Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you think you deserve to live "rent" free on a plot of land that you had no part in creating or securing? Anyone that thinks they don't owe taxes to the govt of the land they live on, is the equivalent of a squatter.
It's like going up to a landlord and telling them that they're robbing you for making you pay them for the ability to live in their upscale highrise w/ elevators and clean hallways and garbage pickup and doormen. When you live in a country, the "rent" is your taxes.
Yep, the number one Achilles heal of the typical Libertarian. In fact it is exactly like this. Some loser decides to park on beach front property, while another is in a less ideal inland site. To complete with the one on the beach front he has to make an upscale hotel. So if both of them pay the same income taxes, sales taxes and receive the same government services. It is robbing the landlord who builds elevators , cleans hallways, and picks up the garbage. Unfortunately the typical Conservative is a complete economic moron that vastly over estimates their ability to comprehend basic economic concepts.
Because nationless corporations/banks do not share the same allegiance or interests in our nation or our people. They have already infiltrated our Government and bribe politicians to do their bidding. I think what some see as Government ineptitude is really corruption and collusion with the private sector.
The stock of a company goes up when they lay off American workers or close facilities here. The stocks for healthcare companies go up when there is a threat of disease in this country, like Ebola. Stocks for war corporations go through the roof when we are at war or there is a threat of war.
These companies do not care about this country or Americans. Their only goal is global economic hegemony and they are well on their way since our Government and financial system have been hijacked. Already of the 100 largest economies in the World there are more nationless/detached banks and corporations than whole nations of people. They already have the power-Government power is an illusion today. This is the "new world order"-nations losing their sovereignty with a global cabal of economic interests controlling a worldwide population in destitution.
Why the HELL would anyone trust these parasites and vultures? Representatives in Government are bound by their allegiance to the people-we need to start enforcing it, and imprisoning politicians for treason.
Why do you think you deserve to live "rent" free on a plot of land that you had no part in creating or securing? Anyone that thinks they don't owe taxes to the govt of the land they live on, is the equivalent of a squatter.
It's like going up to a landlord and telling them that they're robbing you for making you pay them for the ability to live in their upscale highrise w/ elevators and clean hallways and garbage pickup and doormen. When you live in a country, the "rent" is your taxes.
This would be true only if the government justly owned everything within its borders, but they don't. First, the government isn't a real entity that can own anything, so you'd have to argue that actual individual politicians or bureaucrats own everything. That isn't true because they have no rightful claim to it. Governments of the past just claimed vast areas of land as their own without being the first to claim it and putting it to use. You can't just say "I own everything over there" without ever stepping foot there or trading the rights to it with the rightful owner.
Also, that would essentially mean they own you and your property, which is why many are against property taxes. We're told that we own our house, our plot of land, our belongings, etc. but state agents can just take it or dictate what we do with it as if they are the rightful owners. Do you really think that a small group of political elites that come and go as they're elected should be considered the rightful owners of everything, and the citizens rent from them? That would be a lot like serfdom or slavery.
As far as freeloading/squatting goes, I know I've never consented to having some group of people take my money and tell me what I'm getting for it. If I want a service, I'll go to whoever I trust and pay for them to do it, or just do it myself. It's like me threatening you into giving me your money, giving you a sandwich you didn't ask for, and saying "well if you don't want to pay for your food, you're just taking advantage of the system". It's like...no, I want to be treated like a human being who's allowed to choose what sandwich I buy from whom, if I even want one at all.
That's a poor example because food is very close to a perfect market in the US.
When you talk about privatization of government services, you are talking about areas of the economy with highly flawed markets (mostly markets with difficult to monetize values or markets with natural monopolies). As an example, fully privatizing water service would be a disaster; you would have conflicting water rights, an incentive to wildcat, multiple disconnected distribution networks, etc. Or as another example, how do you fully privatize intelligence gathering for national security? Certainly you can outsource (and the federal government does), but if that function were dropped completely and individual citizens had to rely on the free market, there would be some distinct problems.
And we have already been done the road of fully privatized police and fire. We can, of course, "privatize" to a degree, especially outsourcing for small government entities. This really though is not privatization at all but merely contracting. No part of an outsource situation is actually subject to market forces.
