furthermore, the government is there to do it at as little a cost as possible.

On to your point of extortion, do you really think that a private party who is providing an absolute need to a community will do their best to make that need cheap? If you do, I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Do you remember Enron in the late 1990s? Remember what happened when a private entity gathered entire control of an endless demand product? They jacked up prices to 3-4 times the market rate, and instituted rolling black outs claiming there wasn't enough power, shutting down entire cities, when it turned out they had more than enough power. They were merely lying to the people to extort more profit. Guess what, THAT IS TRUE EXTORTION.

You would rather trust your fellow fuck up lazy ass, Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo watching Americans to spend their fair share on a communal utility instead of buying more inches on the TV or more needless consumer shit, and give the power to a private entity who not only has their profit as their primary interest, but has no accountability toward you, instead of a government who's duty it is to look out for your best interest and answers to you, all because you don't like taxes? In short, you'd cut your foot off becaue you don't want to stub your toe. Dense, much?

At 5/2/14 06:03 AM, AnteHero wrote: Yes I'm saying we should stop recognizing the sovereignty of the nation state and the legitimacy of taxation as a means to an end. When you have a monopolistic service which has sole jurisdiction over a given area, then you have no reason to analyze which service is better. Risk compels people to improve themselves and when you remove choice you appear to remove risk, and then you have no purpose to analyze the risks and rewards of one service over another. People would certainly buy their governance in the absence of the state, and the service of greatest value to them would be to defend themselves from extortionists. Second to this would be the value of welfare and roads and ecological harmony and so on. History has shown us that democracy does not possess the values which are cited to glorify it. Why do we believe that some things simply couldn't happen without it? I don't know about you but when I was at school [statist education camp] I was constantly told that nothing will work and everything will just fall apart unless you accept the recursive contradiction as the overlord of all your thoughts and make every excuse for authority so they can continue destroying the world and blame everything from the weather to human nature to interests rates and foreigners and never bother to think of solutions to your problems. Which is just so ridiculously unreasonable and contrary to your interests and contrary to human nature it's fucking painful.

If people are so able to determine the illegitimacy of the state then why do so many of them defend a system which is contrary to their own interests. You don't have to look very far to see that the war on drugs increases drug use; the war on terror increases terrorism; that deflation is actually a good thing and inflation cannot be 'cured' with more inflation regardless of what you call it; that banks are committing plain old fashioned crimes on a mass scale and the people who used to prosecute these crimes have been put on terror watch; these people patent food made by nature and prosecute farmers who have patented seeds blown on to their land by the wind; your prison industrial complex has more people in prison than the Soviet Gulags under Stalin because they love slave labor and need the state to 'legitimize' it. So what function does the state serve other than the interests of the people? Well to grant privileges to themselves and their buddies and impose arbitrary rules on their competition which they are exempt from.

I'm a yellow anarchist not a green anarchist so although I wholeheartedly support a persons choice to live as a hunter gatherer I see no reason to renounce every technology invented after the steam engine. Saying that I shouldn't benefit from anything built by taxation is like saying that I shouldn't get any of the medical advancements that were discovered by grave robbing. The work has already been done, by nefarious means yes, but there is no need to do it again. Should I not use the roads built by the Romans either?

When you say you're a "yellow anarchist" I'm taking that to mean you're an anarcho-capitalist. I'll start with the economics first. Deflation is absolutely, positively not a good thing. When you have inflation, the supply of money and credit decreases relative to the supply of goods and service. This means that your money is worth more and more each day. If left uncorrected this leads to a deflationary spiral, which is immensely hard to counteract with monetary policy. The reason why this is the worst case scenario for economists is because deflation causes people to not spend -- after all, what incentive is there to do so? If my dollar will be worth tomorrow, why not spent it then instead of today? This circular reasoning pushes people out of the economy, where people tend to hoard. Generally speaking, inflation is not 'good,' but much more preferable to deflation, mainly for two reasons. One is that moderate inflation (typically between 1-5% annually) provides an incentive for people to invest, and thus inputting more money into the economy -- since the real worth of your money relative to today is slowly being chipped away, it's unwise to simply stuff your cash in your mattress or what have you. The other main reason being that, from a monetary policy perspective, inflation is much easier to keep under control -- something the Federal Reserve has been exceptionally adept at doing for the past several decades. Since the overall health of any economy depends on how much money is being exchanged at a given moment in time, it's easy to see why deflation is the worst option here. If anything moderate 'regulated' inflation has a net benefit to the economy by incentivizing people to invest, rather than stifling transactions in the market.

