Should people be forced to pay for others? Poll attached.

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by T0103E

Taxation, or any forced payment. No, not fundraisers for everything. Some of it could be relying on friends and family, some could be local community programs or groups...Really, you could even have a very similar setup to what exists now, where you agree to pay into some kind of collective welfare fund...just can't force anyone into it. "Voluntary" taxes, even though that would make them...not taxes anymore.

Another thing off the top of my head is having businesses take on the costs of something like roads, security, whatever...which would cut costs for everyone else. I'm specifically thinking of something like Threat Management Center in Detroit, which helps with crime and is paid for by local businesses and others with money, because they want their neighborhoods safe and their property values to rise. Regular people benefit without having to pay anything. I'm sure that wouldn't work everywhere, but I like the idea.

I get why people want a complete guarantee that the things they care about will be funded, but that requires treating people as if you have a higher claim over their life than they do...which I think is hypocritical and evil, and something most people would never do outside of the realm of politics. I truly think people are going against their own values without realizing it.

Also wanted to note that even though I'm addressing it, I try not to fall into the trap of "How would X work?...I give my opinion...Okay, well how would Y work?...I give my opinion...Well how would Z work?...etc." It's usually not intentional, but it's a way of deflecting from the original point - If I'm not justified in doing X, I can't just vote for someone to do it for me and think that makes it okay.

And you could say I'm a no government guy, technically. If the government has to follow the same rules as the rest of us, I'm not sure why anyone would call it "government' anymore.

Long post, but I want to add a quote that fits...

That's not necessarily true. I don't think I have a higher claim over someone's life and I doubt many other do unless they come from the groups like you or I was raised in. That might be a leftover mindset that you project onto other people.
I'm giving my opinion as to why I think a certain way. The libertarians on this thread are highly combative and are claiming all kinds of mind-reading skills. If you want to change something from the current way it's entirely to be expected that there should be some better solutions.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

That's not necessarily true. I don't think I have a higher claim over someone's life and I doubt many other do unless they come from the groups like you or I was raised in. That might be a leftover mindset that you project onto other people.
I'm giving my opinion as to why I think a certain way. The libertarians on this thread are highly combative and are claiming all kinds of mind-reading skills. If you want to change something from the current way it's entirely to be expected that there should be some better solutions.

Well...if you choose to mow someone's lawn for $20, you've traded maybe a couple hours of your life that you'll never get back for that $20. If I come along and demand some of it, I think it's fair to say I'm claiming part of your life as my own. That's why theft is so wrong...if you spend your life working for a reward later and someone else takes it from you, they're stealing time from you that you'll never get back. Back to the $20, I'm also claiming the right to overrule you, like I'm your parent. (or as Lifeexplorer might say, your master )

Like I said, I get why you would want more of a guarantee that people will choose to do what you want them to do. I would too. I just don't see any way of justifying that main point I keep going back to.

And along the lines of something No_Recess said earlier, if one person is minding their own business and living their life in peace, and another comes along and starts bossing them around and taking their stuff, it shouldn't be the peaceful person's job to justify why they should be left alone...it should be the other person's job to explain themselves.

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by T0103E

Well...if you choose to mow someone's lawn for $20, you've traded maybe a couple hours of your life that you'll never get back for that $20. If I come along and demand some of it, I think it's fair to say I'm claiming part of your life as my own. That's why theft is so wrong...if you spend your life working for a reward later and someone else takes it from you, they're stealing time from you that you'll never get back. Back to the $20, I'm also claiming the right to overrule you, like I'm your parent. (or as Lifeexplorer might say, your master )

Like I said, I get why you would want more of a guarantee that people will choose to do what you want them to do. I would too. I just don't see any way of justifying that main point I keep going back to.

And along the lines of something No_Recess said earlier, if one person is minding their own business and living their life in peace, and another comes along and starts bossing them around and taking their stuff, it shouldn't be the peaceful person's job to justify why they should be left alone...it should be the other person's job to explain themselves.

I'm in agreement that people should wait until they can afford to have kids to become parents. That would be people doing what I want them to do. Kids are innocent though so how do we make sure they are taken care of? Do you mean I'm afraid there won't be enough people to chip in? I don't know if there would be or there wouldn't be. It's an inefficient way to administer help.