The natural monopoly thing has been debunked many times and I don't feel like going into that whole discussion right now, but you really can't have a monopoly without the state. The state itself is a monopoly, ironically...but anyway, why would privatizing lead to issues over property rights (like the water example, or any other)? Privatization is property rights. You establish who owns what, and it's very clear who has the rights to it.
For national security, there would be no "nation". It would be individual people, families, or other groups of people who own their property. Everyone would essentially be their own country. Then you choose how to defend yourselves...you can form alliances, even complex and large-scale alliances, or you could just defend yourself, hire security or another protection service provider, or whatever you decide. The main thing is that people will want to be protected, and they'll organize to do that naturally.
Same with any other service you listed. You have competing service providers instead of one monopoly, and you choose who you want to do it, if at all.
I know you probably won't be satisfied with my response, but I just gave a general overview. I'm on vacation right now.
This would be true only if the government justly owned everything within its borders, but they don't. First, the government isn't a real entity that can own anything, so you'd have to argue that actual individual politicians or bureaucrats own everything. That isn't true because they have no rightful claim to it. Governments of the past just claimed vast areas of land as their own without being the first to claim it and putting it to use. You can't just say "I own everything over there" without ever stepping foot there or trading the rights to it with the rightful owner.
If nothing else, the gov't "owns" the access to your land which is why China can't just come in and steal your house. You have no power to stop another country from stealing your house and possessions.
The gov't is absolutely a real entity, which is why we don't pay taxes to Barack Obama or Paul Ryan.
You can't claim land b/c you have no force to back your claim to it. The gov't does, and that is what stops other gov't from rolling over your "property rights." Your "property rights" only exist under the security and stability that your gov't provides. And for that, your payment for those services is taxes.
Quote:
Also, that would essentially mean they own you and your property, which is why many are against property taxes. We're told that we own our house, our plot of land, our belongings, etc. but state agents can just take it or dictate what we do with it as if they are the rightful owners. Do you really think that a small group of political elites that come and go as they're elected should be considered the rightful owners of everything, and the citizens rent from them? That would be a lot like serfdom or slavery.
No, what that means is that you owe rent for claiming a slice of the property they already have. Does a landlord own his tenants furniture b/c he gets paid rent? No. But they own the property that their tenant's property is based in. If the tenant suddenly decide they're going to stop paying rent, the landlord has means of reclaiming the property that the tenant has been paying him for.
Quote:
As far as freeloading/squatting goes, I know I've never consented to having some group of people take my money and tell me what I'm getting for it. If I want a service, I'll go to whoever I trust and pay for them to do it, or just do it myself. It's like me threatening you into giving me your money, giving you a sandwich you didn't ask for, and saying "well if you don't want to pay for your food, you're just taking advantage of the system". It's like...no, I want to be treated like a human being who's allowed to choose what sandwich I buy from whom, if I even want one at all.
Your consent is that you live in this country. If you don't like the lease terms the gov't provides, move. You are free to go to a country that has terms you'd rather rent from. Just don't complain when the rent-free property you move to is dilapidated s#!thole.
Yep, the number one Achilles heal of the typical Libertarian. In fact it is exactly like this. Some loser decides to park on beach front property, while another is in a less ideal inland site. To complete with the one on the beach front he has to make an upscale hotel. So if both of them pay the same income taxes, sales taxes and receive the same government services. It is robbing the landlord who builds elevators , cleans hallways, and picks up the garbage. Unfortunately the typical Conservative is a complete economic moron that vastly over estimates their ability to comprehend basic economic concepts.
See my other response about the state not being a legitimate owner of anything within its borders...
It isn't an Achilles heel at all. Most have a skewed view of property because they're beginning with the assumption that the state has a legitimate claim over it. Individual people own things, and if you are the true owner, nobody else can rightfully overrule your claim to it.
Your car is yours. I can't overrule your decision if you don't want me to drive it to work or take it for a joyride. You have the final say because it's yours. Same goes for your body, or anything else.
I try to stay out of political discussions for the most part. But ocasionally I find myself getting caught up in some political debates. And my first go to solution is to privatize. This immediately ends the conversation, or I get called all sorts of idiots.