Your model of governance compared to your criticisms of the current system is inherently contradictory, especially when you look where this ultimately all headed. Your depictions of your ideal model of governance is reminiscent to that of present-day Somalia. We know what happens when a state fails, and ironically it's exactly what you're erroneously ascribing to developed sovereign states. I'm beginning to think that you don't necessarily have a problem with the Mafia or extortion in general, but rather who is doing the extortion and who exactly the Mafia is. It would be odd if this were not the case, otherwise you would be keen to realize the deep systemic flaws within your political philosophy. We know what anarcho-capitalist markets look like. They even exist everywhere around the world: it's called the black market, and who enforces the 'law' governing this market? I think you know the answer.

In the absence of the state, who are the enforcers of contracts and property rights? What do the courts look like? How are people "buying their governance?" If you are implying private defense companies like many other an-caps, what is to prevent you going down the path Somalia, where we know that the region's 'enforcers' are roving warlords and mafiosos? What is to prevent these private defense companies from also having a monopoly on force? This is why I mentioned a never ending cycle of violence in revolution in my previous post, because inevitably you will wind up with a de facto state. Have you ever considered the thought that the reason no anarcho-capitalist society has succeeded is that human beings are not psychologically able to live without a state? I believe this to be inherently true -- after all, even an an-cap society is hierarchical just by virtue of being capitalistic in nature. It's inevitable that with this sort of framework you will have competing power structures fighting for the consolidation of power. It's precisely this reason why we have governments: there need to be an entity that has a monopoly on force which can solve disputes under the framework of an objectively defined law. An an-cap society does nothing to change this basic societal need -- it only puts power into the hands of the wrong people.

Why don't I live in a self sustainable commune with like minded people? Good question, because I'd love to actually. Mainly because we've inherited a really shitty and impoverished society and most people are statist whores who love being pillaged by the state and defending the status quo.

Well, what's stopping you? Don't blame everyone else. Read up on survival skills and build a cabin out in the woods. That's what Kaczynski did. This doesn't necessarily mean you should start bombing people, but if you really would love that type of lifestyle then I don't see why you didn't go out and do it yourself already.

You have WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY too much faith in your fellow man.

That's what anarchists say about statists. It is precisely because we don't have faith in our fellow man that we don't want a monopoly of governance.

The reason government have been so successful is they know what they're doing. Their sole job is to predict externalities, both good and bad, and address them. The government is expected to solve problems that the average person both doesn't care about and doesn't know about. Furthermore, the government is there to do it at as little a cost as possible.

Yes and these people will still exist and will have the same skills they do today. Really the only difference is how they get their funding.

On to your point of extortion, do you really think that a private party who is providing an absolute need to a community will do their best to make that need cheap? If you do, I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Do you remember Enron in the late 1990s? Remember what happened when a private entity gathered entire control of an endless demand product? They jacked up prices to 3-4 times the market rate, and instituted rolling black outs claiming there wasn't enough power, shutting down entire cities, when it turned out they had more than enough power. They were merely lying to the people to extort more profit. Guess what, THAT IS TRUE EXTORTION.

Yes and there was a great fuss about it and a few years later they implemented the same kind of corruption on a much larger scale. The FBI reported to the Bush administration that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud being committed by the lenders and their response was to shut down that department of the FBI.

You would rather trust your fellow fuck up lazy ass, Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo watching Americans to spend their fair share on a communal utility instead of buying more inches on the TV or more needless consumer shit, and give the power to a private entity who not only has their profit as their primary interest, but has no accountability toward you, instead of a government who's duty it is to look out for your best interest and answers to you, all because you don't like taxes? In short, you'd cut your foot off becaue you don't want to stub your toe. Dense, much?