You're the one saying things should change. It's not as if things were running along fine and up popped taxes.

I'm off to commit a misdemeanor and break a few commandments now so wish me luck.

[No_Recess]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

There wouldn't be much, by myself, I could do. I could buy a few families some groceries but how would I even know who needed help? I guess I could volunteer at a nursing home and cook a few meals to cut costs for them. That's why I'm for taxation handling it. You guys are saying that we shouldn't use taxes to pay for those things.

I donate platelets now because that's the only thing currently that will get a cancer patient's blood to clot. I don't go around saying people should be forced to do that even though there is always a shortage. That to me would be violence. Money is just money.

What is the difference between platelets and money though? Money just isn't money. It's the result of your time and labor. Money doesn't just appear before you like magic. You either must work for it or receive it via charity. If through charity then the rightful owner of it transferred it to you by consensual agreement. You are now the proper owner.

There's always a shortage of money just like platelets. Ask the folks in Washington about that. Actually, they are the folks who get money without working for it or receiving it via charity. They steal it.

As T0103E commented on I think most people don't even realize what they are advocating for. It's been framed in a way for you that makes it more palatable.

Yes, we are saying you shouldn't use taxes for those things. And you already came up with ideas on how to deal with those issues that don't require violence. Give yourself credit. I mean...is it the scope of the suffering that bothers you? Is that what makes you feel so inclined to go to premeditated violence in the hope that it can alleviate the pain for the weakest among us?

If so, great! Not great that life is suffering. Great! in that you've just proved the point that you think it's worth it to try to help others.

Now, what about me? Maybe one day these problems are getting you down. Then you see me on a park bench and decide to talk to me about all the bad things the weakest among us are going through.

Now what if I say I feel the same way and want to help just like you did by volunteering and donating platelets? Well, there's another warm body you've got to fight the misery of life. And guess what? No force required!!!!

So you and I start donating time and maybe money. Then I mention to you other skills and ideas that I have to help the less fortunate. And then I tell you about my friend Bill who has skills and talents that we don't have and maybe he'll help too.

And so on and so forth.

You see, the craziest stereotype statists have of us anarchists is that we are completely dead set against collectivism and want to live our lives without ever seeing another human being. That's why we get told to go live on an island if we hate taxes so much.

But the truth is we LOVE collectivism: as long as it's voluntary and consensual. Obviously taxes and regulations are not. They are involuntary collectivist institutions.

Always remember that we are capitalists. Not crony capitalists or State capitalists. We are apolitical capitalists. We believe that anarchy and capitalism are one in the same: man is born free from all contractual obligations (social contracts or real contracts) in the condition of poverty. Food, water, shelter, and medicine is given to us because we have nothing and can't get it on our own.

The only moral and logical way to acquire what we need is through voluntary exchanges of private property between two consenting parties. That's all capitalism is. The real capitalism: apolitical.

Will our new non-violent way of trying to help others make every day sunshine and puppies? I'm guessing no. But things aren't all sunshine and puppies right now with the violence of taxation. First, we've preordained violence in the form of the actual taxation. So there's one wrong.

Then we start looking around and realize that after we paid our taxes the money went directly to the funding of drone strikes in which 8-year-old little girls in Yemen are blown into a million pieces for no reason whatsoever.

Oh boy. Looks like another victim and this one didn't even live long enough to pay taxes to fund her own killing.

Don't worry, we have plenty of those folks around too. Well, did have before you and I had them killed...or our parents or grandparents had killed.

Sandra Lee Scheuer, Tuskegee "medical patients", Daniel Shaver, St. Louis kids in the 1960s who had cancerous chemicals dropped on them from Army airplanes to observe the impact on their bodies.

I don't know, man. I can see why you want to think about all the good things taxes can pay off. These bad things are pretty depressing.

Just to note, a lot of the hundreds of millions of innocents slaughtered by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc at one point paid taxes too.

Sounds like a raw deal to me. A fixed pothole in a timely fashion vs all those body bags just doesn't sit well.

For me anyway (shrug).

[kemahkami]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

And where do you come up with sexual entertainment? Are you talking about prostitution?

Waxing the carrot.