I find it odd that Americas will agree social security is a disaster, the police force is a disaster, all of our social programs are a disaster. Yet when someone talks about the power of the market, people are automatically scared.
So I ask, why is America so afraid to attempt privatization? Why do we keep looking towards government for solutions? And why do we keep trying the same "solutions" over and over again that has netted very few gains or progress?
This would be true only if the government justly owned everything within its borders, but they don't.
But they do when they create it. Private land is a creation of the sovereign. Its been that way for thousands of years. Landed gentry was given land by the king. If someone squats on your land , the state tosses them off.
Quote:
First, the government isn't a real entity that can own anything, so you'd have to argue that actual individual politicians or bureaucrats own everything.
And unicorns only have one horn. You make a rule of a complete mythology.
Quote:
That isn't true because they have no rightful claim to it.
What's a rightful claim? John Locke provided a theory of natural right to the labour theory of ownership. Now he did say that mixing one's labour into it does provide some right to fixtures. However from what bases to you prove your right?
Quote:
Governments of the past just claimed vast areas of land as their own without being the first to claim it and putting it to use.
You mean like absentee land lords do now? Get it though your head. There is no distinction between a land lord and a government. A land lord should be considered a sub manciple government. They can even make laws like no children or pets. They can tell you if you can plant a garden or not. They are a government and always have been. That is what a baron meant.
"a person who held lands or property from the sovereign or a powerful overlord."
Quote:
You can't just say "I own everything over there" without ever stepping foot there or trading the rights to it with the rightful owner.
That's what happens now. Are you saying I can just take any vacant lot I like because no one is using it? Can the occupant take a vacation?
Quote:
Also, that would essentially mean they own you and your property, which is why many are against property taxes. We're told that we own our house, our plot of land, our belongings, etc. but state agents can just take it or dictate what we do with it as if they are the rightful owners. Do you really think that a small group of political elites that come and go as they're elected should be considered the rightful owners of everything, and the citizens rent from them? That would be a lot like serfdom or slavery.
People that claim land and have it enforced by da guberment are more or less implementing sefdom. If a private person owns all of Manhattan as a "free man", and then charges rent for it, how is he not a proxy of the same thing?
Quote:
As far as freeloading/squatting goes, I know I've never consented to having some group of people take my money and tell me what I'm getting for it. If I want a service, I'll go to whoever I trust and pay for them to do it, or just do it myself. It's like me threatening you into giving me your money, giving you a sandwich you didn't ask for, and saying "well if you don't want to pay for your food, you're just taking advantage of the system". It's like...no, I want to be treated like a human being who's allowed to choose what sandwich I buy from whom, if I even want one at all.
And here is where you are forced to resort to making no sense.
Social security is not a disaster. Anyone who tells you that has an agenda they are trying to push.
Private police? LOL
Here is where we be buds. You darn well betcha. Any one that tells ya that Social Security is a disaster(other than a needless tax to create a fund) is a jack booted psycho who would sell his own child if it could be profitably turned into paste.
The social security fund is, was and always will be based upon the output of the current economy. Financialization of it is a farce. Call it fictionalization. If a tribe of 30-50 hunter gatherers decided to spend all their resources on a big grass hut and spent all its time fishing for abalone , not bothering to have children, and not kidnap them (yes this occurred in New Guinea who thought heterosexuality was witchcraft), then social security is a bust.
There is no lock box. There is no need for a lock box. It should be pay-as-you-go and it should be indexed to the demographic worker/retiree ratio. Fix it to say 5/1 and the retirement age is automagically generated every year.
I'm not liberal or conservative, I'm an anarchist. Saying that it's a model used around the world doesn't change the facts of public vs. private sector and how they operate. The state takes by force, and everyone else has to convince people to give their money voluntarily. I'm not just giving an opinion, I'm stating facts, and you haven't disproven any of it.
I'm glad you can understand it to some degree, but it's not hyperbole. If it is, you should be able to explain how I'm exaggerating instead of just stating that I am. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I don't see it in this case.
I'm pretty open-minded, but I won't bother to discuss issues with people whose intent is to bring revolution against the will of the majority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
fyi