But they don't look out for your best interests, they don't answer to you. This is a platonic ideal which is never manifested in reality. And when you realize this you can't withdraw your financial support from them. It's not difficult to conclude that you want a government who builds roads and schools and protects you from theft, fraud and violence. It's not difficult to conclude that you don't want a government who bails out banks who should fail, patents food created by nature, subsidizes the wealthiest corporations in the world and imprisons people for taking drugs. And we are supposed to believe that our votes can sway the government towards those good things and away from the bad things but the evidence is to the contrary. Voting takes place and we get more of the same BS.

At 5/2/14 03:35 PM, AnteHero wrote: That's what anarchists say about statists. It is precisely because we don't have faith in our fellow man that we don't want a monopoly of governance.

But the full extent of civilized human history runs against you and with me. Throughout that entire time, governments have been VERY successful and remarkably consistent in dealing with externalities. People on their own have been consistently really bad at it.

I'll stick with the option that has been tried and true for 4,000 years over the one that has yet to succeed on any large level.

Yes and these people will still exist and will have the same skills they do today. Really the only difference is how they get their funding.

You assume it's an automatic how. It isn't. If it weren't for the government 'forcing' people to pay for these externalities, people flat out would not pay for most of them.

Yes and there was a great fuss about it and a few years later they implemented the same kind of corruption on a much larger scale. The FBI reported to the Bush administration that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud being committed by the lenders and their response was to shut down that department of the FBI.

No one here is saying the government isn't corrupt in some manner. I will not deny that. ALL human entities have some level of corruption. The level of corruption in our government is well below the tolerance level.

But they don't look out for your best interests, they don't answer to you. ... Voting takes place and we get more of the same BS.

You both contradict yourself and expose yourself with these two sentences. Voting IS the answering to us. Now, merely not liking how things turn out due to voting doesn't make the system broken and corrupt. It just means your interests may no lie in the same place as the rest of the country.

But, to get back to your point, I challenge you to tell me of an activity that you could do that would likely be ENTIRELY funded by private Americans without the government.

When you say you're a "yellow anarchist" I'm taking that to mean you're an anarcho-capitalist. I'll start with the economics first. Deflation is absolutely, positively not a good thing. When you have inflation, the supply of money and credit decreases relative to the supply of goods and service. This means that your money is worth more and more each day. If left uncorrected this leads to a deflationary spiral, which is immensely hard to counteract with monetary policy. The reason why this is the worst case scenario for economists is because deflation causes people to not spend -- after all, what incentive is there to do so? If my dollar will be worth tomorrow, why not spent it then instead of today? This circular reasoning pushes people out of the economy, where people tend to hoard. Generally speaking, inflation is not 'good,' but much more preferable to deflation, mainly for two reasons. One is that moderate inflation (typically between 1-5% annually) provides an incentive for people to invest, and thus inputting more money into the economy -- since the real worth of your money relative to today is slowly being chipped away, it's unwise to simply stuff your cash in your mattress or what have you. The other main reason being that, from a monetary policy perspective, inflation is much easier to keep under control -- something the Federal Reserve has been exceptionally adept at doing for the past several decades. Since the overall health of any economy depends on how much money is being exchanged at a given moment in time, it's easy to see why deflation is the worst option here. If anything moderate 'regulated' inflation has a net benefit to the economy by incentivizing people to invest, rather than stifling transactions in the market.

Your last post is a bit much to digest in one go, I'll respond to this one first because I hear this all the time.
People have to spend money to survive regardless of how much it's going to be worth tomorrow. So if people are not spending it, that means they have the things which they need. If this also means companies going out of business then so be it. A currency is a commodity like any other, their values fluctuate like the weather and any sane person wants to be holding the most deflationary assets available to them because as you stated, it is worth more and more each day. This is the way things are and no amount regulations or interest rates can change that. The inflationary fiat money system transfers wealth from the poor and middle classes to wealthy and ensures they will rarely have the capital to compete with the big players, they're taking your money and charging you for it. In a deflationary system prices come down, that's the kind of spiral I'd like to be in.

