For my Libertarian friends

thellama73 wrote: I sympathize with Pat, because I too am troubled by taxes of any kind, since as he says, they are theft. However, in my view, such taxes are the only way to prevent our country from being taken over, resulting in a much greater loss of freedom. The problem with a donation system for something like the military is one of free riding. Most people will realize that their personal contribution is so small that they can afford to not pay, counting on everyone else to shoulder the burden. If a large number of people think this way, the military collapses. The problem is no one would see the direct result of his donation, and that makes for a lousy motivator. I do agree with Pat about the disabled though.

I of course never said that the government help the disabled.  Once again, I was asking a question and seeing where it went. 

I am making a case about the military though (as can be seen through my direct words).

Epignosis wrote: Likening military donations to charitable donations or tipping at a restaurant is a poor comparison.  Charitable donations offer a recompense in the form of a tax deduction, and tipping is in public, where you must deal with your waiter face to face (i.e., societal pressure).  Furthermore, charitable donations and tipping do not categorically benefit the entire nation. What's more, a lot of people do not feel that we need a military, and for various reasons (like our military not being "eco-friendly"). I really wish you'd become more careful with your choice of pronouns: That doesn't mean you can force them to just because you would benefit from it. I'm not forcing anyone to pay because I would benefit from it.  Our government would force everyone because we all would benefit from it, and benefit from it at all times.  Let me reiterate: Our military is in a different class of government program, because it has a universal benefit; it is not something that benefits a few while costing everyone. Just like the excited libertarian you are, you cannot see moderation in anything, hence your "how far do you take it" question.  100% military conscription?  100% wage collection?  Damn, calm down, Pat.  Now you're just getting hysterical. Your uncompromising attitude shows that you regard liberty in principle higher than liberty in actuality.

Really the primary reason for charitable giving is tax breaks? Oh please. I'm not saying its perfect, but it can suggest things about what we would expect to see. The fact that tips and charitable giving do not benefit the entire country, gives more credence to me doesn't it? Surely people are even more generous when something benefits them. Maybe political donations would also be a good metric to gauge this.

A lot of people? Maybe in absolute numbers but what does that account for <.01% of the population? Guarantee that there are more people who do not pay their income taxes than those who wouldn't donate because they require a green military.

I am careful with my choice of pronouns. You would have the government take people's money for you. By transitivity you are taking the money. You're hiring a hit man to do the work for you.

I understand the military benefits everyone in this country. I stated that before if you read a few posts up before we started this conversation. As I have said before, something benefiting you does not mean you must pay for it. If I come to your house today and mow your lawn, you do not have to pay me for it. You receiving a service does not mean you have entered into contract.

I was asking you how far you would take that statement. I'm not being hysterical. I never suggested that would ever happen, but I'm asking you a question on principle. Would that be justified if it were the only way to prevent the fall of the country? If you don't want to respond to a point just ignore it; you don't have to paint me as a lunatic in the process.

Where did you compromise Rob? I don't recall that. Why would I compromise with something I see as evil.

That conclusion is not true at all. I don't think that a donation fueled government would fail. I don't think we need anything close to the military that we have.  I think the prosperity brought by my other socio-economic policies will bring about growth and prosperity that will greatly dwarf what we have now. You act as if there's any threat to our safety on the globe right now. The country will collapse from bankruptcy, not from boogey-men terrorist invaders.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - August 12 2010 at 10:31

Epignosis wrote: Once again, you force words upon me.  I never said the "primary reason" was tax breaks.  I try to choose my words carefully. Regardless, your entire argument falls on whether people- and almost all of them- behave in a certain way and would do so consistently.  I don't think you have sufficient data to show that people would mostly finance the government of their own freewill. It all comes down to this: "I don't think a donation fueled government would fail." To me, that statement is not good enough to take what you are advocating very seriously.  Do you have any data or examples that would show (beyond wishful thinking) that your model of a donation-fueled government would work?  As for your question about how far I'd take it...let me put it this way.  If a country has to conscript 100% of its citizens or 100% of their wages or anything remotely close to that number, then it has already failed.  It is an evil government that deserves to be overthrown.  I think you'd agree with me there. Likening the military to a personal hit man is foolishness.  You believe the function of the government is to protect people's rights, yes?  Well how do you accomplish that?  By hippie love?  A government needs a military to protect the life and liberty of the citizens.  This has to be financed, and you have not demonstrated your a model would be successful and consistently so. On the contrary, I can point to the fact that our nation is still here (economic problems aside) and say that a tax-funded military is a good thing.  We have not been taken over yet.  The military has protected us from outsiders thus far. Finally, there is no threat of "bogey-men terrorist invaders."  Now why do you suppose that is?

I don't think you've shown sufficient data that they wouldn't behave the way I claim. Since my way doesn't involve theft, I would think the burden of proof in on your side. I could compile some data, but I don't think there exists a historically analogous situation to look on as a field experiment. Ultimately other forms of giving will have to be used, and that will definitely not draw anything conclusive.

Not necessarily so. If we were just met with a huge threat, something like alien invaders with superior technology, then we might need 100% service and 100% funding to ward off the attack. That would be no fault of government to require it, but only to implement that it be mandatory.

I was not referring to the military, but to government. I'm saying that just because you have another party do something by proxy does not mean that you didn't do it.

You can't really draw the conclusion that a tax funded military has protected us from collapse. The two things certainly correlate, but how much real threat has there been to us over the years? I'm not going to argue this because I don't really believe it, but still. Anyway, while it has protected us it has also done great evil too, which I think a donation based army would have avoided.

Looking at the national sacrifice that occurred during WWII I don't see why its so shocking to think that people would donate money to the effort in addition to everything else that was done. Especially when people are literally paying 0 taxes to any governmental body.

The DHS threat level is orange therefore there are terrorists waiting to kill us. Duh?

Pat, with all respect I find your views on the military and law enforcement incredibly naive.  They are needed more than ever to enforce rule of law and protect the country, and our allies, and they need to be publicly financed.  All that keeps any of us in our nice homes with our cds is a rule of law.  Take that away, keep watering it down, and watch as human nature and law of the jungle kick in.  Unless you're a tough guy Pat, you should be thankful those coppers are a phone call away. 

Libertarianism like all other political philosophies works best in theory.

Edited by Slartibartfast - August 12 2010 at 11:54

Finnforest wrote: Pat, with all respect I find your views on the military and law enforcement incredibly naive.  They are needed more than ever to enforce rule of law and protect the country, and our allies, and they need to be publicly financed.  All that keeps any of us in our nice homes with our cds is a rule of law.  Take that away, keep watering it down, and watch as human nature and law of the jungle kick in.  Unless you're a tough guy Pat, you should be thankful those coppers are a phone call away.

That's fine I'm really unconcerned with your opinion.

I'm more concerned about the cops and the government taking away my rights than any foreign adversary. If that's held as naive then we disagree very fundamentally.

At least we can agree on music.

Wait? Oh well nvm.

^No, theft is taking someone else's property without their permission.

I still agree with you in general though.

thellama73 wrote: ^No, theft is taking someone else's property without their permission. I still agree with you in general though.

That falls under my broader definition of theft.  If someone paints my house and expects payment, and I don't pay, I have stolen the painter's services.  I am a thief.

Damn, Pat is officially most extreme Libertarian.

And I do agree that Libertarianism works best in theory...

Slartibartfast wrote: Libertarianism like all other political philosophies works best in theory.

No matter is devised it is implemented by humans, and we are flawed. So no philosophy is perfect. Nor could it be because there is no way for everyone to be happy.

So what is the best of all the evils?