TomAiello
-
Content
12,502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2 -
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by TomAiello
-
-
QuoteShouldn't be hard. The EU doesn't have too many stormtroopers yet.
Nor did the US, in 1776. But by 1860, the situation had changed markedly.
-
QuoteQuote
Recently I heard about a study the showed that "multi-taskers" were actually just bad at concentrating on anything.
Hm?
Look! Something shiny!
-
QuoteQuote
I think the press will focus more on the "story" that this movie might generate. Those that ABSOLUTE that the Mayans had it right v. those that LOUDLY dismiss anyone that believe such superstition.
and all the stories pointing out that the Mayans never made any such prediction.
Wasn't 2012 just sort of a clerical point in the Mayan calendar, where they would restart it at zero? Kind of their equivalent of leap year?
-
QuoteQuotegot me thinking that perhaps I don't need to read Ayn Rand.
I believe that you still should. Of her two "best" books - Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged - I would have you lean more toward Atlas Shrugged.
I think the easiest introduction to Rand is Anthem.
-
QuoteI think this movie will be a good show. The CG looks fun.... but I think it will spark some of the fear mongering and uncertainty that we say Dec 31, 1999.
Seriously? There are people who'd take that seriously?
I just want to see it because the CG looks really entertaining.
-
QuoteNow they've formed their own little community and are firing mortars into Las Vegas. Most of them miss. Who's going to go in and deal with that?
The defense force of the nation being attacked? At least that's what I'd expect.QuoteNow there's an outbreak of leprosy and nearby communities are getting infected. Who's going to deal with that?
The nearby communities, presumably?QuoteNow they've started a child prostitution ring, and are selling child porn via black market satellite data systems. Who's going to deal with that? Should we just let it happen?
Whoever's children are involved?
Or are you suggesting that we need to maintain a giant military machine to impose our morality on anyone, anywhere in the world, who happens not to share it?
Oh wait, that's exactly the way it works right now...QuoteNow they're making lots of money at child porn, and can afford to start making simple chemical weapons. We still going to leave them alone?
Sure. Sovereign states have a right to arm themselves however they see fit. I see no moral justification for invading a foreign country because, ohmygosh, they have those scary looking weapon thingies.
-
-
Quote>Say "no" a hundred times, and still we ask. But say "yes" once,
>and the issue is resolved forever.
Sorta like joining the military, or getting married . . .
Except that your children, and their children, and their children, need not remain on active duty for all eternity.
And have you seen the divorce rate lately? What do you think the chance is that Ireland will get a divorce, should they ask? As I recall, the divorce filings in our own country a while back were pretty unsuccessful.
-
Quote
How is that different from a tax?QuotePeople want to join the new system, they pay in.
It's voluntary. You are not being compelled to join the new system.
The primary defining characteristic of taxation, the thing that makes it taxation, is it's involuntary nature.
And how is THAT different from a tax?QuoteIf you're reforming an old system, you can levy a per-person fee
Presumably, because the citizens have agreed to reform the existing system, and as part of that agreement have also agreed to fund a new one using a different system.Quote...how could any group of people at the time they found a country anticipate all the future financial costs of administering even a minimalist government, and somehow find enough money to set aside to generate a perpetual endowment to meet all those needs?
By having foresight? And setting strict limits as to what the government was going to do in the future? I don't think it's as unreasonable as you assume.QuoteWhen has that ever been done?
It hasn't. Neither have a lot of other things. That doesn't make them impossible.QuoteIn the case of the US, it took a war to gain independence; on top of that they were supposed to find a few trillion $$
I bet a few million would have been enough, actually. And they could have accessed those assets pretty readily, because they had just seized a whole lot of real estate with actual value, that had previously belonged to their opponent.Quote... you want that our ancestors should have paid to the bone so you can get a free ride now?
Remember, we're postulating the establishment of a new system.
I'm volunteering to pay now so that my descendants need not be caught in an ever escalating cycle of debt financed governmental expansion. That's a duty that I feel to my children.
If you want each generation to pay, it would be easy to establish a "per child" fee that gets paid into the endowment at birth. People can choose to have more children, staying in the system, and pay the fee. Or they can choose not to have children. Or they can choose to leave the system, rather than pay the fee for the children they are choosing to have.
The big concept here is the voluntary financing of government. I don't think it's impossible.
QuoteAgreed. But it has to work on paper before it can work in reality...
On paper, expulsion works just fine.
Say "no" a hundred times, and still we ask. But say "yes" once, and the issue is resolved forever.
Makes lots of sense, doesn't it?
QuoteQuoteIsn't the whole point of a justice system that ll citizens benefit from it equally?
I don't think one can equate equal treatment under law to equal benefit from the law.
The benefit you derive from living in a society with a good justice system is the same as the benefit I derive from the same. The "benefit" of the overall system isn't something you receive when you're actually engaged in the justice system--it's the overall society that results from that system.
QuoteWho guarantees the revenue when the returns are insufficient?
Good accounting means leaving a large enough cushion (and sufficient surplus endowed funds) to cover contingencies. It does not mean spending all the money available up front every year.
QuoteThat assumes that every single person will receive exactly the same benefit from the justice system, which is highly improbable.
Isn't the whole point of a justice system that ll citizens benefit from it equally?
QuoteResponsible accounting does not equate to guaranteeing revenue.
If you have an endowment it does.
Anyway, the point of responsible accounting is to maintain expenditures within the limits of the endowed income stream, not to create new revenue.