But the full extent of civilized human history runs against you and with me. Throughout that entire time, governments have been VERY successful and remarkably consistent in dealing with externalities. People on their own have been consistently really bad at it.

Well perhaps there is a place for these sociopaths after all. I just want them to compete with each other because I am inherently responsible for the organisations which I fund.

You assume it's an automatic how. It isn't. If it weren't for the government 'forcing' people to pay for these externalities, people flat out would not pay for most of them.

Well that's where natural selection comes into play.

But they don't look out for your best interests, they don't answer to you. ... Voting takes place and we get more of the same BS.

You both contradict yourself and expose yourself with these two sentences. Voting IS the answering to us. Now, merely not liking how things turn out due to voting doesn't make the system broken and corrupt. It just means your interests may no lie in the same place as the rest of the country.

I find it difficult to believe that the majority of people have had their interests looked after by the policies of the past 10 years. I know what voting is supposed to achieve, what I'm saying is that it does not achieve these things.

But, to get back to your point, I challenge you to tell me of an activity that you could do that would likely be ENTIRELY funded by private Americans without the government.

Now this is interesting, and probably the kind of direction a political debate should go in. But I'm a bit hazy on the details.
Are you asking me how private interests could accomplish one of the things which are currently done by the government?

Your model of governance compared to your criticisms of the current system is inherently contradictory, especially when you look where this ultimately all headed. Your depictions of your ideal model of governance is reminiscent to that of present-day Somalia. We know what happens when a state fails, and ironically it's exactly what you're erroneously ascribing to developed sovereign states. I'm beginning to think that you don't necessarily have a problem with the Mafia or extortion in general, but rather who is doing the extortion and who exactly the Mafia is. It would be odd if this were not the case, otherwise you would be keen to realize the deep systemic flaws within your political philosophy. We know what anarcho-capitalist markets look like. They even exist everywhere around the world: it's called the black market, and who enforces the 'law' governing this market? I think you know the answer.

The violence in Somalia is not so much the result of statelessness as it is the result of poverty which was caused by their government. Conditions in Somalia have actually improved under anarchy and I'm sure most of them would rather not risk their lives to survive. Perhaps they will be the first ones to offer private governance considering that defense contracts are much safer than pirating. They've already applied more professionalism into the presentation of their ransoms than the likes of AlQaeda and are familiar with the tactics of other pirates. So they have an awareness of marketing skills and whoever moves into defense first will have first mover advantage over other pirates.

At 5/2/14 04:05 PM, AnteHero wrote: People have to spend money to survive regardless of how much it's going to be worth tomorrow.

That's assuming we have a functional society in place. It's easy to think of a situation where canned food and ammo are worth more than paper bills, namely post-collapse scenarios. In that case survival has nothing to do with spending money, because society has broke down.

So if people are not spending it, that means they have the things which they need. If this also means companies going out of business then so be it.

That's not necessarily true. Some people don't spend money because they don't have any money. To build on that, an overwhelming percentage of economic activity is not based on needs, but rather wants. Do you NEED a new refrigerator with an ice machine or a new plasma tv? Certainly not, but the same can be said for probably over 90% of items commonly found throughout any typical household. Ultimately the question is what definition of 'need' you are using. Do you mean things only necessarily for survival? In that case we're not just talking about a couple of businesses going under -- you're wiping out a huge chunk of your entire economy. This goes back to my original point: some people don't spend money because they don't have any money. If people are not spending, then businesses go under as profits fall. You're talking about a scenario where we have an epidemic crisis of massive unemployment. On top of that, what if you wind up owing someone money? You'll never get out, since the real burden keeps increasing.

A currency is a commodity like any other, their values fluctuate like the weather and any sane person wants to be holding the most deflationary assets available to them because as you stated, it is worth more and more each day. This is the way things are and no amount regulations or interest rates can change that. The inflationary fiat money system transfers wealth from the poor and middle classes to wealthy and ensures they will rarely have the capital to compete with the big players, they're taking your money and charging you for it.

A currency is not a commodity. A currency is a currency; a commodity is a commodity. Deflation is inherently unstable -- stabilizing your currency means stabilizing the rate of inflation, not 0 inflation or a deflationary spiral of all things for reasons already stated. Deflation simply ruins economies, no matter what kind of economy it is or what it's based on. Inflation doesn't transfer wealth at all -- it's merely a phenomena experience when you have an increase in the money supply.

In a deflationary system prices come down, that's the kind of spiral I'd like to be in.

This is akin to saying "I want to be dropped into a vat of boiling water" or "I can't wait to get cancer." It really is that ridiculous.

Conditions in Somalia have actually improved under anarchy and I'm sure most of them would rather not risk their lives to survive.

This is just getting plain bizarre. Over 250,000 people died from famine during 2010-2012 which could have easily been prevented or mitigated has there been a functional government in place. I also find it odd that you would point to Somalia as a success story, when Somalia and it's breakaway states like Somaliland are de facto states, which is functionally no different than what we have now. I'd rather just, y'know, pay the government with taxes to deal with pirates than give money to a bunch of random dudes with guns, but call me crazy.

A currency is not a commodity. A currency is a currency; a commodity is a commodity. Deflation is inherently unstable -- stabilizing your currency means stabilizing the rate of inflation, not 0 inflation or a deflationary spiral of all things for reasons already stated. Deflation simply ruins economies, no matter what kind of economy it is or what it's based on. Inflation doesn't transfer wealth at all -- it's merely a phenomena experience when you have an increase in the money supply.

Right here's an example:
100 people live on an island and trade coconuts and fish and timber using paper currency printed by a central bank.
On monday each person has one piece of paper, all is well and good and trade goes on as normal.
On tuesday, the banker prints 100 more pieces of paper for himself.
On wednesday there are 200 pieces of paper representing the same amount of produce on the island.
Everyones paper is now worth half as much as it was on monday and the banker can now buy 50x as much as he could the day before.
The guy with special privilege now has more wealth at the expense of everyone who is using his currency.
Therefore, this 'mere phenomena' does transfer wealth.

At 5/2/14 05:49 PM, AnteHero wrote: Right here's an example:
100 people live on an island and trade coconuts and fish and timber using paper currency printed by a central bank.
On monday each person has one piece of paper, all is well and good and trade goes on as normal.
On tuesday, the banker prints 100 more pieces of paper for himself.
On wednesday there are 200 pieces of paper representing the same amount of produce on the island.
Everyones paper is now worth half as much as it was on monday and the banker can now buy 50x as much as he could the day before.
The guy with special privilege now has more wealth at the expense of everyone who is using his currency.
Therefore, this 'mere phenomena' does transfer wealth.

What you're describing is not inflation -- you're describing how a dude printed money for himself. Central banks don't do that -- they use fractional reserve banking to increase the supply of money, which directly depends on deposits.

What you're describing is not inflation -- you're describing how a dude printed money for himself. Central banks don't do that -- they use fractional reserve banking to increase the supply of money, which directly depends on deposits.

Deposits of what?

At 5/2/14 06:06 PM, AnteHero wrote: Deposits of what?

Money in bank accounts. Fractional reserve banking is the practice of only holding a fraction of of a given bank's deposits on hand at any one time to satisfy demands from their depositors. If you do away with fractional reserve banking, banks literally have to hold everything they take in on deposit against demands from their depositors. A bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money. Printing and issuing currency reduces the money supply by reducing banking reserves. The government cannot just will itself money out of thin air -- that is the responsibility of the quasi-public Federal Reserve Bank. They are the only ones authorized to issue legal tender by delegation from Congress. New bills are constantly being printed to replace that paper damaged or destroyed which has left the supply. Printing additional dollars isn't increasing our money supply; total money supply is only loosely connected to circulated bills (circulated bills represent those dollars already present in the total supply). We are not printing additional dollar bills to create money; the additional money is added to the money supply through other mechanisms.