QuoteAnd you can bill a nearly insane zero-morals mugger all you like after you release him - he's not going to pay you back. What do you do then? Put him back in jail?
Put him in a work camp, where he can work off his debt.
QuoteYou mean like Australia? I think we're out of such places in the world. In any case, such a system would not work without much tighter border controls.
I was thinking something like Nevada, actually. You could easily fence off a few hundred square miles there and just toss people in to fend for themselves.
In all seriousness, any discussion of a system like this pretty much has to be contemplating the establishment of a new system. Which means the real answer is "like the United States." We'd just eject people from our island and send them back to California.
QuoteQuoteQuoteWho would bear the cost of setting up such a perpetuity?
The founders of the state, or, alternately, the citizens at the time the reform was instituted.
So, you would establish the funds by way of wealth redistribution.
Nowhere did I say that.
If you're establishing a new system, it's easy to require a voluntary "buy in" fee to create the endowment(s). People want to join the new system, they pay in. They don't, then no problem, they stay wherever they are at.
If you're reforming an old system, you can levy a per-person fee that doesn't redistribute wealth at all.
QuoteQuoteWho would guarantee the continued revenue stream?
The citizens. Who are the same folks that guarantee everything else.
In other words, taxpayers, since taxes are how the citizens guarantee such financial obligations.
Actually, I was postulating a system without taxation, so there would be no taxpayers. The citizens would guarantee the revenue stream by
Quote>make those sentenced to a crime pay for their proceedings . . .
Well, looking solely at the prison system, costs per inmate range from $25,000 to $77,000 a year. It may be unrealistic to expect a criminal who gets caught (which, by definition, makes him not a very smart criminal) to make that much money while in prison (or even after being released.)
That's an excellent argument for reforming the prison system, isn't it? If we didn't incarcerate non-violent offenders, they'd be able to work off their debt to society much quicker. And if we decriminalized victimless crimes, then we'd have a whole lot fewer "criminals" to deal with.
Plus, if we focused prison time on training inmates to be productive members of society, they'd probably require less intensive security, and also be more likely to earn money to square their debt later.
That still leaves the question of violent offenders who need to be permanently locked up, but there are solutions there, too, such as an endowment based system, or simply an expulsion from the geographic space occupied by the system.
QuoteWho would bear the cost of setting up such a perpetuity?
The founders of the state, or, alternately, the citizens at the time the reform was instituted.
QuoteWho would guarantee the continued revenue stream?
The citizens. Who are the same folks that guarantee everything else.
High intelligence? Sure, it can help. So can accidents of birth, good looks, physical stamina, and dozens of other characteristics. None of them are worth a damn without a willingness to work your ass off.
I've just finished reading the article. Here's a (relatively) Libertarian response.
The author misses the distinction between initiating aggression and responding to aggression (with force). The ideal Libertarian (not Anarcho-Capitalist) state would be empowered only to respond to aggression (so, to enact justice when one citizen infringes the rights of another), but never to be the first initiator of aggression (or the first user of force, if you prefer).
This appears to be the central point at which Libertarians part company from Conservatives (who believe the state legitimately holds the power to initiate the use of force), and also with Anarcho-Capitalists (who believe the state use of force to be illegitimate in all cases, even as a response).
Quote>And also, a system could be taxless, but still have justice.
Who pays for the justice system, then?
It should be possible to pay for it without taxation. A number of alternatives come to mind, including;
(a) make those sentenced to a crime pay for their proceedings (in whatever manner you desire--I can think of several options).
(b) establish a justice system endowment from the outset, whereby the justice system (and whatever other elements of government you deem impossible to live without) are supported from their endowments, without the need to raise additional revenues. Note that this method ought to work for paying for all government, and naturally controlling it's growth.
(c) require those seeking the benefit of the justice system to pay user fees (this may not be practical if the injustice they seek redress for is theft, of course), which could be implemented along with part (a), to provide restitution to the seeker of justice
I'm sure there are many others--that's just what I came up with this 30 seconds.
Quote>Taxation and justice are not moral (or functional) equivalents.
I agree. Thus, economic anarchy is not the same as pure anarchy.
And also, a system could be taxless, but still have justice (and, separately, a functional justice system).
QuoteThere are a few threads going already about it. One in the bonfire and in suggestion and feedback.
Also one in the moderators forum.
Quote> Government has the legal monopoly on the use of force.
Indeed, any justice system is meaningless without the ability to use force to uphold that justice system. Participation is not voluntary, but instead is coerced through the threat and use of force.
Taxation and justice are not moral (or functional) equivalents.
QuoteThe other option, of course, is anarchy, where everyone can use force to do whatever they like. In such systems the strongest and most violent win and rule the rest.
Actually, there are other options available.
Quotemust be spent on schools each year that it drowns out everything else. And take a look at California's education standing. We are at the top in pay and bottom in performance.
Some of that has to do with cost of living. 40k is lots for a teacher living in Burley, Idaho, but you can't even find a place to live for that in Cupertino, California.
What it means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist
in Speakers Corner
Nope. I'm mostly advocating the creation of a new system. Within the confines of the current USA? I doubt that's very likely.
Define "ok"? Do I think that's terrible? Yes. Do I want to pay for a military force to go kick their butts and impose my morality on them? No.
Sovereign nations have a right to conduct their own affairs as they wish.
When we expel you from our nation, then your affairs are no longer our business. You get to regulate them all for yourself, without my interference.
[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com